It's been said by many people on both sides of the aisle that one would have to be crazy to run for president, or any other high political office. The demands of the job, the lack of private life, the dealmaking, the divided and often hostile electorate, the glare of the media, etc etc. all suggest an incredibly stressful life with little but ego gratification as a reward.
So what kind of person runs for office? I've been thinking of this a bit in the aftermath of the Eliot Spitzer scandal. Here in Minnesota, we had a similar Attorney General who ran for the Governorship, a crusading, controversial, tightly-wound politician who had an excellent chance of winning in Nov. 2006 until his famous temper got the better of him and he said some things that turned people off.
Mike Hatch, like Spitzer, was the champion of the consumer and the underdog, and he certainly got his share of headlines taking on HMOs and other big corporate interests. But from my experiences with his office, I never felt very comfortable about the prospect of him as governor. Hatch was pleasant enough to me in the few times we spoke, but his staff was the most difficult I have ever worked with in the political sphere, with the possible exception of President Bush's re-election team (another story for another day.)
If Hatch had won, I really question how well he would have governed. It's a big change going from a chief prosecutor to a chief executive. I think Hatch would have continued in his crusader mode, which in itself is not a bad thing, but if his attack dog style had remained the same, I think we would not be seeing as much of a Democratic resurgence in this state. A lot of people would be angry with Hatch as governor, I believe, and Hatch's attitude was always pretty much "Bring it on." Not a recipe for effective government, I believe.
I don't mean to suggest Hatch would've suffered anything like Spitzer's fate. But still, there's something to be said for a calmer, more centered--and more centrist--approach. Better for the sanity of the politician, if not the voters.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Mississippi
Ay, another primary. What is with you people, with your primaries and your caucuses and your voting and such.
Well, we get a long break after this one, which Obama should win by, oh, let's say at least ten points.
That should give both candidates plenty of time to talk about red phones and which surrogates they should fire and who's getting harder questions from the media.
(I think I might be getting a bit burnt out here.)
Well, we get a long break after this one, which Obama should win by, oh, let's say at least ten points.
That should give both candidates plenty of time to talk about red phones and which surrogates they should fire and who's getting harder questions from the media.
(I think I might be getting a bit burnt out here.)
Eliot Mess
One of the fun things about politics is that it’s just FULL of surprises.
And that’s about the best I can do to find humor in the Eliot Spitzer disaster. This is just a devastating story; a law-and-order politician getting caught committing one of the very crimes he used to prosecute.
The real shame about Spitzer is that for much of his career, he really was a champion of the little guy, the consumer, the shareholder, the patient, any of the countless millions who get chewed up or run over by big corporations. Spitzer, better than almost anyone, reminded us that capitalism has its flaws and limits, and that government can be a force for good to rein in the excesses of corporations.
And now he’s ruined his career and damaged his cause.
I don’t think there’s any question that he should resign, and I can only hope that he quickly does the right thing.
And that’s about the best I can do to find humor in the Eliot Spitzer disaster. This is just a devastating story; a law-and-order politician getting caught committing one of the very crimes he used to prosecute.
The real shame about Spitzer is that for much of his career, he really was a champion of the little guy, the consumer, the shareholder, the patient, any of the countless millions who get chewed up or run over by big corporations. Spitzer, better than almost anyone, reminded us that capitalism has its flaws and limits, and that government can be a force for good to rein in the excesses of corporations.
And now he’s ruined his career and damaged his cause.
I don’t think there’s any question that he should resign, and I can only hope that he quickly does the right thing.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Wyoming, What the Heck?
I just found out that Wyoming is caucusing as I write this, they started at 11 am EST, which is what, 3 am Mountain time? Who has caucuses this early in the morning???
So I'm scrambling to get some last minute predictions in... not that I have any idea who will win.
But I will note that the dynamics of the race have drastically changed in the last week or so. Clinton is very much on the offensive and Obama on the defensive. I can definitely see a scenario by which Clinton wins most of the remaining primaries and comes into the convention just slightly behind or virtually tied with Obama in the delegate count. That will be messy if it happens.
But for today, I'm going to predict that Obama continues to do well with caucuses and wins this one narrowly.
update: Blogger/Google has had server problems all morning, adding to the lateness of this post. Looks like Obama is winning at this point.
So I'm scrambling to get some last minute predictions in... not that I have any idea who will win.
But I will note that the dynamics of the race have drastically changed in the last week or so. Clinton is very much on the offensive and Obama on the defensive. I can definitely see a scenario by which Clinton wins most of the remaining primaries and comes into the convention just slightly behind or virtually tied with Obama in the delegate count. That will be messy if it happens.
But for today, I'm going to predict that Obama continues to do well with caucuses and wins this one narrowly.
update: Blogger/Google has had server problems all morning, adding to the lateness of this post. Looks like Obama is winning at this point.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Favre Retires. Hillary Wins. COINCIDENCE?
What a day Tuesday was. Brett Favre retires, Hillary Clinton comes storming back to win three of four primaries, and Bernie Salazar gets bounced from “Biggest Loser.” (Sorry, poor choice of words.)
Also, my condolences to Purdue basketball fans. The Boilermakers are having a great season, but it looks like the Wisconsin Badgers might end up with the Big Ten title. Fingers crossed.
OK, back to politics. Mike Huckabee is out of the race. The Republican candidate with the most charm and by far the best sense of humor, Huckabee could never quite broaden his appeal past conservative evangelical Christian voters. As someone who wants to believe that genuinely nice people can be president, I’m a little sad to see him go. But as someone who believes in the theory of evolution, along with other theories, like the theory of gravity, I am a little relieved. You’re a good man, Huck, but you’re a little too far out there for my taste.
McCain got a coronation of sorts today, visiting the White House and getting President Bush’s endorsement. Pssst! John! You’ve got the primaries wrapped up! You don’t need to play to the base anymore! Get as far away from GWB as you can!
That’s actually part of McCain’s challenge. Even with the nomination secured, he still has to sell himself to the Republican base and keep them enthused about his candidacy. So embracing President Bush may help him now, but I expect we’ll see much less of that as the general election gets closer. At some point, McCain is going to have to do something to distance himself from this unpopular president, and it will be interesting to see how the Republican base responds.
As for the Democrats, it remains a tight race. Obama had a pretty bad week overall leading up to Tuesday, and I again think that something positive can come of that. Let’s get a little dirt on the Teflon and see how he responds. Clinton was a little harsh, maybe a little unfair, in her attacks last week, but so what? This is politics, and it’s a tough business. I do think Obama is a different kind of candidate, but he’s still human, still a politician, and he’s going to have to have some thick skin and some sharp elbows. We’ll see. I still think it’s hard to see how Clinton gets the nomination, but you’ve got to admire her tenacity.
Obama could also learn a thing or two from McCain. In the last week, Obama had a press conference where he basically walked off after less than a dozen questions. His aloof style of press management has become something of a liability for him. At around the same time, John McCain was holding a barbecue for the press. There’s a reason why the media loves McCain. He treats them a lot better than most politicians.
(Now that I think about it, Clinton could also improve in that regard. Her campaign recently created a pressroom in a men’s bathroom. The women journalists covering the campaign must have appreciated that.)
Anyhow, I’m going to go find my VHS tape of Brett Favre throwing a 60-yard bomb to Sterling Sharpe in the Silverdome for a game-winning touchdown. Thanks for the memories, Brett.
Also, my condolences to Purdue basketball fans. The Boilermakers are having a great season, but it looks like the Wisconsin Badgers might end up with the Big Ten title. Fingers crossed.
OK, back to politics. Mike Huckabee is out of the race. The Republican candidate with the most charm and by far the best sense of humor, Huckabee could never quite broaden his appeal past conservative evangelical Christian voters. As someone who wants to believe that genuinely nice people can be president, I’m a little sad to see him go. But as someone who believes in the theory of evolution, along with other theories, like the theory of gravity, I am a little relieved. You’re a good man, Huck, but you’re a little too far out there for my taste.
McCain got a coronation of sorts today, visiting the White House and getting President Bush’s endorsement. Pssst! John! You’ve got the primaries wrapped up! You don’t need to play to the base anymore! Get as far away from GWB as you can!
That’s actually part of McCain’s challenge. Even with the nomination secured, he still has to sell himself to the Republican base and keep them enthused about his candidacy. So embracing President Bush may help him now, but I expect we’ll see much less of that as the general election gets closer. At some point, McCain is going to have to do something to distance himself from this unpopular president, and it will be interesting to see how the Republican base responds.
As for the Democrats, it remains a tight race. Obama had a pretty bad week overall leading up to Tuesday, and I again think that something positive can come of that. Let’s get a little dirt on the Teflon and see how he responds. Clinton was a little harsh, maybe a little unfair, in her attacks last week, but so what? This is politics, and it’s a tough business. I do think Obama is a different kind of candidate, but he’s still human, still a politician, and he’s going to have to have some thick skin and some sharp elbows. We’ll see. I still think it’s hard to see how Clinton gets the nomination, but you’ve got to admire her tenacity.
Obama could also learn a thing or two from McCain. In the last week, Obama had a press conference where he basically walked off after less than a dozen questions. His aloof style of press management has become something of a liability for him. At around the same time, John McCain was holding a barbecue for the press. There’s a reason why the media loves McCain. He treats them a lot better than most politicians.
(Now that I think about it, Clinton could also improve in that regard. Her campaign recently created a pressroom in a men’s bathroom. The women journalists covering the campaign must have appreciated that.)
Anyhow, I’m going to go find my VHS tape of Brett Favre throwing a 60-yard bomb to Sterling Sharpe in the Silverdome for a game-winning touchdown. Thanks for the memories, Brett.
Monday, March 03, 2008
The Saturday Night Live Rebound
It’s beginning to look like Tuesday could be a very good day for Hillary Clinton. After 11 consecutive defeats to Barack Obama in primaries and caucuses, a lot of people were (and are) writing Clinton off. However, Clinton staffers always saw Texas and Ohio as their “firewall” states, a place to make a stand and gain back some momentum.
It’s possible that this strategy, which seemed unlikely to succeed just one week ago, may actually work.
Polls show Obama has closed large gaps in Texas and Ohio. The problem with Obama’s success is that now he’s expected to come storming back in the polls as a matter of course. It’s almost a given that as people get to know Obama, they like him. A lot. But in Texas and especially Ohio, he may not be able to completely close the gap.
If it turns out that Clinton wins Ohio and Texas, I blame Saturday Night Live. A little over one week ago, they aired a skit that suggested that Obama receives deferential, fawning treatment from the press, and that Clinton, on the other hand, is treated unfairly. (The program followed this up with a surprise appearance by Clinton herself last Saturday.)
Now, not a lot of people watch Saturday Night Live. But it remains one of the few television programs that can get the nation’s attention, and the “Barack has it easy” theme seems to have caught on with the media, and with the public to some extent. There have been more negative stories on Obama in subsequent days, and more positive coverage of Clinton. Of course, this is all subjective, just as the Clinton camp’s perception of being picked on is subjective. But I think overall there has been a slight change in tone, even though it’s hard to prove.
I’ve also heard from Democratic voters who seem to agree that Obama has had a relatively easy ride and that the media has it in for Clinton. And women voters, understandably, seem to bristle at the way Clinton is treated by some of the mainstream media pundits. I think that in part may explain why Clinton continues to do so well among women—who are a powerful voting bloc in the Democratic party.
What it comes down to, the day before the Ohio/Rhode Island/Texas/Vermont primaries, is that Clinton seems to be rising just slightly in the polls, and Obama sinking just slightly or holding steady. Clinton and Obama are in a dead heat in Texas, and Clinton is slightly ahead in Ohio. Clinton will almost certainly win Rhode Island, Obama will almost certainly win Vermont.
Now there are some who argue that the focus should be on the actual math here: if Clinton doesn’t win 65 percent or more, the two candidates will essentially split the delegates, so Obama stays ahead in the delegate count. And there are scenarios in Texas’ complicated system that would see Obama win more delegates even if he loses the popular vote.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Clinton wins in both the big firewall states gives her a huge bounce, even if she wins by a tiny margin. It would put the race back to even, and we’ll go on to the next round with neither candidate being a clear frontrunner. Even one win between Texas and Ohio gives Clinton an excuse to carry on and hope to somehow pull it out in the end.
If she loses both Texas and Ohio, it’s a different story. And Obama, with a history of performing better than the polls suggest, could pull it off. But this long, historic campaign is likely to continue to be very close and very hard-fought.
Predictions
Obama wins Vermont and Texas.
Clinton wins Ohio and Rhode Island.
McCain who? Oh, ok, he’ll win everything. I haven’t even heard Mike Huckabee’s name lately. Time to go fishin’, Mr. H. (Or squirrel-huntin’, whatever.)
It’s possible that this strategy, which seemed unlikely to succeed just one week ago, may actually work.
Polls show Obama has closed large gaps in Texas and Ohio. The problem with Obama’s success is that now he’s expected to come storming back in the polls as a matter of course. It’s almost a given that as people get to know Obama, they like him. A lot. But in Texas and especially Ohio, he may not be able to completely close the gap.
If it turns out that Clinton wins Ohio and Texas, I blame Saturday Night Live. A little over one week ago, they aired a skit that suggested that Obama receives deferential, fawning treatment from the press, and that Clinton, on the other hand, is treated unfairly. (The program followed this up with a surprise appearance by Clinton herself last Saturday.)
Now, not a lot of people watch Saturday Night Live. But it remains one of the few television programs that can get the nation’s attention, and the “Barack has it easy” theme seems to have caught on with the media, and with the public to some extent. There have been more negative stories on Obama in subsequent days, and more positive coverage of Clinton. Of course, this is all subjective, just as the Clinton camp’s perception of being picked on is subjective. But I think overall there has been a slight change in tone, even though it’s hard to prove.
I’ve also heard from Democratic voters who seem to agree that Obama has had a relatively easy ride and that the media has it in for Clinton. And women voters, understandably, seem to bristle at the way Clinton is treated by some of the mainstream media pundits. I think that in part may explain why Clinton continues to do so well among women—who are a powerful voting bloc in the Democratic party.
What it comes down to, the day before the Ohio/Rhode Island/Texas/Vermont primaries, is that Clinton seems to be rising just slightly in the polls, and Obama sinking just slightly or holding steady. Clinton and Obama are in a dead heat in Texas, and Clinton is slightly ahead in Ohio. Clinton will almost certainly win Rhode Island, Obama will almost certainly win Vermont.
Now there are some who argue that the focus should be on the actual math here: if Clinton doesn’t win 65 percent or more, the two candidates will essentially split the delegates, so Obama stays ahead in the delegate count. And there are scenarios in Texas’ complicated system that would see Obama win more delegates even if he loses the popular vote.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Clinton wins in both the big firewall states gives her a huge bounce, even if she wins by a tiny margin. It would put the race back to even, and we’ll go on to the next round with neither candidate being a clear frontrunner. Even one win between Texas and Ohio gives Clinton an excuse to carry on and hope to somehow pull it out in the end.
If she loses both Texas and Ohio, it’s a different story. And Obama, with a history of performing better than the polls suggest, could pull it off. But this long, historic campaign is likely to continue to be very close and very hard-fought.
Predictions
Obama wins Vermont and Texas.
Clinton wins Ohio and Rhode Island.
McCain who? Oh, ok, he’ll win everything. I haven’t even heard Mike Huckabee’s name lately. Time to go fishin’, Mr. H. (Or squirrel-huntin’, whatever.)
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The Austin Debate
I saw the last half hour of the debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and I'm watching the analysis now. I can't claim to have seen a ton of debates, I catch a little here and there, but I thought Obama sounded very good in this one. Articulate, passionate at times, presidential in bearing.
But I have to say that Clinton really deserves a lot of credit for her performance tonight. Conventional wisdom, and traditional politics, would dictate that she come out on the attack, that she go negative, try to tear Obama down a little and stop his momentum. Except for a couple of mild jabs (one of which earned her some boos) she did not go negative.
And that last statement she made was really one of the best moments I've seen from her. It was generous, compassionate, and statesmanlike. Hearing her say she was honored to be there with Obama, hearing her talk about how no matter what, she'll be fine, I had to think that maybe she was preparing herself, and her followers for an eventual loss. But that strong finish might have helped her, just maybe, to put that day off a little longer.
And one other thing struck me: this crowd liked both of these candidates. Both drew strong applause. The only negative reaction was when the candidates got negative. It was almost as though the audience was feeling protective of both of them. I think this is typical of how Democrats are seeing this election: they like both of these candidates. Sure there is some sniping between camps, but the average D voter would embrace either candidate.
A good night for the Democratic party and for the country as a whole.
But I have to say that Clinton really deserves a lot of credit for her performance tonight. Conventional wisdom, and traditional politics, would dictate that she come out on the attack, that she go negative, try to tear Obama down a little and stop his momentum. Except for a couple of mild jabs (one of which earned her some boos) she did not go negative.
And that last statement she made was really one of the best moments I've seen from her. It was generous, compassionate, and statesmanlike. Hearing her say she was honored to be there with Obama, hearing her talk about how no matter what, she'll be fine, I had to think that maybe she was preparing herself, and her followers for an eventual loss. But that strong finish might have helped her, just maybe, to put that day off a little longer.
And one other thing struck me: this crowd liked both of these candidates. Both drew strong applause. The only negative reaction was when the candidates got negative. It was almost as though the audience was feeling protective of both of them. I think this is typical of how Democrats are seeing this election: they like both of these candidates. Sure there is some sniping between camps, but the average D voter would embrace either candidate.
A good night for the Democratic party and for the country as a whole.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Under the Weather and the Wire
I've been completely wiped out by the flu for the better part of a week, so I haven't been up for posting lately. Turns out this year's flu is a different strain than the flu shot was designed for. So can I get my money back?
The race in Wisconsin has been really fascinating and much closer than I think most expected. Clinton has put in a great effort in a state that is pretty well suited to her. And though most expect Obama to pull it out, it should be a close race. I've noticed signs of high turnout, and that's usually good news for Obama. But I wouldn't be totally shocked if Clinton pulls an upset.
predictions
D: Obama wins by under a 10 pt. margin.
R: McCain wins handily. Huckabee has been campaigning hard, but I think he's probably won his last primary.
Oh yeah, Hawaii,
Obama should win big, McCain too.
