One of the most important things for a blogger to do, is to know his limitations. Like all people enabled to speak in public, we tend to print out our opinion on all sorts of things, some of which we know well and some where we frankly are less than fully informed. For myself, I do try to gather as much relevant and useful information as possible before posting an article, but I admit to all the conditions of humanity, including a propensity to err at times. It is, however, still useful to blog, even when I do not know the whole of the matter. Partly it is to discover through discussion, or to draw out commentary which illuminates the subject, but sometimes it is also worthwhile to provoke thought and remind us of people and perspectives outside our routine. And so, this morning I am writing about the possibility that I have cancer.
Cancer is a scary word, which is unfortunate because emotion clouds judgment. I admit that when I first heard my surgeon say that half my colon needed to be removed in hopes of stopping the spread of a growth in my abdomen, it took some time to process the information. My adventure started with a night of abdominal pain, which has turned into its own little drama – first kidney stones, then my appendix burst, and now the questions about a mass growing around my appendix.
The thing is, I cannot honestly say I have cancer, nor (despite his insistence) can my surgeon. My white blood cell count is fine, the surgeon found no polyps on my colon while he was in there to take out the appendix, and that mass, whatever it is, came up “potentially malignant”, not out & out malignant for sure. OK, so that sounds a bit like denial, but I am not jumping into anything until I get a second opinion. That should happen later this week, but until then I am sort of in a wasteland, not able to say how I even fell. Hearing the ‘C’ word makes a person wonder about every ache and pain, even though I am still recovering from my appendectomy, and so I would expect to still feel little things as my body heals. It’s very frustrating, wondering if I can trust my own judgment about whether I am OK or not.
That’s enough about me; one way or the other I will find out what is going on and decide what to do. What I want to write about here is how this situation has affected my family, and my perspective on people who have to fight cancer. A lot of people have reacted to the news that I may have cancer, especially my wife Mikki. All sorts of relatives have asked how I feel and how I am doing. It is both touching and frustrating, because while everyone understands my need to get a second opinion, there is real concern, and I feel like I may be scaring them needlessly, just because one doctor thinks it’s something. I would really like to be able to assure Mikki that everything will be fixed soon, without undue stress, cost, or risk. But I would be lying to pretend that it’s going to just go away because I want it to do so.
And that makes me appreciate how hard it is for families to go through a fight with cancer. And be sure of that, cancer attacks families, not just individuals. And because even surgery is no sure fix, even if the cancer is cut or burned out or goes into remission, there is that worry that it can come back again, which never really goes away.
Ever.
I’m lucky on that count, because even if I do have cancer, it’s likely to be something which grows slowly so I have time to consider my options, and if it’s colon cancer it’s very early and so my survival chances are excellent. On the darker side of things, I did some reading over the past week on the different types of cancer, from people with lung, cervical, and pancreatic cancers. The pain, anguish, and cost are sometimes excruciating, and cancer strikes kids as often as it does adults. So I would ask you all to consider one additional gift this Christmas season. Ask your pastor, rabbi, or spiritual leader who in your congregation is fighting cancer, and try to do something for the family. It doesn’t have to be expensive or a really big deal, but even just a card letting them know you are thinking about them counts, and for people in the fight of their lives, having more family and friends on their side is more important than any material thing.
And thanks for reading. I feel better knowing I can vent.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Saturday, November 25, 2006
The American Political Condition, November 2006
The mid-term elections of 2006 are over, but the arguments continue. Democrats have gained control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, for the first time since the early years of Bill Clinton’s first term as President. This condition quite naturally has convinced Democrats and Liberals that America now prefers their leadership to that of the Republicans and Conservatives. The Republicans and Conservatives contend that the election was the result of a combination of Democrat misportrayal of their policies and ideals, and public disgust of the Republican failure to deliver promised reforms. Each side claims that the other is doomed to irrelevancy and a loss of position in government. It now appears to me that such prophets are unaware of the demographics.
Demographics is one of those fancy words people use when they want to sound smart, and that includes me at times. Put plainly, the study of demographics is just studying who the people are and what they believe. Those beliefs are the ideals and values they hold, and those determine which party serves them best. Knowing the trends of demographic behavior helps show which party has the most potential “turf” for election contests, and suggests the strategies necessary to win control of the government.
Two notions which are over-used and subject to rational challenge, are the notion or denial of a “mandate”, and the belief that any one election makes a change which cannot be undone. The data from past elections shows that every election is a mandate of a sort, though never an absolute one, and that the public always reserves the right to change its mind. A big part of the problem is that more and more, the public perceives elected officials as alien to the public norm; candidates always appear to be people of relative wealth and influence, which is no surprise given what is needed to endure a campaign, but it also creates a separation from the public and their elected officials. While no one seriously wants a person of only average intelligence, ideals, and ability to be in charge, there is a great mistrust of a class of persons who appear to not have direct experience of real world conditions. People who never appear to deal with rush hour traffic, physical work and the sheer aggravation of government bureaucracy, are not seen as completely able to address the concerns and needs of ordinary people. This condition is well-known by politicians, which has primarily led to a flood of commercials every election showing the candidate as a regular guy – who just happens to be rich, in perfect physical shape and who thinks his management of the bureaucracy will solve many problems.
As a result of this mistrust, there is a limit to how many people will vote each election cycle. Only a part of the public is eligible to vote, and of those only some will register to vote. And only some of the pool of registered voters will vote in a given election. Many consultants are hired every election to find a way to get desired voters to the polls. Getting sixty percent of the popular vote is considered a landslide, which should tell you how difficult it is to win a majority at all. Generally, either a Republican or Democrat can expect to collect between 35 and 55 percent of a vote, depending on the nominal characteristics of the district or state in which they are running. This can be altered by either drawing in a higher portion of your own “base”, or by convincing your opponent’s base to stay home somewhat. Nick Lampson, for example, won the 22nd Congressional District race in a heavily Republican district, by motivating his base while the Democrats worked hard to dismay the Republicans from supporting the write-in candidate, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs. The Democrats managed this election by not only motivating their base, but also by depressing Republican turnout.
Polls, as we know, can be misleading if the results are manipulated rather than viewed in context. Among the myths being presented this year are claims that Republicans voted for Democrats rather than staying home, or that Independents showed up in large numbers and swayed the elections. The best way, I think, to sort out such claims is to look not only at the claims, but the hard numbers.
Let’s start with an important number from 2004; more than 62 million American voters chose to re-elect President George W. Bush. That sets a standard; while midterm elections generally produce a much lower turnout than elections in Presidential election years, 2004 establishes an important benchmark. The Census Bureau noted that turnout in 2004 was the highest in U.S. elections since 1968, and a four-point jump in overall participation from 2000, which itself showed strong turnout on both sides.
Between 1978 and 2004, on average 62.9 percent of eligible citizens vote in Presidential election years, versus 48.5 percent in mid-term elections. For registered voters in that same time frame, 72.3 percent vote in Presidential election years and 67.6 percent vote in mid-term. So for starters, people who keep up their registration are more likely to vote than people who have to be motivated to renew their registration. It also suggests that about 48 million Republicans would reasonably expect to vote in the 2006 election under nominal conditions. George Mason’s numbers show national voter turnout at the 39% level, far below expectations and a salient factor in the possibility that a specific sector of the demographic could sway the election results on the national scale.
Using CNN’s exit poll results for the 2004 and 2006 House of Representative national voting sample, the demographic numbers did not change much at all. The 2004 balance of party identification seems to have been the key; Democrats kept their share of the vote at 38%, but Democrats who only voted for their party 90% of the time in 2004, did so 93% of the time in 2006. A small measure, but it could make the difference in tight races. Also worth noting was the decline in GOP voting. Republicans declined slightly, representing 38% of voters in 2004 but only 36% in 2006. Voting by Conservatives also dropped by two points, indicating that the stay-at-homes were conservative Republicans, which would explain why votes for Democrats by Republicans rose from 7% in 2004 to 8% in 2006. Again, each of these is a small matter, except that they add up. Self-described Moderates increased their share to 47% in 2006, up 2 points from the 45% they represented in 2004. Those moderates swung more to the Left, voting 56% for Democrats in 2004 but 60% in 2006.
The real key is to understand that the voter pool for 2006 was not static from 2004, but dropped significantly. CNN noted that 11% of voters in 2004 said they were voting for the first time, but they showed no results this time, which is consistent with a voter pool largely disillusioned and inclined to give this round a miss. For all effective counting, more than a third of 2004’s voters stayed home in 2006, from both parties and all ideologies. This election came down to three factors which played against the Republicans:
Most open seats were Republican, and the most incumbent seats at risk were Republican;
The Democrats were largely unified in purpose, while some leading Conservatives advocated abandoning Republican candidates; and
The Mainstream Media made a hard push against Republicans, as exemplified by highlighted focus on DeLay and Foley, who had each already resigned, while ignoring in-office criminals like William Jefferson and Harry Reid.
