I only caught the last half hour of the debate between Clinton and Obama tonight. Quite honestly, it was about all I could handle, but I'll throw out my impressions from the bit that I did see.
The thing that struck me most was that it seemed like a much less contentious debate than the Republican one last night. Truly, it seemed like a fireside chat to me, with the moderator, Wolf Blitzer, simply tossing out gentle questions for the two candidates to chuckle about and on which they could slap each other's backs. That really surprised me because of the vicious attacks being thrown back and forth for the past several weeks, but after thinking about it for a while, I think I figured out why.
On almost every single issue discussed, these two held strikingly similar (if not identical) positions. What was there to argue about?
Maybe the arguments happened earlier in the 'debate', but it just seemed so vanilla, and it proves the statement that there really is no difference in platform between them. The only difference is who the voters like and who makes them feel best. Classic identity politics.
I see two problems with this situation. First, the fact that there is no lesser of two 'evils' [I'm not calling Clinton or Obama evil, just using the phrase]. If either Democrat wins the White House, we'll get the same disastrous policies.
Second, and perhaps more importantly at the moment, it allowed both Democrats to focus on their soon-to-be Republican opponents. They're getting a jump on establishing their talking points against the GOP while the Republicans are still debating each other.
I'm guessing these two will be back at each other's throats within the next few days.
Now I need to go take a shower. I feel soiled.
There's my two cents.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
What Do You Think?
The candidate roster has changed in the past couple of days, making my last poll pointless. In case you're interested, here's how the results ended up:
I thought I'd throw a different question up there: who do you think will get the nomination of each party...not who do you want to get it, but who do you think will get it? I'm curious to see what you all think... The poll will end on Super Tuesday.
Thanks for participating!
I thought I'd throw a different question up there: who do you think will get the nomination of each party...not who do you want to get it, but who do you think will get it? I'm curious to see what you all think... The poll will end on Super Tuesday.Thanks for participating!
Link Roundup
Today's links:
- Few politicians stand up for responsible homeowners, and the system enables the irresponsible.
- The city of Berkeley, CA is actively warring against the U.S. military.
- Illegal alien tax rebate loophole closed...kind of.
- Iran's Ahmadinejad resumes his destroy-Israel rhetoric...is he signaling Barack Obama?
- GOP House retirements bode ill for Reps in 2008.
- Showdown looms in Senate for stimulus package...much controversy is involved.
- Republicans Unite, Democrats Divide.
- Dems want to lose, but GOP doesn't want to win.
- Al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan is dead.
- Stimulus package includes indefinite unemployment benefits, which would encourage permanent unemployment.
- DNC appoints known Islamist to 2008 convention committee.
Conservative Dynamics
Rush Limbaugh does an excellent job of breaking down the 'fracture' among conservatives. Here's my paraphrase of his basic idea. There are three basic pieces of the conservative platform:
1. Social
2. Economic
3. National Security
Right now, most of the social conservatives are supporting Mike Huckabee; most of the economic conservatives are supporting Mitt Romney, and most of the national security conservatives are supporting McCain. The left sees this split as the end of conservatism, but that is a short-sighted understanding of what's happening.
In reality, the problem is that there is no single candidate who is drawing large numbers of conservatives from more than one of those pools of voters. As we've all been saying for months, there is no slam dunk CONSERVATIVE candidate in the GOP this time around, and that means there is no broad support for any one candidate. This division amongst the conservative wing of the Republican party has allowed the 'establishment' Reps to drive the agenda, and that means bigger government, more spending, and some other things that lean farther to the left than is normal for the GOP. This is why the party is in disarray - the establishment Reps are more or less the Diet Democrat party, and with the conservative base sorting out our own mess at the moment, there is no countering voice.
At this point, it is totally unrealistic to think that Huckabee will actually win the nomination, even if he wins a handful of states in the south. Overall, he's nowhere close in the national polls. As such, a vote for Huckabee in the remaining primaries is essentially a vote for McCain. This is a message that Romney must get out before Super Tuesday if he wants to take back some momentum.
This idea is being reflected locally, too. Missouri Governor Matt Blunt said the same thing publicly, and encouraged people not to 'waste' their votes on Huckabee. Blunt supports Romney as the strongest conservative left in the race.
Looking at past GOP presidential races, the one backed by conservatives hasn't always won. But, no Republican candidate has won the White House since 1980 without it.
Hopefully this gives you an idea of the dynamics at play here.
There's my two cents.
***UPDATE: I have to issue a partial retraction on my statement that no Rep candidate has won the White House without conservative support - I misread the quote I was referencing, and have not been able to find another one to clarify the statement. I think it's safe to assume, however, that the conservative portion of the Republican base is significant, and any GOP nominee would be hard-pressed to win without it.
1. Social
2. Economic
3. National Security
Right now, most of the social conservatives are supporting Mike Huckabee; most of the economic conservatives are supporting Mitt Romney, and most of the national security conservatives are supporting McCain. The left sees this split as the end of conservatism, but that is a short-sighted understanding of what's happening.
In reality, the problem is that there is no single candidate who is drawing large numbers of conservatives from more than one of those pools of voters. As we've all been saying for months, there is no slam dunk CONSERVATIVE candidate in the GOP this time around, and that means there is no broad support for any one candidate. This division amongst the conservative wing of the Republican party has allowed the 'establishment' Reps to drive the agenda, and that means bigger government, more spending, and some other things that lean farther to the left than is normal for the GOP. This is why the party is in disarray - the establishment Reps are more or less the Diet Democrat party, and with the conservative base sorting out our own mess at the moment, there is no countering voice.
At this point, it is totally unrealistic to think that Huckabee will actually win the nomination, even if he wins a handful of states in the south. Overall, he's nowhere close in the national polls. As such, a vote for Huckabee in the remaining primaries is essentially a vote for McCain. This is a message that Romney must get out before Super Tuesday if he wants to take back some momentum.
This idea is being reflected locally, too. Missouri Governor Matt Blunt said the same thing publicly, and encouraged people not to 'waste' their votes on Huckabee. Blunt supports Romney as the strongest conservative left in the race.
Looking at past GOP presidential races, the one backed by conservatives hasn't always won. But, no Republican candidate has won the White House since 1980 without it.
Hopefully this gives you an idea of the dynamics at play here.
There's my two cents.
***UPDATE: I have to issue a partial retraction on my statement that no Rep candidate has won the White House without conservative support - I misread the quote I was referencing, and have not been able to find another one to clarify the statement. I think it's safe to assume, however, that the conservative portion of the Republican base is significant, and any GOP nominee would be hard-pressed to win without it.
Today's Primary Update
Today's update contains a lot of McCain discussion. Sorry, but that's what's in the news. To get things started with a bang, check out this campaign ad that blows the doors off of John McCain's 'conservatism'. The telling thing about this ad is that it was done by a grassroots group, not Romney or another candidate. Pretty powerful stuff.
Along with that, we have a round-table discussion of NRO writers about how much of a 'Reaganite' McCain is and what he can do to rally the conservative base. They offer lots of suggestions on what he should do to achieve that goal, but John J. Pitney, Jr. puts the point on it: "[B]eing a Reaganite is like being a lady: if you have to say you are, you ain't. The more urgently a politician invokes Reagan to prove conservative credentials, the more skeptical conservatives will become." Bingo!
But there's more. Venerable long-time writer Robert Novak questions some of McCain's conservative credentials in relation to judge appointees and tax issues. Michelle Malkin contrasts McCain's positions on profits, free market, and business with Reagan's. Some key excerpts:
Not exactly business friendly, is he? On the other hand, here's what Reagan said about business:
Very, very telling!
But there's still more...
Terence Jeffrey writes at Townhall.com about the signals from the MSM. The fact that they have anointed McCain should raise red flags for conservatives (and Republicans). Consider:
He goes on:
He adds more specific examples of McCain's inconsistencies, then finishes with:
These are significant problems that are very easy to find, people! Another warning sign is that anytime someone questions McCain on any of these points, he gets defensive and goes on a rant about how he is a patriot, and turns things back to his war hero status. No one is questioning his war hero status, but a whole lot of people would like to question his record, so why doesn't he answer? Because he knows it'll kill his chances of success.
McCain just got an endorsement from -- as Rush Limbaugh calls him -- big taxing, big spending, socialist eco-extreme Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Regardless, all of these questions of McCain needing his conservative base are somewhat moot. McCain hasn't gotten where he is by relying on conservatives. He's pulled just enough of the Rep vote to stay alive, but his red meat demographic is liberals, moderates, and independents. The base is going to have to mount a serious effort to unseat his momentum because it doesn't rely completely on them.
A couple other disturbing details about McCain:
- McCain supports a North American Union (with open borders to Mexico and Canada)
- McCain recently used a racial slur and refuses to back down from it
Too many questions, too many question marks.
One quick note on the Dem side:
Barack Obama is breaking new fundraising records by raising $32 million in January alone. The campaign said they received money from 170,000 new donors over that time, which could be a signal that he is really picking up steam against Hillary.
Now you're up to date!
Along with that, we have a round-table discussion of NRO writers about how much of a 'Reaganite' McCain is and what he can do to rally the conservative base. They offer lots of suggestions on what he should do to achieve that goal, but John J. Pitney, Jr. puts the point on it: "[B]eing a Reaganite is like being a lady: if you have to say you are, you ain't. The more urgently a politician invokes Reagan to prove conservative credentials, the more skeptical conservatives will become." Bingo!
But there's more. Venerable long-time writer Robert Novak questions some of McCain's conservative credentials in relation to judge appointees and tax issues. Michelle Malkin contrasts McCain's positions on profits, free market, and business with Reagan's. Some key excerpts:
HOOK: I want to start with Senator McCain. There's been a lot of discussion lately about the importance of leadership and management experience. What makes you more qualified than Mitt Romney, a successful CEO and businessman, to manage our economy?
MCCAIN: Because I know how to lead. I know how to lead. I led the largest squadron in the United States Navy. And I did it out of patriotism, not for profit.
COOPER: I'm going to ask you all for follow-ups on this, but, Senator McCain, I just want to give you an opportunity to follow up on that. Is Governor Romney ready to be a military commander?
MCCAIN: Oh, I'm sure that, as I say, he's a fine man. And I think he managed companies, and he bought, and he sold, and sometimes people lost their jobs. That's the nature of that business.
MCCAIN: I think that we've got to return to the principle that you don't lend money that can't pay it back. I think that there's some greedy people on Wall Street that perhaps need to be punished.
Not exactly business friendly, is he? On the other hand, here's what Reagan said about business:
Political demagogues aided by spokesmen for a variety of causes, some worthy in themselves but questionable as to whether they're a proper concern of government, have created a political and economic mythology widely believed by too many people. This is why we need the communications. This, more than anything else, has increased government's ability to interfere, as it does, in the marketplace. "Profit" is a dirty word, blamed for most of our social ills. In the interest of something called "consumerism," free enterprise is becoming far less free. Property rights are being reduced and even eliminated in the name of environmental protection. It is time that a voice be raised on behalf of the 73 million, pointing out that profit, property rights, and freedom are inseparable and you cannot have the third unless you continue to be entitled to have the first two.