The race in Wisconsin has been really fascinating and much closer than I think most expected. Clinton has put in a great effort in a state that is pretty well suited to her. And though most expect Obama to pull it out, it should be a close race. I've noticed signs of high turnout, and that's usually good news for Obama. But I wouldn't be totally shocked if Clinton pulls an upset.
predictions
D: Obama wins by under a 10 pt. margin.
R: McCain wins handily. Huckabee has been campaigning hard, but I think he's probably won his last primary.
Oh yeah, Hawaii,
Obama should win big, McCain too.
Friday, February 15, 2008
On Wisconsin
Obama and Clinton are stumping in my old-adopted-home-state of Wisconsin, and I’m a little envious. Sure, the two Dem candidates and some of the R’s visited here, but they were always pretty brief visits in those hectic days before Super Tuesday. Wisconsin gets a whole week to be the center of the political universe.
I’m just looking back at some of the recent developments. I know that Clinton’s camp has to find some way to have a positive outlook re: winning the nomination, but I’m not sure their “we’ll get enough superdelegate votes to overcome the will of the people” spin is really the best message to be sending right now.
Likewise, I know that McCain wants to project the image of experience and appeal to older voters, but his speech after the Potomac primaries (dubbed the Crab Cake Primaries by some) was a rather grim affair. Surrounding yourself with old white men who are wearing what appear to be identical brown suits is maybe going too far in the effort to be The Serious Candidate.
There’s an idea: “Next on ‘What Not to Wear’: Senator John McCain will present the team with its biggest challenge yet!!”
I’m just looking back at some of the recent developments. I know that Clinton’s camp has to find some way to have a positive outlook re: winning the nomination, but I’m not sure their “we’ll get enough superdelegate votes to overcome the will of the people” spin is really the best message to be sending right now.
Likewise, I know that McCain wants to project the image of experience and appeal to older voters, but his speech after the Potomac primaries (dubbed the Crab Cake Primaries by some) was a rather grim affair. Surrounding yourself with old white men who are wearing what appear to be identical brown suits is maybe going too far in the effort to be The Serious Candidate.
There’s an idea: “Next on ‘What Not to Wear’: Senator John McCain will present the team with its biggest challenge yet!!”
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Potomic Tide is High
There are really two outcomes from today's Dem primaries. A) Obama wins them all, and continues to have massive momentum moving fo---whoa, too much alliteration there for even me.
Ahem. A) Obama wins them all, and continues his momentum, or B) Clinton pulls an upset or a near-upset and we go back to a very close race.
But this could be the night when it really starts to look like we've reached a tipping point. After this one, we have Wisconsin, where Obama has an 11 point lead. By that time, Clinton will have lost 8 in a row. The "Hillary is more electable in the fall" argument will seem pretty ridiculous by then. In order to look electable, you have to actually win some elections. The claim that only she can go toe to toe with McCain seems a lot less plausible when she evidently can't go toe to toe with Obama.
I'm not here to bash Clinton. She would be a very strong candidate in the fall. But I think her moment is slipping away.
On the Republican side, McCain should win. If Huckabee pulls an upset or comes close, it will look very bad for McCain. I mean, the man was just endorsed by Fred Thompson! Where's the excitement, people? Where's the love???
D: Obama wins Virginia, Maryland, DC.
R: McCain wins 'em.
Ahem. A) Obama wins them all, and continues his momentum, or B) Clinton pulls an upset or a near-upset and we go back to a very close race.
But this could be the night when it really starts to look like we've reached a tipping point. After this one, we have Wisconsin, where Obama has an 11 point lead. By that time, Clinton will have lost 8 in a row. The "Hillary is more electable in the fall" argument will seem pretty ridiculous by then. In order to look electable, you have to actually win some elections. The claim that only she can go toe to toe with McCain seems a lot less plausible when she evidently can't go toe to toe with Obama.
I'm not here to bash Clinton. She would be a very strong candidate in the fall. But I think her moment is slipping away.
On the Republican side, McCain should win. If Huckabee pulls an upset or comes close, it will look very bad for McCain. I mean, the man was just endorsed by Fred Thompson! Where's the excitement, people? Where's the love???
D: Obama wins Virginia, Maryland, DC.
R: McCain wins 'em.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Juan Williams: Pundit, Please!
So this morning I hear Juan Williams talking on NPR about how only black people vote for Obama.
He didn’t say it quite like that but that really was his main point. Black people vote for Obama, white people (and Latinos and Asians, according to Juan) vote for Clinton. It was like a five minute piece of “analysis” which went on and on and on about the racial divide between Obama and Clinton.
This is the day after Obama crushed Clinton in Maine.
And two days after he crushed her in Nebraska. Which joins Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah, and Kansas as states where Obama has won without a large African American vote.
The piece did have a clip of Obama making just that point about winning states with mostly white populations. Then they dismissed the point and talked for the rest of the piece about how there’s this big racial divide issue.
There’s no doubt that the numbers show a significant racial gap in southern states. In those states, Obama does great among African Americans. He doesn’t do as well with white voters, but he’s not getting blown out of the water either. He got 43 percent of the white vote in Georgia, for example.
But the bigger picture is that he has done really well in states with largely white populations. Why you would do an analysis of the campaign that ignores this important piece of the puzzle is beyond me. I guess Juan has his story, and he’s sticking to it.
He didn’t say it quite like that but that really was his main point. Black people vote for Obama, white people (and Latinos and Asians, according to Juan) vote for Clinton. It was like a five minute piece of “analysis” which went on and on and on about the racial divide between Obama and Clinton.
This is the day after Obama crushed Clinton in Maine.
And two days after he crushed her in Nebraska. Which joins Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah, and Kansas as states where Obama has won without a large African American vote.
The piece did have a clip of Obama making just that point about winning states with mostly white populations. Then they dismissed the point and talked for the rest of the piece about how there’s this big racial divide issue.
There’s no doubt that the numbers show a significant racial gap in southern states. In those states, Obama does great among African Americans. He doesn’t do as well with white voters, but he’s not getting blown out of the water either. He got 43 percent of the white vote in Georgia, for example.
But the bigger picture is that he has done really well in states with largely white populations. Why you would do an analysis of the campaign that ignores this important piece of the puzzle is beyond me. I guess Juan has his story, and he’s sticking to it.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Once
Saw the movie Once last night. A really good movie, if you like indie-type films and indie-type music. Hard to follow the dialogue in places, one actor has a strong Irish accent and the other a strong Czech accent, but even though we missed a few words, we really enjoyed it.
So that is about a million miles away from the usual content of this blog, and I can't think of a transition or segue.
Obama won three states last night, caucuses in Washington and Nebraska, and a primary in Lousiana. Could you find three more different states? Yet he won by big margins in all three.
On the Republican side, Huckabee won in Kansas and Lousiana, and was just barely behind McCain in the Washington Caucuses when for some reason they stopped announcing results. McCain's been declared the winner, but it does have an odd feel to it, so expect the conspiracy theories to fly.
Hasn't anyone told Huck that this thing is over and McCain's the nominee? The Republican side continues to be very interesting. I don't think the R's are totally happy with their presumptive candidate.
We could see some ugliness on the D side, but so far it's remained relatively civil. Clinton's all, "oh, we're kinda skipping February, we'll kick butt in March," and Obama's all, "OK, Rudy Jr., we'll see how that works for you," and Clinton goes, "well you only win caucuses," and Obama says, "yeah, I only win them 70-30," and ...
Prediction for the D caucuses in Maine: Obama. (I hate to make the prediction, I'll probably jinx him, but he seems to be on a roll...)
So that is about a million miles away from the usual content of this blog, and I can't think of a transition or segue.
Obama won three states last night, caucuses in Washington and Nebraska, and a primary in Lousiana. Could you find three more different states? Yet he won by big margins in all three.
On the Republican side, Huckabee won in Kansas and Lousiana, and was just barely behind McCain in the Washington Caucuses when for some reason they stopped announcing results. McCain's been declared the winner, but it does have an odd feel to it, so expect the conspiracy theories to fly.
Hasn't anyone told Huck that this thing is over and McCain's the nominee? The Republican side continues to be very interesting. I don't think the R's are totally happy with their presumptive candidate.
We could see some ugliness on the D side, but so far it's remained relatively civil. Clinton's all, "oh, we're kinda skipping February, we'll kick butt in March," and Obama's all, "OK, Rudy Jr., we'll see how that works for you," and Clinton goes, "well you only win caucuses," and Obama says, "yeah, I only win them 70-30," and ...
Prediction for the D caucuses in Maine: Obama. (I hate to make the prediction, I'll probably jinx him, but he seems to be on a roll...)
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Mickey Mouse Clubhouse
Come inside, it's fun inside.
Up on a Saturday morning with the kids, watching cartoons and blogging about the future of democracy.
Talk about cartoons, the latest flap about MSNBC and Chelsea Clinton is certainly a tempest in a spinning teacup. (There was a reference to pimping Chelsea. Her mom's campaign took exception.) Not that what the MSNBC newsbot said wasn't thoughtless and irresponsible. But isn't that pretty much what is required from cable news talkers these days?
When you look at the lineup of the cable news shows, you see a long parade of idiots, blowhards, and bullies. Maybe we should have our news and analysis handled by a stable of Disney critters. It could hardly be any worse.
Lucky for you, you have my expert opinion to turn to...
Predictions for today:
R: Uh, McCain wins? I suppose Huckabee could take Louisiana. I'd still predict McCain to win Washington, Louisiana and Kansas today.
D: Obama wins Washington, Louisiana, and Nebraska.
Up on a Saturday morning with the kids, watching cartoons and blogging about the future of democracy.
Talk about cartoons, the latest flap about MSNBC and Chelsea Clinton is certainly a tempest in a spinning teacup. (There was a reference to pimping Chelsea. Her mom's campaign took exception.) Not that what the MSNBC newsbot said wasn't thoughtless and irresponsible. But isn't that pretty much what is required from cable news talkers these days?
When you look at the lineup of the cable news shows, you see a long parade of idiots, blowhards, and bullies. Maybe we should have our news and analysis handled by a stable of Disney critters. It could hardly be any worse.
Lucky for you, you have my expert opinion to turn to...
Predictions for today:
R: Uh, McCain wins? I suppose Huckabee could take Louisiana. I'd still predict McCain to win Washington, Louisiana and Kansas today.
D: Obama wins Washington, Louisiana, and Nebraska.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
The Fall of Romney
Oh blah blah blah. You're quitting because that's what it takes to win the war on Terrorism? Huh?
Typical logic from a guy who believes that in order to fight terrorism you have to invade the wrong country.
Maybe this was the trouble with Romney all along. In his frantic need to say what he thought conservatives wanted to hear, he said some pretty stupid things. Wasn't he the one who wanted to double Guantanamo?
Good riddance to this pretender.
Typical logic from a guy who believes that in order to fight terrorism you have to invade the wrong country.
Maybe this was the trouble with Romney all along. In his frantic need to say what he thought conservatives wanted to hear, he said some pretty stupid things. Wasn't he the one who wanted to double Guantanamo?
Good riddance to this pretender.
Huck lift us up where we belong
I was only able to catch bits and pieces of Super Tuesday coverage, but it was a fun and interesting night. The best moment was when I was driving home at around midnight (I went to see a band) and heard Mike Huckabee call his supporters the “WalMart Voters,” and then said they were the wind beneath his wings.
Aw shucks, Huck!
(He really did say that.)
Huck was one of the surprise stories of the night, winning five states; not bad for a bass player. Mitt Romney won seven states but failed to win any big ones save Massachusetts (I believe he was endorsed by “Binky” Kennedy, a disowned cousin of the Kennedy clan.) But most of the real prizes went to Sen. John McCain, who must be thanking his lucky stars that Huckabee is around to split the conservative vote with Romney.
On the Democratic side, Obama made me look silly by winning about twice as many states as I predicted, including Minnesota, which I did not think would go to him because, well, I really don’t know what I was thinking. He just had an electrifying rally here a few days ago that the whole town was talking about but I still could not put two and two together.
Of course, he did not pick up California, which means he remains slightly behind Hillary in the delegate count (I think. If you understand this delegate business, maybe you can design a transporter beam for me. I could really save on gas that way.)
Here’s how a top Democrat in Minnesota described the turnout. “We not only broke all prior records, we shattered them. The all-time caucus-turnout record, in 1968, was under 80,000. Turnout topped 75,000 only one other time, in 1972. Last night we topped 200,000; Secretary of State Mark Ritchie estimates that, when all the precincts report, more than 230,000 DFLers attended a precinct caucus — triple the old record.”
230,000 people turning out for the Democratic caucuses. And there were reports of people giving up because of the long lines and lack of parking. The Republican Party estimated a turnout of 58,000 voters in their caucuses.
Those are very interesting numbers. And they’re not unique to Minnesota.
Aw shucks, Huck!
(He really did say that.)
Huck was one of the surprise stories of the night, winning five states; not bad for a bass player. Mitt Romney won seven states but failed to win any big ones save Massachusetts (I believe he was endorsed by “Binky” Kennedy, a disowned cousin of the Kennedy clan.) But most of the real prizes went to Sen. John McCain, who must be thanking his lucky stars that Huckabee is around to split the conservative vote with Romney.
On the Democratic side, Obama made me look silly by winning about twice as many states as I predicted, including Minnesota, which I did not think would go to him because, well, I really don’t know what I was thinking. He just had an electrifying rally here a few days ago that the whole town was talking about but I still could not put two and two together.
Of course, he did not pick up California, which means he remains slightly behind Hillary in the delegate count (I think. If you understand this delegate business, maybe you can design a transporter beam for me. I could really save on gas that way.)
Here’s how a top Democrat in Minnesota described the turnout. “We not only broke all prior records, we shattered them. The all-time caucus-turnout record, in 1968, was under 80,000. Turnout topped 75,000 only one other time, in 1972. Last night we topped 200,000; Secretary of State Mark Ritchie estimates that, when all the precincts report, more than 230,000 DFLers attended a precinct caucus — triple the old record.”
230,000 people turning out for the Democratic caucuses. And there were reports of people giving up because of the long lines and lack of parking. The Republican Party estimated a turnout of 58,000 voters in their caucuses.
Those are very interesting numbers. And they’re not unique to Minnesota.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Super Tuesday Aftenoon
This is kind of an exciting day.
For the Republicans, it’s looks like McCain will win most of the primaries/caucuses. However, Huckabee will win a few and it’s possible Romney will do better than expected. I expect Romney to win two at minimum, but the real question is can he pull the upset in California. One poll had him ahead there, but polls can be wrong. If he does, it may signal that the dissatisfaction with McCain among the rank and file is still going to be a problem for him. In any case, a California win for Romney signals that it ain’t over, although I think McCain is still the heavy favorite.
On the Democratic side, it’s kind of chaotic. Polls are all over the place. The latest Zogby poll has Obama up by 13, an astounding number given how far ahead Clinton was a few weeks ago. But a Survey USA poll has Clinton winning by 10.
It’s MADNESS!
Seriously, I don’t trust the polls at this point. They were wrong in New Hampshire. They underestimated the strength of the Obama win in SC. There are tons of undecideds making up their minds at the last minute. And there is so little, position-wise, that separates the two Dems that people are probably going to make a lot of last-minute decisions and flip-flops that are impossible to forecast.
So who the heck knows. I think there’s strong evidence of an Obama surge right across the country. If he pulls in a lot independents and first-time voters and caucas-ers he could really have a good night. On the other hand I think you could argue that Clinton has been making a strong case for herself on issues such as health care. Plus she has tons of party establishment people helping her with the ground game.
This primary, some say, was designed to ensure a quick and decisive consensus around Hillary Clinton as the candidate in 08. No matter what happens tonight, it’s not working out that way. Credit Obama and his staff for changing this game dramatically. Regardless of tonight’s outcome, it’s going to be a race to the finish.
Oh, late update: Clinton’s campaign is now calling for one debate a week between her and Obama. That’s NOT a sign of confidence.
Predictions:
Republicans
John McCain will win:
Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.
Mitt Romney will win:
Delaware, Massachusetts, and Utah.
Mike Huckabee will win:
Alabama, Arkansas, and West Virginia.*
Ron Paul will win:
Alaska!
Democrats:
Hillary Clinton will win:
Arkansas, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and American Samoa.
Barack Obama will win:
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, and Kansas.
*Huckabee was announced the winner in West Virginia before I posted this, fyi.
For the Republicans, it’s looks like McCain will win most of the primaries/caucuses. However, Huckabee will win a few and it’s possible Romney will do better than expected. I expect Romney to win two at minimum, but the real question is can he pull the upset in California. One poll had him ahead there, but polls can be wrong. If he does, it may signal that the dissatisfaction with McCain among the rank and file is still going to be a problem for him. In any case, a California win for Romney signals that it ain’t over, although I think McCain is still the heavy favorite.
On the Democratic side, it’s kind of chaotic. Polls are all over the place. The latest Zogby poll has Obama up by 13, an astounding number given how far ahead Clinton was a few weeks ago. But a Survey USA poll has Clinton winning by 10.
It’s MADNESS!
Seriously, I don’t trust the polls at this point. They were wrong in New Hampshire. They underestimated the strength of the Obama win in SC. There are tons of undecideds making up their minds at the last minute. And there is so little, position-wise, that separates the two Dems that people are probably going to make a lot of last-minute decisions and flip-flops that are impossible to forecast.
So who the heck knows. I think there’s strong evidence of an Obama surge right across the country. If he pulls in a lot independents and first-time voters and caucas-ers he could really have a good night. On the other hand I think you could argue that Clinton has been making a strong case for herself on issues such as health care. Plus she has tons of party establishment people helping her with the ground game.
This primary, some say, was designed to ensure a quick and decisive consensus around Hillary Clinton as the candidate in 08. No matter what happens tonight, it’s not working out that way. Credit Obama and his staff for changing this game dramatically. Regardless of tonight’s outcome, it’s going to be a race to the finish.
Oh, late update: Clinton’s campaign is now calling for one debate a week between her and Obama. That’s NOT a sign of confidence.
Predictions:
Republicans
John McCain will win:
Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.
Mitt Romney will win:
Delaware, Massachusetts, and Utah.
Mike Huckabee will win:
Alabama, Arkansas, and West Virginia.*
Ron Paul will win:
Alaska!
Democrats:
Hillary Clinton will win:
Arkansas, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and American Samoa.
Barack Obama will win:
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, and Kansas.
*Huckabee was announced the winner in West Virginia before I posted this, fyi.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
In Praise of John McCain, and Back to the Future
First of all, I just want to say I admire Sen. John McCain. He’s a thowback, a Republican who actually doesn’t mind working with Democrats and doesn’t let partisan politics override what’s best for the country. That breed has nearly become extinct, but McCain shows that it’s not gone completely.