I would like to say that this was a one-time aberration, but instead it’s more of a wake-up call. Democrats proved they could win by uniting on a common theme, using the media to their advantage, and protecting fellow party members from loss. Fortunately for Republicans, the Democrats have shown no inclination to correct deep-seated errors in their strategy and focus, the nation is significantly more conservative than liberal, and Democrat blunders and quick moves to increase taxes and abandon duty in the Middle East are already making ripples in the national opinion; Pelosi burned the honeymoon early on, and the dealmakers have shown the Democrats for frauds, to talk about reform when in fact they intended only to improve their graft technique. The Republicans have lessons to learn, but presuming they do so now, the damage to be done by the Left may be, if not prevented, at least repaired somewhat later.
.
Demographics is one of those fancy words people use when they want to sound smart, and that includes me at times. Put plainly, the study of demographics is just studying who the people are and what they believe. Those beliefs are the ideals and values they hold, and those determine which party serves them best. Knowing the trends of demographic behavior helps show which party has the most potential “turf” for election contests, and suggests the strategies necessary to win control of the government.
Two notions which are over-used and subject to rational challenge, are the notion or denial of a “mandate”, and the belief that any one election makes a change which cannot be undone. The data from past elections shows that every election is a mandate of a sort, though never an absolute one, and that the public always reserves the right to change its mind. A big part of the problem is that more and more, the public perceives elected officials as alien to the public norm; candidates always appear to be people of relative wealth and influence, which is no surprise given what is needed to endure a campaign, but it also creates a separation from the public and their elected officials. While no one seriously wants a person of only average intelligence, ideals, and ability to be in charge, there is a great mistrust of a class of persons who appear to not have direct experience of real world conditions. People who never appear to deal with rush hour traffic, physical work and the sheer aggravation of government bureaucracy, are not seen as completely able to address the concerns and needs of ordinary people. This condition is well-known by politicians, which has primarily led to a flood of commercials every election showing the candidate as a regular guy – who just happens to be rich, in perfect physical shape and who thinks his management of the bureaucracy will solve many problems.
As a result of this mistrust, there is a limit to how many people will vote each election cycle. Only a part of the public is eligible to vote, and of those only some will register to vote. And only some of the pool of registered voters will vote in a given election. Many consultants are hired every election to find a way to get desired voters to the polls. Getting sixty percent of the popular vote is considered a landslide, which should tell you how difficult it is to win a majority at all. Generally, either a Republican or Democrat can expect to collect between 35 and 55 percent of a vote, depending on the nominal characteristics of the district or state in which they are running. This can be altered by either drawing in a higher portion of your own “base”, or by convincing your opponent’s base to stay home somewhat. Nick Lampson, for example, won the 22nd Congressional District race in a heavily Republican district, by motivating his base while the Democrats worked hard to dismay the Republicans from supporting the write-in candidate, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs. The Democrats managed this election by not only motivating their base, but also by depressing Republican turnout.
Polls, as we know, can be misleading if the results are manipulated rather than viewed in context. Among the myths being presented this year are claims that Republicans voted for Democrats rather than staying home, or that Independents showed up in large numbers and swayed the elections. The best way, I think, to sort out such claims is to look not only at the claims, but the hard numbers.
Let’s start with an important number from 2004; more than 62 million American voters chose to re-elect President George W. Bush. That sets a standard; while midterm elections generally produce a much lower turnout than elections in Presidential election years, 2004 establishes an important benchmark. The Census Bureau noted that turnout in 2004 was the highest in U.S. elections since 1968, and a four-point jump in overall participation from 2000, which itself showed strong turnout on both sides.
Between 1978 and 2004, on average 62.9 percent of eligible citizens vote in Presidential election years, versus 48.5 percent in mid-term elections. For registered voters in that same time frame, 72.3 percent vote in Presidential election years and 67.6 percent vote in mid-term. So for starters, people who keep up their registration are more likely to vote than people who have to be motivated to renew their registration. It also suggests that about 48 million Republicans would reasonably expect to vote in the 2006 election under nominal conditions. George Mason’s numbers show national voter turnout at the 39% level, far below expectations and a salient factor in the possibility that a specific sector of the demographic could sway the election results on the national scale.
Using CNN’s exit poll results for the 2004 and 2006 House of Representative national voting sample, the demographic numbers did not change much at all. The 2004 balance of party identification seems to have been the key; Democrats kept their share of the vote at 38%, but Democrats who only voted for their party 90% of the time in 2004, did so 93% of the time in 2006. A small measure, but it could make the difference in tight races. Also worth noting was the decline in GOP voting. Republicans declined slightly, representing 38% of voters in 2004 but only 36% in 2006. Voting by Conservatives also dropped by two points, indicating that the stay-at-homes were conservative Republicans, which would explain why votes for Democrats by Republicans rose from 7% in 2004 to 8% in 2006. Again, each of these is a small matter, except that they add up. Self-described Moderates increased their share to 47% in 2006, up 2 points from the 45% they represented in 2004. Those moderates swung more to the Left, voting 56% for Democrats in 2004 but 60% in 2006.
The real key is to understand that the voter pool for 2006 was not static from 2004, but dropped significantly. CNN noted that 11% of voters in 2004 said they were voting for the first time, but they showed no results this time, which is consistent with a voter pool largely disillusioned and inclined to give this round a miss. For all effective counting, more than a third of 2004’s voters stayed home in 2006, from both parties and all ideologies. This election came down to three factors which played against the Republicans:
Most open seats were Republican, and the most incumbent seats at risk were Republican;
The Democrats were largely unified in purpose, while some leading Conservatives advocated abandoning Republican candidates; and
The Mainstream Media made a hard push against Republicans, as exemplified by highlighted focus on DeLay and Foley, who had each already resigned, while ignoring in-office criminals like William Jefferson and Harry Reid.
I would like to say that this was a one-time aberration, but instead it’s more of a wake-up call. Democrats proved they could win by uniting on a common theme, using the media to their advantage, and protecting fellow party members from loss. Fortunately for Republicans, the Democrats have shown no inclination to correct deep-seated errors in their strategy and focus, the nation is significantly more conservative than liberal, and Democrat blunders and quick moves to increase taxes and abandon duty in the Middle East are already making ripples in the national opinion; Pelosi burned the honeymoon early on, and the dealmakers have shown the Democrats for frauds, to talk about reform when in fact they intended only to improve their graft technique. The Republicans have lessons to learn, but presuming they do so now, the damage to be done by the Left may be, if not prevented, at least repaired somewhat later.
.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Two Retail Chains, Two Philosophies
It’s a long story, but I did not own a Christmas tree before today. Oh, I’ve had one every now and then over the years, but something always seemed to happen to them – maybe aliens with bad eyesight abducted the tree instead of me, but I always seemed to lose the things. So for a number of years I have made do without one. It never seemed important to respecting the birth of my Lord Jesus Christ to put a tree up in my living room anyway. But, tradition being what it is, and my daughter loving all aspects of holidays, especially the shiny kind like Christmas, I was thinking of getting a tree this year.
So it was, that when Lowe’s advertised on the television last night a six and a half foot tall artificial tree with lights for $25, I took notice, and so I took my daughter to Lowe’s today to try to get a tree. The short version is they ran out fast of the advertised trees. That, in itself, was not a big deal, although I noticed that there was no obvious empty space where the bargain trees had been, which told me they did not have many to start with – while Lowe’s gets out of legal trouble with a “while supplies last” disclaimer in the printed ad, they clearly had no intention of meeting the moral obligation to provide the product they advertised, and I noticed that the next cheapest trees available were nearly a hundred dollars. What we have here is a company lying to people in a dishonest trick to lure them into the store for a promotion they have no intention of honoring.
Frankly, this stunt by Lowe’s is a disappointment. Compared to Home Depot, I have generally found Lowe’s to be a better and more responsible chain, but every now and then they do pull something like this, and why they think that counts as good business seems to me to indicate a mild mental aberrance in their board room. I would also note that, unusual for Lowe’s, the employees were abrupt and hostile. I put that down to the employee’s natural dislike of being told to lie to the public.
But that is only half the story. After getting lied to by Lowe’s, I went to my next stop on today’s errands, which happened to be Wal-Mart. Going into a Wal-Mart the day after Thanksgiving was not something I looked forward to doing, but I had to get more cough medicine for Jagan, and the most effective and cheapest stuff was Wal-Tussin at Wal-Mart, so in we went.