"The best minds are not in government; if they were, business would steal them away."
Very, very telling!
But there's still more...
Terence Jeffrey writes at Townhall.com about the signals from the MSM. The fact that they have anointed McCain should raise red flags for conservatives (and Republicans). Consider:
John McCain is the liberal elite's go-to guy in the GOP. They believe he'll be there for them when they need him. That was the essential message of last week's New York Times editorial endorsing McCain for the Republican nomination.
"With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field," said the Times. "We have shuddered at McCain's occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle."
What the Times is saying here is that it does not take McCain's conservative campaign-season rhetoric seriously. No, they're convinced the man on the Straight Talk Express is railroading Republican primary voters.
Long experience has taught the Times to read McCain's sign language. No matter what contortions McCain undergoes to shape this language, its message is reassuringly constant from the left's point of view. It says: I am no threat to the liberal agenda.
He goes on:
Two Senate votes taken a day apart are illustrative. On June 7, 2006, McCain voted against a cloture motion that would have allowed the full Senate to vote yes or no on the Federal Marriage Amendment. Then, on June 8, 2006, he voted for a cloture motion that would have allowed the full Senate to vote yes or no on the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which would have allowed Native Hawaiians to create a race-based separate nation within the United States.
In both instances, McCain voted with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and against most Senate Republicans.
McCain professed deep support for the underlying purpose of the marriage amendment, he just opposed allowing colleagues to vote on it. Conversely, he expressed deep opposition to the underlying purpose of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act -- he just supported allowing colleagues to vote on it. Each time, McCain gave rhetoric to the right and material cooperation to the left.
In the process, he demonstrated radical inconsistency in his willingness to defend federalism, a principal he says is at the core of his beliefs.
He adds more specific examples of McCain's inconsistencies, then finishes with:
McCain's deference to what liberal's wanted trumped his vaunted deference to federalism. When push comes to shove, would it be any different if he becomes president?
These are significant problems that are very easy to find, people! Another warning sign is that anytime someone questions McCain on any of these points, he gets defensive and goes on a rant about how he is a patriot, and turns things back to his war hero status. No one is questioning his war hero status, but a whole lot of people would like to question his record, so why doesn't he answer? Because he knows it'll kill his chances of success.
McCain just got an endorsement from -- as Rush Limbaugh calls him -- big taxing, big spending, socialist eco-extreme Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Regardless, all of these questions of McCain needing his conservative base are somewhat moot. McCain hasn't gotten where he is by relying on conservatives. He's pulled just enough of the Rep vote to stay alive, but his red meat demographic is liberals, moderates, and independents. The base is going to have to mount a serious effort to unseat his momentum because it doesn't rely completely on them.
A couple other disturbing details about McCain:
- McCain supports a North American Union (with open borders to Mexico and Canada)
- McCain recently used a racial slur and refuses to back down from it
Too many questions, too many question marks.
One quick note on the Dem side:
Barack Obama is breaking new fundraising records by raising $32 million in January alone. The campaign said they received money from 170,000 new donors over that time, which could be a signal that he is really picking up steam against Hillary.
Now you're up to date!
The Clintons And Racism In The New Century
Selwyn Duke writes an outstanding piece regarding the Clintons' use of racism in their campaign. It opens a window into the modus operandi of the Clintons, as well as makes an interesting prediction on their tactic. It's worth taking a moment to read the whole thing:
Since I think the Clintons would probably sell their souls and firstborn for another White House tenure, the idea they would play the race card raises no eyebrow here. They are political creatures first, everything else second and statesmen last. For this to elude one, he must have his head planted firmly in a particularly dense grade of sand.
Man of letters Christopher Hitchens understands this; while by no means a member of the "Vast Right-wing Conspiracy," he writes eloquently about the Clintons' long history of racial "thuggery and opportunism." Even more significant are the pronouncements of Dick Morris, Bill's erstwhile propaganda minister. His thesis is that Hillary wanted the black vote in South Carolina to coalesce for Obama so that she'd lose the state big, and she wanted this electoral shift to be visible and much ballyhooed in the media. Witnessing this, the white vote in other states would then circle the wagons around her, and, with their numerical superiority, the nomination would be hers.
Or so the theory goes.
Although Morris' political prognostications leave much to be desired (he specializes in stating as fact predictions that never come to pass), I believe he understands the Clintons' character almost as well as anyone. This is a man who knew them intimately enough to, as he relates the story, be physically tackled by an enraged Bill in the Arkansas governor's mansion and then told by Hillary, "He only does this to people he loves." So if he swears the Clintons were playing the race card, I take it seriously.
What I am doubtful of is that it would work.
This strategy rests on the assumption that whites feel such a sense of racial patriotism -- or such fear of black political power -- that any candidate seen as a guarantor of black interests will send them running into the arms of the best great white hope. This is the liberal view of the world.
It's also not reality.
I ask you, how many whites do you know who fit that profile? Sure, there are bigots in every group, but my experience with fellow whites tells me they're the exception, not the rule. In fact, when I think of all the people I have ever known, I remember precious few who I believe would have voted based on racial considerations. Even more to the point, a groundswell of black support isn't necessary to alienate such individuals from a black candidate. His skin color is more than enough.
This isn't to say that whites won't be swayed by the injection of a racial element; it is to say that I don't think they would all sway in Clinton's direction. And those who don't understand why, well, perhaps they've missed the last 50 years of societal evolution.
History tells us that man does indeed exhibit great ethnic and racial patriotism and that whites were no exception.
But the operative word is "were."
For many decades now whites have been inculcated with multiculturalism and a good dose of self-loathing (ever hear of white guilt?). Many white children are raised with the idea that the worst thing one can be is a bigot; in fact, they are taught that even contemplating the existence of racial differences is a deadly sin (even when those differences might be real).
Also consider the exaltation of gansta' culture. Millions of white youths listen to rap music, and no small number of them parade around small white-picket-fence towns dressed like gang-bangers. It's even said that in certain parts of California it's no longer "cool" to be white. Now, to such a mind, what kind of candidate would be more appealing, a white or black one? This, by the way, partially explains Obama's popularity among young voters.
Thus, while bigotry has some place in every community -- as do all sins -- in the white one a greater place is occupied by an even greater sin: Political correctness. There are whites -- especially in the ranks of the Democrats -- who will vote for a black man simply because of his skin color. To them it is a matter of practicing what they preach, of electoral activism, of feeling open-minded and tolerant. It does wonders for their self-image.
So the truth is that the George Wallace routine -- even when done with subtlety -- no longer plays in Peoria. Yet this fact eludes Dick Morris, the Clintons and most of the media for a simple reason: Their own prejudices.
To liberals, the terra firma between New York and Los Angeles is merely an impediment to travel between those two locales and to electing a purebred socialist to office. It's a land inhabited by people who not only own guns, but also still load them from the barrel end, a place where every sheriff is a Bull Connor.
I'll illustrate this attitude with a little anecdote. About 20 years ago I found myself in a political discussion with a very liberal young gal in rural upstate New York. It didn't take long to ascertain that marriage was not in the offing. Among the many inanities she assaulted me with was the idea that those northern reaches of the Empire State were a veritable hotbed of Klan activity.
Yes, that would be the Ku Klux Klan.
Now, as a native New Yorker, I can assure you that the only place you find white sheets in said area is on beds. You'll see orthodox Jews with beards and yarmulkes there, but never burning crosses. Yet little miss was sure of her impression. She could not be disabused.
This is the standard liberal view of the world. When former Democrat mayor of Atlanta Bill Campbell (who was later indicted and charged with fraud) called conservative legal groups "a homogenized version of the Klan" and said, "They may have traded in their sheets for suits, but it's the same old racism," don't think it was just political rhetoric. In some measure, this is what most liberals believe.
So I can't say for sure the Clintons played on race, although Dick Morris may very well be right. What they're all wrong about is thinking it would work, for these aren't the days of yore; there isn't really a white hood around every corner. Theirs is a 50-year-old calculation.
Now here is my more contemporary one. It doesn't take racial games to make bigots and the irredeemably politically correct vote their passions, but what of those in-between who could be swayed? After all, as is so often the case in elections, it's the "swing voter" who breaks the deadlock between intransigent extremes. My sense is that if a white candidate is perceived as exploiting race, it's probable that he will alienate more people than he will attract.
We should also remember that it was the voters of Iowa - a state 94.5 percent white - who resurrected Barack Obama's flagging campaign, favoring him over two white opponents. And if liberals believe the outcome would have been different had the race card been pulled, they dream.
Of course, this is where many will point out that Iowa isn't middle America.
But 2008 isn't 1958, either.
Maybe it's time for the left to step into the 21st century.
Man of letters Christopher Hitchens understands this; while by no means a member of the "Vast Right-wing Conspiracy," he writes eloquently about the Clintons' long history of racial "thuggery and opportunism." Even more significant are the pronouncements of Dick Morris, Bill's erstwhile propaganda minister. His thesis is that Hillary wanted the black vote in South Carolina to coalesce for Obama so that she'd lose the state big, and she wanted this electoral shift to be visible and much ballyhooed in the media. Witnessing this, the white vote in other states would then circle the wagons around her, and, with their numerical superiority, the nomination would be hers.
Or so the theory goes.
Although Morris' political prognostications leave much to be desired (he specializes in stating as fact predictions that never come to pass), I believe he understands the Clintons' character almost as well as anyone. This is a man who knew them intimately enough to, as he relates the story, be physically tackled by an enraged Bill in the Arkansas governor's mansion and then told by Hillary, "He only does this to people he loves." So if he swears the Clintons were playing the race card, I take it seriously.
What I am doubtful of is that it would work.
This strategy rests on the assumption that whites feel such a sense of racial patriotism -- or such fear of black political power -- that any candidate seen as a guarantor of black interests will send them running into the arms of the best great white hope. This is the liberal view of the world.
It's also not reality.
I ask you, how many whites do you know who fit that profile? Sure, there are bigots in every group, but my experience with fellow whites tells me they're the exception, not the rule. In fact, when I think of all the people I have ever known, I remember precious few who I believe would have voted based on racial considerations. Even more to the point, a groundswell of black support isn't necessary to alienate such individuals from a black candidate. His skin color is more than enough.
This isn't to say that whites won't be swayed by the injection of a racial element; it is to say that I don't think they would all sway in Clinton's direction. And those who don't understand why, well, perhaps they've missed the last 50 years of societal evolution.
History tells us that man does indeed exhibit great ethnic and racial patriotism and that whites were no exception.
But the operative word is "were."
For many decades now whites have been inculcated with multiculturalism and a good dose of self-loathing (ever hear of white guilt?). Many white children are raised with the idea that the worst thing one can be is a bigot; in fact, they are taught that even contemplating the existence of racial differences is a deadly sin (even when those differences might be real).