McCain is a conservative, but his maverick reputation is well-deserved. I’ve liked, or at least respected, some of his positions. McCain-Feingold was a valiant, although less than successful attempt to lessen the way money corrupts politics. His stances on gay marriage and immigration are fairly reasonable. He was against GWB’s tax cuts before he was for them (a flip flop that folks on both sides are right to criticize). He is not a global warming denier. And I think our nation owes him a huge debt for being a Republican leader who has come out strongly against torture.
Those stances drive many Republican pundits crazy, of course. But part of the reason, I believe, that McCain is doing so well is that the Republican rank and file are beginning to moderate their views somewhat. One might say that Republican voters are finally entering the 20th century. And John McCain is leading the charge.
On the flip side of all these warm and fuzzy feelings, however, I have a sense of déjà vu. Regardless of whether or not the Republican Party is changing, many observers say Republican voters are flocking to McCain because they’re convinced he’s the Most Electable. These "most electable" rationales can backfire, you know. They said that about John Kerry, too.
They also said that about Bob Dole. Talk about Déjà vu: Dole was a war hero, like McCain. Dole ran in a primary against a rich former businessman (Steve Forbes), a charismatic conservative insurgent (Pat Buchanan), and really boring old guy (Phil Gramm). Sound familiar? Dole was the oldest presidential candidate ever at the time, at 73 years and 1 month. McCain will be 73 years and 1 month old if and when he gets the nomination.
Oh, and Dole was running against someone named Clinton.
McCain is a conservative, but his maverick reputation is well-deserved. I’ve liked, or at least respected, some of his positions. McCain-Feingold was a valiant, although less than successful attempt to lessen the way money corrupts politics. His stances on gay marriage and immigration are fairly reasonable. He was against GWB’s tax cuts before he was for them (a flip flop that folks on both sides are right to criticize). He is not a global warming denier. And I think our nation owes him a huge debt for being a Republican leader who has come out strongly against torture.
Those stances drive many Republican pundits crazy, of course. But part of the reason, I believe, that McCain is doing so well is that the Republican rank and file are beginning to moderate their views somewhat. One might say that Republican voters are finally entering the 20th century. And John McCain is leading the charge.
On the flip side of all these warm and fuzzy feelings, however, I have a sense of déjà vu. Regardless of whether or not the Republican Party is changing, many observers say Republican voters are flocking to McCain because they’re convinced he’s the Most Electable. These "most electable" rationales can backfire, you know. They said that about John Kerry, too.
They also said that about Bob Dole. Talk about Déjà vu: Dole was a war hero, like McCain. Dole ran in a primary against a rich former businessman (Steve Forbes), a charismatic conservative insurgent (Pat Buchanan), and really boring old guy (Phil Gramm). Sound familiar? Dole was the oldest presidential candidate ever at the time, at 73 years and 1 month. McCain will be 73 years and 1 month old if and when he gets the nomination.
Oh, and Dole was running against someone named Clinton.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Getting down to brass tacks
Just a few days before Super Tuesday, the races for the Democratic and Republican nominations are really heating up. Most of the lesser candidates have dropped out. Only Ron Paul remains as a candidate who has not won a primary. And although he has no shot, at least RP has raised a decent amount of money and has shown some respectable numbers; he was beating Giuliani on a regular basis.
On the Republican side, McCain should be able to wrap this thing up relatively soon. The way these primaries have played out have ended up hurting Romney. Too many candidates to split the voting blocs, too many early open primaries where independents could give McCain that extra boost, and too many skeletons in Romney’s political closet to overcome. It will be interesting to see conservative standard bearers like Rush Limbaugh turn 180 degrees and decide that after years of McCain-bashing, they now feel he’s not so bad after all, but I expect it will happen. That’s politics, folks.
A lot of bloggers and pundits on the left side of the spectrum have to be asking themselves how this could’ve happened—the candidate that is absolutely their worst nightmare come next fall has somehow come back from oblivion and become the front-runner for the Republicans. While everyone was making fun of “Nearly-Dead Fred” Thompson and posting jpg’s of Rudy in drag on their Web sites, McCain just kept performing well in the debates, ran an effective campaign on the ground in New Hampshire, and let the other candidates kind of pick each other off. I confess I didn’t expect him to draw enough Republican support to win some of the early states, but he has momentum now and it’s hard to see how Romney can stop him.
On the Democratic side, the race is pretty darn close. Obama has been catching up with Clinton in the polls, but a lot of Super Tuesday will depend on ground games and getting out the vote, and I think Clinton has the advantage there. On the other hand, Obama’s campaign just announced they raised $32 million in January alone, so who knows what that will mean. We’re kind of in uncharted waters here.
I hope to be able to make predictions before Tuesday, but there are a LOT of states in play, so I’m not sure how to handle that. Who will win the American Samoa Caucuses, for example? Has anybody seen poll numbers from Samoa?? I guess I’ll check out HaveSamoaPolitics.com…
On the Republican side, McCain should be able to wrap this thing up relatively soon. The way these primaries have played out have ended up hurting Romney. Too many candidates to split the voting blocs, too many early open primaries where independents could give McCain that extra boost, and too many skeletons in Romney’s political closet to overcome. It will be interesting to see conservative standard bearers like Rush Limbaugh turn 180 degrees and decide that after years of McCain-bashing, they now feel he’s not so bad after all, but I expect it will happen. That’s politics, folks.
A lot of bloggers and pundits on the left side of the spectrum have to be asking themselves how this could’ve happened—the candidate that is absolutely their worst nightmare come next fall has somehow come back from oblivion and become the front-runner for the Republicans. While everyone was making fun of “Nearly-Dead Fred” Thompson and posting jpg’s of Rudy in drag on their Web sites, McCain just kept performing well in the debates, ran an effective campaign on the ground in New Hampshire, and let the other candidates kind of pick each other off. I confess I didn’t expect him to draw enough Republican support to win some of the early states, but he has momentum now and it’s hard to see how Romney can stop him.
On the Democratic side, the race is pretty darn close. Obama has been catching up with Clinton in the polls, but a lot of Super Tuesday will depend on ground games and getting out the vote, and I think Clinton has the advantage there. On the other hand, Obama’s campaign just announced they raised $32 million in January alone, so who knows what that will mean. We’re kind of in uncharted waters here.
I hope to be able to make predictions before Tuesday, but there are a LOT of states in play, so I’m not sure how to handle that. Who will win the American Samoa Caucuses, for example? Has anybody seen poll numbers from Samoa?? I guess I’ll check out HaveSamoaPolitics.com…
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Is it Tuesday already?
Man, I haven't even had time to write about the outcome of the S. Carolina primary yet...
Oh well, let's see. Florida! This is a big one for the Republicans. McCain and Romney have kind of settled in as frontrunners with Giuliani and Huckabee trailing. Giuliani's done after this one. Toast. Fini. An Ex-Contender. His presidential hopes have expired and gone to meet their maker... you get my point.
Huckabee never quite figured out how to build on his Iowa win, and his aimiable brand of extremism seemed less aimiable and more extreme as time went on. He will still have a following, and may win a state or two on Super Tuesday, but he's probably now just angling for a VP nod.
McCain and Romney seem set to duke it out the rest of the way. I'd have to guess McCain is likely to win in the end, as (some) Republicans swallow their dislike of him and concede he's their best chance to win in the fall. Romney has had some good moments, in what I saw of the last debate, he seemed confident and prepared. But I think there is just something in him that people don't quite trust.
On the Dem side, Obama's SC win was big, both in numbers and significance. The fact that Ted Kennedy endorsed him is also significant. But the Clintons--and I think we have to say The Clintons now, don't we?--have shown they're in this to win. They still have the advantage in the big states and on the organizational side. It's a harder road for Obama, but he has a shot.
I just hope the media doesn't make a lot of the inevitable Clinton win in Florida. Clinton, after pledging not to campaign in FLA (another one of those states that broke the DNC rules and is being punished) has all but made direct appeals to Fla. voters. Obviously, she sees a win here as more important than playing by the rules. Florida is easy pickings for Clinton, with its large number of senior citizens. Older voters are Clinton's main strength, so of course she'll win this one. But it wasn't an even playing field, and she muddied the issue further by shadow campaining there.
Predictions:
R: McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee
D: Clinton, Obama, Edwards
Oh well, let's see. Florida! This is a big one for the Republicans. McCain and Romney have kind of settled in as frontrunners with Giuliani and Huckabee trailing. Giuliani's done after this one. Toast. Fini. An Ex-Contender. His presidential hopes have expired and gone to meet their maker... you get my point.
Huckabee never quite figured out how to build on his Iowa win, and his aimiable brand of extremism seemed less aimiable and more extreme as time went on. He will still have a following, and may win a state or two on Super Tuesday, but he's probably now just angling for a VP nod.
McCain and Romney seem set to duke it out the rest of the way. I'd have to guess McCain is likely to win in the end, as (some) Republicans swallow their dislike of him and concede he's their best chance to win in the fall. Romney has had some good moments, in what I saw of the last debate, he seemed confident and prepared. But I think there is just something in him that people don't quite trust.
On the Dem side, Obama's SC win was big, both in numbers and significance. The fact that Ted Kennedy endorsed him is also significant. But the Clintons--and I think we have to say The Clintons now, don't we?--have shown they're in this to win. They still have the advantage in the big states and on the organizational side. It's a harder road for Obama, but he has a shot.
I just hope the media doesn't make a lot of the inevitable Clinton win in Florida. Clinton, after pledging not to campaign in FLA (another one of those states that broke the DNC rules and is being punished) has all but made direct appeals to Fla. voters. Obviously, she sees a win here as more important than playing by the rules. Florida is easy pickings for Clinton, with its large number of senior citizens. Older voters are Clinton's main strength, so of course she'll win this one. But it wasn't an even playing field, and she muddied the issue further by shadow campaining there.
Predictions:
R: McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee
D: Clinton, Obama, Edwards
Friday, January 25, 2008
South Carolina
Another short post, I think. I've been getting a bit overloaded on political blogs, and there's really little I feel like adding to the general chatter. Obama needs a win, the bigger the better. He'll probably get one, but if Clinton finishes within double digits, she can claim she did better than expectations. The recent debate and the subsequent spinning has raised an interesting issue: what is a Hillary Clinton White House going to be like with the Big Dog casting his considerable shadow on everything she does?
This of course is one of the molehills that Republicans like to make a mountain of, except that it's really not hard to imagine it becoming more than just a molehill. The Onion has a great fake news story about Bill Clinton announcing, "Screw it, I'm Running for President." I'm not one that feels Bill Clinton is a power-hungry meglomaniac. But he is human, he is a politician (and can claim to be a rather spectacularly successful one), so he does have an ego. How's that going to work if Hillary gets the big chair? It's a fair question, it's a loaded question, it's one that's pretty hard to answer right now.
Prediction: Obama, Clinton, Edwards. Yawn.
This of course is one of the molehills that Republicans like to make a mountain of, except that it's really not hard to imagine it becoming more than just a molehill. The Onion has a great fake news story about Bill Clinton announcing, "Screw it, I'm Running for President." I'm not one that feels Bill Clinton is a power-hungry meglomaniac. But he is human, he is a politician (and can claim to be a rather spectacularly successful one), so he does have an ego. How's that going to work if Hillary gets the big chair? It's a fair question, it's a loaded question, it's one that's pretty hard to answer right now.
Prediction: Obama, Clinton, Edwards. Yawn.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Reason #1,627 Why People Are Voting For Change
"WASHINGTON—A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The study concluded that the statements 'were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.'"
Story here. My goal with this blog is to focus on the campaigns and not get into Bush bashing, but the last 8 years do provide, shall we say, context for this election.
The study concluded that the statements 'were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.'"
Story here. My goal with this blog is to focus on the campaigns and not get into Bush bashing, but the last 8 years do provide, shall we say, context for this election.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
FINALLY
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican Fred Thompson said on Tuesday he has dropped out as a presidential candidate, following a dismal showing so far in the campaign."
Oh Fred, I will miss you. Who am I going to kick around now that you're gone?
Why, hello, Mayor Giuliani! What's that? You almost beat Ron Paul in S. Carolina? Two percent? That's VERY good!
Hey, candidates like these don't come along that often. You gotta enjoy them while you can.
Oh Fred, I will miss you. Who am I going to kick around now that you're gone?
Why, hello, Mayor Giuliani! What's that? You almost beat Ron Paul in S. Carolina? Two percent? That's VERY good!
Hey, candidates like these don't come along that often. You gotta enjoy them while you can.
Monday, January 21, 2008
MLK Day
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies
hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction....The chain reaction
of evil--hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars--must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of
annihilation.”
Martin Luther King, Jr
“The first question which the priest and the Levite asked was: ‘If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?’ But... the good Samaritan reversed the question: ‘If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?’”
Martin Luther King, Jr.
“The first question which the priest and the Levite asked was: ‘If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?’ But... the good Samaritan reversed the question: ‘If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?’”
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Likable Enough
I've been posting a lot about the R side of the primaries, so I want to make a stab at some balance and talk about the D candidates.
Even though I think most Americans would say that they vote on the issues and not on personalities, history suggests otherwise. The personal touch is arguably the most important factor in national elections. We may disagree with a candidate on this or that issue, we may think they're a bit too liberal or conservative, but if they make us feel like it's morning in America, or if they can convince us that they feel our pain, or that they'd be a fun guy to pal around with on the ranch, we are more likely to vote for them.
Even Jimmy Carter, not the most riveting of personalities, came across as a kind of southern gentleman ... and it didn't hurt that he was running against Gerald Ford. Of course, when he came up against a bone fide movie star in the next election, he didn’t fare so well.
The question that the Dems have to answer is whether their candidates are, to borrow a phrase, likable enough. With Hillary Clinton, one has to admire how she continues to tackle the rather overwhelming obstacles that fate has put before her. The unpleasant history of her husband's infidelity, the constant attacks from the right from people who sincerely believe that she is the most manipulative and untrustworthy politician in history, the natural pressure and balancing act that any woman would face as the first front-runner for the presidency. She really hasn't done a bad job. She's shown humor (maybe a tad forced at times), emotion (ditto), and most of all, grace under fire, which I think speaks very well for the job she might do as President.
But do people find her personally compelling?
With Obama, I believe he is one of the best public speakers I have ever seen. He can be inspiring to listen to, in fact, he nearly always is, and I think that is important in a leader. But in the debates he can come off as measured, almost distant. I recently heard an interview on NPR where he sounded almost bored with the questions. If Obama comes off as arrogant or disconnected from voters, they may vote for a different kind of change.
Edwards is perhaps the most “likable” of the three; at least he’s plenty charming. And yet he lags behind in the polls. And maybe that's where the "likable = electable" equation breaks down. Regardless of how much you like or dislake Hillary Clinton, she is just a bigger political star than Edwards. And that has to do with her history, her connections, and her ideas. Obama, of course, has been a star since he came on the national stage.
One thing I am interested in is how the, uh, several people reading this blog see Obama. I have a pretty good notion of how people view Clinton. But what about Obama? Any of us watching these primaries have seen him speak or debate by now. How does he come across to you? Politics aside, is he likable enough?
As far as predictions for Nevada and the GOP S. Carolina race, I think my winning streak is about to end. But I'll take a stab at it.
Nevada Dems: Clinton, Obama, Edwards
Nevada R’s: Romney, McCain, uh…. Huckabee. Ron Paul will beat Giuli-who?-ani again.
S. Carolina R's: Huckabee, McCain, Thompson.
Even though I think most Americans would say that they vote on the issues and not on personalities, history suggests otherwise. The personal touch is arguably the most important factor in national elections. We may disagree with a candidate on this or that issue, we may think they're a bit too liberal or conservative, but if they make us feel like it's morning in America, or if they can convince us that they feel our pain, or that they'd be a fun guy to pal around with on the ranch, we are more likely to vote for them.
Even Jimmy Carter, not the most riveting of personalities, came across as a kind of southern gentleman ... and it didn't hurt that he was running against Gerald Ford. Of course, when he came up against a bone fide movie star in the next election, he didn’t fare so well.
The question that the Dems have to answer is whether their candidates are, to borrow a phrase, likable enough. With Hillary Clinton, one has to admire how she continues to tackle the rather overwhelming obstacles that fate has put before her. The unpleasant history of her husband's infidelity, the constant attacks from the right from people who sincerely believe that she is the most manipulative and untrustworthy politician in history, the natural pressure and balancing act that any woman would face as the first front-runner for the presidency. She really hasn't done a bad job. She's shown humor (maybe a tad forced at times), emotion (ditto), and most of all, grace under fire, which I think speaks very well for the job she might do as President.
But do people find her personally compelling?
With Obama, I believe he is one of the best public speakers I have ever seen. He can be inspiring to listen to, in fact, he nearly always is, and I think that is important in a leader. But in the debates he can come off as measured, almost distant. I recently heard an interview on NPR where he sounded almost bored with the questions. If Obama comes off as arrogant or disconnected from voters, they may vote for a different kind of change.
Edwards is perhaps the most “likable” of the three; at least he’s plenty charming. And yet he lags behind in the polls. And maybe that's where the "likable = electable" equation breaks down. Regardless of how much you like or dislake Hillary Clinton, she is just a bigger political star than Edwards. And that has to do with her history, her connections, and her ideas. Obama, of course, has been a star since he came on the national stage.
One thing I am interested in is how the, uh, several people reading this blog see Obama. I have a pretty good notion of how people view Clinton. But what about Obama? Any of us watching these primaries have seen him speak or debate by now. How does he come across to you? Politics aside, is he likable enough?
As far as predictions for Nevada and the GOP S. Carolina race, I think my winning streak is about to end. But I'll take a stab at it.
Nevada Dems: Clinton, Obama, Edwards
Nevada R’s: Romney, McCain, uh…. Huckabee. Ron Paul will beat Giuli-who?-ani again.
S. Carolina R's: Huckabee, McCain, Thompson.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The GOP Primary: The Charge of the RINOs
As I PREDICTED (I got one right! I got one right!), Mitt Romney won a primary Tuesday night. The word of the day on Wednesday among media sources was “scrambled,” as in, the GOP race is more scrambled than my eggs were this morning.
Actually, I had a turkey sandwich but you get my point.