Wal-Mart was crowded all right, but orderly, clean, and with a relatively happy atmosphere. The employees were polite and cheerful, and wonder of wonders, I saw a display by the door advertising artificial trees for $19.84. I did not want to trust too much that such trees would still be in stock, but when I asked, they had them in plenty, and it was easy to get the tree in addition to my other purchases. In fact, Wal-Mart had plenty of extra employees ready for the rush, they were well-positioned to assist customers and answer questions, and generally the place was very well run, front to back.
I could put that down to a happy coincidence, except that now I think about it, this is always the case at Wal-Mart, enough that Wal-Mart is often my first stop when I need to buy something. Whatever “it” is, Wal-Mart is likely to have it, and at a good price, and if I should need to return it, there has never been a problem so long as I have the receipt. I mean really, in the past three years I cannot remember Wal-Mart ever being badly stocked, overpriced, or rude. Individual stores are better-run than others sure, but in the main I would have to say that if you need to go buy something, start at Wal-Mart. And no, neither I nor anyone in my family, nor any of my personal friends works at Wal-Mart, just in case you were wondering.
PS – I apologize for the light blogging, but it appears that Blogger is also taking vacation. The write/edit pages take forever to load and process, and fail repeatedly. I can’t decide whether they have decided to follow the Ford motorcar or Lowe’s marketing method for their template.
So it was, that when Lowe’s advertised on the television last night a six and a half foot tall artificial tree with lights for $25, I took notice, and so I took my daughter to Lowe’s today to try to get a tree. The short version is they ran out fast of the advertised trees. That, in itself, was not a big deal, although I noticed that there was no obvious empty space where the bargain trees had been, which told me they did not have many to start with – while Lowe’s gets out of legal trouble with a “while supplies last” disclaimer in the printed ad, they clearly had no intention of meeting the moral obligation to provide the product they advertised, and I noticed that the next cheapest trees available were nearly a hundred dollars. What we have here is a company lying to people in a dishonest trick to lure them into the store for a promotion they have no intention of honoring.
Frankly, this stunt by Lowe’s is a disappointment. Compared to Home Depot, I have generally found Lowe’s to be a better and more responsible chain, but every now and then they do pull something like this, and why they think that counts as good business seems to me to indicate a mild mental aberrance in their board room. I would also note that, unusual for Lowe’s, the employees were abrupt and hostile. I put that down to the employee’s natural dislike of being told to lie to the public.
But that is only half the story. After getting lied to by Lowe’s, I went to my next stop on today’s errands, which happened to be Wal-Mart. Going into a Wal-Mart the day after Thanksgiving was not something I looked forward to doing, but I had to get more cough medicine for Jagan, and the most effective and cheapest stuff was Wal-Tussin at Wal-Mart, so in we went.
Wal-Mart was crowded all right, but orderly, clean, and with a relatively happy atmosphere. The employees were polite and cheerful, and wonder of wonders, I saw a display by the door advertising artificial trees for $19.84. I did not want to trust too much that such trees would still be in stock, but when I asked, they had them in plenty, and it was easy to get the tree in addition to my other purchases. In fact, Wal-Mart had plenty of extra employees ready for the rush, they were well-positioned to assist customers and answer questions, and generally the place was very well run, front to back.
I could put that down to a happy coincidence, except that now I think about it, this is always the case at Wal-Mart, enough that Wal-Mart is often my first stop when I need to buy something. Whatever “it” is, Wal-Mart is likely to have it, and at a good price, and if I should need to return it, there has never been a problem so long as I have the receipt. I mean really, in the past three years I cannot remember Wal-Mart ever being badly stocked, overpriced, or rude. Individual stores are better-run than others sure, but in the main I would have to say that if you need to go buy something, start at Wal-Mart. And no, neither I nor anyone in my family, nor any of my personal friends works at Wal-Mart, just in case you were wondering.
PS – I apologize for the light blogging, but it appears that Blogger is also taking vacation. The write/edit pages take forever to load and process, and fail repeatedly. I can’t decide whether they have decided to follow the Ford motorcar or Lowe’s marketing method for their template.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
A Dark Marker In History
Forty-three years ago today, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas during a motorcade to a speaking event. The consequences of that day still affect our nation and culture, from security mindset (no President has ridden in an open-car motorcade since that day) to our trust in government. This second feature is most notable in the fact that a large portion of the population does not believe the findings of the Warren Commission were truthful, a condition which has been strong since 1967. Whether Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK on his own, with accomplices, or was an unwitting stooge as some maintain, is not the focus here, but rather the enduring controversy, which refuses to go away and which therefore has undermined trust and confidence in the federal government. Mistrust of President Johnson hurt his credibility to the point that he chose not to run for re-election in 1968, and no President since the Kennedy assassination has been completely free of suspicion of some kind.
Monday, November 20, 2006
The Myth of Joe Average
As a Republican and as a Conservative, the election results from two weeks ago are still as painful as my stitches from surgery that same day. By any rational perspective, replacing the Republican majority in Congress with a Democratic one is sure to raise taxes, give away our rights to government control, and subject the nation to even larger doses of “Blame Bush” dysfunction. Perhaps thirty percent desires the last point, but I sincerely doubt that even one-fifth of the nation wants those other aspects of Donkey Rule. Yet the Democrats won, by playing on concerns about the Iraq War in many places, and by out and out lying to voters in many other places. It will be interesting to see how many of these “conservative” Democrats, elected in close races because they promised to avoid the extremism of Pelosi and Rangel, choose their word over their party, and who realizes that they cannot be Leftists and still be re-elected. But that is not what I am writing about today. Today I am writing about the myth of the average American.
I am an individualist. One reason I became a Conservative instead of a Liberal, was that in actual practice the Liberals demanded conformity to the party line far more often than Conservatives did. For all the claims by Liberals that they alone represented the people overall, it was always the Conservatives whose actual behavior encouraged me to think for myself, to express my opinion even when it was not in line with some national headquarters, and to advance new perspectives rather than just sit and listen to some appointed figurehead. That’s why I always found it so funny that Liberals accused Conservatives of supporting Bush in lockstep, when in actual fact the Republicans had trouble maintaining control at times because of the wide range of opinions on the key issues within their ranks. We are, by nature and by choice, far better in practice than they are, and truer to our promise than the Liberals have been for more than a generation.
But we failed. We let pettiness separate our different parts, and a struggle for supremacy pit us against each other. I have said before that a signal symptom of our weakness this year was that so many Republicans chose not to support President Bush, never realizing that the man who collected more votes in 2004 than anyone in history was key to their own survival – not because Bush was so popular, but because the Democrats’ plan was always based on pitting the Republicans against themselves, making Right-side voters choose between their President and their Congressman, which was finally resolved by so many who threw up their hands and stayed home, leaving the government to the people least trustworthy for the job.
This means we have a hard task ahead of us. First, the GOP has to get over its ego, stop playing territorial games and remember the lessons taught by Goldwater, Reagan, and George W. Bush. Then they have to listen to America, because even when the GOP comes back into power, it will be useless unless the party is serious about making promises which matter, and keeping them. Fortunately and unfortunately, the Democrats are fools.
There was a time when Democrats were formidable adversaries, who not only knew how to win elections but who had serious commitment to the health and welfare of America. Those days, however, were long ago – the Democrats have fallen into thinking that the win is everything, that popularity of the moment will somehow magically provide the legacy they crave, and that telling enough lies about Republicans will always fool enough people to keep them in power. That possibility exists, of course, as evidenced by the last election, but there is a crucial flaw in the Democrats’ thinking, one which could also hurt the Republicans, but to my mind not so much: The myth of Joe Average.
James Carville is pretty mad, but then, that’s normal for him. This time though, he’s blaming Howard Dean because he thinks the Democrats could have done much, much better in the elections, perhaps to the point of claiming veto-proof majorities now or in the near future. But Carville is wrong on this point. Not that the Democrats could not have enjoyed greater numbers than they gained; that could have happened if certain things had gone their way. But the Democrats made one crucial error; they looked at the collective demographics in each race and tried to appeal to what they saw as the Average American in each case. This was a mistake, and it says a lot about how the Democrats think of Americans, as if they were merely pawns rather than individuals. If you look at the ads the Democrats ran during the late campaign, along with the predictable slime attacks and lies about Republicans, there was a clear theme which tried to sell the Democrats as strong on National Security, dedicated to traditional American values, and determined to listen to the public, three key traits which in actual practice the Democrats as a whole and especially in their leadership have clearly not embraced in memory. So while resentment and anger in the guts of Republicans caused many of them to stay home, and bitterness about Iraq caused many Independent voters to forget about the strong economy, all the good done in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the lack of terrorist attacks since 9/11 – three things we cannot expect a Democratic Congress to pay much attention to, either – and “send a message” by voting in the Party of Façade, not many people at all bought into the Donk ad campaigns. The Democrats won in spite of their advertising, not because of it. And while the actual ads will soon be forgotten, there is a taste in the mouths of the voters, best expressed in the sentiment sent to Democrats - ”You’d better not be lying to us again”.