Also consider the exaltation of gansta' culture. Millions of white youths listen to rap music, and no small number of them parade around small white-picket-fence towns dressed like gang-bangers. It's even said that in certain parts of California it's no longer "cool" to be white. Now, to such a mind, what kind of candidate would be more appealing, a white or black one? This, by the way, partially explains Obama's popularity among young voters.
Thus, while bigotry has some place in every community -- as do all sins -- in the white one a greater place is occupied by an even greater sin: Political correctness. There are whites -- especially in the ranks of the Democrats -- who will vote for a black man simply because of his skin color. To them it is a matter of practicing what they preach, of electoral activism, of feeling open-minded and tolerant. It does wonders for their self-image.
So the truth is that the George Wallace routine -- even when done with subtlety -- no longer plays in Peoria. Yet this fact eludes Dick Morris, the Clintons and most of the media for a simple reason: Their own prejudices.
To liberals, the terra firma between New York and Los Angeles is merely an impediment to travel between those two locales and to electing a purebred socialist to office. It's a land inhabited by people who not only own guns, but also still load them from the barrel end, a place where every sheriff is a Bull Connor.
I'll illustrate this attitude with a little anecdote. About 20 years ago I found myself in a political discussion with a very liberal young gal in rural upstate New York. It didn't take long to ascertain that marriage was not in the offing. Among the many inanities she assaulted me with was the idea that those northern reaches of the Empire State were a veritable hotbed of Klan activity.
Yes, that would be the Ku Klux Klan.
Now, as a native New Yorker, I can assure you that the only place you find white sheets in said area is on beds. You'll see orthodox Jews with beards and yarmulkes there, but never burning crosses. Yet little miss was sure of her impression. She could not be disabused.
This is the standard liberal view of the world. When former Democrat mayor of Atlanta Bill Campbell (who was later indicted and charged with fraud) called conservative legal groups "a homogenized version of the Klan" and said, "They may have traded in their sheets for suits, but it's the same old racism," don't think it was just political rhetoric. In some measure, this is what most liberals believe.
So I can't say for sure the Clintons played on race, although Dick Morris may very well be right. What they're all wrong about is thinking it would work, for these aren't the days of yore; there isn't really a white hood around every corner. Theirs is a 50-year-old calculation.
Now here is my more contemporary one. It doesn't take racial games to make bigots and the irredeemably politically correct vote their passions, but what of those in-between who could be swayed? After all, as is so often the case in elections, it's the "swing voter" who breaks the deadlock between intransigent extremes. My sense is that if a white candidate is perceived as exploiting race, it's probable that he will alienate more people than he will attract.
We should also remember that it was the voters of Iowa - a state 94.5 percent white - who resurrected Barack Obama's flagging campaign, favoring him over two white opponents. And if liberals believe the outcome would have been different had the race card been pulled, they dream.
Of course, this is where many will point out that Iowa isn't middle America.
But 2008 isn't 1958, either.
Maybe it's time for the left to step into the 21st century.
GOP Debate Impressions
The debate was much better last night with fewer time limits and more in-depth answers (as I suggested it might be several weeks ago). After sleeping on it, here are my impressions:
John McCain
McCain came off as a surly old man who was devoted to his talking points no matter how tired they sounded. I can't count the number of times he mentioned being one of 'Reagan's foot soldiers', but it got seriously annoying after 90 minutes. He also looked very petty when Anderson Cooper questioned him on his week-long attack on Romney's timetables for Iraq. Romney called him out, asking how McCain could be the expert on Romney's own words, but McCain refused to budge from his position. Not his best moment. He had some good answers on national security, of course, but looked very weak on amnest...I mean, immigration. I think he's been irreparably damaged by his actions on that one. He's saying the right things now, but even his biggest supporters have to wonder if he would actually carry through or not. Given that his top staff are open-borders fanatics, I'd be shocked if he did actually close the borders like he promises, and it would all be downhill from there. He also seemed a bit weak to me on taxes - at one point, he said we needed to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, but then turned around within minutes and defended why he voted (twice) against Bush's tax cuts. Overall, this was not McCain's best performance. His only clear strength is national security, and as long as he can focus the conversation there, he looks good. Conversely, when he is forced to confront his own record -- especially on McCain-Feingold, amnesty, and tax cuts -- he tanks.
Mitt Romney
This seemed to be a pretty good outing for Romney. He got a chance to express his frustration about McCain's recent attack ads and explain the facts behind his opponent's implications. He explained how the study McCain cited that showed Massachusetts losing jobs actually included his predecessor's term; he gave detailed figures on the budget situation he left in Massachusetts; he blasted McCain for his complete misrepresentation of the timetable mess. Romney seemed to show the right mix of professionalism and fire, and came off looking like the closest thing to presidential in the room.
Mike Huckabee
Huck's got to be irritated by this debate! The questioners made it pretty clear that this is a two-horse race, and Huckabee is no longer one of the prime time guys. At one point, Cooper promised he would 'shower' Huckabee with questions, but quickly moved back to McCain/Romney. Later, Huckabee commented that the spigot must have been turned off, which was a pretty good laugh line. Huckabee is clearly the most gifted orator of the bunch, and gave a couple of answers stirring enough to inspire an army to attack the Black Gates of Mordor, but he faces a similar problem as McCain - what he says now doesn't match his record. While it's one thing to switch positions on a single issue due to study and experience, Huckabee is struggling to explain several questionable positions, including illegal immigration, tax hikes, and clemency for criminals. He did score some major points against his Congressional brethren when he talked about why Governors are more qualified to be President, drawing the similarity that running a state is a microcosm of running the country. He explained very well how the total understanding and handling of a state's workings would prepare a governor for the total understanding and handling of the country's workings. He's right, too - very few Congressmen become President, but governors often do. Overall, Huckabee looked like a brilliantly silver-tongued also-ran.
Ron Paul
Where does this guy get his money? I have no idea who is supporting him, but they must be hardcore because this guy's a nut. He's very solid on smaller government and cutting taxes, but his foreign policy would plunge the world into a 3rd world dictator's dream. He advocates pulling our military out of the entire Middle East (and most of the rest of the world, it sounds like) regardless of the cost. He doesn't believe we should have gone to war in Iraq, and would immediately bring our troops home (the only GOP candidate to agree with the Dems on this point). He has to be pretty ticked off about this debate, too, because at one point Cooper cut him off and promised to come back to him, but I don't recall that that ever happened.
So, what were my overall impressions? I'm still not sold on any of them. Ron Paul is completely out of the question - the primary responsibility of the President is to protect America, and using the military abroad (which he will not do) is critical. Huckabee sounds terrific, and I have no doubt that he'd wipe the floor with either of the Dems in a live debate. He's also got the executive experience from his decade of being Governor of Arkansas, but his weakness is that his positions don't match his record. Similarly, McCain would be okay as a liberal Republican, but he keeps insisting he's a conservative's conservative, and his record simply doesn't bear that out. I hate it when politicians lie to me -- especially to my face...does he really think I'm too stupid to figure it out?! -- and that's exactly what he's doing. Not cool, not cool. He would be the most likely to steal votes from Dems and Indies, but isn't the point of this process to gather as many Rep votes as possible? He's got a history of alienating his base when it most counts, and that makes him a suspect candidate at best. And that leaves us with Romney. While I'm uncomfortable with his position on abortion and a couple of other things that appear to be position changes (depending on who you listen to), he also has the governorship experience, and he must be doing something right to be a Rep Governor in a very Dem state. He's also got the business savvy that seems to be missing from most career politicians, and he's absolutely correct in his talking point that Washington is broken and needs an outsider to fix it. Overall, to me, he seems like the least bad choice. With all of these guys (except Paul), I think the big question we as voting Republicans have to answer is whether we believe what the candidates are saying now or what their records show. If nothing else, it shows you their consistency and character (if they lie or spin about past actions), and that alone is something worth voting on.
I'm still not sure who I will support next Tuesday. Do you?
There's my two cents.
John McCain
McCain came off as a surly old man who was devoted to his talking points no matter how tired they sounded. I can't count the number of times he mentioned being one of 'Reagan's foot soldiers', but it got seriously annoying after 90 minutes. He also looked very petty when Anderson Cooper questioned him on his week-long attack on Romney's timetables for Iraq. Romney called him out, asking how McCain could be the expert on Romney's own words, but McCain refused to budge from his position. Not his best moment. He had some good answers on national security, of course, but looked very weak on amnest...I mean, immigration. I think he's been irreparably damaged by his actions on that one. He's saying the right things now, but even his biggest supporters have to wonder if he would actually carry through or not. Given that his top staff are open-borders fanatics, I'd be shocked if he did actually close the borders like he promises, and it would all be downhill from there. He also seemed a bit weak to me on taxes - at one point, he said we needed to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, but then turned around within minutes and defended why he voted (twice) against Bush's tax cuts. Overall, this was not McCain's best performance. His only clear strength is national security, and as long as he can focus the conversation there, he looks good. Conversely, when he is forced to confront his own record -- especially on McCain-Feingold, amnesty, and tax cuts -- he tanks.
Mitt Romney
This seemed to be a pretty good outing for Romney. He got a chance to express his frustration about McCain's recent attack ads and explain the facts behind his opponent's implications. He explained how the study McCain cited that showed Massachusetts losing jobs actually included his predecessor's term; he gave detailed figures on the budget situation he left in Massachusetts; he blasted McCain for his complete misrepresentation of the timetable mess. Romney seemed to show the right mix of professionalism and fire, and came off looking like the closest thing to presidential in the room.
Mike Huckabee
Huck's got to be irritated by this debate! The questioners made it pretty clear that this is a two-horse race, and Huckabee is no longer one of the prime time guys. At one point, Cooper promised he would 'shower' Huckabee with questions, but quickly moved back to McCain/Romney. Later, Huckabee commented that the spigot must have been turned off, which was a pretty good laugh line. Huckabee is clearly the most gifted orator of the bunch, and gave a couple of answers stirring enough to inspire an army to attack the Black Gates of Mordor, but he faces a similar problem as McCain - what he says now doesn't match his record. While it's one thing to switch positions on a single issue due to study and experience, Huckabee is struggling to explain several questionable positions, including illegal immigration, tax hikes, and clemency for criminals. He did score some major points against his Congressional brethren when he talked about why Governors are more qualified to be President, drawing the similarity that running a state is a microcosm of running the country. He explained very well how the total understanding and handling of a state's workings would prepare a governor for the total understanding and handling of the country's workings. He's right, too - very few Congressmen become President, but governors often do. Overall, Huckabee looked like a brilliantly silver-tongued also-ran.
Ron Paul
Where does this guy get his money? I have no idea who is supporting him, but they must be hardcore because this guy's a nut. He's very solid on smaller government and cutting taxes, but his foreign policy would plunge the world into a 3rd world dictator's dream. He advocates pulling our military out of the entire Middle East (and most of the rest of the world, it sounds like) regardless of the cost. He doesn't believe we should have gone to war in Iraq, and would immediately bring our troops home (the only GOP candidate to agree with the Dems on this point). He has to be pretty ticked off about this debate, too, because at one point Cooper cut him off and promised to come back to him, but I don't recall that that ever happened.
