The Houston Texans beat the Los Angeles Raiders in NFL action last Sunday. Considering that before the game the two teams were a collective 5 wins and 11 losses, that’s no big bragging stake. But what was interesting about the Texans win, was that it was done through a decent run game, a very strong defense, and a moron playing quarterback. With Sage Rosenfels out for the season with a broken thumb, the Texans have no choice but to rely on the foolish and unreliable David Carr. Carr failed to complete even one pass in the second half against the Raiders, and ended up with negative five yards total passing for the day. By itself, that could mean one bad day, but frankly, Carr has never yet passed gut check for more than one game, and his development has been clearly in reverse for the last two years. In summary then, the Texans won Sunday in spite of their quarterback and their offense.
The connection to Congress is the now-obvious fact that Speaker-to-be Pelosi does not have much in the way of skill or competence in her position, and whatever work is done to the good will be done in spite of her, not because of her “leadership”. Pelosi has managed to say or do the wrong thing in everything from her preferences for leadership, to paying attention to the voters’ desires and wants. The rest of her offense, the Democrat who will try to move the ball on their policies and wish-lists and witch-hunts, is just as inept and incompetent, as time will surely prove. Fortunately, the team that is the United States will muddle through, and through the dutiful work of a few individuals we can depend on, the nation will endure until 2008, when a correction will again be made available to the team’s owners, the America people.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Thursday, December 07, 2006
The Right to Fury
Sixty-five years ago today, the Empire of Japan attacked the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, then a U.S. protected territory. The attack was first condemned by the United States, then in time came to be so commonly regarded as an immoral act that even Japan agreed that the timing and method of the attack were unfortunate. Over 2,400 Americans died in that attack, mostly servicemen. The Pearl Harbor has generally been regarded as a valid cause for the U.S. entry into World War 2, where almost three hundred thousand Americans died. The Democrats and some Republicans led the fight to end the Fascist threat.
On September 11, 2001, over three thousand Americans, mostly civilians, died in attacks by Middle Eastern terrorists. Yet in the wars that followed to eradicate the cause of those attacks, Jihadist terror, the Democrats and some Republicans have led the effort to appease the Jihadist threat.
Do not forget.
On September 11, 2001, over three thousand Americans, mostly civilians, died in attacks by Middle Eastern terrorists. Yet in the wars that followed to eradicate the cause of those attacks, Jihadist terror, the Democrats and some Republicans have led the effort to appease the Jihadist threat.
Do not forget.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
No, Barack Obama Will Not Be Elected President In 2008
I must say that I like pundits who are willing to make a bold prediction. So I begin here with some praise for blogger Kevin McCullough, as he makes his case for the run by Barack Obama for the White House in 2008. However, I have evaluated the conditions and must disagree with Kevin. Senator Barack Obama will not be elected President of the United States in 2008.
Kevin bases his prediction on what he considers five essential bases for Obama, what McCullough calls “Raging Liberals”, “Disgusted Conservatives’, “Exhausted Moderates”, “Energized Blacks”, and “Gullible Evangelicals”. McCullough seems to be claiming that Obama will flim-flam his way to the Oval Office, and I must admit History warns us that politicians are quite able in that trait, and I agree that Obama possesses the sort of moral inadequacy to choose the way of the snake to get what he wants. However, I cannot agree with McCullough’s opinion that Conservatives and Evangelicals would find Obama a suitable choice; the weakness in those groups comes when they stay home out of petulance, but they do not vote for a candidate who is clearly Liberal in his politics or for a Democrat. Those groups will be in play when the Republican candidate either excites or disappoints them, but Obama will not get their vote and cannot sway them except to drive them to his opponent if he reveals himself to be extreme. As to the Liberals, no Democrat in twenty years has lacked their support, so Obama gains nothing in the General Election from them, especially as fewer people than ever consider themselves Liberals. Liberals are angrier than ever, but that does not give them extra votes, except in places like Chicago and St. Louis.
But the real problem for Obama lies in the structure of the Democratic Primaries, and the history of Presidential Elections. The first hurdles for Obama will not come from Republicans, but from other Democrats; Senator Hillary, Governor Vilsack, and all the other ‘me-make-good-President’ wanna-be’s (plus some moldy oldies, possibly including the stale but obsequious Al Gore, John Kerry, or even Joe Biden). A lot of money, planning, and energy will be spent by differing factions trying to take down the others, especially since with control of Congress in Democrat hands, a Democrat President will hold tremendous power to direct the nation as he/she/it sees fit, a tantalizing prize that will pull all the stops out. The 2004 Democratic Primaries were a knife-fight; 2008 will be fought with the heavy artillery. Barack can expect to be attacked by Democrats on everything from his short record to his middle name. Nothing is out of bounds, and below-the-belt is the preferred tactic. In years past, Democrats limited their attacks in the primaries because the presumed Republican opponent appeared strong and the Democrats needed the appearance of amity and teamwork to hope for victory, but with no dominant Republican on the horizon, the Democrats’ confidence in their advantage will blow that façade off the stage. Barack Obama has made his way through politics to this point by winning support from key constituencies and charming the media. In this respect Obama may be fairly compared to Governor Howard Dean, whose 2004 run started with a lot of media hype and early excitement, but who could not withstand the vicissitudes of the road, nor the challenges by opponents and uncertain voters demanding substance from him. The notion of Barack Obama making a presidential run is not unlike the notion of taking a Ferrari off-road through the mountains; Obama could make a good run at the Governor’s mansion, but he does not have the fortitude to try for the White House.