Habits are hard things to break, though. For the Republicans, that means getting away from the turf fights and back to what made the party work – grassroots focus and listening to the people, all of them. Because there are tens of millions of people willing to speak their mind to the Republicans, and once they realize that the Democrats are only interested in selling to the theoretical “average” guy, with no mind to what real people need and demand, many more may be willing to give the Republicans a second chance, provided the Republicans show they won’t blow it.
I am an individualist. One reason I became a Conservative instead of a Liberal, was that in actual practice the Liberals demanded conformity to the party line far more often than Conservatives did. For all the claims by Liberals that they alone represented the people overall, it was always the Conservatives whose actual behavior encouraged me to think for myself, to express my opinion even when it was not in line with some national headquarters, and to advance new perspectives rather than just sit and listen to some appointed figurehead. That’s why I always found it so funny that Liberals accused Conservatives of supporting Bush in lockstep, when in actual fact the Republicans had trouble maintaining control at times because of the wide range of opinions on the key issues within their ranks. We are, by nature and by choice, far better in practice than they are, and truer to our promise than the Liberals have been for more than a generation.
But we failed. We let pettiness separate our different parts, and a struggle for supremacy pit us against each other. I have said before that a signal symptom of our weakness this year was that so many Republicans chose not to support President Bush, never realizing that the man who collected more votes in 2004 than anyone in history was key to their own survival – not because Bush was so popular, but because the Democrats’ plan was always based on pitting the Republicans against themselves, making Right-side voters choose between their President and their Congressman, which was finally resolved by so many who threw up their hands and stayed home, leaving the government to the people least trustworthy for the job.
This means we have a hard task ahead of us. First, the GOP has to get over its ego, stop playing territorial games and remember the lessons taught by Goldwater, Reagan, and George W. Bush. Then they have to listen to America, because even when the GOP comes back into power, it will be useless unless the party is serious about making promises which matter, and keeping them. Fortunately and unfortunately, the Democrats are fools.
There was a time when Democrats were formidable adversaries, who not only knew how to win elections but who had serious commitment to the health and welfare of America. Those days, however, were long ago – the Democrats have fallen into thinking that the win is everything, that popularity of the moment will somehow magically provide the legacy they crave, and that telling enough lies about Republicans will always fool enough people to keep them in power. That possibility exists, of course, as evidenced by the last election, but there is a crucial flaw in the Democrats’ thinking, one which could also hurt the Republicans, but to my mind not so much: The myth of Joe Average.
James Carville is pretty mad, but then, that’s normal for him. This time though, he’s blaming Howard Dean because he thinks the Democrats could have done much, much better in the elections, perhaps to the point of claiming veto-proof majorities now or in the near future. But Carville is wrong on this point. Not that the Democrats could not have enjoyed greater numbers than they gained; that could have happened if certain things had gone their way. But the Democrats made one crucial error; they looked at the collective demographics in each race and tried to appeal to what they saw as the Average American in each case. This was a mistake, and it says a lot about how the Democrats think of Americans, as if they were merely pawns rather than individuals. If you look at the ads the Democrats ran during the late campaign, along with the predictable slime attacks and lies about Republicans, there was a clear theme which tried to sell the Democrats as strong on National Security, dedicated to traditional American values, and determined to listen to the public, three key traits which in actual practice the Democrats as a whole and especially in their leadership have clearly not embraced in memory. So while resentment and anger in the guts of Republicans caused many of them to stay home, and bitterness about Iraq caused many Independent voters to forget about the strong economy, all the good done in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the lack of terrorist attacks since 9/11 – three things we cannot expect a Democratic Congress to pay much attention to, either – and “send a message” by voting in the Party of Façade, not many people at all bought into the Donk ad campaigns. The Democrats won in spite of their advertising, not because of it. And while the actual ads will soon be forgotten, there is a taste in the mouths of the voters, best expressed in the sentiment sent to Democrats - ”You’d better not be lying to us again”.
Habits are hard things to break, though. For the Republicans, that means getting away from the turf fights and back to what made the party work – grassroots focus and listening to the people, all of them. Because there are tens of millions of people willing to speak their mind to the Republicans, and once they realize that the Democrats are only interested in selling to the theoretical “average” guy, with no mind to what real people need and demand, many more may be willing to give the Republicans a second chance, provided the Republicans show they won’t blow it.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Don't Buy The Fake
Earlier today, my alma mater (which seems to be Latin for “imitation football team”) lost again to finish the season 4-8. The Bears were given a weak schedule, and they decided to play a weak game. This by itself I could live with; the Bears have been a distinctly bad team for a number of years now. But Baylor decided to start this season by bragging how they were going to a bowl this year. Yeah, good luck with that. The Bears lost four of their last five games, those losses coming by an average score of Real Team 50, Fake Team 21. The Bears couldn’t even talk the talk properly. What wins they Bears did get, came over a Division I-AA school, two teams heavily hurt by injuries, and the team headed for last place in its division. Weak, especially for all the boasting.
What’s this got to do with politics? Ever since the Democrats took both chambers of Congress, we’ve been hearing how this means the end of the Conservatives, that America has “repudiated” the Contract With America. I understand the excitement by the Donks; they have not won in a big way since 1992, and so this was a big deal for them. But they are wrong if they believe that the Conservatives are ruined by one election or put beyond returning to power sooner than they would like, and anyone who plays that song is playing the fool.
More people, even today, call themselves ‘conservative’ than ‘liberal’. More people respect the Republican President than the Democratic Congress, even now. While the Democrats have claimed power, they cannot keep their promises to both the nation which voted them in, and to the extremists whose money and energy has bought their souls, because the promises are exclusive one set to the other. If they defy their voters, they will not remain in the majority in 2008. If they find the courage to reject the Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan/Howard Dean/Kos cabal, they will fins a fight against a ruthless foe, and the resulting fracture of money and power may well cost them their control of Congress that way as well.
The Democrats pretend they have a mandate. And Faust thought he would never have to pay his price.
What’s this got to do with politics? Ever since the Democrats took both chambers of Congress, we’ve been hearing how this means the end of the Conservatives, that America has “repudiated” the Contract With America. I understand the excitement by the Donks; they have not won in a big way since 1992, and so this was a big deal for them. But they are wrong if they believe that the Conservatives are ruined by one election or put beyond returning to power sooner than they would like, and anyone who plays that song is playing the fool.
More people, even today, call themselves ‘conservative’ than ‘liberal’. More people respect the Republican President than the Democratic Congress, even now. While the Democrats have claimed power, they cannot keep their promises to both the nation which voted them in, and to the extremists whose money and energy has bought their souls, because the promises are exclusive one set to the other. If they defy their voters, they will not remain in the majority in 2008. If they find the courage to reject the Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan/Howard Dean/Kos cabal, they will fins a fight against a ruthless foe, and the resulting fracture of money and power may well cost them their control of Congress that way as well.
The Democrats pretend they have a mandate. And Faust thought he would never have to pay his price.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Joe Lieberman : A Man Beyond His Image
I am hardly surprised to learn that newly-reelected Senator Joe Lieberman has announced that he will caucus with the Democrats, and considers himself a “Democratic Independent”. Lieberman, after all, was the Democrat’s choice for their VP nomination in 2000, and his voting record is clearly left-of-center. There was frankly never a real chance that Lieberman would become a Republican. That said, the Democrats have a real problem, or at least the Harry Reid “Run Away” Military Strategy Team has one, with Joe Lieberman and some other Senators like him.
The Democrats wanted this election to be about George Bush, but whenever they played that card, they lost ground in the polls, and so the election became about the War in Iraq, an indirect attack on the man with whom Democrats are obsessed well past the point of compulsion. Early in 2006, Joe Lieberman made a statement which basically said that while he disagreed with how we got there, the United States must meet its commitment to Iraq, and that President Bush should given a measure of support for trying to stabilize the country. That statement alone cost him the support of the Democrats’ leadership, and led to his primary defeat by Ned Lamont. Lieberman never became a Conservative or a Republican, but his position cut a line between him and the extremist Democrats. That would have mattered not a bit to the Far-Left Democrats, but for one thing: They needed the “centrist” and “moderate” image in order to take over Congress. The 2006 version of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” became ”don’t let folks know for sure where you stand on the war”. And it worked, but with a price – there are now a number of Democrats who honestly believe the United States must stay in Iraq and finish the job, and many more who essentially promised their constituents that they were not going to cut and run. These Democrats understand that they cannot vote for a bug-out or anything like it, or they will pay in 2008. The Democrats took Congress all right, but they only have a 2-seat majority in the Senate and a lot of Democrats won House races by tight margins – if the Republicans could lose both chambers of Congress because they were seen as not listening to the people on Iraq, then certainly the Democrats can lose their thin majorities if they prove to have lied to the people. It is a mistake to believe that mistrust of the Republicans is a mandate for the Democrats; what exists now is a sort of ‘wait & see’ condition. If Pelosi thinks she can shove Leftist legislation onto people who were promised moderation, or if she thinks abandoning the military will result in anything but disaster, she will lose control of her party, as self-preservation instincts will kick in among those who come from Red states or places with a lot of soldiers’ hometowns (hint – the number of states which do not fit #1 or #2 is a small number), and chaos is a poor condition for campaigns. At some point, Republicans will find numerous chances to appear reasonable and appeal to common people on the most important issues, which for some reason the Democrats have as yet shown no interest in addressing.