So, what were my overall impressions? I'm still not sold on any of them. Ron Paul is completely out of the question - the primary responsibility of the President is to protect America, and using the military abroad (which he will not do) is critical. Huckabee sounds terrific, and I have no doubt that he'd wipe the floor with either of the Dems in a live debate. He's also got the executive experience from his decade of being Governor of Arkansas, but his weakness is that his positions don't match his record. Similarly, McCain would be okay as a liberal Republican, but he keeps insisting he's a conservative's conservative, and his record simply doesn't bear that out. I hate it when politicians lie to me -- especially to my face...does he really think I'm too stupid to figure it out?! -- and that's exactly what he's doing. Not cool, not cool. He would be the most likely to steal votes from Dems and Indies, but isn't the point of this process to gather as many Rep votes as possible? He's got a history of alienating his base when it most counts, and that makes him a suspect candidate at best. And that leaves us with Romney. While I'm uncomfortable with his position on abortion and a couple of other things that appear to be position changes (depending on who you listen to), he also has the governorship experience, and he must be doing something right to be a Rep Governor in a very Dem state. He's also got the business savvy that seems to be missing from most career politicians, and he's absolutely correct in his talking point that Washington is broken and needs an outsider to fix it. Overall, to me, he seems like the least bad choice. With all of these guys (except Paul), I think the big question we as voting Republicans have to answer is whether we believe what the candidates are saying now or what their records show. If nothing else, it shows you their consistency and character (if they lie or spin about past actions), and that alone is something worth voting on.
I'm still not sure who I will support next Tuesday. Do you?
There's my two cents.
The Streak Is Over!
Kansas State fans had come to call it The Streak, 24 years of home-court futility against Kansas. All they had to do was wait for one of the greatest players in school history to be born and come to their rescue. Read more...
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Last Debates Before Super Tuesday
With the recent slimming of the field in both parties, we could actually see some depth (we can hope, right?) in the last debates being held before Super Tuesday next week. If you want to see the remaining candidates for yourself, here are the details:
Personally, I'll be watching the KU/KSU basketball game tonight (the first time in something like the last 50 years that they've played while both teams are ranked), but the DVR will be dutifully recording the debate for later consumption. :)
Go Cats!
Enjoy!
Republican --- Wednesday, January 30th (tonight) at 8:00pm ET on CNN
Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney
Democrat --- Thursday, January 31st (tomorrow night) at 8:00pm ET on CNNHillary Clinton, Barack Obama
Personally, I'll be watching the KU/KSU basketball game tonight (the first time in something like the last 50 years that they've played while both teams are ranked), but the DVR will be dutifully recording the debate for later consumption. :)
Go Cats!
Enjoy!
Stimulus Package Took A Major Swerve
Now that the Senate is looking into the House's 'stimulus' package, we find a(nother) huge, gaping, glaring, ugly hole: illegal immigrants will receive these tax 'refund' checks, too.
Sen. John Ensign is attempting to introduce language that would bar illegal aliens from receiving these checks that should only go to legal tax-paying citizens, and it appears that Democrats are willing to play ball, at least for the moment. Given their track record of trying to secure benefits for illegals, though, it's a legitimate question on whether or not they'll follow through. House aids are suggesting that this loophole doesn't exist, citing the following reasons:
Uh-huh. Exactly how likely do you think illegal immigrants are going to be to not steal or fabricate a SSN or commit tax fraud? Are they going to break the law to get here and take up permanent residence, and then suddenly stop breaking the law after that? Do they really think the American people are that blindly stupid? Get real! Michelle Malkin's response is:
Regardless of whether or not this loophole was intended, it should be very informative to see how the Senate actually votes on closing it, especially the presidential candidates.
There's another unspoken point hidden in here, too: if the government is planning to send tax 'refund' checks to illegal aliens as part of this 'stimulus', that would mean they have names and addresses, right? If they have names and addresses, then they must know where a lot of illegal aliens are, so that might possibly lead to the question of...wait for it...wait for it...
WHY HAVEN'T THEY BEEN DEPORTED?!?!?!
There's my two cents.
Sen. John Ensign is attempting to introduce language that would bar illegal aliens from receiving these checks that should only go to legal tax-paying citizens, and it appears that Democrats are willing to play ball, at least for the moment. Given their track record of trying to secure benefits for illegals, though, it's a legitimate question on whether or not they'll follow through. House aids are suggesting that this loophole doesn't exist, citing the following reasons:
1. The bill includes language similar to the provisions included in the 2001 and 2003 tax relief bills designed specifically to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving benefits. There is no language in the measure that would enable illegal immigrants to receive a tax rebate.
2. Illegal immigrants who steal or fabricate a Social Security number are NOT ELIGIBLE to receive checks under the House bill.
3. An illegal immigrant who files taxes based on stolen or fraudulent information in order to attempt to receive a check under the House bill is committing tax fraud.
Uh-huh. Exactly how likely do you think illegal immigrants are going to be to not steal or fabricate a SSN or commit tax fraud? Are they going to break the law to get here and take up permanent residence, and then suddenly stop breaking the law after that? Do they really think the American people are that blindly stupid? Get real! Michelle Malkin's response is:
1) There's no harm in clarifying the language in a proactive, ironclad way to make certain it's barred by law. Right?
2) We know enough about how understaffed and shortchanged "ongoing enforcement and program integrity efforts" are to know that fraud will happen, it will go undetected or unpunished, and these checks will get into illegal aliens' hands. We also know that in the land of reality, ITINs [Individual Tax Identification Numbers] are being used by illegal aliens for work, for banking purposes, to obtain driver's licenses, to obtain home loans, and to file tax returns.
Regardless of whether or not this loophole was intended, it should be very informative to see how the Senate actually votes on closing it, especially the presidential candidates.
There's another unspoken point hidden in here, too: if the government is planning to send tax 'refund' checks to illegal aliens as part of this 'stimulus', that would mean they have names and addresses, right? If they have names and addresses, then they must know where a lot of illegal aliens are, so that might possibly lead to the question of...wait for it...wait for it...
WHY HAVEN'T THEY BEEN DEPORTED?!?!?!
There's my two cents.
Big Brother Is Coming...
Just a few recent stories of efforts to exert more and more control over people...
First, the Internet. A lot of people think that the Internet is completely without boundaries, and that no one can prevent anyone from finding anything out there. That is simply not true. Everyone who connects to the Internet has to go through a gatekeeper called an 'Internet Service Provider'. The ISP is the company that controls the network equipment that allows your computer access to everyone else's through a flow of data.
That flow of data can be restricted and/or controlled.
There are a number of controls that could be put in place on the Internet. ISPs could be filter out websites or data that are considered 'objectionable'. Think it can't happen? Google and Yahoo have already agreed to let the Communist government of China filter out things they don't like (such as the Tiananmen Square massacre). AT&T, the U.S.'s largest ISP, is considering filtering copyrighted content, and Comcast, the second largest ISP, has already begun some filtering of peer-to-peer networks regardless of the legality of the content. There are lawsuits all over the place from free speech groups and scholars, so the battle is in full swing. But it doesn't stop at filtering content.
The aim is squarely at your pocketbook.
Time Warner Cable is experimenting with creating pricing tiers for customers based on how much they download. Power users would be required to pay more than light users. Does this structure sound familiar at all? You got it - taxes! The rich pay far more taxes than the poor, and this experiment is set up exactly the same way.
Speaking of taxes, I blogged last fall about Congress' move to address the moratorium on not taxing the Internet (i.e. sales tax on Internet purchases). Fortunately, they extended the moratorium, but it's not permanent. Trust me when I tell you that our wonderful politicians are salivating over the possibility of taxing Internet purchases. Amazon.com alone makes over $1 billion a year, and that's just ONE company. Can you imagine how much money tapping the vast purchasing landscape of the Internet would rake in? They'd love to put this tax on the Internet, and that would affect you directly.
But, it gets even more sinister. Microsoft is now working on a patent for software that actually watches you while you work at your computer, monitoring your performance by measuring their heart rate, body temperature, movement, facial expression and blood pressure and sending the information straight to your management. If that doesn't chill your blood, I'm not sure what will!
It's not just technology, though. The liberal philosophy affects all aspects of life, seeking to consolidate control in an all-powerful government. Another case in point is that young girls (as young as 12) in the U.K. are being given the morning after pill without their parents' consent! The thought here is that the school (which is controlled by government) knows what's best for the child more so than the parents.
I am planning a blog at some future date about one of the founders of a very sneaky and powerful movement that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (as well as many other liberals today) follow. My point here is that the control is the key, and liberals believe there is never enough control. If there is any opposition, it has to be crushed. If there is any dissention, is has to be silenced. This may sound hard to believe, but just take a look at how these people operate. The evidence is there, for anyone willing to 'connect the dots'.
This is why conservatism is vital to the both the success and the survival of America - it seeks to distribute power to the people, where it cannot be abused. As a single person or a small select group of people gain more and more power, that power can be abused more and more easily, like a tyrant dictator or monarch. A conservative nation is a natural preventative for that kind of abuse.
That's why I keep chanting about this conflict between liberalism and conservatism. It is the quintessential question of the day.
There's my two cents.
First, the Internet. A lot of people think that the Internet is completely without boundaries, and that no one can prevent anyone from finding anything out there. That is simply not true. Everyone who connects to the Internet has to go through a gatekeeper called an 'Internet Service Provider'. The ISP is the company that controls the network equipment that allows your computer access to everyone else's through a flow of data.
That flow of data can be restricted and/or controlled.
There are a number of controls that could be put in place on the Internet. ISPs could be filter out websites or data that are considered 'objectionable'. Think it can't happen? Google and Yahoo have already agreed to let the Communist government of China filter out things they don't like (such as the Tiananmen Square massacre). AT&T, the U.S.'s largest ISP, is considering filtering copyrighted content, and Comcast, the second largest ISP, has already begun some filtering of peer-to-peer networks regardless of the legality of the content. There are lawsuits all over the place from free speech groups and scholars, so the battle is in full swing. But it doesn't stop at filtering content.
The aim is squarely at your pocketbook.
Time Warner Cable is experimenting with creating pricing tiers for customers based on how much they download. Power users would be required to pay more than light users. Does this structure sound familiar at all? You got it - taxes! The rich pay far more taxes than the poor, and this experiment is set up exactly the same way.
Speaking of taxes, I blogged last fall about Congress' move to address the moratorium on not taxing the Internet (i.e. sales tax on Internet purchases). Fortunately, they extended the moratorium, but it's not permanent. Trust me when I tell you that our wonderful politicians are salivating over the possibility of taxing Internet purchases. Amazon.com alone makes over $1 billion a year, and that's just ONE company. Can you imagine how much money tapping the vast purchasing landscape of the Internet would rake in? They'd love to put this tax on the Internet, and that would affect you directly.
