“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.
Monday, January 21, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)