The Democrats find themselves looking at two directions – they can protect their majority only by turning their back on their extremists, and they can only pander to their most violent sector by taking a course which is overwhelmingly likely to fracture their party and cost them control of Congress in a short matter of time. It may prove to be to the nation’s great relief that Senator Joe Lieberman, Independent Democrat, has forced them to look honestly at this condition.
The Democrats wanted this election to be about George Bush, but whenever they played that card, they lost ground in the polls, and so the election became about the War in Iraq, an indirect attack on the man with whom Democrats are obsessed well past the point of compulsion. Early in 2006, Joe Lieberman made a statement which basically said that while he disagreed with how we got there, the United States must meet its commitment to Iraq, and that President Bush should given a measure of support for trying to stabilize the country. That statement alone cost him the support of the Democrats’ leadership, and led to his primary defeat by Ned Lamont. Lieberman never became a Conservative or a Republican, but his position cut a line between him and the extremist Democrats. That would have mattered not a bit to the Far-Left Democrats, but for one thing: They needed the “centrist” and “moderate” image in order to take over Congress. The 2006 version of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” became ”don’t let folks know for sure where you stand on the war”. And it worked, but with a price – there are now a number of Democrats who honestly believe the United States must stay in Iraq and finish the job, and many more who essentially promised their constituents that they were not going to cut and run. These Democrats understand that they cannot vote for a bug-out or anything like it, or they will pay in 2008. The Democrats took Congress all right, but they only have a 2-seat majority in the Senate and a lot of Democrats won House races by tight margins – if the Republicans could lose both chambers of Congress because they were seen as not listening to the people on Iraq, then certainly the Democrats can lose their thin majorities if they prove to have lied to the people. It is a mistake to believe that mistrust of the Republicans is a mandate for the Democrats; what exists now is a sort of ‘wait & see’ condition. If Pelosi thinks she can shove Leftist legislation onto people who were promised moderation, or if she thinks abandoning the military will result in anything but disaster, she will lose control of her party, as self-preservation instincts will kick in among those who come from Red states or places with a lot of soldiers’ hometowns (hint – the number of states which do not fit #1 or #2 is a small number), and chaos is a poor condition for campaigns. At some point, Republicans will find numerous chances to appear reasonable and appeal to common people on the most important issues, which for some reason the Democrats have as yet shown no interest in addressing.
The Democrats find themselves looking at two directions – they can protect their majority only by turning their back on their extremists, and they can only pander to their most violent sector by taking a course which is overwhelmingly likely to fracture their party and cost them control of Congress in a short matter of time. It may prove to be to the nation’s great relief that Senator Joe Lieberman, Independent Democrat, has forced them to look honestly at this condition.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
A Republican Will Be Elected President in 2008
The Democrats are having great fun this week. Flush with the “mandate” of an historically-average gain in the Midterm elections, the Democrats have convinced themselves of many myths. Inside of two years, however, the appeal of that fantasy will wear away to show the hollow core of the Democratic Party, a lie even in its name by now, and the nation will find its hope once again on the Right side of the aisle.
There are a number of reasons why this will happen. Part of this comes down to the devil’s deal the Democrats made, giving over their leadership to extreme Liberals – simple demographics prove that the American people have little interest in Leftist causes, and will not be quiet if/when the Democrats attempt to impose Socialism on them, as villains like Clinton, Pelosi, and Murtha have already hinted they mean to do. If you lie to take control as the Democrats did, by presenting yourself as “moderate”, you will find yourself hard-pressed to gain the trust of the people when your fraud is discovered.
Another part of this is apparent in the article I posted yesterday regarding Joe Trippi’s presumed field for the 2008 Democratic Nomination for President. This far ahead of the election, you’d expect a wide open field with a wide variety of ideas and policy courses to consider, but just as in past years, the Democrats have already begun to lock themselves into assumed choices; they love the box of conventional leadership, even if it means rehashing proven losers and candidates experienced only in posture and trash talk. By closing the door on any consideration of candidates not already anointed by the DNC, the Democrats not only reduce the scale of their approach to the people, but demonstrate a refusal to listen to the people whose voice will decide the matter in 2008. Certainly the Democrats may realize their mistake and correct it before the 2008 primaries get going, but their behavior now suggests they have committed themselves to the front-loaded process, even now that they know such a tactic leads to serious error and electoral cost.
Another part of this is simple history. One popular theory of why people vote for certain candidates or parties is called Voter Fatigue, and it is at least generally valid. The problems for Democrats are these – first, with the Democrats having grabbed the House and Senate, Voter Fatigue of the GOP has already been addressed and if it plays a role, it would be a reaction against the Democrats. But the historical example is also important. The White House changes hands between the parties, but most of the time there is a clear reason why it does so. In 1968, the Democrats had split against themselves and it cost them the White House; the Republicans did the same thing to a lesser degree in 1992, but with the same result. In 1976, the Democrats grabbed the White House but only an idiot would fail to understand that this was the result of clearly illegal actions by Richard Nixon – while extremists on the Left use the word “illegal” to describe Bush’s actions in office, they do not have legal support for their charges. If someone thinks that a Democrat vendetta against Bush, pursuing impeachment for his Iraq policies and decisions, would help them in 2008, I would remind the reader that while Bill Clinton later admitted to the truth of the charges in his own impeachment, there was nonetheless a political impetus as a result of the proceedings – in favor of Clinton and therefore the Democrats. Few people familiar with the evidence have any doubt that an attack on President Bush would end up hurting the Democrats.
In 1980, Reagan won the White House in a unique set of circumstances – double-digit Unemployment and Inflation, along with a sense that Carter had weakened American military strength and resolve. It is unlikely in the extreme that the Democrats could hope for a similar condition in 2008, especially since they now control the funding between now and then, and so would be blamed if the economy or the military collapsed from today’s present health.
Another thing which hurts the Democrats is the sense that they have gained the Congress, sort of “balancing” the scales. This would encourage many “moderates” to keep a Republican in the White House to make sure the Democrats did not get too much power – the Democrats are fooling themselves, if they believe that anger against the Republicans would equal blind trust in the Democrats. While Bush and Clinton both enjoyed elections with their party in control of Congress, Clinton’s re-election came with a GOP House. And historically, many Presidents have been perceived as a check on Congress – the public flat does not want a perceived extremist in the Oval Office – Dean, Pelosi, and Clinton have their fans, but they will none of them ever be President.
While I am thinking about it, I should also address the lie that President Bush’s approval poll numbers cost the GOP the election. First, while it is true that Dubya’s numbers were down in the fall of this year, they were rising for most of the late campaign, and most credible polls had the President around 40%; not impressive, but significantly better than approval numbers for either the Congressional Republicans or Democrats. While President Bush was not able to pull GOP candidates of the hole to re-election, they dug that hole themselves. It is therefore unreasonable to think that a “blame Bush” strategy by Democrats will bear much fruit in 2008, although I do expect all the Democrats to play that card at some time in their campaigns.
In the end, the only way the Republicans could fail to win the White House in 2008, would be if they completely lose their focus and nerve, and nominate some dolt along the lines of Olympia Snowe or Lincoln Chaffee – there are a number of salient avenues to the White House, though I sincerely pray that we will nominate a true Conservative and Reaganite, because no matter what condition we find the balance of power in 2009, the nation needs a leader whose backbone and vision are strong, and who will not play politics with the will of God. I trust the Republicans will once again make the right choice.
There are a number of reasons why this will happen. Part of this comes down to the devil’s deal the Democrats made, giving over their leadership to extreme Liberals – simple demographics prove that the American people have little interest in Leftist causes, and will not be quiet if/when the Democrats attempt to impose Socialism on them, as villains like Clinton, Pelosi, and Murtha have already hinted they mean to do. If you lie to take control as the Democrats did, by presenting yourself as “moderate”, you will find yourself hard-pressed to gain the trust of the people when your fraud is discovered.