The Dems kind of sat this one out, Clinton won but since none of them campaigned and the delegates don’t count, it’s not really a meaningful victory. They did have a very nice, civil debate over on C-SPAN about, uh, something. I didn’t watch. We had Grey’s Anatomy burning a hole in our DVR.
But the merry-go-round of Republican candidates continues, and it’s driving us a little crazy. The fault, perhaps, lies not in our politics but in ourselves. There’s no rule that a party has to pick a candidate early in the primary season. It’s another manifestation of our horse-race mentality (and the modern urge to have every bit of information at our fingertips NOW) that we are impatient for this thing to play out.
Or at least I am impatient. You guys might feel differently.
But what I keep coming back to is how strange the Republican field is. Every one of the candidates has at least one issue that could be considered an Achilles Heel. In some circles, these candidates would be called “Republicans in Name Only” or RINOs. Now, this is a pretty clichéd perogative term that people regularly level at others simply because they disagree on some issue. Happens on the Dems side too (DINOs). Still, between the immigration stance that dogs McCain, the anti-corporate positions of Huckabee, and the anything-goes history of Rudy Giuliani, it is a strange group.
Even Ron Paul, whose No Government is Good Government libertarianism rings true with many of the hard-right conservatives I grew up with, goes completely against the grain of current Republican thought with his Out of Iraq Now position.
The most consistent Republican? Fred Thompson, aka He Who Will Not Be Nominated.
I suppose the reason Romney has been able to do as well as he has is that he now talks the talk of a conservative Republican. But his past is so inconsistent with what he now says … well, I’ve harped on that before.
As I'm writing this, there's an NPR report on this very topic. "Is the meaning of conservative changing?" asks the reporter. Some conservative spokeswoman (I'm listening with one ear) says something like "I hope not."
But change could be good. Especially if the Republicans could somehow shake this weird Flat Earth mentality that says tax cuts are good for deficits, science is wrong, war is peacemaking, etc. My problem with conservatives is not that they think differently. It's that they seem (lately) to be against thinking at all.
Maybe that's not fair. But when the half-dozen top Republicans in the country can stand on a stage, raise their hands, and say, "yes, we believe the theory of evolution is scientifically valid," or "yes, torture is wrong," I will rest a lot easier. We're just not quite there yet.
Actually, I had a turkey sandwich but you get my point.
The Dems kind of sat this one out, Clinton won but since none of them campaigned and the delegates don’t count, it’s not really a meaningful victory. They did have a very nice, civil debate over on C-SPAN about, uh, something. I didn’t watch. We had Grey’s Anatomy burning a hole in our DVR.
But the merry-go-round of Republican candidates continues, and it’s driving us a little crazy. The fault, perhaps, lies not in our politics but in ourselves. There’s no rule that a party has to pick a candidate early in the primary season. It’s another manifestation of our horse-race mentality (and the modern urge to have every bit of information at our fingertips NOW) that we are impatient for this thing to play out.
Or at least I am impatient. You guys might feel differently.
But what I keep coming back to is how strange the Republican field is. Every one of the candidates has at least one issue that could be considered an Achilles Heel. In some circles, these candidates would be called “Republicans in Name Only” or RINOs. Now, this is a pretty clichéd perogative term that people regularly level at others simply because they disagree on some issue. Happens on the Dems side too (DINOs). Still, between the immigration stance that dogs McCain, the anti-corporate positions of Huckabee, and the anything-goes history of Rudy Giuliani, it is a strange group.
Even Ron Paul, whose No Government is Good Government libertarianism rings true with many of the hard-right conservatives I grew up with, goes completely against the grain of current Republican thought with his Out of Iraq Now position.
The most consistent Republican? Fred Thompson, aka He Who Will Not Be Nominated.
I suppose the reason Romney has been able to do as well as he has is that he now talks the talk of a conservative Republican. But his past is so inconsistent with what he now says … well, I’ve harped on that before.
As I'm writing this, there's an NPR report on this very topic. "Is the meaning of conservative changing?" asks the reporter. Some conservative spokeswoman (I'm listening with one ear) says something like "I hope not."
But change could be good. Especially if the Republicans could somehow shake this weird Flat Earth mentality that says tax cuts are good for deficits, science is wrong, war is peacemaking, etc. My problem with conservatives is not that they think differently. It's that they seem (lately) to be against thinking at all.
Maybe that's not fair. But when the half-dozen top Republicans in the country can stand on a stage, raise their hands, and say, "yes, we believe the theory of evolution is scientifically valid," or "yes, torture is wrong," I will rest a lot easier. We're just not quite there yet.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Michigan: the Mucked-Up Primary
Well, this is a fine mess. Michigan moved its primary up and the Democratic Party did not like that, ruling that delegates from the state would not be accepted. So nobody from the Dem side is campaigning in Michigan and I believe the only Dem candidates on the ballot are Clinton and Hervé Villechaize.
The Republican side at least is having a real contest, with Romney and McCain neck and neck, Huckabee in third. The storylines have been beaten to death; Romney's last stand, McCain straight-talking about jobs never coming back, Huckabee calling for mandatory vacation bible school ... made that last one up ...
RCP reports that Romney is getting a last minute surge, so maybe he'll pull this one off. If he does, the fine mess continues, with no clear front runner on the R side. I do think that Michigan's open primary, like New Hampshire's, gives McCain an advantage, because it allows Dems and Independents to come in and vote for McCain. If this was a straight-up contest for Republican voters, I think Romney would win a solid majority. But with so many independents coming in to vote for McCain, he could very well pull it off.
Which brings up another issue that contributes to Michigan's status as the Silliest Primary. Daily Kos and a few other sites are encouraging Dems in Michigan to vote for Romney!! Their reasoning is that anything that keeps the R side fractured and bickering amongst themselves is good for the D side.
This is not the first time that one side has tried to influence the other side. R's have done this sort of thing before, as Kos is quick to point out. And there's certainly nothing illegal about D's voting for an R candidate (again, open primary). I believe that most candidates are in favor of getting people's votes, no matter what those voters call themselves.
But it's petty and dumb, and I wish that Kos would cut it out. Not that it matters what I think.
So far my predictions have been mostly wrong. But I am garunteeing a Clinton win in Michigan. Hervé just did not have a good ground game.
On the Republican side, my gut tells me McCain will win again. But my left elbow, always my favorite joint, is telling me that Romney is going squeeze by with narrow victory.
So: 1. Romney, 2. McCain, 3. Muckabee
The Republican side at least is having a real contest, with Romney and McCain neck and neck, Huckabee in third. The storylines have been beaten to death; Romney's last stand, McCain straight-talking about jobs never coming back, Huckabee calling for mandatory vacation bible school ... made that last one up ...
RCP reports that Romney is getting a last minute surge, so maybe he'll pull this one off. If he does, the fine mess continues, with no clear front runner on the R side. I do think that Michigan's open primary, like New Hampshire's, gives McCain an advantage, because it allows Dems and Independents to come in and vote for McCain. If this was a straight-up contest for Republican voters, I think Romney would win a solid majority. But with so many independents coming in to vote for McCain, he could very well pull it off.
Which brings up another issue that contributes to Michigan's status as the Silliest Primary. Daily Kos and a few other sites are encouraging Dems in Michigan to vote for Romney!! Their reasoning is that anything that keeps the R side fractured and bickering amongst themselves is good for the D side.
This is not the first time that one side has tried to influence the other side. R's have done this sort of thing before, as Kos is quick to point out. And there's certainly nothing illegal about D's voting for an R candidate (again, open primary). I believe that most candidates are in favor of getting people's votes, no matter what those voters call themselves.
But it's petty and dumb, and I wish that Kos would cut it out. Not that it matters what I think.
So far my predictions have been mostly wrong. But I am garunteeing a Clinton win in Michigan. Hervé just did not have a good ground game.
On the Republican side, my gut tells me McCain will win again. But my left elbow, always my favorite joint, is telling me that Romney is going squeeze by with narrow victory.
So: 1. Romney, 2. McCain, 3. Muckabee
Friday, January 11, 2008
Bad Solutions to Nonexistent Problems
I can’t say I’ve been following the Indiana voting rights case before the Supreme Court closely. As I understand it, Indiana, my home state, passed a law requiring photo IDs for voters.
The law has been challenged in court, and has made its way to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments earlier this week. As explained in this excellent discussion by two Slate writers, the reaction of the justices suggest that the court will not only uphold Indiana’s law but will use the case as precedent to deny hearings to similar cases where harm to plaintiffs is “facial” (which basically means “not yet proven”) as opposed to “as applied” (harm that can be proven.) So kind of a twofer for the forces of darkness.
I have debated with some of my conservative friends these voting rights issues. Mostly, I have heard some variation of the “not my problem” argument, that is, if a voting restriction isn’t a problem for me, it’s not a problem for anyone.
Requiring photo ID for voters may sound reasonable to some, but it effectively disenfranchises those who for whatever reason, do not have such ID. For those of us in a certain economic group, having a photo ID is no big deal. For some people, it could be a barrier to voting. I think that’s a bad thing, just in principle.
On the other side are those who argue without photo ID, you could end up with voter fraud. Of course, in arguing the case, the state of Indiana could not come up with a single case of voter fraud. I would say that indicates how big a problem that is.
In any case, I think the Slate video is an informative and interesting discussion of the case and the issues around it. And it’s a little chilling, too. Right around the 6:00 mark the discussion starts to really illustrate how a far-right Supreme Court is beginning to undermine some of the basic historical concepts of justice in the United States.
The law has been challenged in court, and has made its way to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments earlier this week. As explained in this excellent discussion by two Slate writers, the reaction of the justices suggest that the court will not only uphold Indiana’s law but will use the case as precedent to deny hearings to similar cases where harm to plaintiffs is “facial” (which basically means “not yet proven”) as opposed to “as applied” (harm that can be proven.) So kind of a twofer for the forces of darkness.
I have debated with some of my conservative friends these voting rights issues. Mostly, I have heard some variation of the “not my problem” argument, that is, if a voting restriction isn’t a problem for me, it’s not a problem for anyone.
Requiring photo ID for voters may sound reasonable to some, but it effectively disenfranchises those who for whatever reason, do not have such ID. For those of us in a certain economic group, having a photo ID is no big deal. For some people, it could be a barrier to voting. I think that’s a bad thing, just in principle.
On the other side are those who argue without photo ID, you could end up with voter fraud. Of course, in arguing the case, the state of Indiana could not come up with a single case of voter fraud. I would say that indicates how big a problem that is.
In any case, I think the Slate video is an informative and interesting discussion of the case and the issues around it. And it’s a little chilling, too. Right around the 6:00 mark the discussion starts to really illustrate how a far-right Supreme Court is beginning to undermine some of the basic historical concepts of justice in the United States.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
The Comeback Kids???
In an election that’s supposed to be all about change and new faces, last night’s New Hampshire results shows that a significant number of voters aren’t ready to let go of their security blankets just yet.
How else to explain the victories by a 60-year-old Senator and a 71-year-old Senator, both of whom have been involved in Washington politics for decades?
Both of these victories were upsets to some degree. Clinton’s was a stunning turnaround, as it appears that many NH voters decided at the last minute that they would give her a chance after all. Did the tears do it? Or was it a backlash against all the attention that the tears (or the near-tears to be more accurate) drew from the media? Or did that moment have nothing to do with it?
Heck if I know.
As for McCain, his campaign was really on the rocks a few months ago, running out of money and laying off staff, but things certainly will improve with this win. I am not sure what the win says overall, though. He did well in the state where he’s done well in the past. Will he be able to sustain it? Do the people of the US want another old white guy as president?
I think Huckabee actually is looking better after last night, as Romney is pretty much on life support. Huck should do well in S. Carolina and OK in Michigan. If he wins SC and gets 2nd or 3rd in Michigan, he’s in great shape. Giuliani also has to like the results. I’m not sure there is a clear front runner. I just find it hard to believe that core Republican voters are going to support McCain in some of these states that don’t let independents vote in the primaries. Maybe I’m wrong.
The Democrats have two viable candidates left, and either would make a fine nominee for the party. There are some, of course, who think Obama is too inexperienced or that Clinton is, oh, the antichrist, but from my point of view, they both are strong candidates. Hopefully they can continue to debate and make their cases without getting too negative and divisive. Obama does rely more on young voters and independents to help his campaign, which makes the road maybe a little tougher for him. Despite the country’s appetite for change, the most mainstream Democratic candidate may be the one that emerges as the nominee (yes, I am talking about Clinton).
If nothing else, the unexpected results of last night’s primary has produced some funny lines in the blogosphere. My two favorites:
“In retrospect I regret posting the item about Obama turning water to wine.” – Joel Achenbach, Washington Post.
“I feel weird right now. Not the usual "breaking in a new thong" weird. It's something else.” Bill in Portland Maine, DailyKos.
How else to explain the victories by a 60-year-old Senator and a 71-year-old Senator, both of whom have been involved in Washington politics for decades?
Both of these victories were upsets to some degree. Clinton’s was a stunning turnaround, as it appears that many NH voters decided at the last minute that they would give her a chance after all. Did the tears do it? Or was it a backlash against all the attention that the tears (or the near-tears to be more accurate) drew from the media? Or did that moment have nothing to do with it?
Heck if I know.
As for McCain, his campaign was really on the rocks a few months ago, running out of money and laying off staff, but things certainly will improve with this win. I am not sure what the win says overall, though. He did well in the state where he’s done well in the past. Will he be able to sustain it? Do the people of the US want another old white guy as president?
I think Huckabee actually is looking better after last night, as Romney is pretty much on life support. Huck should do well in S. Carolina and OK in Michigan. If he wins SC and gets 2nd or 3rd in Michigan, he’s in great shape. Giuliani also has to like the results. I’m not sure there is a clear front runner. I just find it hard to believe that core Republican voters are going to support McCain in some of these states that don’t let independents vote in the primaries. Maybe I’m wrong.
The Democrats have two viable candidates left, and either would make a fine nominee for the party. There are some, of course, who think Obama is too inexperienced or that Clinton is, oh, the antichrist, but from my point of view, they both are strong candidates. Hopefully they can continue to debate and make their cases without getting too negative and divisive. Obama does rely more on young voters and independents to help his campaign, which makes the road maybe a little tougher for him. Despite the country’s appetite for change, the most mainstream Democratic candidate may be the one that emerges as the nominee (yes, I am talking about Clinton).
If nothing else, the unexpected results of last night’s primary has produced some funny lines in the blogosphere. My two favorites:
“In retrospect I regret posting the item about Obama turning water to wine.” – Joel Achenbach, Washington Post.
“I feel weird right now. Not the usual "breaking in a new thong" weird. It's something else.” Bill in Portland Maine, DailyKos.
EFT's Email
Just heard from a conservative who I've debated in the past. She has had some trouble getting her post up, so she emailed it to me. EFT always has interesting things to say, so I've decided to go ahead and post this on the main page of the blog. It was written before the NH vote, so keep that in mind. If anyone else is having trouble posting, let me know via email. I assume all the readers of this blog have my address.
I'll have some thoughts on New Hampshire later today.
Here's the email:
Izzy...it seems we are finally in agreement about several major points. Scary, isn't it?
Though I have the advantage of knowing how the Iowa Caucuses turned out (simply because I didn't have time to post before them), there are still 49 primaries to go and a lot of things could change. My helpmate pointed out this evening that only two Iowa winners have gone on to be president: Carter and Dubya, and that doesn't bode well for anyone or either party.
Let’s begin with the Republicans . . .
Giuliani certainly has name recognition as you say, but he has it in the same way that Ike did after the war and for much the same reason. He also reminds me of Chirac, a man who thought running a major metropolis would translate into national and international expertise-it didn’t and it nearly drove France and their role in the EU into the ground. They both have corruption issues and Giuliani’s personal issues make me think that something Craig-ish could happen. I mean, come on, a family-values conservative who’s been married 3 TIMES?!?! If he wanted to hold national office, he should have taken a page from the Clinton book and married for political strategery purposes.
Huckabee is a puzzle. I’m wondering if his late arrival to the race earned him the Iowa crown only because the media and his opponents haven’t had sufficient time to pick him apart yet. I am suspicious of anyone or anything that leans towards religious zealotry and he’s a minister and a Southern Baptist one at that. I have concluded that fundamentalists of any faith (Islam, Christianity, etc.) are to be carefully monitored and the Southern Baptists are one of the most fundamental Christian groups, coming just shy of qualifying as a cult on a good day. He doesn’t even know there is separation of church and state.
McCain is great but I think he peaked about 8 years ago. Unfortunately for him and us, the Republican powers at the time were bent on having another Bush, so McCain got screwed by his own party in much the same way that Dean did a la the NY Times and scream fiascoes. Maybe he’d make a good VP candidate?
Paul has great grassroots support, as you say. But he’s not going far, which is a shame. He reminds me of Keyes in this way-great ideas but not enough backing to make a national impression.
Romney is a study in contrasts. His background is much more down to earth than almost all of the other candidates combined. Despite the Mormon cult issue, he’s had real jobs and dealt with some serious personal issues (i.e. recovering from a near fatal car accident) that prove he’s a fighter. I’m also impressed that his resume includes a stint as governor of Massachusetts. How do you figure that he got MA, arguably one of the most liberal states in the country, to elect him as a Republican governor? It’s intriguing.
Thompson is a waste of time. He came on as the heir apparent to the Reagan dynasty-another actor turned politician, but he’s LAZY! Presidential candidate is just another role, and he’s not gonna get an Oscar.
And now on to the Democrats . . .
Biden is nuts. He’s been around forever, and yet he can’t translate that into anything that will help him make a splash in a national race. Most days he seems as divisive as Sen. Rodham and he has no appeal beyond his very liberal base, which is eroding fast in the blue party.
Clinton , oh my, what to say…there are days I think she’s the antichrist. Not because she’s so liberal, which she is despite her moderate rantings to appear more centrist, and not because she has her speech writers compose her talks based on the latest polls, which she does to an even greater degree than the rest of the political brat pack, but mainly because I have never, ever seen any politician make such bold grabs at power and get away with it! Only someone in league with the devil or the devil herself could pick a state that she’s “electable” in and then get enough voters to go for it or claim her experience as First Lady qualifies her over some other candidate. I mean, come on, the role of FL is largely ceremonial, much like her role as wife is to Bill, and it’s a little scary that she couldn’t even see her home state of IL as a possibility. Then again, Obama has that locked up, serving in the state legislature and all. Heck, even Elizabeth Dole chose her momma’s home state and was generally accepted. But if the people of Chicago won’t have you back, you’ve got issues.