It would also be useful, I think, to note the general character of those men who have won the White House. Lots of people thought they had the right stuff to be President, but precious few win election to the office. First, we must consider the obvious resume credentials of prior Presidents elected to the office:
George W. Bush – Governor of Texas
Bill Clinton – Governor of Arkansas
G.H.W. Bush – Vice-President under Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan – Governor of California
Jimmy Carter – Governor of Georgia
Richard Nixon – Vice-President under Dwight Eisenhower
Lyndon Johnson – Vice-President under John F. Kennedy
I think I see a trend, how about you? Now it is true that as we move further back, we see Kennedy served as a Senator but really, comparing Obama to Kennedy is more than a bit of a stretch, not the least because many of JFK’s policies would never be embraced by the modern leadership of the Democratic Party, like tax cuts and a strong defense policy. Eisenhower never held elected office before his campaign, but his work as Supreme Commander Allied Forces in World War Two was a clearly executive position with tremendous accountability and responsibility. You get the idea, I think; the public demands something more of a candidate than a claim that he can do the job, he must show some evidence that he has met such challenges before.
Next up is the matter of how weak candidates like Obama could win. Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon were able to sneak off with the White House by winning only 43% of the Popular Vote, but in both cases they faced opposing parties whose vote was split – it is fair to say that Wallace cost Humphrey the 1968 election, and Perot cost Bush his 1992 re-election. There is no evidence that the GOP vote in 2008 will be split. There simply is no historical precedent for a paper-thin candidate like Obama to build the kind of support to win the party nomination against such better-funded and deeper candidates, much less to then hope to carry a majority in the General Election – he only holds support from 17 percent of Democrats now, and while he could build that up, it would be as thin and fragile as everything else in his portfolio, with poor odds it could withstand a full season of challenge and contest.
Finally, I would remind the audience that early runs do not fare well these days, unless the candidate is a clear national favorite who is closing off potential runs by rivals. Barack Obama simply does not fit that model, not with Hillary Clinton already occupying the Donk’s pole position. If Obama is thinking about running, as we all know he is, he really needs to pull back and wait until the primaries draw much, much closer. As he stands now, all he is doing is putting a big target on himself. The problem there, of course, is that there will not be a big national push to draft Barack Obama to run, much less elect him. Obama simply has no concrete solutions to the problems most Americans think about, and his stated views and track record show him well outside the mainstream opinion on critical issues. Therefore, Obama will decide on his own to run, and probably to run fairly early, which invites disaster and a long run through the gauntlet, but all the signals from him are there. And that reminds me that I would remind the audience of one last point about political candidates: Those who listen to their own desires instead of noting the signals from the people, must inevitably fail at any great cause or purpose.
Kevin bases his prediction on what he considers five essential bases for Obama, what McCullough calls “Raging Liberals”, “Disgusted Conservatives’, “Exhausted Moderates”, “Energized Blacks”, and “Gullible Evangelicals”. McCullough seems to be claiming that Obama will flim-flam his way to the Oval Office, and I must admit History warns us that politicians are quite able in that trait, and I agree that Obama possesses the sort of moral inadequacy to choose the way of the snake to get what he wants. However, I cannot agree with McCullough’s opinion that Conservatives and Evangelicals would find Obama a suitable choice; the weakness in those groups comes when they stay home out of petulance, but they do not vote for a candidate who is clearly Liberal in his politics or for a Democrat. Those groups will be in play when the Republican candidate either excites or disappoints them, but Obama will not get their vote and cannot sway them except to drive them to his opponent if he reveals himself to be extreme. As to the Liberals, no Democrat in twenty years has lacked their support, so Obama gains nothing in the General Election from them, especially as fewer people than ever consider themselves Liberals. Liberals are angrier than ever, but that does not give them extra votes, except in places like Chicago and St. Louis.