Another part of this is apparent in the article I posted yesterday regarding Joe Trippi’s presumed field for the 2008 Democratic Nomination for President. This far ahead of the election, you’d expect a wide open field with a wide variety of ideas and policy courses to consider, but just as in past years, the Democrats have already begun to lock themselves into assumed choices; they love the box of conventional leadership, even if it means rehashing proven losers and candidates experienced only in posture and trash talk. By closing the door on any consideration of candidates not already anointed by the DNC, the Democrats not only reduce the scale of their approach to the people, but demonstrate a refusal to listen to the people whose voice will decide the matter in 2008. Certainly the Democrats may realize their mistake and correct it before the 2008 primaries get going, but their behavior now suggests they have committed themselves to the front-loaded process, even now that they know such a tactic leads to serious error and electoral cost.
Another part of this is simple history. One popular theory of why people vote for certain candidates or parties is called Voter Fatigue, and it is at least generally valid. The problems for Democrats are these – first, with the Democrats having grabbed the House and Senate, Voter Fatigue of the GOP has already been addressed and if it plays a role, it would be a reaction against the Democrats. But the historical example is also important. The White House changes hands between the parties, but most of the time there is a clear reason why it does so. In 1968, the Democrats had split against themselves and it cost them the White House; the Republicans did the same thing to a lesser degree in 1992, but with the same result. In 1976, the Democrats grabbed the White House but only an idiot would fail to understand that this was the result of clearly illegal actions by Richard Nixon – while extremists on the Left use the word “illegal” to describe Bush’s actions in office, they do not have legal support for their charges. If someone thinks that a Democrat vendetta against Bush, pursuing impeachment for his Iraq policies and decisions, would help them in 2008, I would remind the reader that while Bill Clinton later admitted to the truth of the charges in his own impeachment, there was nonetheless a political impetus as a result of the proceedings – in favor of Clinton and therefore the Democrats. Few people familiar with the evidence have any doubt that an attack on President Bush would end up hurting the Democrats.
In 1980, Reagan won the White House in a unique set of circumstances – double-digit Unemployment and Inflation, along with a sense that Carter had weakened American military strength and resolve. It is unlikely in the extreme that the Democrats could hope for a similar condition in 2008, especially since they now control the funding between now and then, and so would be blamed if the economy or the military collapsed from today’s present health.
Another thing which hurts the Democrats is the sense that they have gained the Congress, sort of “balancing” the scales. This would encourage many “moderates” to keep a Republican in the White House to make sure the Democrats did not get too much power – the Democrats are fooling themselves, if they believe that anger against the Republicans would equal blind trust in the Democrats. While Bush and Clinton both enjoyed elections with their party in control of Congress, Clinton’s re-election came with a GOP House. And historically, many Presidents have been perceived as a check on Congress – the public flat does not want a perceived extremist in the Oval Office – Dean, Pelosi, and Clinton have their fans, but they will none of them ever be President.
While I am thinking about it, I should also address the lie that President Bush’s approval poll numbers cost the GOP the election. First, while it is true that Dubya’s numbers were down in the fall of this year, they were rising for most of the late campaign, and most credible polls had the President around 40%; not impressive, but significantly better than approval numbers for either the Congressional Republicans or Democrats. While President Bush was not able to pull GOP candidates of the hole to re-election, they dug that hole themselves. It is therefore unreasonable to think that a “blame Bush” strategy by Democrats will bear much fruit in 2008, although I do expect all the Democrats to play that card at some time in their campaigns.
In the end, the only way the Republicans could fail to win the White House in 2008, would be if they completely lose their focus and nerve, and nominate some dolt along the lines of Olympia Snowe or Lincoln Chaffee – there are a number of salient avenues to the White House, though I sincerely pray that we will nominate a true Conservative and Reaganite, because no matter what condition we find the balance of power in 2009, the nation needs a leader whose backbone and vision are strong, and who will not play politics with the will of God. I trust the Republicans will once again make the right choice.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Laughter is the Best Medicine; Trippi’s Contribution to the Comedy
Well, November has not been kind to me. My car broke down, I passed a couple kidney stones, then I got appendicitis and had to have my appendix surgically removed while America had a brain fart and elected the party of Nuance to run Congress in both houses. I mean sure, the GOP had its share of empty suits and broken promises, but putting the government in the hands of a party which thinks leadership is exemplified by the John Conyers, who held fake impeachment hearings, or Howard Dean, who publicly considered seriously allegations of direct Presidential involvement in the 9/11 atrocities is very much like letting a toddler play with your Uzi; I guess when he shoots the neighbors the Donks would sue them for being in the way, and the Uzi company for making the gun they let the kid play with. Diversity means pointing the finger, after all.
Hysteria being in fashion with Liberals these days, even in victory, it is only fitting that we turn to the words of Joe Trippi, as ever the wanna-be man of influence. Trippi’s last adventure, you may recall, was the amusing fantasy that Howard Dean was Presidential timber. Yet Trippi does open a window into the mind of the Modern Democrat, and so his article at least serves a use for analysis.
Trippi wrote an interesting article for the Washington Post on Friday, where he mused on the Democrats’ “mandate” (notice that a smaller Democratic majority seems needed to constitute a “mandate”, hmmm?). To wit, the Donkey Nod for the 2008 Presidential Race – Trippi presumes the Donk control of the House and Senate is a foregone conclusion, which arrogance I believe is as misplaced as the notion that the GOP would hold them in 2006, but that’s for another article.
Trippi’s article should be read all the way through, to catch the flavor of his rather quaint assumptions about certain persons’ credentials, and his presumption that no Republican candidate will catch the imagination and support of America, but in short, here are his candidates for the 2008 Race, in Trippi’s order:
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Barack Obama
Al Gore
John Edwards
John Kerry
Joe Biden
Evan Bayh
Russ Feingold
Bill Richardson
Wesley Clark
Tom Vilsack
Eleven names, but representing really only three notions. Clinton, Gore, Edwards, Kerry, Biden. Feingold, and Clark, are all people who either failed to win or quit the race because they learned they could not win. Obama and Richardson are the ‘formula’ candidates – someone has worked up a profile, and they fit the cutout, but the men themselves are a bit lacking. And the last notion is the ‘great leader’ notion, the idea that doing a good job at the state level equals national appeal.
Permit me a moment to digest Mr. Trippi’s considered analysis …
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
OK, now that I have that out of my system, here’s why this field is likely to help get a Republican elected President again in 2008, assuming we can avoid screwing up the choice on our end:
Let’s start with what wins Presidential elections. First the acknowledged charismatic greats since 1960 on each side – Reagan for the Republicans, Kennedy for the Democrats, with Nixon and Dubya Bush winning double terms for the Pachyderms, with Bill Clinton winning a double term and Lyndon Johnson the last real rout for the Democrats. Besides them, we need to consider Daddy Bush for the Republicans and Jimmy Carter for the Democrats. Four on each side, accounting for every President since 1960 except Gerald Ford, who never got elected anyway.
Reagan and JFK clearly has charisma, Bill Clinton and Dubya too but to a lesser degree. LBJ and Nixon knew the system, and Bill Clinton had that quality as well. Daddy Bush and Jimmy Carter seemed like good decent men, when that quality mattered. Reagan and Dubya took care of their people, and they deeply loved and respected the military. So let’s take those qualities and set them out plainly:
Charisma
Smart system pros
Decent guy
Loyalty to the team
Add to that two more qualities; tough in the clutch and unafraid to dream. The President does not usually have all of these qualities, but the more of them he has, the better. With those qualities in mind, then, I return to Mr. Trippi’s list and sort out the crowd, starting with two obvious names; Al Gore and John Kerry.
Al Gore thinks he should have been President because he won the popular vote in 2000. The fact that he just cannot let go of that lost election is a serious problem sign for him right from the start, but there’s more. Remember that screaming rant? Remember his snotty refusal to concede in 2000 until well past all reasonable chance of victory? Have you noticed the arrogant condescension in his propaganda piece, “An Inconvenient Truth”? Here’s the Gore standing on the requisite qualities, each on a scale of 1 to 5:
Charisma – 0. Gore still makes dead wood look lively.
System – 2. Gore knows the system, but he has two flaws. He spent all his chips trying to win 2000 on an unprecedented lawsuit/recount strategy, and he has Hillary against him all the way to the party convention.
Decency – 1. Gore is known as a manipulator and an opportunist.
Team Player – 0. Gore never once made an effort to help anyone else get elected. Gore is spelled with all “I”s.
Clutch Toughness – 3. Gore is stubborn, but burns bridges.
Vision – 1. Gore has no National Security plan, he has no plan to save Social Security, he has no plan to secure our borders. But he will attack SUVs.
Overall Score: 07 out of a possible 30 (23%)
Next, we look at John Kerry. Sorry to have to remind you John, but that “botched joke” is far from your only baggage. ‘For before you were against’ is still haunting you, and no one takes a Presidential candidate seriously who depends on “magic hat” stories and false recollections (like Nixon sending you into Cambodia before he was even President?) to bolster a suspicious war resume. Here’s Kerry’s report card on the requisite qualities:
Charisma – 0. Kerry is as boring as Gore.