Dodd and Kucinich are both going nowhere fast. Dodd reminds me of a Democrat Quayle, and Kucinich…he’s just not getting his ideas out there somehow.
Edwards is interesting. In 2004, I spent a good bit of time listening to his speeches and my conclusion was that if he’d been the Dems’ candidate rather than Kerry then things might have played out very differently in that election. He’s a smooth talker and he appeals to a wide range of voters. The consensus in his home state is that he jumped into the national spotlight too soon. If he’d finished at least one senate term, there are a lot who think he’d be President Edwards now. Hard to say and now he’s in a tough position, having been on the losing team just like poor old Lieberman, who I always liked.
Obama is the most interesting candidate in the race and he’s the real deal. He’s young and somewhat inexperienced, but he plays that to his advantage. (Frankly, he’s not any less experienced than his current close competition.) People seem to love him, including Oprah. He’s a good speaker and he clearly shows he’s human. He inhaled, after all, and did a bit more, yet was candid about it years ago. (I would be shocked to see some of the others be this up front with voters.) I think it would be cool to see him as the candidate with a VP of Richardson, Edwards, or even McCain, but I don’t think the Dem power structure is going to let that happen, at least not in 2008.
Richardson was stronger in the race about six months ago. Interestingly enough, I took an online quiz a while back where you answer questions about your political beliefs and it matches you with the closest candidate and Richardson was the guy! When I looked at his website, I had to admit that his stated views were ones I could support, but I think Izzy’s right…he won’t last much longer.
Prediction for New Hampshire
Republicans: 1. Romney (he’s close to MA…it’s going to be like going home), 2. McCain (NH loves a renegade), 3. Huckabee (not enough time still for his opponents to launch an attack)
Democrats: 1. Obama (he’s on a roll), 2. Edwards (always a bridesmaid, never a bride), 3. Clinton (the Clinton political machine and money grind on)
I'll have some thoughts on New Hampshire later today.
Here's the email:
Izzy...it seems we are finally in agreement about several major points. Scary, isn't it?
Though I have the advantage of knowing how the Iowa Caucuses turned out (simply because I didn't have time to post before them), there are still 49 primaries to go and a lot of things could change. My helpmate pointed out this evening that only two Iowa winners have gone on to be president: Carter and Dubya, and that doesn't bode well for anyone or either party.
Let’s begin with the Republicans . . .
Giuliani certainly has name recognition as you say, but he has it in the same way that Ike did after the war and for much the same reason. He also reminds me of Chirac, a man who thought running a major metropolis would translate into national and international expertise-it didn’t and it nearly drove France and their role in the EU into the ground. They both have corruption issues and Giuliani’s personal issues make me think that something Craig-ish could happen. I mean, come on, a family-values conservative who’s been married 3 TIMES?!?! If he wanted to hold national office, he should have taken a page from the Clinton book and married for political strategery purposes.
Huckabee is a puzzle. I’m wondering if his late arrival to the race earned him the Iowa crown only because the media and his opponents haven’t had sufficient time to pick him apart yet. I am suspicious of anyone or anything that leans towards religious zealotry and he’s a minister and a Southern Baptist one at that. I have concluded that fundamentalists of any faith (Islam, Christianity, etc.) are to be carefully monitored and the Southern Baptists are one of the most fundamental Christian groups, coming just shy of qualifying as a cult on a good day. He doesn’t even know there is separation of church and state.
McCain is great but I think he peaked about 8 years ago. Unfortunately for him and us, the Republican powers at the time were bent on having another Bush, so McCain got screwed by his own party in much the same way that Dean did a la the NY Times and scream fiascoes. Maybe he’d make a good VP candidate?
Paul has great grassroots support, as you say. But he’s not going far, which is a shame. He reminds me of Keyes in this way-great ideas but not enough backing to make a national impression.
Romney is a study in contrasts. His background is much more down to earth than almost all of the other candidates combined. Despite the Mormon cult issue, he’s had real jobs and dealt with some serious personal issues (i.e. recovering from a near fatal car accident) that prove he’s a fighter. I’m also impressed that his resume includes a stint as governor of Massachusetts. How do you figure that he got MA, arguably one of the most liberal states in the country, to elect him as a Republican governor? It’s intriguing.
Thompson is a waste of time. He came on as the heir apparent to the Reagan dynasty-another actor turned politician, but he’s LAZY! Presidential candidate is just another role, and he’s not gonna get an Oscar.
And now on to the Democrats . . .
Biden is nuts. He’s been around forever, and yet he can’t translate that into anything that will help him make a splash in a national race. Most days he seems as divisive as Sen. Rodham and he has no appeal beyond his very liberal base, which is eroding fast in the blue party.
Clinton , oh my, what to say…there are days I think she’s the antichrist. Not because she’s so liberal, which she is despite her moderate rantings to appear more centrist, and not because she has her speech writers compose her talks based on the latest polls, which she does to an even greater degree than the rest of the political brat pack, but mainly because I have never, ever seen any politician make such bold grabs at power and get away with it! Only someone in league with the devil or the devil herself could pick a state that she’s “electable” in and then get enough voters to go for it or claim her experience as First Lady qualifies her over some other candidate. I mean, come on, the role of FL is largely ceremonial, much like her role as wife is to Bill, and it’s a little scary that she couldn’t even see her home state of IL as a possibility. Then again, Obama has that locked up, serving in the state legislature and all. Heck, even Elizabeth Dole chose her momma’s home state and was generally accepted. But if the people of Chicago won’t have you back, you’ve got issues.
Dodd and Kucinich are both going nowhere fast. Dodd reminds me of a Democrat Quayle, and Kucinich…he’s just not getting his ideas out there somehow.
Edwards is interesting. In 2004, I spent a good bit of time listening to his speeches and my conclusion was that if he’d been the Dems’ candidate rather than Kerry then things might have played out very differently in that election. He’s a smooth talker and he appeals to a wide range of voters. The consensus in his home state is that he jumped into the national spotlight too soon. If he’d finished at least one senate term, there are a lot who think he’d be President Edwards now. Hard to say and now he’s in a tough position, having been on the losing team just like poor old Lieberman, who I always liked.
Obama is the most interesting candidate in the race and he’s the real deal. He’s young and somewhat inexperienced, but he plays that to his advantage. (Frankly, he’s not any less experienced than his current close competition.) People seem to love him, including Oprah. He’s a good speaker and he clearly shows he’s human. He inhaled, after all, and did a bit more, yet was candid about it years ago. (I would be shocked to see some of the others be this up front with voters.) I think it would be cool to see him as the candidate with a VP of Richardson, Edwards, or even McCain, but I don’t think the Dem power structure is going to let that happen, at least not in 2008.
Richardson was stronger in the race about six months ago. Interestingly enough, I took an online quiz a while back where you answer questions about your political beliefs and it matches you with the closest candidate and Richardson was the guy! When I looked at his website, I had to admit that his stated views were ones I could support, but I think Izzy’s right…he won’t last much longer.
Prediction for New Hampshire
Republicans: 1. Romney (he’s close to MA…it’s going to be like going home), 2. McCain (NH loves a renegade), 3. Huckabee (not enough time still for his opponents to launch an attack)
Democrats: 1. Obama (he’s on a roll), 2. Edwards (always a bridesmaid, never a bride), 3. Clinton (the Clinton political machine and money grind on)
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
The French Are Different Than Us
C'est vrai.
I just heard an NPR story on the President of France's love life. Apparently yesterday he gave a two-hour press conference (!) in which the main topic was whether and when he was going to marry the supermodel he's been dating. The description of his response made him sound remarkably candid and straightfoward, for a politician. But my favorite line was from one of the newscasters: "Are there policy implications when the President of France is dating a supermodel?"
Now that's a question you don't hear every day.
I just heard an NPR story on the President of France's love life. Apparently yesterday he gave a two-hour press conference (!) in which the main topic was whether and when he was going to marry the supermodel he's been dating. The description of his response made him sound remarkably candid and straightfoward, for a politician. But my favorite line was from one of the newscasters: "Are there policy implications when the President of France is dating a supermodel?"
Now that's a question you don't hear every day.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Did You Watch the Debates?
I didn’t, but I’ve read some blogs and heard a five-minute recap on NPR, so I am totally qualified to write 6,000 words on the subject.
Nah, I’m not gonna do that.
I think my observation, worth just under two cents, is that no matter what happens tomorrow, the main candidates are going to continue to fight hard as Super Tuesday approaches.
All signs point to an Obama victory in New Hampshire. This is great news for the Obama camp, but it’s far from over. It’ll be interesting to see what tactics the Clinton camp adopts in upcoming primaries. So far, they haven’t gone negative. I think it’s a lose/lose proposition to start airing attack ads on Obama at this point. But they may be able to come up with a more effective message.
Speaking of new tactics, is it just coincidence that after some were saying that Clinton needs to show more emotion, her voice cracked during a meeting today and she was described as being “emotional?” Oooooo, she’s good. (Let’s be fair. It could’ve been completely unscripted. Hillary Clinton is not going to ever catch a break on this stuff, though.)
The imminent McCain victory in New Hampshire is not a completely sure thing. Some polls have showed a slight Romney rebound. I think if Romney can manage a respectable second place finish or pull an upset, he can claim his own “comeback kid” title (though the phrase is getting almost as old as Mike Gravel) and move on to the next round. Giuliani is still planning on jumping into contention in later, bigger states—he’s still leading in Florida, although Huckabee is closing on him. (thanks, RealClearPolitics.com). So I guess we’ll have him to kick around a while longer.
Thompson will continue to campaign for “Most Sleep-Inducing Baritone” at least until the Florida primary. Who else… Oh yeah, Huckabee! (So quickly we forget) Well, Huck may place a respectable third in New Hampshire, no biggie, expectations were quite conveniently lowered for him there. If he does well in South Carolina, he’s still a contender.
Some people are saying that some of the independents who voted for McCain last time are going to swing to Obama this time. Those would have to be some very flexible voters, to go from backing McCain to Obama. I could see some of those folks going to Ron Paul, though.
Speaking of which, Fox News excluded Ron Paul from the final NH debate, a move that led the NH Republican Party to drop its sponsorship of the debate. Paul beat Giuliani in Iowa and has respectable numbers in NH. So why was he cut from the debate? Was it because of his opposition to the Iraq war? Hard to see a legitimate reason.
Oh, predictions? Ummmmmmmmm...
R: 1. Romney, 2. McCain, 3. Huckabee
D: 1. Obama, 2. Clinton, 3. Edwards
Nah, I’m not gonna do that.
I think my observation, worth just under two cents, is that no matter what happens tomorrow, the main candidates are going to continue to fight hard as Super Tuesday approaches.
All signs point to an Obama victory in New Hampshire. This is great news for the Obama camp, but it’s far from over. It’ll be interesting to see what tactics the Clinton camp adopts in upcoming primaries. So far, they haven’t gone negative. I think it’s a lose/lose proposition to start airing attack ads on Obama at this point. But they may be able to come up with a more effective message.
Speaking of new tactics, is it just coincidence that after some were saying that Clinton needs to show more emotion, her voice cracked during a meeting today and she was described as being “emotional?” Oooooo, she’s good. (Let’s be fair. It could’ve been completely unscripted. Hillary Clinton is not going to ever catch a break on this stuff, though.)
The imminent McCain victory in New Hampshire is not a completely sure thing. Some polls have showed a slight Romney rebound. I think if Romney can manage a respectable second place finish or pull an upset, he can claim his own “comeback kid” title (though the phrase is getting almost as old as Mike Gravel) and move on to the next round. Giuliani is still planning on jumping into contention in later, bigger states—he’s still leading in Florida, although Huckabee is closing on him. (thanks, RealClearPolitics.com). So I guess we’ll have him to kick around a while longer.
Thompson will continue to campaign for “Most Sleep-Inducing Baritone” at least until the Florida primary. Who else… Oh yeah, Huckabee! (So quickly we forget) Well, Huck may place a respectable third in New Hampshire, no biggie, expectations were quite conveniently lowered for him there. If he does well in South Carolina, he’s still a contender.
Some people are saying that some of the independents who voted for McCain last time are going to swing to Obama this time. Those would have to be some very flexible voters, to go from backing McCain to Obama. I could see some of those folks going to Ron Paul, though.
Speaking of which, Fox News excluded Ron Paul from the final NH debate, a move that led the NH Republican Party to drop its sponsorship of the debate. Paul beat Giuliani in Iowa and has respectable numbers in NH. So why was he cut from the debate? Was it because of his opposition to the Iraq war? Hard to see a legitimate reason.
Oh, predictions? Ummmmmmmmm...
R: 1. Romney, 2. McCain, 3. Huckabee
D: 1. Obama, 2. Clinton, 3. Edwards
Friday, January 04, 2008
Post Iowa Post
The dust is beginning to settle from last night’s Iowa caucuses, and it really was an extraordinary night. Obama wins decisively. Huckabee, despite a huge gap in money and party support, wins decisively. Clinton drops to third. Even with the razor-thin margin between her and Edwards, it’s still an amazing development. Ron Paul beats Rudy Giuliani. True, Giuliani didn’t really campaign much in Iowa, but the man has been leading in the national polls for months. Didn’t mean squat.
To me, one of the more interesting things to discuss is where the Republican race goes from here. On the Democratic side, it’s a pretty clear choice: Obama or Clinton, and Obama now has the front-runner mantle. Edwards will stay in the race, but where can he win? Hard to see any state where he’s going to do better than Iowa, where he’s practically lived for the past four years.
But the Republican side is really in flux. A lot of people are saying McCain is positioned for a comeback of historic proportions. The senator was all but written off by many observers months ago. But, the reasoning goes, everything has changed with Huckabee’s big win. Iowa was uniquely suited to respond to Huckabee, but it will be much harder for him to win in states that don’t have large numbers of evangelical conservatives. Therefore: McCain wins in New Hampshire, where he’s done well before, finishing off Romney, and goes forward as the frontrunner.
I’m not sure I buy that scenario.
First of all, the challenges that people say Huckabee faces are also the challenges that McCain must overcome. Huckabee an outsider with little support among party hardliners? McCain, the famous “maverick” senator, has often marched out of step with other Republicans. I’m not sure all of them are willing to forgive him, and his stance on immigration really puts him at odds with many hard-line conservatives.
Huckabee low on finances and lacking in infrastructure? McCain has been suffering the same problem. A few months ago, everyone was talking about how he had no money left. Has that problem gone away?
Huckabee inexperienced in foreign policy? Ok, you got me on that one. But McCain has his own weaknesses. His foreign policy position is largely based around doing whatever it takes to win in Iraq. Setting aside the question of what that means, I have a hard time seeing how a pro-war candidate does well with the majority of voters in the general election, or with independents in primaries such as New Hampshire's. People may be relieved that the level of violence is down in Iraq, and they may even credit the “surge” for helping. That doesn’t mean they want to stay the course with this war. McCain is swimming against a tide that is still very strong, even if some say it’s no longer the main campaign issue.
Many have commented on the so-called love affair between McCain and the media, but I think that’s overrated. Huckabee does very well whether he’s on TV or in person; he may be the only Republican candidate more media-savvy than McCain.
So I think it’s still a pretty complicated picture. Romney still has money and the Republican establishment behind him, I think. Huckabee is probably going to do well in states like South Carolina and Florida. Thompson and Giuliani are probably going to make a big push in Florida. So who knows where it will end up?
On a final note, these are indeed strange days, as I find myself agreeing with much of this David Brooks column.
To me, one of the more interesting things to discuss is where the Republican race goes from here. On the Democratic side, it’s a pretty clear choice: Obama or Clinton, and Obama now has the front-runner mantle. Edwards will stay in the race, but where can he win? Hard to see any state where he’s going to do better than Iowa, where he’s practically lived for the past four years.
But the Republican side is really in flux. A lot of people are saying McCain is positioned for a comeback of historic proportions. The senator was all but written off by many observers months ago. But, the reasoning goes, everything has changed with Huckabee’s big win. Iowa was uniquely suited to respond to Huckabee, but it will be much harder for him to win in states that don’t have large numbers of evangelical conservatives. Therefore: McCain wins in New Hampshire, where he’s done well before, finishing off Romney, and goes forward as the frontrunner.
I’m not sure I buy that scenario.
First of all, the challenges that people say Huckabee faces are also the challenges that McCain must overcome. Huckabee an outsider with little support among party hardliners? McCain, the famous “maverick” senator, has often marched out of step with other Republicans. I’m not sure all of them are willing to forgive him, and his stance on immigration really puts him at odds with many hard-line conservatives.
Huckabee low on finances and lacking in infrastructure? McCain has been suffering the same problem. A few months ago, everyone was talking about how he had no money left. Has that problem gone away?
Huckabee inexperienced in foreign policy? Ok, you got me on that one. But McCain has his own weaknesses. His foreign policy position is largely based around doing whatever it takes to win in Iraq. Setting aside the question of what that means, I have a hard time seeing how a pro-war candidate does well with the majority of voters in the general election, or with independents in primaries such as New Hampshire's. People may be relieved that the level of violence is down in Iraq, and they may even credit the “surge” for helping. That doesn’t mean they want to stay the course with this war. McCain is swimming against a tide that is still very strong, even if some say it’s no longer the main campaign issue.
Many have commented on the so-called love affair between McCain and the media, but I think that’s overrated. Huckabee does very well whether he’s on TV or in person; he may be the only Republican candidate more media-savvy than McCain.
So I think it’s still a pretty complicated picture. Romney still has money and the Republican establishment behind him, I think. Huckabee is probably going to do well in states like South Carolina and Florida. Thompson and Giuliani are probably going to make a big push in Florida. So who knows where it will end up?
On a final note, these are indeed strange days, as I find myself agreeing with much of this David Brooks column.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
My Analysis on the Prospects of Major Presidential Contenders on the Eve of the Iowa Caucuses, 2008.
How’s that for a self-important post title?
Ok, so it’s the day before the Iowa Caucuses. Here in Minnesota, we get a lot of news coverage of the campaigns, since Iowa is a neighboring state and there are manymanymanymanymany Iowa natives here. I’m happy and grateful to report that here in the Twin Cities, we are far enough away from the state border that we don’t see political ads. But the Caucuses are very much in the news.
And they should be. Iowa is important. It’s where Dean faltered and Kerry surged last time. Yearrrgh.