But, it gets even more sinister. Microsoft is now working on a patent for software that actually watches you while you work at your computer, monitoring your performance by measuring their heart rate, body temperature, movement, facial expression and blood pressure and sending the information straight to your management. If that doesn't chill your blood, I'm not sure what will!
It's not just technology, though. The liberal philosophy affects all aspects of life, seeking to consolidate control in an all-powerful government. Another case in point is that young girls (as young as 12) in the U.K. are being given the morning after pill without their parents' consent! The thought here is that the school (which is controlled by government) knows what's best for the child more so than the parents.
I am planning a blog at some future date about one of the founders of a very sneaky and powerful movement that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (as well as many other liberals today) follow. My point here is that the control is the key, and liberals believe there is never enough control. If there is any opposition, it has to be crushed. If there is any dissention, is has to be silenced. This may sound hard to believe, but just take a look at how these people operate. The evidence is there, for anyone willing to 'connect the dots'.
This is why conservatism is vital to the both the success and the survival of America - it seeks to distribute power to the people, where it cannot be abused. As a single person or a small select group of people gain more and more power, that power can be abused more and more easily, like a tyrant dictator or monarch. A conservative nation is a natural preventative for that kind of abuse.
That's why I keep chanting about this conflict between liberalism and conservatism. It is the quintessential question of the day.
There's my two cents.
More Analysis Of Florida's Aftermath
Here are some of the more interesting points I've seen about what happened in Florida yesterday.
Hugh Hewitt handicaps a worst-case scenario for Mitt Romney (who he supports). The summary is that if everything went against Romney on Super Tueday, he would still not be knocked out. The scenario:
Michelle Malkin reports on the alleged voter irregularities yesterday. According to exit polls, it looks like a full 20% of those voting in the Republican primary were non-Republicans. It is legal to change your registration for the primary (i.e. to Republican), then back (to Independent/Democrat) for the general election - it's a strategy that can be used to skew results in the opposite party. The illegal part is in voting as a Republican when you're not registered that way, which is what seems to have been happening in Florida yesterday. Usually it doesn't swing the outcome, but that is not the case here. If the total number of votes cast was 1.8 million, and if 20% of them were actually Dems/Indies, that would mean a total of 360,000 votes are suspect. McCain beat Romney by 5%, or about 90,000 votes. Hmmm...
Jay Cost of RealClearPolitics.com goes into some depth about how the voting broke down in McCain's favor. Given the previous numbers, it's hard to give too much credibility to this analysis, though if you're interested in the details you should check it out. One thing I do think is important, though, is when Cost says the following:
What strikes me about this is that the more conservative parts of the state (north and panhandle) favored Romney heavily, and the more liberal part of the state (south) favored McCain, further proof of the ideological split between McCain and his supposed conservative base. If these numbers hold, Romney is certainly not without hope.
Dick Morris, among others, has stated that Romney can't beat Hillary or Obama, but that McCain has a shot. Morris cites large support for McCain's national security position, and large Hispanic support because of his immigration history. He says McCain's only real weakness is the economy, and neither of the Democrat candidates is any better, so it would be a wash.
One thing I think that Morris and other McCain bandwagon-riders are forgetting is the non-Hispanic vote. If Hispanics and African Americans make up about 25% of the total voting public, and if you throw in another 10% for the other minority groups (which I think is high), you still have at least 65% of the voting public that remembers McCain's record on things like amnesty and his attack on the 1st Amendment (McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform), and they are pissed about it! And, if Hillary wins out against Obama by continuing her racial assaults, she may disenfranchise a good portion of her black vote, too, which would help Romney out a lot. Here's the other wild card - Huckabee. If Huckabee bows out soon, the logical place for his conservative evangelical supporters to go (especially with an official endorsement) is Romney, who is clearly the more conservative of the remaining two. That could put a very interesting spin on things. This race is far from over, and Romney's got the deep pockets to stay in it through the low points.
A growing number of conservative-ideology-before-Republican-party pundits (led by Rush Limbaugh) are floating thoughts about not voting for the Republican nominee if McCain gets it. While my initial reaction to this is a major cringe factor, the theory definitely bears some serious consideration. The thought process goes like this:
- outside of national security, McCain holds essentially the same positions as a liberal (i.e. Clinton or Obama)
- having any President with liberal positions will likely drive the country into a near-disastrous condition within the next four years
- it would be better for a Democrat to lead the country into the ground than a Republican because of the backlash
Obviously, if McCain presides over the decline, it's almost a guarantee that a Democrat will take his place in 2012. As Limbaugh has said more than once, it took a Carter to get a Reagan, and he thinks it might take a Clinton or an Obama to get the next Reagan.
I don't like it - it seems a lot like defeatism to me, and it's taking an awfully big risk about how much damage will occur in the next four years. My argument for supporting the Rep nominee even if you don't like him is that it's better to have the person who agrees with you 80% of the time than the person who agrees with you 20% of the time. But, if you look at the long-term, Limbaugh's theory makes a whole lot of sense. I think I could get on board with it if you pair it with a Republican-controlled Congress, which would really limit the damage done by a liberal President.
There's really not much difference between McCain and either Democrat. Of course, propelling Romney into the GOP nomination would actually give us a choice in the general election.
There's my two cents.
Hugh Hewitt handicaps a worst-case scenario for Mitt Romney (who he supports). The summary is that if everything went against Romney on Super Tueday, he would still not be knocked out. The scenario:
Next Tuesday the winner-take-all states that lean McCain are New York (101), Missouri (58), Arzona (53), New Jersey (52) Connecticut (30), and Delaware (18) for a total of 272 delegates. Even though Missouri, another winner-take-all leans Huck right now, lets give its 58 delegates to McCain.
That means in w-t-a contests, McCain picks up 370 delegates in w-t-a primaries. Romney is favored in winner-take-all Utah (36) and Montana (25), for a total of 51 delegates. Thus before the sorting takes place in the other states, McCain's got 467 delegates and Romney's got 125. Huckabee will certainly get the 34 Arkansas delegates to go with his 29, for a total of 63.
States dividing delegates Tuesday on other-than-a-winner-take-all basis:California - 173
Georgia - 72
Illinois - 70
Tennessee - 55
Alabama - 48
Colorado - 46
Massachusetts - 41
Minnesota - 40
Oklahoma - 41
West Virginia - 30
Alaska - 29
North Dakota - 26
Total - 671
If these divide 40-40-20, McCain and Romney will add 269 delegates each, and Huck 133. But since we are going worst case for Romney, make it 50-30-20, or 336 for McCain, 201 for Romney, and 134 for Huck.
Total at the end of Super Tuesday without a major reversal of fortune for Romney:
McCain 803, Romney 326, and Huck 197. It takes 1,191 delegates to secure the nomination. Start looking hard at the numbers and put yourself in the discussions with Team Romney. It isn't pretty, but it is far, far from over. And if the Huckabee voters look at the reality and see they are voting for McCain when they vote for Huck, anything can happen.
Michelle Malkin reports on the alleged voter irregularities yesterday. According to exit polls, it looks like a full 20% of those voting in the Republican primary were non-Republicans. It is legal to change your registration for the primary (i.e. to Republican), then back (to Independent/Democrat) for the general election - it's a strategy that can be used to skew results in the opposite party. The illegal part is in voting as a Republican when you're not registered that way, which is what seems to have been happening in Florida yesterday. Usually it doesn't swing the outcome, but that is not the case here. If the total number of votes cast was 1.8 million, and if 20% of them were actually Dems/Indies, that would mean a total of 360,000 votes are suspect. McCain beat Romney by 5%, or about 90,000 votes. Hmmm...
Jay Cost of RealClearPolitics.com goes into some depth about how the voting broke down in McCain's favor. Given the previous numbers, it's hard to give too much credibility to this analysis, though if you're interested in the details you should check it out. One thing I do think is important, though, is when Cost says the following:
What about the geographical distribution of the vote? Florida has four large metropolitan areas: Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa, and Miami-Ft. Lauderdale. Romney won decisively in Jacksonville, 42% to 29%; he won a slight victory in Orlando, 33% to 32%. McCain won Tampa, 37% to 30%; he won big in Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, 45% to 22%. Unfortunately for Romney, Miami-Ft. Lauderdale/Tampa out-voted Orlando/Jacksonville by better than 2:1.
What strikes me about this is that the more conservative parts of the state (north and panhandle) favored Romney heavily, and the more liberal part of the state (south) favored McCain, further proof of the ideological split between McCain and his supposed conservative base. If these numbers hold, Romney is certainly not without hope.
Dick Morris, among others, has stated that Romney can't beat Hillary or Obama, but that McCain has a shot. Morris cites large support for McCain's national security position, and large Hispanic support because of his immigration history. He says McCain's only real weakness is the economy, and neither of the Democrat candidates is any better, so it would be a wash.
One thing I think that Morris and other McCain bandwagon-riders are forgetting is the non-Hispanic vote. If Hispanics and African Americans make up about 25% of the total voting public, and if you throw in another 10% for the other minority groups (which I think is high), you still have at least 65% of the voting public that remembers McCain's record on things like amnesty and his attack on the 1st Amendment (McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform), and they are pissed about it! And, if Hillary wins out against Obama by continuing her racial assaults, she may disenfranchise a good portion of her black vote, too, which would help Romney out a lot. Here's the other wild card - Huckabee. If Huckabee bows out soon, the logical place for his conservative evangelical supporters to go (especially with an official endorsement) is Romney, who is clearly the more conservative of the remaining two. That could put a very interesting spin on things. This race is far from over, and Romney's got the deep pockets to stay in it through the low points.
A growing number of conservative-ideology-before-Republican-party pundits (led by Rush Limbaugh) are floating thoughts about not voting for the Republican nominee if McCain gets it. While my initial reaction to this is a major cringe factor, the theory definitely bears some serious consideration. The thought process goes like this:
- outside of national security, McCain holds essentially the same positions as a liberal (i.e. Clinton or Obama)
- having any President with liberal positions will likely drive the country into a near-disastrous condition within the next four years
- it would be better for a Democrat to lead the country into the ground than a Republican because of the backlash
Obviously, if McCain presides over the decline, it's almost a guarantee that a Democrat will take his place in 2012. As Limbaugh has said more than once, it took a Carter to get a Reagan, and he thinks it might take a Clinton or an Obama to get the next Reagan.
I don't like it - it seems a lot like defeatism to me, and it's taking an awfully big risk about how much damage will occur in the next four years. My argument for supporting the Rep nominee even if you don't like him is that it's better to have the person who agrees with you 80% of the time than the person who agrees with you 20% of the time. But, if you look at the long-term, Limbaugh's theory makes a whole lot of sense. I think I could get on board with it if you pair it with a Republican-controlled Congress, which would really limit the damage done by a liberal President.