System – 1. As a Senator, Kerry knows the politics, but not how things really get done. Kerry has absolutely one of the worst record in bills submitted and policies influenced.
Decency – 3. Kerry seems about average for a politician, no real scandals but no clear virtues.
Team Player – 0. Like Gore, everything that comes out of John Kerry’s mouth is in praise of himself.
Clutch Toughness – 0. A good nickname for Kerry from the 2004 campaign was ‘flipper’.
Vision – 0. The only thing we ever heard from John Kerry about what he would do as President, was a vague suggestion that he would let his party tell him what to do. That’s John Kerry’s idea of Leadership.
Overall Score: 04 out of a possible 30 (13%)
Considering these two guys were the Democrats’ idea of “winners” in the last two shots at the White House, those scores are not promising for Trippi’s start out of the box.
Next up is the long-presumed Donk frontrunner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary has actually been President, you know – well, “co-President” as she reminded us in 1993. Remember Hillary Care? If she gets elected it will happen, you can count on that. Unfortunately for Hillary, the nation had an allergic reaction to her the first time they saw her up close, and for all her efforts to change her image, the ultimate Hillary remains a vicious shrew. Here’s the Hillary Scorecard:
Charisma – 0. When Hillary is trying to be nice, she comes off as fake. And when she is seen in character, the taste is truly awful.
System – 5. Hillary is shrewd, street-smart and a deft political operative.
Decency – 0. Hillary is ruthless, plain and dark. She’s hidden her skeletons under Bubba’s, but they are still there.
Team Player – 0. In 2004, Hillary made a number of appearances ostensibly in support of Kerry, but her name came first on the banners and all the money raised went into her coffers.
Clutch Toughness – 4. Hillary is junk-yard mean, a political gangsta in the mold of LBJ.
Vision – 2. Hillary knows how to speak the words, but there is no follow-through, no sense of her grasping the concept beyond her immediate gain.
Overall Score: 11 out of a possible 30 (37%)
Since we’re clearing out the oldies first, let’s just run down the list of has-beens Trippi thinks would still run well in 2008:
Joe Biden
Charisma – 0. Am I the only guy who sees a Democrat image of Joe McCarthy when I look at Joe Biden? I think a lot of people do.
System – 3. Biden knows the system. He does not seem to control it, however.
Decency – 0. Machiavelli had more scruples.
Team Player – 0. Biden is not a man to pick up the check share credit, or think about someone else.
Clutch Toughness – 3. Biden likes a fight. The bad news is, he doesn't know which ones to pick and which ones to avoid.
Vision – 0. The man can't see past his next union endorsement, and is so locked in the past he wonders why he can't find Dan Rather's newscasts anymore.
Overall Score: 06 out of a possible 30 (20%)
Russ Feingold
Charisma – 0. When's the last time anyone quoted Feingold? When's the last time a regular person indicated they knew who he even is?
System – 3. A has-been. Long ago. Nothing to indicate he is in charge for a lnog, long time.
Decency – 1. A self-serving opportunist, his chief regret in the Abramoff scandal is that he didn't make any money or influence off it.
Team Player – 2. Feingold knows how to play well, but always as a follower, never a leader.
Clutch Toughness – 1. When challenged, Feingold never hesitates to stand up immediately - and blame someone else.
Vision – 1. Feingold has ideas. Old ones, failed ones, unpopular ones, but yeah, he has ideas.
Overall Score: 08 out of a possible 30 (27%)
Wesley Clark ran on one issue; quitting Iraq. He is, therefore, already irrelevant to 2008, but Mr. Trippi does not seem to grasp that fact. Here’s his scorecard:
Charisma – 0. Clark was disliked by his fellow generals, was known as a boor in both military and political circles, and consistently failed to excite.
System – 1. Clark ran as an outsider. The problem is, he was so much an outsider, he was obviously clueless about how the government works. I gave him 1 point because as a former general, at least he is comfortable with bureaucracy.
Decency – 3. Average, nothing notable either direction.
Team Player – 0. Like everyone discussed so far, this guy demands the spotlight, even when he has nothing to add to the show.
Clutch Toughness – 0. When challenged in 2004, Clark was unprepared and looked out of his depth.
Vision – 0. Quick, what is the first thing Clark would do as President? Who would be his first cabinet appointment? Hear that silence? That’s the depth of the Clark plan.
Overall Score: 04 out of a possible 30 (13%)
Then there’s Bill Richardson. Everyone says what a great “resume” he has, and so does Trippi. Here’s the problem; Richardson has been around a lot, but his results are distinctly lacking. At least he’s been a governor, although anyone who thinks the former Governor of New Mexico would translate into Democrat wins in any other Southwest state does not understand the region.
Charisma – 2. He has regional appeal, but it’s not the ‘wow’ kind and it’s definitely not national. .
System – 3. Richardson knows how to run a small state government. No indication he is ready for the big time.
Decency – 3. Average
Team Player – 2. Supports his friends, hates his enemies.
Clutch Toughness – 3. Average, no evidence Richardson has ever been in a long, tough fight.
Vision – 2. If America is just like Tempe, Richardson’s your man. If more is required, Richardson is a poser.
Overall Score: 15 out of a possible 30 (50%)
By now you should have caught the theme. Let’s move on now to the ‘up and comers’, guys Trippi thinks are the future of the Democratic Party. The numbers get more serious in this group.
John Edwards
Charisma – 5. Edwards has flair, and knows how to speechify.
System – 0. Edwards has never yet shown he understands how to get things done. All flash, no substance.
Decency – 0. Edwards is a trial lawyer, total shark, willing to lie or smear his opponent to get his way.
Team Player – 0. Even when he was Kerry’s running mate, Edwards made no effort to put the top name first; Breck Boy was always making clear that he expected more to come for himself, and never a thought to anyone else.
Clutch Toughness – 0. Edwards got thumped in the VP Debates by Cheney. He showed his ‘wounded poodle’ side right then and there. His family herald should feature a man disguised as a woman with a white flag, running away.
Vision – 0. Edwards is paper-thin, the kind of guy to make a car salesman look like a moral paragon.
Overall Score: 5 out of a possible 30 (17%)
Barack Obama
Charisma – 5. Handsome, young, urbane and articulate, Obama shows well on television and carries himself well as long as he does not have to answer any hard questions. Reminds me of a black Gary Hart.
System – 2. He’s done well so far and is a fast riser, but he has no experience yet. No accomplishments besides being pretty.
Decency – 4. Seems like a good guy, but as yet unwilling to tackle moral issues directly.
Team Player – 4. gets along with just about everyone, and if there are rifts he does a good job of not letting them show.
Clutch Toughness – 0. Obama has never yet been tested, nor risen to a challenge.
Vision – 3. He’s not big on specifics, but Obama’s general optimism and fluent populism serve him well in general terms so far.
Overall Score: 18 out of a possible 30 (60%)
Evan Bayh
Charisma – 1. Bayh is a nice person who is generally well-respected. That does not translate into holding significant influence or being able to bring people aboard his plan. Note that there has as yet not been any “Bayh Bill” to make a major change, nor any grassroots movement to see this guy lead the country.
System – 4. Bayh knows the system, but A- he is a Senator, not a Governor, and B- Bayh acts like a follower, not a leader.
Decency – 5. By all accounts a decent man.
Team Player – 5. He really reminds me of Gerry Ford. Now is that good or bad?
Clutch Toughness – 0. Bayh has never once been in a tough fight, much less won one.
Vision – 0. What quote best sums up Evan Bayh? Anything come to mind?
Overall Score: 15 out of a possible 30 (50%)
Tom Vilsack
Charisma – 4. I hate to admit it, but Trippi may have a good candidate here. Personable and smart, Vilsack looks and sounds good. He should sell well in the Midwest and the Northeast in general, including some of the Bush territory.
System – 4. Nothing spectacular, but a good job as Governor. No mistakes to speak of.
Decency – 5. Very clean, and he looks it.
Team Player – 1. no significant alliances or major backers, but it’s early yet.
Clutch Toughness – 0. Vilsack has never yet been tested.
Vision – 1. Vilsack knows day-to-day. He has yet to show a comprehension suited to the big stage.
Overall Score: 15 out of a possible 30 (50%)
So, rated for actual qualities, here’s (back to front) Trippi’s list for 2008:
Wesley Clark – 13%
John Kerry – 13%
John Edwards – 17%
Joe Biden - 20%
Al Gore – 23%
Russ Feingold - 27%
Hillary Clinton – 37%
Evan Bayh – 50%
Bill Richardson – 50%
Tom Vilsack – 50%
Barack Obama – 60%
The sense I catch, is that Clark, Kerry, Edwards, Gore, and Clinton are out of the race but will fight that reality to some degree. Bayh and Richardson are not really suited to the job, nor have they shown the credentials they ought to have by now. That leaves Obama, Trippi’s presumed “rock star” for the Democrats, and Tom Vilsack, the Governor of Iowa. Obama will be more in the spotlight, because of his race, but Vilsack could be much more formidable when it comes down to really making the run. Both men are charismatic and intelligent, and they know how to present a clean face to the public.