But the real problem for Obama lies in the structure of the Democratic Primaries, and the history of Presidential Elections. The first hurdles for Obama will not come from Republicans, but from other Democrats; Senator Hillary, Governor Vilsack, and all the other ‘me-make-good-President’ wanna-be’s (plus some moldy oldies, possibly including the stale but obsequious Al Gore, John Kerry, or even Joe Biden). A lot of money, planning, and energy will be spent by differing factions trying to take down the others, especially since with control of Congress in Democrat hands, a Democrat President will hold tremendous power to direct the nation as he/she/it sees fit, a tantalizing prize that will pull all the stops out. The 2004 Democratic Primaries were a knife-fight; 2008 will be fought with the heavy artillery. Barack can expect to be attacked by Democrats on everything from his short record to his middle name. Nothing is out of bounds, and below-the-belt is the preferred tactic. In years past, Democrats limited their attacks in the primaries because the presumed Republican opponent appeared strong and the Democrats needed the appearance of amity and teamwork to hope for victory, but with no dominant Republican on the horizon, the Democrats’ confidence in their advantage will blow that façade off the stage. Barack Obama has made his way through politics to this point by winning support from key constituencies and charming the media. In this respect Obama may be fairly compared to Governor Howard Dean, whose 2004 run started with a lot of media hype and early excitement, but who could not withstand the vicissitudes of the road, nor the challenges by opponents and uncertain voters demanding substance from him. The notion of Barack Obama making a presidential run is not unlike the notion of taking a Ferrari off-road through the mountains; Obama could make a good run at the Governor’s mansion, but he does not have the fortitude to try for the White House.
It would also be useful, I think, to note the general character of those men who have won the White House. Lots of people thought they had the right stuff to be President, but precious few win election to the office. First, we must consider the obvious resume credentials of prior Presidents elected to the office:
George W. Bush – Governor of Texas
Bill Clinton – Governor of Arkansas
G.H.W. Bush – Vice-President under Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan – Governor of California
Jimmy Carter – Governor of Georgia
Richard Nixon – Vice-President under Dwight Eisenhower
Lyndon Johnson – Vice-President under John F. Kennedy
I think I see a trend, how about you? Now it is true that as we move further back, we see Kennedy served as a Senator but really, comparing Obama to Kennedy is more than a bit of a stretch, not the least because many of JFK’s policies would never be embraced by the modern leadership of the Democratic Party, like tax cuts and a strong defense policy. Eisenhower never held elected office before his campaign, but his work as Supreme Commander Allied Forces in World War Two was a clearly executive position with tremendous accountability and responsibility. You get the idea, I think; the public demands something more of a candidate than a claim that he can do the job, he must show some evidence that he has met such challenges before.
Next up is the matter of how weak candidates like Obama could win. Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon were able to sneak off with the White House by winning only 43% of the Popular Vote, but in both cases they faced opposing parties whose vote was split – it is fair to say that Wallace cost Humphrey the 1968 election, and Perot cost Bush his 1992 re-election. There is no evidence that the GOP vote in 2008 will be split. There simply is no historical precedent for a paper-thin candidate like Obama to build the kind of support to win the party nomination against such better-funded and deeper candidates, much less to then hope to carry a majority in the General Election – he only holds support from 17 percent of Democrats now, and while he could build that up, it would be as thin and fragile as everything else in his portfolio, with poor odds it could withstand a full season of challenge and contest.
Finally, I would remind the audience that early runs do not fare well these days, unless the candidate is a clear national favorite who is closing off potential runs by rivals. Barack Obama simply does not fit that model, not with Hillary Clinton already occupying the Donk’s pole position. If Obama is thinking about running, as we all know he is, he really needs to pull back and wait until the primaries draw much, much closer. As he stands now, all he is doing is putting a big target on himself. The problem there, of course, is that there will not be a big national push to draft Barack Obama to run, much less elect him. Obama simply has no concrete solutions to the problems most Americans think about, and his stated views and track record show him well outside the mainstream opinion on critical issues. Therefore, Obama will decide on his own to run, and probably to run fairly early, which invites disaster and a long run through the gauntlet, but all the signals from him are there. And that reminds me that I would remind the audience of one last point about political candidates: Those who listen to their own desires instead of noting the signals from the people, must inevitably fail at any great cause or purpose.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
On Death, a Few Thoughts From Better Minds Than Mine
“We are all under sentence of death, but with a sort of indefinite reprieve.”
-Victor Hugo
“You have now such faith as is necessary for your living unto God. As yet you are not called to die. When you are, you shall have faith for this also.”
- John Wesley letter: 17 April 1776
“If my doctor told me I had only six minutes to live, I wouldn't brood. I'd type a little faster.”
– Isaac Asimov
-Victor Hugo
“You have now such faith as is necessary for your living unto God. As yet you are not called to die. When you are, you shall have faith for this also.”
- John Wesley letter: 17 April 1776
“If my doctor told me I had only six minutes to live, I wouldn't brood. I'd type a little faster.”
– Isaac Asimov
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