There's really not much difference between McCain and either Democrat. Of course, propelling Romney into the GOP nomination would actually give us a choice in the general election.
There's my two cents.
John Edwards Drops Out
Quick update...
Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards is officially dropping out of the race. While I'm not surprised that he's giving up, I would have thought he'd stick it out a little longer. He must have closed a deal from whichever candidate he eventually endorses, exchanging the small chunk of primary delegates he's won for...well, we don't know what yet, but I'm time will tell. I'll post again when I hear who he is supporting.
Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards is officially dropping out of the race. While I'm not surprised that he's giving up, I would have thought he'd stick it out a little longer. He must have closed a deal from whichever candidate he eventually endorses, exchanging the small chunk of primary delegates he's won for...well, we don't know what yet, but I'm time will tell. I'll post again when I hear who he is supporting.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Link Roundup
Some stories worth checking out:
- Iran increases production of enriched uranium.
- The U.N. continues its severe anti-Israel rhetoric.
- House's carbon offset purchases are suspect.
- Attacks on American religious freedom mirror those in Britain.
- Planned Parenthood whines for cheaper birth control pills for students.
- A new illegal alien follows Elvira Arellano's footsteps, but backlash is expected.
- Senate expected to ask for even bigger stimulus package.
- Is Iran setting a trap for Israel and the U.S. relying on the obstructionist Left?
- Edwards loses ugly, refuting almost everything he supported while in the Senate.
- Many can afford new mortgage payments, but simply refuse to do so.
- People who forfeit their loans also tend to abandon their pets.
- Iraqi army prepares for 'final battle' against Al Qaeda.
McCain Wins Florida
McCain won Florida's Republican primary today with 36% of the vote. Romney came in second with 31%, Giuliani third with 15%, and Huckabee came in fourth with 13%.
So, what does this mean?
I'll relay more in-depth analysis in the coming days (we get a breather until Super Tuesday next week), but the initial conclusions are as follows.
- McCain is definitely the front-runner now, with all of the momentum
- Giuliani, who staked his entire strategy on winning Florida, is done, and expected to endorse McCain
- Huckabee may hang around a while longer, but is essentially out of the running
Florida Governor Crist and Senator Mel Martinez both endorsed McCain in the past couple of days, which likely tipped the scales in McCain's favor. Giuliani's forthcoming support for McCain probably won't prove significant in the long run, since they're a natural match - both men are strong on national security and spending, and liberal in everything else. McCain and Giuliani were fighting for the same voters, anyway, and the conservatives in the party weren't likely to support either in large numbers.
Huckabee may end up in a position similar to that of John Edwards on the Democrat side - a distant third place, the place sometimes referred to as the 'kingmaker'. This is key because with even 10-15% of the vote, Huckabee's endorsement could tip a balanced contest between McCain and Romney one way or the other, probably in exchange for a cabinet position in the new administration. If nothing else, that may be reason enough for Huckabee (and Edwards) to hang around until the end.
A couple of other factors to consider. First, the good news is that turnout is generally very high. More voters means a more accurate voice from the American people, and that's always a good thing. Second, it sounds like there may have been some improper voting going on here, too. As a closed primary, only people who had been registered as Republicans should have been allowed to vote on the GOP ticket. But, as early as this afternoon, stories began coming out about registered Independents being given GOP ballots by confused poll workers who didn't want to risk turning away any voters. And, we all know who draws Indie voters: McCain. Take it for what it's worth...
Ultimately, what this means is that the GOP field has been narrowed down to two main candidates: McCain and Romney. Next Tuesday will likely result in a clear victory for one of them, with a Huckabee endorsement being a major victory and possible deal-winner.
More to come in the next few days.
There's my two cents.
So, what does this mean?
I'll relay more in-depth analysis in the coming days (we get a breather until Super Tuesday next week), but the initial conclusions are as follows.
- McCain is definitely the front-runner now, with all of the momentum
- Giuliani, who staked his entire strategy on winning Florida, is done, and expected to endorse McCain
- Huckabee may hang around a while longer, but is essentially out of the running
Florida Governor Crist and Senator Mel Martinez both endorsed McCain in the past couple of days, which likely tipped the scales in McCain's favor. Giuliani's forthcoming support for McCain probably won't prove significant in the long run, since they're a natural match - both men are strong on national security and spending, and liberal in everything else. McCain and Giuliani were fighting for the same voters, anyway, and the conservatives in the party weren't likely to support either in large numbers.
Huckabee may end up in a position similar to that of John Edwards on the Democrat side - a distant third place, the place sometimes referred to as the 'kingmaker'. This is key because with even 10-15% of the vote, Huckabee's endorsement could tip a balanced contest between McCain and Romney one way or the other, probably in exchange for a cabinet position in the new administration. If nothing else, that may be reason enough for Huckabee (and Edwards) to hang around until the end.
A couple of other factors to consider. First, the good news is that turnout is generally very high. More voters means a more accurate voice from the American people, and that's always a good thing. Second, it sounds like there may have been some improper voting going on here, too. As a closed primary, only people who had been registered as Republicans should have been allowed to vote on the GOP ticket. But, as early as this afternoon, stories began coming out about registered Independents being given GOP ballots by confused poll workers who didn't want to risk turning away any voters. And, we all know who draws Indie voters: McCain. Take it for what it's worth...
Ultimately, what this means is that the GOP field has been narrowed down to two main candidates: McCain and Romney. Next Tuesday will likely result in a clear victory for one of them, with a Huckabee endorsement being a major victory and possible deal-winner.
More to come in the next few days.
There's my two cents.
Clarification On The 'Stimulus'
I feel that I should clarify my previous statements on the current fad of economic 'stimulus'. I have been speaking fairly positively about the stimulus package Congress is tossing around, and I want to be sure I don't misrepresent myself.
The way I see it, there are two separate issues here. First, the concept of returning money to Americans who pay taxes. This part of the stimulus package is absolutely a slam dunk, and as such it should be widely applauded. Anytime the government gives money back to where it belongs -- in the pockets of American taxpayers -- is a good thing. Bush's tax cuts were the key to the last seven years of roaring economy. And yes, the economy has been roaring, despite the headlines (even the New York Times accidentally acknowledged it recently, and I'm planning to blog about that more in a future post). That's why the tax cuts need to be made permanent, and more need to be implemented. Putting money into taxpayers' pockets means that people have more money to spend and save, and that means they sink it back into the economy and into investments for the future. Win-win.
The second part of the stimulus package, however, is all negative. First and foremost, it won't stimulate the economy. It's a short-term gift rather than an actual stimulus. One of the biggest holes in the plan is the fact that this tax 'refund' isn't going to the biggest taxpayers in the country - the rich. As it is currently written, these refunds will only go to people earning between $3,000 and around $150,000 a year. As I've blogged about before, the rich pay the bulk of the income taxes in America (top 5% of wage earners pay 57% of all taxes), and they're getting blanked by this 'stimulus'. Along the same lines, these refunds are not being given according to contribution level (i.e. tax rate); instead, everyone is getting the same amount. This is inherently unfair to those who make more, and extremely generous to those who make less. Also, these 'refunds' will go directly to the national deficit, which isn't good for anyone in America.
This is, in reality, an income redistribution. Socialism. A common ploy during an election year - politicians always seem to rally around the checkbook when voters start paying attention. It is not fair, and it will not stimulate the economy for any sort of long term.
If Congress truly wanted a stimulus, they'd make the Bush tax cuts permanent, lower or eliminate as many other taxes as possible, and, if it must be done, provide refunds to people on the basis of how much tax was paid.
This measure is typical Washington style-over-substance designed to let politicians pat themselves on the back over how generous and wise they are.
Don't get me wrong, I'll gladly cash my check! I just wish Congress and President Bush would do something more meaningful. Hopefully they'll get that done later this year.
There's my two cents.
The way I see it, there are two separate issues here. First, the concept of returning money to Americans who pay taxes. This part of the stimulus package is absolutely a slam dunk, and as such it should be widely applauded. Anytime the government gives money back to where it belongs -- in the pockets of American taxpayers -- is a good thing. Bush's tax cuts were the key to the last seven years of roaring economy. And yes, the economy has been roaring, despite the headlines (even the New York Times accidentally acknowledged it recently, and I'm planning to blog about that more in a future post). That's why the tax cuts need to be made permanent, and more need to be implemented. Putting money into taxpayers' pockets means that people have more money to spend and save, and that means they sink it back into the economy and into investments for the future. Win-win.
The second part of the stimulus package, however, is all negative. First and foremost, it won't stimulate the economy. It's a short-term gift rather than an actual stimulus. One of the biggest holes in the plan is the fact that this tax 'refund' isn't going to the biggest taxpayers in the country - the rich. As it is currently written, these refunds will only go to people earning between $3,000 and around $150,000 a year. As I've blogged about before, the rich pay the bulk of the income taxes in America (top 5% of wage earners pay 57% of all taxes), and they're getting blanked by this 'stimulus'. Along the same lines, these refunds are not being given according to contribution level (i.e. tax rate); instead, everyone is getting the same amount. This is inherently unfair to those who make more, and extremely generous to those who make less. Also, these 'refunds' will go directly to the national deficit, which isn't good for anyone in America.
This is, in reality, an income redistribution. Socialism. A common ploy during an election year - politicians always seem to rally around the checkbook when voters start paying attention. It is not fair, and it will not stimulate the economy for any sort of long term.
If Congress truly wanted a stimulus, they'd make the Bush tax cuts permanent, lower or eliminate as many other taxes as possible, and, if it must be done, provide refunds to people on the basis of how much tax was paid.
This measure is typical Washington style-over-substance designed to let politicians pat themselves on the back over how generous and wise they are.
Don't get me wrong, I'll gladly cash my check! I just wish Congress and President Bush would do something more meaningful. Hopefully they'll get that done later this year.
There's my two cents.
Stupidity In Vermont
The town of Brattleboro, Vermont is going to vote in March on whether or not President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should be indicted for war crimes, perjury or obstruction of justice if they ever step foot in Vermont because they '[lied] to Congress and U.S. citizens about the basis of a war in Iraq'.
What a bunch of morons.
Even they know it's an empty gesture at best:
Later in the article, Daims floats the vicious implication of similarity between Bush and Hitler:
He's missing the glaringly obvious fact that Hitler actually was guilty of war crimes.
What a bunch of morons, led by a stupid idiot.
Even they know that they have absolutely no power to enforce any such vote, and therefore it's a waste of taxpayer resources to even address it. But, they're doing it anyway. What good will it accomplish? Is this the best use of their time? Daims pointed out that 'even members of the local police department' signed the petition to get the vote on the March ballot. Do they have nothing better to do in Brattleboro, Vermont than run around making empty gestures just for the sake of making empty gestures?