Of course this year, we have so many candidates from both parties, with no clear front runners, that there is a real horserace aspect to the campaigns, which is like catnip for the media. So there’s a lot of buzz, and it’s fun to speculate. Like so:
Republicans:
Rudy Giuliani
Consistently leading national polls, Giuliani made the mistake of writing Iowa off and will pay dearly for it. His strategy of coming on strong in the later races is not compatible with the way voters think. A sixth-place finish (or fifth, or fourth) just kills your credibility with people. Not that Giuliani was ever likely to win the nomination. He’s vulnerable on corruption issues, he’s an absolute nightmare for social conservatives, and he’s not terribly likable on a personal level. Name recognition can only take you so far.
Mike Huckabee
My favorite Republican candidate. No, seriously. I may disagree with him on a lot of things, I do question his experience, and I fear the prospect of another president who doesn’t understand the concept of separation of church and state. But doggone it, I like Mike Huckabee. He gets along with Jesus AND Jon Stewart. His phenomenal rise from nobody to contender shows that he’s got some kind of appeal with the common folk.
I think he’ll win in Iowa. He had a bit of a meltdown with his “I’m pulling my negative ad, but I’ll show it to the media” gaffe. But I think Iowa voters who are inclined to vote for him are not going desert him over that. On the other hand, it could be his Dean moment. But I doubt it.
John McCain
May do better than expected in Iowa. My take is that people may be thinking that Giuliani and Romney are flawed candidates, Huckabee is too inexperienced, and Thompson is just as dull as death, so McCain is the fallback. Sort of like Kerry in 2004. Ruh-ro.
Ron Paul
I have no idea of how he’ll do in Iowa. Probably not well, since his grassroots, independent-voter driven campaign will not translate easily to the rather complicated Iowa caucus system. On New Year’s Eve in Minneapolis, as we were leaving a downtown restaurant, we saw a mini-parade of Ron Paul supporters marching at 10 pm, waving banners and freezing their butts off. That says something. I’m just not sure what.
Mitt Romney
It’s tempting to say that Romney’s success so far just confirms that craven political pandering never goes out of style. But he does have strengths as a candidate. Consistency is just not one of them. For those longing for Reagan, this is probably as close as they can get, and that may keep him in contention throughout the primary season. Heck, it could win it for him.
Fred Thompson
“This thing will get out of control. It will get out of control, and we’ll be lucky to live through it.” (The Hunt for Red October)
Democrats:
Joe Biden
I’ve always thought highly of Biden. He is knowledgeable, experienced and likable, although not exciting. He knows how to talk to mainstream Democrats, but his appeal to Republicans and Independents is limited at best. It’s just getting harder and harder to see why he’s still in the race. If his campaign was going to catch on, it would have by now.
Hillary Clinton
Like Giuliani, name recognition keeps her out front in the national polls. Unlike Giuliani, her appeal doesn’t fall apart when you look at her more closely, if only because we already know about the Bubba, excuse me, the baggage, that she brings to the race. She’s smart, articulate, and tough. A significant number of people hate her, which, you know, could be a problem. But she’s won a lot of doubters over among the Dems. If she wins Iowa and New Hampshire by more than an eyelash, it could be all over on the Democratic side.
Chris Dodd
I’ve always thought highly of Dodd. He is knowledgeable, experienced and likable, although not exciting. He knows how to talk to mainstream Democrats, but his appeal to Republicans and Independents is limited at best. It’s just getting harder and harder to see why he’s still in the race. If his campaign was going to catch on, it would have by now.
John Edwards
People count this guy out ‘cause the media likes to make fun of his haircuts. But he has fervent support among the core Democrats who vote in primaries and caucuses. He could win Iowa. And that would do much more for his campaign than an Iowa victory would do for Clinton or Obama. His policy positions seem stronger and more thought-out than some of his rivals. I’m not sure he’s the strongest candidate overall, but he’s a fighter and he impresses people as being one of them. I’ve heard very conservative Republicans speak well of him, which surprised me.
Dennis Kucinich
A sad case of a decent man who doesn’t realize, or doesn’t care, that he’s become a punch line. Maybe he shouldn’t care. But he also shouldn’t be wasting his time or ours.
Barack Obama
Obama is in a tough place. People want him to be a saint, so when he takes the gloves off, as he recently did, sort of, they get disillusioned. But of course if he doesn’t, they’ll be saying he’s soft or that he won’t be able to compete with Republicans, who have been known to take the gloves off. It’s just another case of how this candidacy is different than all the rest. Clinton is, of course, also a ground-breaking candidate. But not like Obama. How he holds up, how he manages expectations and the gritty realities of a tough campaign, will probably say a lot about him as a candidate. And maybe something about us as a nation.
Bill Richardson
He’s got great credentials, he seems likable, but unless he really shocks us in Iowa I can’t see him continuing on much longer.
Prediction for Iowa:
Republicans: 1. Huckabee, 2. Romney, 3. McCain
Democrats: 1. Edwards, 2. Obama, 3. Clinton
The Democratic side is basically too close to call, so I’m throwing out one of the more interesting scenarios. The Republican side is more set; Romney could end up winning but it will be close if he does. Recent polls suggest Thompson could pull into the No. 3 spot but I dzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Let me know how you see it.
Ok, so it’s the day before the Iowa Caucuses. Here in Minnesota, we get a lot of news coverage of the campaigns, since Iowa is a neighboring state and there are manymanymanymanymany Iowa natives here. I’m happy and grateful to report that here in the Twin Cities, we are far enough away from the state border that we don’t see political ads. But the Caucuses are very much in the news.
And they should be. Iowa is important. It’s where Dean faltered and Kerry surged last time. Yearrrgh.
Of course this year, we have so many candidates from both parties, with no clear front runners, that there is a real horserace aspect to the campaigns, which is like catnip for the media. So there’s a lot of buzz, and it’s fun to speculate. Like so:
Republicans:
Rudy Giuliani
Consistently leading national polls, Giuliani made the mistake of writing Iowa off and will pay dearly for it. His strategy of coming on strong in the later races is not compatible with the way voters think. A sixth-place finish (or fifth, or fourth) just kills your credibility with people. Not that Giuliani was ever likely to win the nomination. He’s vulnerable on corruption issues, he’s an absolute nightmare for social conservatives, and he’s not terribly likable on a personal level. Name recognition can only take you so far.
Mike Huckabee
My favorite Republican candidate. No, seriously. I may disagree with him on a lot of things, I do question his experience, and I fear the prospect of another president who doesn’t understand the concept of separation of church and state. But doggone it, I like Mike Huckabee. He gets along with Jesus AND Jon Stewart. His phenomenal rise from nobody to contender shows that he’s got some kind of appeal with the common folk.
I think he’ll win in Iowa. He had a bit of a meltdown with his “I’m pulling my negative ad, but I’ll show it to the media” gaffe. But I think Iowa voters who are inclined to vote for him are not going desert him over that. On the other hand, it could be his Dean moment. But I doubt it.
John McCain
May do better than expected in Iowa. My take is that people may be thinking that Giuliani and Romney are flawed candidates, Huckabee is too inexperienced, and Thompson is just as dull as death, so McCain is the fallback. Sort of like Kerry in 2004. Ruh-ro.
Ron Paul
I have no idea of how he’ll do in Iowa. Probably not well, since his grassroots, independent-voter driven campaign will not translate easily to the rather complicated Iowa caucus system. On New Year’s Eve in Minneapolis, as we were leaving a downtown restaurant, we saw a mini-parade of Ron Paul supporters marching at 10 pm, waving banners and freezing their butts off. That says something. I’m just not sure what.
Mitt Romney
It’s tempting to say that Romney’s success so far just confirms that craven political pandering never goes out of style. But he does have strengths as a candidate. Consistency is just not one of them. For those longing for Reagan, this is probably as close as they can get, and that may keep him in contention throughout the primary season. Heck, it could win it for him.
Fred Thompson
“This thing will get out of control. It will get out of control, and we’ll be lucky to live through it.” (The Hunt for Red October)
Democrats:
Joe Biden
I’ve always thought highly of Biden. He is knowledgeable, experienced and likable, although not exciting. He knows how to talk to mainstream Democrats, but his appeal to Republicans and Independents is limited at best. It’s just getting harder and harder to see why he’s still in the race. If his campaign was going to catch on, it would have by now.
Hillary Clinton
Like Giuliani, name recognition keeps her out front in the national polls. Unlike Giuliani, her appeal doesn’t fall apart when you look at her more closely, if only because we already know about the Bubba, excuse me, the baggage, that she brings to the race. She’s smart, articulate, and tough. A significant number of people hate her, which, you know, could be a problem. But she’s won a lot of doubters over among the Dems. If she wins Iowa and New Hampshire by more than an eyelash, it could be all over on the Democratic side.
Chris Dodd
I’ve always thought highly of Dodd. He is knowledgeable, experienced and likable, although not exciting. He knows how to talk to mainstream Democrats, but his appeal to Republicans and Independents is limited at best. It’s just getting harder and harder to see why he’s still in the race. If his campaign was going to catch on, it would have by now.
John Edwards
People count this guy out ‘cause the media likes to make fun of his haircuts. But he has fervent support among the core Democrats who vote in primaries and caucuses. He could win Iowa. And that would do much more for his campaign than an Iowa victory would do for Clinton or Obama. His policy positions seem stronger and more thought-out than some of his rivals. I’m not sure he’s the strongest candidate overall, but he’s a fighter and he impresses people as being one of them. I’ve heard very conservative Republicans speak well of him, which surprised me.
Dennis Kucinich
A sad case of a decent man who doesn’t realize, or doesn’t care, that he’s become a punch line. Maybe he shouldn’t care. But he also shouldn’t be wasting his time or ours.
Barack Obama
Obama is in a tough place. People want him to be a saint, so when he takes the gloves off, as he recently did, sort of, they get disillusioned. But of course if he doesn’t, they’ll be saying he’s soft or that he won’t be able to compete with Republicans, who have been known to take the gloves off. It’s just another case of how this candidacy is different than all the rest. Clinton is, of course, also a ground-breaking candidate. But not like Obama. How he holds up, how he manages expectations and the gritty realities of a tough campaign, will probably say a lot about him as a candidate. And maybe something about us as a nation.
Bill Richardson
He’s got great credentials, he seems likable, but unless he really shocks us in Iowa I can’t see him continuing on much longer.
Prediction for Iowa:
Republicans: 1. Huckabee, 2. Romney, 3. McCain
Democrats: 1. Edwards, 2. Obama, 3. Clinton
The Democratic side is basically too close to call, so I’m throwing out one of the more interesting scenarios. The Republican side is more set; Romney could end up winning but it will be close if he does. Recent polls suggest Thompson could pull into the No. 3 spot but I dzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Let me know how you see it.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Blog Revival Redux
Welcome to Mod Lang, which has turned out to be a very occasional blog. I've found that I have 1) not a lot of really interesting things to say that others can't say better, and 2) not enough time to say those those things. So my blogging career has been spotty to say the least.
However, it's election season again. And this one promises to be quite interesting. So what the heck, I'll fire this thing up again, try to post some of my (not terribly interesting) observations, and see if anyone wants to play along.
I'll be inviting family and friends to view this blog and share their thoughts. And since those folks represent quite a range of views, I'd encourage everyone to keep in mind that this isn't a typical "liberal" or "conservative" blog, so the views expressed won't automatically echo the political world you may inhabit. I'll encourage posters to remain civil and remember, opinions are like belly buttons. Everybody has one.
As for who this "Izzy" character is, well, I started this blog with the intention of remaining anonymous, because of my job. I'd prefer to stay somewhat anonymous, but I suspect that the readership here will be limited enough that it doesn't really matter if you refer to me by my given name.
Which is, of course, Slartibartfast.
However, it's election season again. And this one promises to be quite interesting. So what the heck, I'll fire this thing up again, try to post some of my (not terribly interesting) observations, and see if anyone wants to play along.
I'll be inviting family and friends to view this blog and share their thoughts. And since those folks represent quite a range of views, I'd encourage everyone to keep in mind that this isn't a typical "liberal" or "conservative" blog, so the views expressed won't automatically echo the political world you may inhabit. I'll encourage posters to remain civil and remember, opinions are like belly buttons. Everybody has one.
As for who this "Izzy" character is, well, I started this blog with the intention of remaining anonymous, because of my job. I'd prefer to stay somewhat anonymous, but I suspect that the readership here will be limited enough that it doesn't really matter if you refer to me by my given name.
Which is, of course, Slartibartfast.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
National Predictions
Again, given that no one reads this blog and my complete lack of expertise, this post is beyond irrelevant. But just for fun:
House: The Dems pick up 21 seats. Speaker Pelosi calls President Bush and says, "I'm wondering if you can give me advice on picking out the drapes for my new office..."
Senate: I think there's a great chance for the Dems to pick up at least five seats. But let's say that the Republicans manage to put up a last-second three-pointer in Missouri or Montana. Or both. (I like that analogy better than the Hail Mary. The HM is a miracle, the three-point shot is just a great effort at the end of a close game.) Possible upset: Steele in Maryland.
In other words, I have no idea how the Senate turns out. But the Dems will do well. Gaining control was always a very formidable challenge.
I'm going to be watching tonight for early signs of that Wave that people are talking about. (They're not talking about it as much as two weeks ago, I notice.) If Penns. and NY are big sweeps for the Dems, if Indiana's big three seats go to the Dems, the wave is on. I think.
On the other hand, it's hard for me to imagine all three of those Indiana seats flipping. Indiana as a state is as red as Lady MacBeth's hands.
(Guess that should be "as red as Lady MacBeth imagined her hands to be." Clumsy.
This is one of many reasons why I'm not a pundit.)
Anyhow. It's likely to be a long night. Our "improvements" to the voting systems in various states almost garuntees it. I'll stay up untill MN results are in, I think. Unless my six-month old has a rough night. Then it's lights out for us all.
Politics can wait.
House: The Dems pick up 21 seats. Speaker Pelosi calls President Bush and says, "I'm wondering if you can give me advice on picking out the drapes for my new office..."
Senate: I think there's a great chance for the Dems to pick up at least five seats. But let's say that the Republicans manage to put up a last-second three-pointer in Missouri or Montana. Or both. (I like that analogy better than the Hail Mary. The HM is a miracle, the three-point shot is just a great effort at the end of a close game.) Possible upset: Steele in Maryland.
In other words, I have no idea how the Senate turns out. But the Dems will do well. Gaining control was always a very formidable challenge.
I'm going to be watching tonight for early signs of that Wave that people are talking about. (They're not talking about it as much as two weeks ago, I notice.) If Penns. and NY are big sweeps for the Dems, if Indiana's big three seats go to the Dems, the wave is on. I think.
On the other hand, it's hard for me to imagine all three of those Indiana seats flipping. Indiana as a state is as red as Lady MacBeth's hands.
(Guess that should be "as red as Lady MacBeth imagined her hands to be." Clumsy.
This is one of many reasons why I'm not a pundit.)
Anyhow. It's likely to be a long night. Our "improvements" to the voting systems in various states almost garuntees it. I'll stay up untill MN results are in, I think. Unless my six-month old has a rough night. Then it's lights out for us all.
Politics can wait.
Hatch May Recover
The roller coaster has a few twists and turns left in it. In the latest Star Tribune poll, Mike Hatch is leading 44 to 41 percent over Tim Pawlenty.
Now, the Strib Poll (sorry, the Minnesota Poll) is the bane of Republicans in the state. They hate it. They believe it always favors the Democrats. They have some reason to think that. It does not have the best record. But there have been some pretty wacky races in Minnesota in the past decade. Jesse Ventura was one that no one saw coming. The Mondale/Coleman matchup after Wellstone’s death was a pollster’s nightmare, because the race was in complete chaos.
And these results are within the margin of error. So fine, call it a tossup. But note that the daily trends show Hatch losing ground on Tuesday through Sunday, and gaining ground since then. So the E85 Republican Whore story hurt him, but then he seemed to recover. That’s one way to read it. Let’s argue that this reading is accurate, then Hatch is trending up, and it’s possible Pawlenty—who continues to struggle in the 40-41 percent range—has hit his ceiling.
Or, you could read it another way. Pawlenty, with help from Hatch has managed to keep this thing within the margin of error as we hit Election Day. The poll is probably giving Hatch a few extra points, as it has done with Democratic candidates in the past. The Republican GOTV will overcome any remaining deficit.
Either scenario is possible.
Ok, it’s a tossup.
Now, the Strib Poll (sorry, the Minnesota Poll) is the bane of Republicans in the state. They hate it. They believe it always favors the Democrats. They have some reason to think that. It does not have the best record. But there have been some pretty wacky races in Minnesota in the past decade. Jesse Ventura was one that no one saw coming. The Mondale/Coleman matchup after Wellstone’s death was a pollster’s nightmare, because the race was in complete chaos.
And these results are within the margin of error. So fine, call it a tossup. But note that the daily trends show Hatch losing ground on Tuesday through Sunday, and gaining ground since then. So the E85 Republican Whore story hurt him, but then he seemed to recover. That’s one way to read it. Let’s argue that this reading is accurate, then Hatch is trending up, and it’s possible Pawlenty—who continues to struggle in the 40-41 percent range—has hit his ceiling.
Or, you could read it another way. Pawlenty, with help from Hatch has managed to keep this thing within the margin of error as we hit Election Day. The poll is probably giving Hatch a few extra points, as it has done with Democratic candidates in the past. The Republican GOTV will overcome any remaining deficit.
Either scenario is possible.
Ok, it’s a tossup.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Minnesota Election Thoughts
The roller coaster ride is almost over. That is, presuming that we don’t have lots of voting machine glitches/ polling place controversies/ voting irregularities/ lawsuits to draw the results out for days and weeks. Which is probably far too much to presume.
But here in Minnesota, I think we’ve had about as much democracy as we can stand.
The Senate race here is over. Klobuchar walks away with it. Kennedy was supposed to be this great Republican candidate, but I think overall the R’s really overestimated how well a "hard" conservative like MK would do among Minnesota voters. He always did well in his district, I know, but for God’s sake, Michelle Bachmann is going to win that district. And she is the definition of a right wing Christian fundamentalist. So in hindsight, they shoulda gone with a more moderate-appearing candidate like a Coleman or Pawlenty type. Kennedy is not a terrible candidate, just a little too conservative for the state overall.
The Governor’s race well, what can you say. It’s been entertaining. I love Pawlenty as a campaigner. He’s calm, confident, good-humored, optimistic, just a wonderful example of "Minnesota Nice." His policies, on the other hand, are not quite that benign. But when deciding on a face to represent Minnesota, and really that’s part of what we’re doing here, it’s hard not to think TP is a great guy to do that.