I'm curious as to when is someone going to ask Brattleboro residents -- and Daims in particular -- for a vote on whether or not to indict Bill Clinton for exactly the same thing? I've documented this fact very carefully on this very blog - if Bush can be condemned for any lying or deception in relation to Iraq's activities, so can Clinton, Al Gore, many other Democrat leaders, and pretty much the entire rest of the Western world. After all, everyone -- EVERYONE -- agreed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and full intentions to use them. Clinton even ordered some cruise missiles to destroy an abandoned factory (a totally useless political gesture...I wonder if he ever lived in Brattleboro...?) to illustrate the point. Bush just happened to be the only one with enough spine to back up words with action.
Daims and his crew in Brattleboro are complete, mind-bogglingly stupid morons.
Albert Einstein had some choice words to say about stupidity*:
Daims is apparently trying to prove Einstein's point. But, this is America, and no one will stop them from bringing scorn and disgrace on themselves. I'm happy to help point it out.
There's my two cents.
*Posted at Patriot Post
What a bunch of morons.
Even they know it's an empty gesture at best:
Kurt Daims, 54, of Brattleboro, the organizer of the petition drive, said Friday the debate to get the issue on the ballot was a good one. Opposition to the vote focused on whether the town had any power to endorse the matter.
"It is an advisory thing," said Daims, a retired prototype machinist and stay-at-home dad of three daughters.
Later in the article, Daims floats the vicious implication of similarity between Bush and Hitler:
"If Hitler were still alive and walked through Brattleboro, I think the local police would arrest him for war crimes."
He's missing the glaringly obvious fact that Hitler actually was guilty of war crimes.
What a bunch of morons, led by a stupid idiot.
Even they know that they have absolutely no power to enforce any such vote, and therefore it's a waste of taxpayer resources to even address it. But, they're doing it anyway. What good will it accomplish? Is this the best use of their time? Daims pointed out that 'even members of the local police department' signed the petition to get the vote on the March ballot. Do they have nothing better to do in Brattleboro, Vermont than run around making empty gestures just for the sake of making empty gestures?
I'm curious as to when is someone going to ask Brattleboro residents -- and Daims in particular -- for a vote on whether or not to indict Bill Clinton for exactly the same thing? I've documented this fact very carefully on this very blog - if Bush can be condemned for any lying or deception in relation to Iraq's activities, so can Clinton, Al Gore, many other Democrat leaders, and pretty much the entire rest of the Western world. After all, everyone -- EVERYONE -- agreed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and full intentions to use them. Clinton even ordered some cruise missiles to destroy an abandoned factory (a totally useless political gesture...I wonder if he ever lived in Brattleboro...?) to illustrate the point. Bush just happened to be the only one with enough spine to back up words with action.
Daims and his crew in Brattleboro are complete, mind-bogglingly stupid morons.
Albert Einstein had some choice words to say about stupidity*:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
Daims is apparently trying to prove Einstein's point. But, this is America, and no one will stop them from bringing scorn and disgrace on themselves. I'm happy to help point it out.
There's my two cents.
*Posted at Patriot Post
Conservative Addition To SOTU
In a follow up to President Bush's State of the Union speech, Senator Jim DeMint offers a compliment statement with some goals that he and the conservative Steering Committee are committing to for 2008:
1. National Security --- proposing to spend 4% of our Gross Domestic Product every year, so the military can plan and budget on a consistent dollar amount
2. Economy --- make Bush's tax cuts permanent
3. Economy --- proposing a balanced budget amendment
4. Border Security --- force a vote on border fence and worker ID program
5. Earmarks --- reform the entire earmark process
6. Tax Code --- lower corporate tax rates, offer other more simple tax options (i.e. flat tax)
7. Social Security --- proposing a bill to force a vote on fixing the funding shortage (the "Stop the Raid on Social Security" bill)
8. Health Care --- allow individuals to deduct the cost of their health insurance, allow individuals to buy health insurance from any state in the country
9. Education --- use the A-Plus bill to enhance No Child Left Behind, giving states more flexibility to meet standards
10. Regulations --- review regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley that chase capital away from America
11. The U.N. --- proposing to withhold funding from the United Nations until they implement reforms that would reduce corruption
This statement is awesome! If DeMint and the conservatives in Congress can get this agenda pushed through, this would be an outstanding achievement, and would revitalize the country! Every one of these goals is something that really emphasizes conservative philosophy, and would benefit Americans greatly. Realistically speaking, the chances of that happening are next to nothing, but I'll take as many as I can get. For those that fail, it would still be very useful to present these proposals to get these members of Congress on the record. Keep an eye out for these issues as the year goes on.
This is a great agenda for 2008, and I wish him the best of luck!
There's my two cents.
1. National Security --- proposing to spend 4% of our Gross Domestic Product every year, so the military can plan and budget on a consistent dollar amount
2. Economy --- make Bush's tax cuts permanent
3. Economy --- proposing a balanced budget amendment
4. Border Security --- force a vote on border fence and worker ID program
5. Earmarks --- reform the entire earmark process
6. Tax Code --- lower corporate tax rates, offer other more simple tax options (i.e. flat tax)
7. Social Security --- proposing a bill to force a vote on fixing the funding shortage (the "Stop the Raid on Social Security" bill)
8. Health Care --- allow individuals to deduct the cost of their health insurance, allow individuals to buy health insurance from any state in the country
9. Education --- use the A-Plus bill to enhance No Child Left Behind, giving states more flexibility to meet standards
10. Regulations --- review regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley that chase capital away from America
11. The U.N. --- proposing to withhold funding from the United Nations until they implement reforms that would reduce corruption
This statement is awesome! If DeMint and the conservatives in Congress can get this agenda pushed through, this would be an outstanding achievement, and would revitalize the country! Every one of these goals is something that really emphasizes conservative philosophy, and would benefit Americans greatly. Realistically speaking, the chances of that happening are next to nothing, but I'll take as many as I can get. For those that fail, it would still be very useful to present these proposals to get these members of Congress on the record. Keep an eye out for these issues as the year goes on.
This is a great agenda for 2008, and I wish him the best of luck!
There's my two cents.
Today's Primary Election Update
Here are some notable stories for you to see today, the day of Florida's GOP primary.
One of the leading conservatives in Congress is Jim DeMint. He led the charge against last summer's amnesty bill, and has done a great job of keeping the ranks of conservative politicians on course. He has come out in support of Mitt Romney:
This endorsement should be a big one for conservatives.
Speaking of conservatism, just how conservative is John McCain? I didn't know it until today, but there's an organization that answers that question with statistics. The American Conservative Union rates politicians on their voting records, comparing their votes with conservative principles. McCain trumpets his 82.3% lifetime rating as proof of his conservatism, but a closer look at the numbers doesn't really help him.
As we could expect, McCain is most conservative on defense and spending issues, and more liberal on taxes, campaign finance reform, the environment and, most recently, immigration. If you look at his record over the long haul, you can see some trends (data from the last year available was 2006):
- an 82.3% rating only puts him at 39th out of 100 senators
- McCain has gotten more liberal in recent years
- he seems to oppose conservative principles more often in tight votes (when it really counts)
If you look at the ratings since 1998, McCain's position puts him squarely on the liberal side of the aisle. Only four other Republican senators have been more liberal in that time. What's really striking is that Arizona is a fairly conservative state, so his liberalism isn't coming as a result of his constituency (the other AZ senator, Kyl, has a 96.9% rating).
From his own voting record, especially in the past decade, McCain is most definitely NOT a conservative.
Incidentally, Senator Clinton (D-NY) has a lifetime ACU rating of 9 (83rd place) and Senator Obama (D-IL) has a rating of 8 (86th place).
Next up: did you know that Europe wants to vote in American elections? Apparently, they think we're not doing a good job of electing a correct and proper President. Get a load of this from several European publications:
If there were any lingering questions about the value of an American's right to vote, this should dispel them! It seems that the EU press is falling all over themselves in favor of Obama. Here's one example:
Reality is crashing down, though, as they are starting to realize that Obama may not win. On top of that, they're already leery of another Clinton presidency, not only because the U.S. would likely demand support for the Iraq war and other terrorist actions. If Obama does pull it out, that could still be bad news, because that means Americans aren't the back-woods, uncultured, racist swine that they typically think we are. Still...
Talk about presumption...! It's no wonder that while Europe sits around looking down their collective socialist noses at the rest of the world, it's America that rolls up its sleeves and actually gets things done.
I saw an interesting article on Obama's rhetoric versus his record. Basically, the article can be summed up by saying that while Obama appears to be a class act and very smooth, he hasn't really accomplished a lot. At the same time, he has made some rookie mistakes while campaigning that indicate he's not ready for the Oval Office yet. Nothing we didn't already know, but still good information to share with you.
Now, back to the home front. Over 80 lawyers who represent Guantanamo Bay detainees have officially thrown their support to Barack Obama. Think about this. These lawyers want Obama to become President because they feel he's the one most likely to grant terrorists the rights of American citizens and close down Gitmo. They're ignoring, of course, the question of what to do with these terrorists once they get released. Their home countries don't want them, so that leaves either putting them into American prisons (on American soil) or just setting them free (and there are already instances of released prisoners carrying out additional attacks on U.S. personnel and assets. But that won't be their problem, now will it? Just yours and mine, and our military's.
Christopher Hitchens writes that no one should be the least bit surprised that the Clintons are playing the race card - it's standard operating procedure for them. It started while Bill was behind in the polls in 1992. He was accused of having the affair with Gennifer Flowers; Bill's response was to fly to Arkansas to sign the death warrant for convicted murderer Ricky Ray Rector, who was a black man that tried to kill himself with a gunshot to the head but ended up retarding himself. Clinton went out of his way to execute a black, mentally impaired prisoner. There have been any number of other racial incidents with the Clintons since then. Do you recall why Bill is considered the 'first black President'? Toni Morrison described Clinton as "black" on the basis of his promiscuity and dysfunction and uncertainty about his parentage. Is that really why African Americans want to claim him as 'their' first President? The Clintons have a long and unglorious history of playing the race game to achieve their goals of power. What they're doing to Obama is nothing new.
Speaking of the Clintons, did you know that Hillary is trying to change election rules after the votes are counted? Because Michigan and Florida moved their Democrat primaries earlier in the year, the DNC took away their delegates, which means those states get no say in the nomination process. All of the Democrat candidates agreed to skip those states in their campaigning. When it came down to it, however, Hillary left her name on the ballot in Michigan (and 'won') and is still campaigning in Florida. You can bet that if she feels she needs to votes, she'll start whining about needing to 'count every vote' even if that means changing the rules after the fact. Many other Democrats are really, really ticked off at her for this blatant flipping of the bird.
So why is Clinton burning bridges, especially with the African American community? Because she's relying on the Hispanic vote as a firewall to major losses. This is a dangerous game that she's playing, especially against an African American who could very easily draw the disenfranchised black vote to himself. Regardless, the vicious split in the Democrat party could give the Republican nominee a load of ammunition in the general election. Not only would Clinton or Obama have to spend time mending fences to secure their own base (rather than attacking the Rep nominee), but the same attacks the Republican nominee would likely use would have already been put out into the public's consciousness. We all know that if you say something often enough and loud enough, people start to think it's true, and this could come back to haunt the Democrats.