Hatch’s meltdown is so classic. I’ve had the opportunity to work with both campaigns, and Pawlenty’s hums along like a machine, while Hatch’s is like a bar fight. Both styles can get you results, but it probably was only a matter of time before Hatch got into trouble. It is so fascinating to think about how this is going to affect the election, but of course we’ll never know, probably. He almost made it through the campaign without flashing that famous temper. So close.
Oh, just for the record, here's a recap: During an interview, Hatch’s running mate drew a blank on what E85 is; it’s a type of ethanol gas, a big deal to farmers and outstate Minnesota. In trying to do damage control, Hatch made things worse by calling a reporter a "Republican whore," then spent a couple days denying he said that, then kind of confirmed it. Amazing.
Hatch had been leading in single digits before all this; the latest polls show him ahead by a couple points. This at a time when Republican candidates nationwide are closing in the polls and firming up their base. Disaster for Hatch, right? Maybe. Or maybe in this state, at this time, Republicans just aren’t as popular, and it won’t be enough to make a difference. Pawlenty’s support has been lukewarm, if I’m reading the polls right. If you squint hard and try to read between the lines of what Pawlenty has said in the past six months, you might conclude that the guy kinda thinks he won’t be reelected. I bet he’s feeling a lot better today than he did last week, though.
In the 2nd Congressional District, Kline keeps his seat easily. Rowley never looked much like a viable candidate to me. Smart, but not disciplined. Not comfortable with the media. Gives off the "loose canon" vibe, which I say, thank god she was one in the FBI. But it’s not going to be a positive in an election.
The Bachmann/Wetterling match up has been really ugly and disappointing to anyone who hoped this could be Dem pickup. Wetterling is a great person and a lousy candidate. Bachmann wiped the floor with her during every debate. PW did not come across as confident, knowledgable, and articulate. Bachmann did. Bachmann represents a pretty radical extreme of American politics. But she will win this district because the Dems thought Wetterling’s life story was more important than her skills in public speaking. Mistake.
The Ellison race is another one where some ugliness has developed. Ellison has some flaws, and he deserves to be criticized for them. But it was obvious that much of the opposition to him was driven by the fact that some people find an African-American Muslim a bit unsettling. And really, a more nonthreatening, gentle guy could hardly be imagined. Allan Fine and the curiously tan Tammy Lee (A tan? In Minnesota? In NOVEMBER?) are not going to combine to knock Ellison out.
In the 1st, Tim Walz has run an absolutely great campaign against Gil Gutknecht. He’s an extremely appealing candidate; articulate, aggressive, a man-of-the-people persona, and obviously very smart. His military service and stance on the Iraq war are a strong combination in this environment. However, Gutknecht is a skilled, experienced campaigner and has an excellent record. I think in any other year Gutknecht wins pretty comfortably. This year, Walz may pull it off. Either way, the 1st District has fine representation in D.C.
One thing that may be a topic for post-election discussion is whether the Dems blew it in 2006 in Minnesota. On the whole, the party should do well. They will probably win offices like Secretary of State, Attorney General, and perhaps add to their numbers in the state House and Senate. It would not be surprising if they captured the House back from the Republicans. Yet you have to wonder if the DFL will be left thinking about what might have been. It’s very possible that Hatch’s stumble last week will cost him the Governor’s race. The 6th, 2nd and 1st Districts were in play late in the season. Better candidates, especially in the 6th and 2nd, could have led to pickups for the Dems. (Hard to imagine a better candidate than Walz in the 1st.) Coulda, shoulda, woulda. The DFL may have to be satisfied with holding on to their Senate seat and the 5th CD seat and some downticket victories.
There was a lot more out there.
(A final, note, now that I’ve been checking up on different news sources all day. All the pundits are predicting Wetterling and Hatch will win. Few are predicting Walz will overtake Gutknecht. Maybe that’s just the difference of the view from Washington, D.C. and the view here on the ground, or maybe they’re a lot smarter than me. I really don’t get the Wetterling prediction, since recent polls have shown her behind, and not just by a couple of points… but we’ll see.)
But here in Minnesota, I think we’ve had about as much democracy as we can stand.
The Senate race here is over. Klobuchar walks away with it. Kennedy was supposed to be this great Republican candidate, but I think overall the R’s really overestimated how well a "hard" conservative like MK would do among Minnesota voters. He always did well in his district, I know, but for God’s sake, Michelle Bachmann is going to win that district. And she is the definition of a right wing Christian fundamentalist. So in hindsight, they shoulda gone with a more moderate-appearing candidate like a Coleman or Pawlenty type. Kennedy is not a terrible candidate, just a little too conservative for the state overall.
The Governor’s race well, what can you say. It’s been entertaining. I love Pawlenty as a campaigner. He’s calm, confident, good-humored, optimistic, just a wonderful example of "Minnesota Nice." His policies, on the other hand, are not quite that benign. But when deciding on a face to represent Minnesota, and really that’s part of what we’re doing here, it’s hard not to think TP is a great guy to do that.
Hatch’s meltdown is so classic. I’ve had the opportunity to work with both campaigns, and Pawlenty’s hums along like a machine, while Hatch’s is like a bar fight. Both styles can get you results, but it probably was only a matter of time before Hatch got into trouble. It is so fascinating to think about how this is going to affect the election, but of course we’ll never know, probably. He almost made it through the campaign without flashing that famous temper. So close.
Oh, just for the record, here's a recap: During an interview, Hatch’s running mate drew a blank on what E85 is; it’s a type of ethanol gas, a big deal to farmers and outstate Minnesota. In trying to do damage control, Hatch made things worse by calling a reporter a "Republican whore," then spent a couple days denying he said that, then kind of confirmed it. Amazing.
Hatch had been leading in single digits before all this; the latest polls show him ahead by a couple points. This at a time when Republican candidates nationwide are closing in the polls and firming up their base. Disaster for Hatch, right? Maybe. Or maybe in this state, at this time, Republicans just aren’t as popular, and it won’t be enough to make a difference. Pawlenty’s support has been lukewarm, if I’m reading the polls right. If you squint hard and try to read between the lines of what Pawlenty has said in the past six months, you might conclude that the guy kinda thinks he won’t be reelected. I bet he’s feeling a lot better today than he did last week, though.
In the 2nd Congressional District, Kline keeps his seat easily. Rowley never looked much like a viable candidate to me. Smart, but not disciplined. Not comfortable with the media. Gives off the "loose canon" vibe, which I say, thank god she was one in the FBI. But it’s not going to be a positive in an election.
The Bachmann/Wetterling match up has been really ugly and disappointing to anyone who hoped this could be Dem pickup. Wetterling is a great person and a lousy candidate. Bachmann wiped the floor with her during every debate. PW did not come across as confident, knowledgable, and articulate. Bachmann did. Bachmann represents a pretty radical extreme of American politics. But she will win this district because the Dems thought Wetterling’s life story was more important than her skills in public speaking. Mistake.
The Ellison race is another one where some ugliness has developed. Ellison has some flaws, and he deserves to be criticized for them. But it was obvious that much of the opposition to him was driven by the fact that some people find an African-American Muslim a bit unsettling. And really, a more nonthreatening, gentle guy could hardly be imagined. Allan Fine and the curiously tan Tammy Lee (A tan? In Minnesota? In NOVEMBER?) are not going to combine to knock Ellison out.
In the 1st, Tim Walz has run an absolutely great campaign against Gil Gutknecht. He’s an extremely appealing candidate; articulate, aggressive, a man-of-the-people persona, and obviously very smart. His military service and stance on the Iraq war are a strong combination in this environment. However, Gutknecht is a skilled, experienced campaigner and has an excellent record. I think in any other year Gutknecht wins pretty comfortably. This year, Walz may pull it off. Either way, the 1st District has fine representation in D.C.
One thing that may be a topic for post-election discussion is whether the Dems blew it in 2006 in Minnesota. On the whole, the party should do well. They will probably win offices like Secretary of State, Attorney General, and perhaps add to their numbers in the state House and Senate. It would not be surprising if they captured the House back from the Republicans. Yet you have to wonder if the DFL will be left thinking about what might have been. It’s very possible that Hatch’s stumble last week will cost him the Governor’s race. The 6th, 2nd and 1st Districts were in play late in the season. Better candidates, especially in the 6th and 2nd, could have led to pickups for the Dems. (Hard to imagine a better candidate than Walz in the 1st.) Coulda, shoulda, woulda. The DFL may have to be satisfied with holding on to their Senate seat and the 5th CD seat and some downticket victories.
There was a lot more out there.
(A final, note, now that I’ve been checking up on different news sources all day. All the pundits are predicting Wetterling and Hatch will win. Few are predicting Walz will overtake Gutknecht. Maybe that’s just the difference of the view from Washington, D.C. and the view here on the ground, or maybe they’re a lot smarter than me. I really don’t get the Wetterling prediction, since recent polls have shown her behind, and not just by a couple of points… but we’ll see.)
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Nov. 5
The mid-term elections are Tuesday. I have become a bit obsessed with them, I admit. So just to give myself an outlet, I may be posting a few thoughts here over the next two days.
Where have I been? Oh, you know, having a life. Had a new baby in the past year and that's kept us pretty busy. Also, I have a blog on MySpace now where I post music-related stuff and a few things about life in general. MySpace sucks in many ways, but it's easy and frankly the "community" aspect of it means that more people see what I write, although I'd bet I could count that number without using all my fingers. For a variety of reasons, I've never done much to publicize this blog. Sorry, blog.
So what I'm saying is that I want to blog about politics over the next two days, but I don't want anyone to see it. Make sense? Yeah, not to me either.
Where have I been? Oh, you know, having a life. Had a new baby in the past year and that's kept us pretty busy. Also, I have a blog on MySpace now where I post music-related stuff and a few things about life in general. MySpace sucks in many ways, but it's easy and frankly the "community" aspect of it means that more people see what I write, although I'd bet I could count that number without using all my fingers. For a variety of reasons, I've never done much to publicize this blog. Sorry, blog.
So what I'm saying is that I want to blog about politics over the next two days, but I don't want anyone to see it. Make sense? Yeah, not to me either.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Bad Moon on the Rise
"I hear hurricanes ablowing.
I know the end is coming soon.
I fear rivers over flowing.
I hear the voice of rage and ruin."
John Fogerty
I've been thinking about the cost of Katrina. And I've been trying to do so in a constructive way. It's too easy to keep harping on what a bad job FEMA and the Bush Administration have done, are doing, etc. I certainly think the public needs to keep pressure on the government to step up the rebuilding effort and provide help to the many people who are still suffering the after-effects of the disaster.
But I've been thinking about the next hurricane. Or flood, or other natural disaster. Without being too much of a pessimist, it seems clear to me that we've allowed global warming to get to the point where it's not a question of If we will have more Katrina-style disasters, it's a question of When.
It would be nice if this nation got proactive and started doing something -- anything, really -- to reduce global warming. But I don't expect that to happen while GWB is in office. So things are going to be that much worse if and when some adults take over the leadership of this country.
So let's figure this: we will have more devastating hurricanes. We will have other extreme weather, like droughts or floods. We may start seeing some significant rising of sea levels in the next 10 years. Our major cities and population centers on the coasts are going to be significantly challenged to deal with these types of events.
Like all good liberals, I think the solution is a tax.
As soon as it is politically feasible (and I know that means not before 08 at the least), we should put a reasonable tax on gasoline... 5 cents, a dime, a quarter a gallon? The spike in fuel prices last summer gave ample evidence that most American WILL pay more for gas. I would think we'd want to consider exemptions or some kind of waiver for farmers and/or truck drivers. Not that hard to do really, give 'em a special swipe card they can use with their credit card.
Some of that money should go creating more mass transit. But most of it should go to a fund expressly created to deal with Katrina-like catastrophes. Sure, such a fund might probably won't be a silver bullet; it probably won't be able to cover all costs. But it would ease the burden that Katrina spending is currently putting on our deficit.
I also would put a surcharge on purchases of gas-guzzlers. I believe California already does this. Set a miles-per-gallon target and anything that's above it, charge an extra 10 percent. Yes, it would hurt Hummer sales. So what? Those things are a menace.
All of the above is probably completely unoriginal. I wouldn't be surprised if such proposals had already been tried in Congress. But I hope someone starts thinking seriously about what we will do for the next Katrina, and the next. And the next.
Because I think it's a very safe bet they are coming.
I know the end is coming soon.
I fear rivers over flowing.
I hear the voice of rage and ruin."
John Fogerty
I've been thinking about the cost of Katrina. And I've been trying to do so in a constructive way. It's too easy to keep harping on what a bad job FEMA and the Bush Administration have done, are doing, etc. I certainly think the public needs to keep pressure on the government to step up the rebuilding effort and provide help to the many people who are still suffering the after-effects of the disaster.
But I've been thinking about the next hurricane. Or flood, or other natural disaster. Without being too much of a pessimist, it seems clear to me that we've allowed global warming to get to the point where it's not a question of If we will have more Katrina-style disasters, it's a question of When.
It would be nice if this nation got proactive and started doing something -- anything, really -- to reduce global warming. But I don't expect that to happen while GWB is in office. So things are going to be that much worse if and when some adults take over the leadership of this country.
So let's figure this: we will have more devastating hurricanes. We will have other extreme weather, like droughts or floods. We may start seeing some significant rising of sea levels in the next 10 years. Our major cities and population centers on the coasts are going to be significantly challenged to deal with these types of events.
Like all good liberals, I think the solution is a tax.
As soon as it is politically feasible (and I know that means not before 08 at the least), we should put a reasonable tax on gasoline... 5 cents, a dime, a quarter a gallon? The spike in fuel prices last summer gave ample evidence that most American WILL pay more for gas. I would think we'd want to consider exemptions or some kind of waiver for farmers and/or truck drivers. Not that hard to do really, give 'em a special swipe card they can use with their credit card.
Some of that money should go creating more mass transit. But most of it should go to a fund expressly created to deal with Katrina-like catastrophes. Sure, such a fund might probably won't be a silver bullet; it probably won't be able to cover all costs. But it would ease the burden that Katrina spending is currently putting on our deficit.
I also would put a surcharge on purchases of gas-guzzlers. I believe California already does this. Set a miles-per-gallon target and anything that's above it, charge an extra 10 percent. Yes, it would hurt Hummer sales. So what? Those things are a menace.
All of the above is probably completely unoriginal. I wouldn't be surprised if such proposals had already been tried in Congress. But I hope someone starts thinking seriously about what we will do for the next Katrina, and the next. And the next.
Because I think it's a very safe bet they are coming.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
John Lennon
(from an email I sent around. Not doing much blogging lately, so I thought I'd put it up here.)
John Lennon died 25 years ago today. There have been numerous articles and memorials about this, but something I heard today on public radio was so remarkable I wanted to share it with a few people.
http://www.hearingvoices.com/special/2005/lennon/
This hour-long program has two segments: one features interviews with Lennon and a rather non-linear recounting of his life in and out of the Beatles, the second is a series of memories from different people about when they first heard that he had died. Both segments are astonishing in different ways. What’s also amazing, to my ears, is the use of demo, live, and home recordings both in the background and as segues. At one point we hear "She Said, She Said" evolve from a primitive home recording to a full band version in about 10 seconds.
I heard this program as I was leaving work for lunch, and I immediately changed my plans, went through a drive-through and sat in my car for an hour so as not to miss anything. Also so I could laugh and cry in peace.
Perhaps the most touching moments (for me) were John and Sean Lennon discussing Beatles songs, or John just talking about how much he enjoyed being a father. (Sean was five when Lennon died at age 40). Or one of his fans talking about how her politics and values were influenced by his words and his work.
For those of you in Milwaukee, there have been some good Lennon articles recently. Dave Tianen at the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel did this one:
http://www.jsonline.com/onwisconsin/music/nov05/374332.asp
My friend Blaine Schultz at the Shepherd Express did a piece on
Milwaukee musicians reflecting on Lennon’s death, and was kind enough to include me as one of the people he interviewed:
http://www.shepherd-express.com/12_8_05/cover.htm
One thing I couldn’t stop wondering when I listened to the radio special was what would John Lennon think of the world today. Would he be discouraged? Would he be speaking out, agitating for peace as he did in the 60s and 70s? It’s hard to say. The world has changed since his death; one of the things that changed it was his death.
That’s too negative a note to end on, so I’ll remember what someone said once, that you’re never really dead as long as there is someone who remembers you.
John Lennon will never die.
John Lennon died 25 years ago today. There have been numerous articles and memorials about this, but something I heard today on public radio was so remarkable I wanted to share it with a few people.
http://www.hearingvoices.com/special/2005/lennon/
This hour-long program has two segments: one features interviews with Lennon and a rather non-linear recounting of his life in and out of the Beatles, the second is a series of memories from different people about when they first heard that he had died. Both segments are astonishing in different ways. What’s also amazing, to my ears, is the use of demo, live, and home recordings both in the background and as segues. At one point we hear "She Said, She Said" evolve from a primitive home recording to a full band version in about 10 seconds.
I heard this program as I was leaving work for lunch, and I immediately changed my plans, went through a drive-through and sat in my car for an hour so as not to miss anything. Also so I could laugh and cry in peace.
Perhaps the most touching moments (for me) were John and Sean Lennon discussing Beatles songs, or John just talking about how much he enjoyed being a father. (Sean was five when Lennon died at age 40). Or one of his fans talking about how her politics and values were influenced by his words and his work.
For those of you in Milwaukee, there have been some good Lennon articles recently. Dave Tianen at the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel did this one:
http://www.jsonline.com/onwisconsin/music/nov05/374332.asp
My friend Blaine Schultz at the Shepherd Express did a piece on
Milwaukee musicians reflecting on Lennon’s death, and was kind enough to include me as one of the people he interviewed:
http://www.shepherd-express.com/12_8_05/cover.htm
One thing I couldn’t stop wondering when I listened to the radio special was what would John Lennon think of the world today. Would he be discouraged? Would he be speaking out, agitating for peace as he did in the 60s and 70s? It’s hard to say. The world has changed since his death; one of the things that changed it was his death.
That’s too negative a note to end on, so I’ll remember what someone said once, that you’re never really dead as long as there is someone who remembers you.
John Lennon will never die.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Serenity, Now
I saw Serenity last Friday. The final installment in my must-see Science Fiction Summer movie series noted earlier on this blog. I have to say I am surprised I got to see all four movies (Star Wars III, War o’ the Worlds, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, and Serenity) in the theater. Considering how few movies we get out to these days, I was pretty much figuring that I’d miss at least one.
But it so happens that we (significant other and I) made it to all four. It helps that she, although not strictly a science fiction fan, had at least a passing interest in all four movies, and is a big fan of Serenity director Josh Wheadon and the TV series that spawned the Serenity movie, Firefly.
The bottom line is that Serenity is the best movie of the bunch. Hitchhiker’s was funny at times and did capture some of the brilliant goofiness of the book (or radio series or TV series, whatever), but too often it strained to translate Doug Adam’s whimsy onto the big screen. Star Wars III was not as awful as the last two, but still, pretty bad as far as dialogue and believable plotlines. War of the Worlds was slick and mindless, and really pretty forgettable, despite some respectable work from Tom Cruise.
Wheadon is still establishing his reputation and is relatively young, and it showed, because he took some chances and broke a few rules. For example, he wasn’t afraid to kill off a few key characters. (Sure, Lucas did too this time but NOT SOON ENOUGH.)
And his take on a futuristic society is relatively unique, although questionable in some places. For example, the movie presents us with a single solar system containing what appears to be dozens of inhabited, earth-like planets. Not possible. No amount of terraforming is going to make planets far away from the sun (star) warm enough for the Earth-like conditions we saw at every stop. And if they’re so great at terraforming, why didn’t they just do that in our own solar system? Huh? Come on, vampire man, let’s hear some answers! You’re on my turf now…
Ahem. Anyhow, the one thing I really liked about the movie was Wheadon’s unusual decision to try to write dialogue that is unique to the situation, that is, it reflected the different culture and times the characters were in. This is rarely attempted in science fiction movies anymore, because it can make the movie even more difficult for the masses to follow, and because it can quickly descend into Nanoo Nanoo land.
But Wheadon wades bravely in, having his characters mouth lines that reflect the weird mix of buckskin and hi-tech that first Firefly and now Serenity features. If at times it sounds like Mormons in orbit, so be it. To my ears, it works pretty well, although more than once the SigO and I turned to each other and said, "What did he say?" That just gives us something to look forward to with the DVD.
I suspect this isn’t going to be a big hit, but I hope I’m wrong. Wheadon is a bit of a specialized taste, his audience tends to be a bit more sophisticated, and literate than, say, the demo that thought WotW looked like a rad movie. ("Rad." Even my attempts at snobbishness are out of date. Sigh.)
What I do know is that the crowd at the theater we were in seemed to be made up almost entirely of Firefly fans. They laughed knowingly at the characters’ lines, applauded at the end, and sat through the entire credits—that is, until the projector was turned off, at which point the crowd loudly voiced its disapproval for the quick hook. When a crowd is angry over not being able to see the complete list of grips and set makers, you know you’re dealing with true fans.
None of the big Science Fiction releases this summer (ok, summer/fall) are going to be remembered as classics of the genre, in my opinion. And the reason why is pretty obvious. None of them are new. WotW, remake. HH's Guide, remake, more or less. SWIII, final instalment in an old and tired franchise. Even Serenity, though it might be new to some, is basically a remake, boiling down a TV season into one movie. Like I said, the best of the bunch, but still, it didn't blow me away.
But it so happens that we (significant other and I) made it to all four. It helps that she, although not strictly a science fiction fan, had at least a passing interest in all four movies, and is a big fan of Serenity director Josh Wheadon and the TV series that spawned the Serenity movie, Firefly.
The bottom line is that Serenity is the best movie of the bunch. Hitchhiker’s was funny at times and did capture some of the brilliant goofiness of the book (or radio series or TV series, whatever), but too often it strained to translate Doug Adam’s whimsy onto the big screen. Star Wars III was not as awful as the last two, but still, pretty bad as far as dialogue and believable plotlines. War of the Worlds was slick and mindless, and really pretty forgettable, despite some respectable work from Tom Cruise.
Wheadon is still establishing his reputation and is relatively young, and it showed, because he took some chances and broke a few rules. For example, he wasn’t afraid to kill off a few key characters. (Sure, Lucas did too this time but NOT SOON ENOUGH.)
And his take on a futuristic society is relatively unique, although questionable in some places. For example, the movie presents us with a single solar system containing what appears to be dozens of inhabited, earth-like planets. Not possible. No amount of terraforming is going to make planets far away from the sun (star) warm enough for the Earth-like conditions we saw at every stop. And if they’re so great at terraforming, why didn’t they just do that in our own solar system? Huh? Come on, vampire man, let’s hear some answers! You’re on my turf now…
Ahem. Anyhow, the one thing I really liked about the movie was Wheadon’s unusual decision to try to write dialogue that is unique to the situation, that is, it reflected the different culture and times the characters were in. This is rarely attempted in science fiction movies anymore, because it can make the movie even more difficult for the masses to follow, and because it can quickly descend into Nanoo Nanoo land.
But Wheadon wades bravely in, having his characters mouth lines that reflect the weird mix of buckskin and hi-tech that first Firefly and now Serenity features. If at times it sounds like Mormons in orbit, so be it. To my ears, it works pretty well, although more than once the SigO and I turned to each other and said, "What did he say?" That just gives us something to look forward to with the DVD.
I suspect this isn’t going to be a big hit, but I hope I’m wrong. Wheadon is a bit of a specialized taste, his audience tends to be a bit more sophisticated, and literate than, say, the demo that thought WotW looked like a rad movie. ("Rad." Even my attempts at snobbishness are out of date. Sigh.)
What I do know is that the crowd at the theater we were in seemed to be made up almost entirely of Firefly fans. They laughed knowingly at the characters’ lines, applauded at the end, and sat through the entire credits—that is, until the projector was turned off, at which point the crowd loudly voiced its disapproval for the quick hook. When a crowd is angry over not being able to see the complete list of grips and set makers, you know you’re dealing with true fans.
None of the big Science Fiction releases this summer (ok, summer/fall) are going to be remembered as classics of the genre, in my opinion. And the reason why is pretty obvious. None of them are new. WotW, remake. HH's Guide, remake, more or less. SWIII, final instalment in an old and tired franchise. Even Serenity, though it might be new to some, is basically a remake, boiling down a TV season into one movie. Like I said, the best of the bunch, but still, it didn't blow me away.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Pay for Play
I don’t know much about the music business. This despite the fact that I’ve been IN the music business for more than 20 years. Now, admittedly, my position in the "biz" has been pretty small potatoes (singer-songwriter, made some CDs, got some airplay, that’s about it). But I’ve been involved in different ways and have paid attention to it closely for all of those years, and it still seems like a closed, black box industry to me.
There’s no transparency. Artists don’t know what’s in their contracts. Radio stations rely on shadowy "consultants" to make their playlists. And now we find that the record companies STILL, 50 years after the first scandals shook the industry, engage in payola.
We know this (officially) only because New York’s crusading Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer, took on the industry at a time when the FCC chose to turn a blind eye to what was going on.
What has developed?
"Sony BMG Music Entertainment, one of the top companies in the recording industry, agreed yesterday to pay $10 million to settle allegations that it bribed radio stations," the San Diego Union Tribune reported July 26.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20050726-9999-1n26payola.html
"The practice of giving radio stations "payola," or gifts in exchange for playing specific songs, dates to the 1930s and has been prohibited by federal law for the past 45 years. Still, Spitzer said pay-for-play, as it is also called, is "pervasive within the music industry."
"… The findings of Spitzer's 11-month investigation reveal the extent to which Sony BMG would go to get its songs on the air, then to cover up the true nature of the payments. The findings also show how heavily record companies rely on radio stations to play their music and help boost sales of the songs.
"…In another case, Spitzer uncovered an e-mail to a Hartford, Conn., radio station from a promoter for Epic Records, part of Sony BMG, that said: "WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO GET AUDIOSLAVE ON WKSS THIS WEEK?!!? Whatever you dream up, I can make happen!!!" The promoter was pushing to get the song "Like a Stone" by the rock band Audioslave on the air.
"Spitzer cited examples of radio station personnel getting what he called "bribes" everything from airfare to video game consoles to laptop computers to give airtime to Sony BMG's record labels.
"… According to 59 pages of e-mails and documents Spitzer uncovered, Sony BMG would often demand that a song be played a certain number of times a day, sometimes even specifying the times of day, for the radio station to be eligible for the payout.
"…Spitzer's investigation also found that Sony BMG:
*Hired independent promoters to funnel the money and gifts to radio stations.
*Used interns and others it hired to call in requests for certain songs to trick radio stations into playing them more.
*Bought chunks of advertising time, during which its songs were played to boost ratings in the charts. Such airtime was not differentiated from regular music programs.
*Paid radio stations to cover operational expenses in exchange for playing specific songs."
(LA Times, 7-23)
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-payola23jul23,0,4233398.story
This issue of independent consultants (promoters) is another scandal. I remember when we were trying to get a song on the radio we were told we "had" to hire a consultant who would then "work" the song. The problem is, of course, these consultants pay the stations to play songs. And if they don’t have the big pockets of the labels to fall back on—as ours did not—they really aren’t players in the game at all. We did get a few spins, but what chance does any indie band have in a system like this?
"In a practice once widespread, the promoters acted as middlemen paying radio stations annual fees - often exceeding $100,000 - not, they say, to play specific songs, but to obtain advance copies of the stations' playlists. The promoters then bill labels for each new song played; the total tab costs the industry tens of millions of dollars a year. Under the new rules, Sony cannot reimburse promoters for any expense for a radio station or contest winner."
NYTimes, July 26
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/business/26music.html
Notice: they’re paying the stations for advance copies of the playlist (riiiiiiiiiight), but they’re BILLING the labels for each song played. What a scam.
If you ever wondered why music and especially the music on the radio has gotten so bad in the last 20 years, this story explains a lot. The music industry has become a, well, to be polite, a manure factory. They look for marketable product, not talent, and package it to sell. And they have assumed that we will continue to buy the manure and like it, while they get rich. The artificial, disposable artists that have been paraded across TV and radio are often completely forgettable. But with the music industry’s tight control of commercial radio, as shown by this story, consumers have had to wade through a lot of manure to find anything halfway decent.
So all of you fans of unregulated business, I hope you enjoyed your Britney Spears, Good Charlotte, and Celine Dion. It was the best music money could buy. God knows if things will really improve, but this is a step in the right direction.
There’s no transparency. Artists don’t know what’s in their contracts. Radio stations rely on shadowy "consultants" to make their playlists. And now we find that the record companies STILL, 50 years after the first scandals shook the industry, engage in payola.
We know this (officially) only because New York’s crusading Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer, took on the industry at a time when the FCC chose to turn a blind eye to what was going on.
What has developed?
"Sony BMG Music Entertainment, one of the top companies in the recording industry, agreed yesterday to pay $10 million to settle allegations that it bribed radio stations," the San Diego Union Tribune reported July 26.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20050726-9999-1n26payola.html
"The practice of giving radio stations "payola," or gifts in exchange for playing specific songs, dates to the 1930s and has been prohibited by federal law for the past 45 years. Still, Spitzer said pay-for-play, as it is also called, is "pervasive within the music industry."
"… The findings of Spitzer's 11-month investigation reveal the extent to which Sony BMG would go to get its songs on the air, then to cover up the true nature of the payments. The findings also show how heavily record companies rely on radio stations to play their music and help boost sales of the songs.
"…In another case, Spitzer uncovered an e-mail to a Hartford, Conn., radio station from a promoter for Epic Records, part of Sony BMG, that said: "WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO GET AUDIOSLAVE ON WKSS THIS WEEK?!!? Whatever you dream up, I can make happen!!!" The promoter was pushing to get the song "Like a Stone" by the rock band Audioslave on the air.
"Spitzer cited examples of radio station personnel getting what he called "bribes" everything from airfare to video game consoles to laptop computers to give airtime to Sony BMG's record labels.
"… According to 59 pages of e-mails and documents Spitzer uncovered, Sony BMG would often demand that a song be played a certain number of times a day, sometimes even specifying the times of day, for the radio station to be eligible for the payout.
"…Spitzer's investigation also found that Sony BMG:
*Hired independent promoters to funnel the money and gifts to radio stations.
*Used interns and others it hired to call in requests for certain songs to trick radio stations into playing them more.
*Bought chunks of advertising time, during which its songs were played to boost ratings in the charts. Such airtime was not differentiated from regular music programs.
*Paid radio stations to cover operational expenses in exchange for playing specific songs."
(LA Times, 7-23)
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-payola23jul23,0,4233398.story
This issue of independent consultants (promoters) is another scandal. I remember when we were trying to get a song on the radio we were told we "had" to hire a consultant who would then "work" the song. The problem is, of course, these consultants pay the stations to play songs. And if they don’t have the big pockets of the labels to fall back on—as ours did not—they really aren’t players in the game at all. We did get a few spins, but what chance does any indie band have in a system like this?
"In a practice once widespread, the promoters acted as middlemen paying radio stations annual fees - often exceeding $100,000 - not, they say, to play specific songs, but to obtain advance copies of the stations' playlists. The promoters then bill labels for each new song played; the total tab costs the industry tens of millions of dollars a year. Under the new rules, Sony cannot reimburse promoters for any expense for a radio station or contest winner."
NYTimes, July 26
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/business/26music.html
Notice: they’re paying the stations for advance copies of the playlist (riiiiiiiiiight), but they’re BILLING the labels for each song played. What a scam.
If you ever wondered why music and especially the music on the radio has gotten so bad in the last 20 years, this story explains a lot. The music industry has become a, well, to be polite, a manure factory. They look for marketable product, not talent, and package it to sell. And they have assumed that we will continue to buy the manure and like it, while they get rich. The artificial, disposable artists that have been paraded across TV and radio are often completely forgettable. But with the music industry’s tight control of commercial radio, as shown by this story, consumers have had to wade through a lot of manure to find anything halfway decent.
So all of you fans of unregulated business, I hope you enjoyed your Britney Spears, Good Charlotte, and Celine Dion. It was the best music money could buy. God knows if things will really improve, but this is a step in the right direction.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Justice Goodheart
One of the first things President Bush said about his new Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts, was that the judge has "a good heart."
Oh, that’s a relief. Good to know. And good to know that Bush is not relying on stock platitudes in making one of the most important announcements of his presidency.
I mean, what is with this president and cardiovascular systems? During his first campaign for presidency, he repeatedly talked about what was in his heart. And ever since then, for nearly every appointment he has made, he has said the person in question "has a good heart."
Maybe it’s just a quirk, a phrase that he really likes. Maybe it’s code for something. Maybe it’s just salesmanship. That does seem to be a big part of George Bush’s job, selling people things they are not at all sure they want. I guess if you say your product (nominee) has a good heart, people may be less likely to judge it/them harshly.
"Mr. Smith has a long and distinguished record of using child slaves to strip mine environmentally sensitive areas and then dump the toxic rubble on nursing homes … but he has a good heart." Well, he can’t be all bad, then, can he?
Ironic, isn’t it, that the man he chose to be second in power literally has a bum ticker? I wonder, has George Bush ever described Dick Cheney as a man with a good heart? (If so, critics of the president could once again claim that BUSH LIED!)
Anyhow, John Roberts. It’s a good pick. I can’t come to any other conclusion at this point. I fear for the future of this country with the continued tilt of the SC to the right, but really, that was decided in the last election. The Democrats have every right to raise questions and objections and oppose this nomination if they choose to, but it is almost a certainty that he will be confirmed.
And considering the larger picture, we could have done much worse. This is an intelligent man, held in high regard in legal circles, certainly conservative but not radically so. He’s no Bork, and from what I know of him, he’s not a Thomas or Scalia either, which were the two names Bush has always mentioned as models for his first SC pick.
I think Bush, knowing that his administration is in real trouble over the Plame case and the war in Iraq, wanted an iron-clad nominee, one that would at least have some degree of bipartisan support while still having solid conservative credentials. Roberts seems to fit the bill. This nomination is not as likely to create another divisive controversy that could further damage Bush’s standing, and it shouldn’t alienate his base either. Win-win.
He knows Rehnquist will be gone soon enough. Then, presumably after some of the current troubles have passed, he can nominate another Bork, Thomas or Scalia. Win-win.
And I’m sure that the moment he nominates Mr. Darth Sidious, he will declare that the nominee has a good heart.
Oh, that’s a relief. Good to know. And good to know that Bush is not relying on stock platitudes in making one of the most important announcements of his presidency.
I mean, what is with this president and cardiovascular systems? During his first campaign for presidency, he repeatedly talked about what was in his heart. And ever since then, for nearly every appointment he has made, he has said the person in question "has a good heart."
Maybe it’s just a quirk, a phrase that he really likes. Maybe it’s code for something. Maybe it’s just salesmanship. That does seem to be a big part of George Bush’s job, selling people things they are not at all sure they want. I guess if you say your product (nominee) has a good heart, people may be less likely to judge it/them harshly.
"Mr. Smith has a long and distinguished record of using child slaves to strip mine environmentally sensitive areas and then dump the toxic rubble on nursing homes … but he has a good heart." Well, he can’t be all bad, then, can he?
Ironic, isn’t it, that the man he chose to be second in power literally has a bum ticker? I wonder, has George Bush ever described Dick Cheney as a man with a good heart? (If so, critics of the president could once again claim that BUSH LIED!)
Anyhow, John Roberts. It’s a good pick. I can’t come to any other conclusion at this point. I fear for the future of this country with the continued tilt of the SC to the right, but really, that was decided in the last election. The Democrats have every right to raise questions and objections and oppose this nomination if they choose to, but it is almost a certainty that he will be confirmed.
And considering the larger picture, we could have done much worse. This is an intelligent man, held in high regard in legal circles, certainly conservative but not radically so. He’s no Bork, and from what I know of him, he’s not a Thomas or Scalia either, which were the two names Bush has always mentioned as models for his first SC pick.
I think Bush, knowing that his administration is in real trouble over the Plame case and the war in Iraq, wanted an iron-clad nominee, one that would at least have some degree of bipartisan support while still having solid conservative credentials. Roberts seems to fit the bill. This nomination is not as likely to create another divisive controversy that could further damage Bush’s standing, and it shouldn’t alienate his base either. Win-win.
He knows Rehnquist will be gone soon enough. Then, presumably after some of the current troubles have passed, he can nominate another Bork, Thomas or Scalia. Win-win.
And I’m sure that the moment he nominates Mr. Darth Sidious, he will declare that the nominee has a good heart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)