There's my two cents.
One of the leading conservatives in Congress is Jim DeMint. He led the charge against last summer's amnesty bill, and has done a great job of keeping the ranks of conservative politicians on course. He has come out in support of Mitt Romney:
"We really need someone from the outside who knows how to manage and run something," he says -- "[someone] who can take something apart and put it back together and has a resume of doing that. Mitt Romney did that as a businessman, he did it with the Olympics, [and] he did it in Massachusetts."
While he does not agree with Romney's theology, DeMint reminds voters they are not electing a pastor -- they are electing a president. DeMint also believes Romney would fight to protect the rights of Christians to worship as they please.
This endorsement should be a big one for conservatives.
Speaking of conservatism, just how conservative is John McCain? I didn't know it until today, but there's an organization that answers that question with statistics. The American Conservative Union rates politicians on their voting records, comparing their votes with conservative principles. McCain trumpets his 82.3% lifetime rating as proof of his conservatism, but a closer look at the numbers doesn't really help him.
As we could expect, McCain is most conservative on defense and spending issues, and more liberal on taxes, campaign finance reform, the environment and, most recently, immigration. If you look at his record over the long haul, you can see some trends (data from the last year available was 2006):
- an 82.3% rating only puts him at 39th out of 100 senators
- McCain has gotten more liberal in recent years
- he seems to oppose conservative principles more often in tight votes (when it really counts)
If you look at the ratings since 1998, McCain's position puts him squarely on the liberal side of the aisle. Only four other Republican senators have been more liberal in that time. What's really striking is that Arizona is a fairly conservative state, so his liberalism isn't coming as a result of his constituency (the other AZ senator, Kyl, has a 96.9% rating).
From his own voting record, especially in the past decade, McCain is most definitely NOT a conservative.
Incidentally, Senator Clinton (D-NY) has a lifetime ACU rating of 9 (83rd place) and Senator Obama (D-IL) has a rating of 8 (86th place).
Next up: did you know that Europe wants to vote in American elections? Apparently, they think we're not doing a good job of electing a correct and proper President. Get a load of this from several European publications:
"American presidential elections are not 'home affairs'. American decisions have repercussions all over the globe.... Hence, the world should be given the right to vote."
"Many Britons will feel it would be rather nice to have a vote, too. Well, maybe not a whole vote: I would settle for one worth 50 per cent of those cast by American citizens. After all, since we are a strategic colony of the US, it would be nice to have even a marginal say in how the empire chooses to dispose our goodwill and our blood and treasure."
If there were any lingering questions about the value of an American's right to vote, this should dispel them! It seems that the EU press is falling all over themselves in favor of Obama. Here's one example:
"Obama is the candidate of the idealists.... Obama also happens to be the candidate of choice for the foreign press.... Many in Europe would like nothing more than a 'European' America."
Reality is crashing down, though, as they are starting to realize that Obama may not win. On top of that, they're already leery of another Clinton presidency, not only because the U.S. would likely demand support for the Iraq war and other terrorist actions. If Obama does pull it out, that could still be bad news, because that means Americans aren't the back-woods, uncultured, racist swine that they typically think we are. Still...
In an 800-word rant titled 'American Primary System Fails to Impress Europeans', Deutsche Welle implies that if Germans cannot help Americans vote Obama into office, then the US political system itself must be flawed.
Talk about presumption...! It's no wonder that while Europe sits around looking down their collective socialist noses at the rest of the world, it's America that rolls up its sleeves and actually gets things done.
I saw an interesting article on Obama's rhetoric versus his record. Basically, the article can be summed up by saying that while Obama appears to be a class act and very smooth, he hasn't really accomplished a lot. At the same time, he has made some rookie mistakes while campaigning that indicate he's not ready for the Oval Office yet. Nothing we didn't already know, but still good information to share with you.
Now, back to the home front. Over 80 lawyers who represent Guantanamo Bay detainees have officially thrown their support to Barack Obama. Think about this. These lawyers want Obama to become President because they feel he's the one most likely to grant terrorists the rights of American citizens and close down Gitmo. They're ignoring, of course, the question of what to do with these terrorists once they get released. Their home countries don't want them, so that leaves either putting them into American prisons (on American soil) or just setting them free (and there are already instances of released prisoners carrying out additional attacks on U.S. personnel and assets. But that won't be their problem, now will it? Just yours and mine, and our military's.
Christopher Hitchens writes that no one should be the least bit surprised that the Clintons are playing the race card - it's standard operating procedure for them. It started while Bill was behind in the polls in 1992. He was accused of having the affair with Gennifer Flowers; Bill's response was to fly to Arkansas to sign the death warrant for convicted murderer Ricky Ray Rector, who was a black man that tried to kill himself with a gunshot to the head but ended up retarding himself. Clinton went out of his way to execute a black, mentally impaired prisoner. There have been any number of other racial incidents with the Clintons since then. Do you recall why Bill is considered the 'first black President'? Toni Morrison described Clinton as "black" on the basis of his promiscuity and dysfunction and uncertainty about his parentage. Is that really why African Americans want to claim him as 'their' first President? The Clintons have a long and unglorious history of playing the race game to achieve their goals of power. What they're doing to Obama is nothing new.
Speaking of the Clintons, did you know that Hillary is trying to change election rules after the votes are counted? Because Michigan and Florida moved their Democrat primaries earlier in the year, the DNC took away their delegates, which means those states get no say in the nomination process. All of the Democrat candidates agreed to skip those states in their campaigning. When it came down to it, however, Hillary left her name on the ballot in Michigan (and 'won') and is still campaigning in Florida. You can bet that if she feels she needs to votes, she'll start whining about needing to 'count every vote' even if that means changing the rules after the fact. Many other Democrats are really, really ticked off at her for this blatant flipping of the bird.
So why is Clinton burning bridges, especially with the African American community? Because she's relying on the Hispanic vote as a firewall to major losses. This is a dangerous game that she's playing, especially against an African American who could very easily draw the disenfranchised black vote to himself. Regardless, the vicious split in the Democrat party could give the Republican nominee a load of ammunition in the general election. Not only would Clinton or Obama have to spend time mending fences to secure their own base (rather than attacking the Rep nominee), but the same attacks the Republican nominee would likely use would have already been put out into the public's consciousness. We all know that if you say something often enough and loud enough, people start to think it's true, and this could come back to haunt the Democrats.
There's my two cents.
Oil: The Engine Of Freedom And Progress
There are a lot of misconceptions about oil and its role in the world, so I wanted to pass along a few stories to help shed a little light on the situation.
First, a study of over 800 oil fields by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (Cera) has concluded that rates of decline are only 4.5 per cent a year, almost half the rate previously believed, leading the consultancy to conclude that oil output will continue to rise over the next decade. This means that the world is NOT running out of oil! Check out the article for the details.
Second, Robert Bryce shares five myths about breaking our dependence on foreign oil:
As Limbaugh so effectively communicates, oil is the key to technological advancement, and we should not shy away from its use. To do so would be to deny our own ability to progress forward. Global warming doctrine says we should drastically cut back our oil consumption, but Limbaugh explains why that would be a tragic mistake on a foundational level.
Hopefully this gives you a new understanding of oil and why it's important in this world.
There's my two cents.
First, a study of over 800 oil fields by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (Cera) has concluded that rates of decline are only 4.5 per cent a year, almost half the rate previously believed, leading the consultancy to conclude that oil output will continue to rise over the next decade. This means that the world is NOT running out of oil! Check out the article for the details.
Second, Robert Bryce shares five myths about breaking our dependence on foreign oil:
1. Energy independence will reduce or eliminate terrorism.Finally, Rush Limbaugh recently went on a tear about how oil is the engine of freedom and advancement in the world, relating this fact to why we should not buy into the hype of man-made global warming.
The hype doesn't match reality. Remember, the two largest suppliers of crude to the U.S. market are Canada and Mexico -- neither exactly known as a belligerent terrorist haven. Moreover, terrorism is an ancient tactic that predates the oil era.
2. A big push for alternative fuels will break our oil addiction.
The new energy bill requires that the country produce 36 billion gallons of biofuels per year by 2022. That sounds like a lot of fuel, but put it in perspective: The United States uses more than 320 billion gallons of oil per year, of which nearly 200 billion gallons are imported. So biofuels alone cannot wean the United States off oil. Let's say the country converted all the soybeans grown by American farmers into biodiesel; that would provide only about 1.5 percent of total annual U.S. oil needs. And if the United States devoted its entire corn crop to producing ethanol, it would supply only about 6 percent of U.S. oil needs.
3. Energy independence will let America choke off the flow of money to nasty countries.
Fans of energy independence argue that if the United States stops buying foreign energy, it will deny funds to petro-states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Hugo Ch¿vez's Venezuela. But the world marketplace doesn't work like that. Oil is a global commodity. Its price is set globally, not locally.
4. Energy independence will mean reform in the Muslim world.
The most vocal proponent of this one is New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman, who argues that the United States should build "a wall of energy independence" around itself and thereby lower global oil prices: "Shrink the oil revenue and they will have to open up their economies and their schools and liberate their women so that their people can compete. It is that simple." When the petro-states are effectively bankrupt, Friedman argues, we'll see "political and economic reform from Algeria to Iran."
If only it were that easy. Between about 1986 and 2000, oil prices generally stayed below $20 per barrel; by the end of 1998, they were as low as $11 per barrel. As Alan Reynolds pointed out in May 2005 in the conservative National Review Online, this prolonged period of "cheap oil did nothing to promote economic or political liberty in Algeria, Iran, or anywhere else. This theory has been tested -- and it failed completely."
5. Energy independence will mean a more secure U.S. energy supply.
To see why this is a myth, think back to 2005. After hurricanes ravaged the Gulf Coast, chewing up refineries as they went, several cities in the southeastern United States were hit with gasoline shortages. Thankfully, they were short-lived. The reason? Imported gasoline, from refineries in Venezuela, the Netherlands and elsewhere. Throughout the first nine months of 2005, the United States imported about 1 million barrels of gasoline per day. By mid-October 2005, just six weeks after Hurricane Katrina, those imports soared to 1.5 million barrels per day.
So we're woven in with the rest of the world -- and going to stay that way. Today, in addition to gasoline imports, the United States is buying crude oil from Angola, jet fuel from South Korea, natural gas from Trinidad, coal from Colombia and uranium from Australia. Those imports show that the global energy market is just that: global. Anyone who argues that the United States will be more secure by going it alone on energy hasn't done the homework.
As Limbaugh so effectively communicates, oil is the key to technological advancement, and we should not shy away from its use. To do so would be to deny our own ability to progress forward. Global warming doctrine says we should drastically cut back our oil consumption, but Limbaugh explains why that would be a tragic mistake on a foundational level.
Hopefully this gives you a new understanding of oil and why it's important in this world.
There's my two cents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)