The problem is, neither man has much experience in national leadership, and neither has really been in a test yet. Neither has made a statement about Terrorism, about Social Security, or about where they want to take America. It’s two years out, but the race is already underway, and these guys need to start their engines in terms of proving their place in the field. As for Trippi, I can’t quite decide if he included the nine losers along with the two strong candidates as a way to contrast the two groups, or if he really believes that people like Biden, Kerry, or Gore could possibly catch fire any more than a wet fish would.
Hysteria being in fashion with Liberals these days, even in victory, it is only fitting that we turn to the words of Joe Trippi, as ever the wanna-be man of influence. Trippi’s last adventure, you may recall, was the amusing fantasy that Howard Dean was Presidential timber. Yet Trippi does open a window into the mind of the Modern Democrat, and so his article at least serves a use for analysis.
Trippi wrote an interesting article for the Washington Post on Friday, where he mused on the Democrats’ “mandate” (notice that a smaller Democratic majority seems needed to constitute a “mandate”, hmmm?). To wit, the Donkey Nod for the 2008 Presidential Race – Trippi presumes the Donk control of the House and Senate is a foregone conclusion, which arrogance I believe is as misplaced as the notion that the GOP would hold them in 2006, but that’s for another article.
Trippi’s article should be read all the way through, to catch the flavor of his rather quaint assumptions about certain persons’ credentials, and his presumption that no Republican candidate will catch the imagination and support of America, but in short, here are his candidates for the 2008 Race, in Trippi’s order:
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Barack Obama
Al Gore
John Edwards
John Kerry
Joe Biden
Evan Bayh
Russ Feingold
Bill Richardson
Wesley Clark
Tom Vilsack
Eleven names, but representing really only three notions. Clinton, Gore, Edwards, Kerry, Biden. Feingold, and Clark, are all people who either failed to win or quit the race because they learned they could not win. Obama and Richardson are the ‘formula’ candidates – someone has worked up a profile, and they fit the cutout, but the men themselves are a bit lacking. And the last notion is the ‘great leader’ notion, the idea that doing a good job at the state level equals national appeal.
Permit me a moment to digest Mr. Trippi’s considered analysis …
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
OK, now that I have that out of my system, here’s why this field is likely to help get a Republican elected President again in 2008, assuming we can avoid screwing up the choice on our end:
Let’s start with what wins Presidential elections. First the acknowledged charismatic greats since 1960 on each side – Reagan for the Republicans, Kennedy for the Democrats, with Nixon and Dubya Bush winning double terms for the Pachyderms, with Bill Clinton winning a double term and Lyndon Johnson the last real rout for the Democrats. Besides them, we need to consider Daddy Bush for the Republicans and Jimmy Carter for the Democrats. Four on each side, accounting for every President since 1960 except Gerald Ford, who never got elected anyway.
Reagan and JFK clearly has charisma, Bill Clinton and Dubya too but to a lesser degree. LBJ and Nixon knew the system, and Bill Clinton had that quality as well. Daddy Bush and Jimmy Carter seemed like good decent men, when that quality mattered. Reagan and Dubya took care of their people, and they deeply loved and respected the military. So let’s take those qualities and set them out plainly:
Charisma
Smart system pros
Decent guy
Loyalty to the team
Add to that two more qualities; tough in the clutch and unafraid to dream. The President does not usually have all of these qualities, but the more of them he has, the better. With those qualities in mind, then, I return to Mr. Trippi’s list and sort out the crowd, starting with two obvious names; Al Gore and John Kerry.
Al Gore thinks he should have been President because he won the popular vote in 2000. The fact that he just cannot let go of that lost election is a serious problem sign for him right from the start, but there’s more. Remember that screaming rant? Remember his snotty refusal to concede in 2000 until well past all reasonable chance of victory? Have you noticed the arrogant condescension in his propaganda piece, “An Inconvenient Truth”? Here’s the Gore standing on the requisite qualities, each on a scale of 1 to 5:
Charisma – 0. Gore still makes dead wood look lively.
System – 2. Gore knows the system, but he has two flaws. He spent all his chips trying to win 2000 on an unprecedented lawsuit/recount strategy, and he has Hillary against him all the way to the party convention.
Decency – 1. Gore is known as a manipulator and an opportunist.
Team Player – 0. Gore never once made an effort to help anyone else get elected. Gore is spelled with all “I”s.
Clutch Toughness – 3. Gore is stubborn, but burns bridges.
Vision – 1. Gore has no National Security plan, he has no plan to save Social Security, he has no plan to secure our borders. But he will attack SUVs.
Overall Score: 07 out of a possible 30 (23%)
Next, we look at John Kerry. Sorry to have to remind you John, but that “botched joke” is far from your only baggage. ‘For before you were against’ is still haunting you, and no one takes a Presidential candidate seriously who depends on “magic hat” stories and false recollections (like Nixon sending you into Cambodia before he was even President?) to bolster a suspicious war resume. Here’s Kerry’s report card on the requisite qualities:
Charisma – 0. Kerry is as boring as Gore.
System – 1. As a Senator, Kerry knows the politics, but not how things really get done. Kerry has absolutely one of the worst record in bills submitted and policies influenced.
Decency – 3. Kerry seems about average for a politician, no real scandals but no clear virtues.
Team Player – 0. Like Gore, everything that comes out of John Kerry’s mouth is in praise of himself.
Clutch Toughness – 0. A good nickname for Kerry from the 2004 campaign was ‘flipper’.
Vision – 0. The only thing we ever heard from John Kerry about what he would do as President, was a vague suggestion that he would let his party tell him what to do. That’s John Kerry’s idea of Leadership.
Overall Score: 04 out of a possible 30 (13%)
Considering these two guys were the Democrats’ idea of “winners” in the last two shots at the White House, those scores are not promising for Trippi’s start out of the box.
Next up is the long-presumed Donk frontrunner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary has actually been President, you know – well, “co-President” as she reminded us in 1993. Remember Hillary Care? If she gets elected it will happen, you can count on that. Unfortunately for Hillary, the nation had an allergic reaction to her the first time they saw her up close, and for all her efforts to change her image, the ultimate Hillary remains a vicious shrew. Here’s the Hillary Scorecard:
Charisma – 0. When Hillary is trying to be nice, she comes off as fake. And when she is seen in character, the taste is truly awful.
System – 5. Hillary is shrewd, street-smart and a deft political operative.
Decency – 0. Hillary is ruthless, plain and dark. She’s hidden her skeletons under Bubba’s, but they are still there.
Team Player – 0. In 2004, Hillary made a number of appearances ostensibly in support of Kerry, but her name came first on the banners and all the money raised went into her coffers.
Clutch Toughness – 4. Hillary is junk-yard mean, a political gangsta in the mold of LBJ.
Vision – 2. Hillary knows how to speak the words, but there is no follow-through, no sense of her grasping the concept beyond her immediate gain.
Overall Score: 11 out of a possible 30 (37%)
Since we’re clearing out the oldies first, let’s just run down the list of has-beens Trippi thinks would still run well in 2008:
Joe Biden
Charisma – 0. Am I the only guy who sees a Democrat image of Joe McCarthy when I look at Joe Biden? I think a lot of people do.
System – 3. Biden knows the system. He does not seem to control it, however.
Decency – 0. Machiavelli had more scruples.
Team Player – 0. Biden is not a man to pick up the check share credit, or think about someone else.
Clutch Toughness – 3. Biden likes a fight. The bad news is, he doesn't know which ones to pick and which ones to avoid.
Vision – 0. The man can't see past his next union endorsement, and is so locked in the past he wonders why he can't find Dan Rather's newscasts anymore.
Overall Score: 06 out of a possible 30 (20%)
Russ Feingold
Charisma – 0. When's the last time anyone quoted Feingold? When's the last time a regular person indicated they knew who he even is?
System – 3. A has-been. Long ago. Nothing to indicate he is in charge for a lnog, long time.
Decency – 1. A self-serving opportunist, his chief regret in the Abramoff scandal is that he didn't make any money or influence off it.
Team Player – 2. Feingold knows how to play well, but always as a follower, never a leader.
Clutch Toughness – 1. When challenged, Feingold never hesitates to stand up immediately - and blame someone else.
Vision – 1. Feingold has ideas. Old ones, failed ones, unpopular ones, but yeah, he has ideas.
Overall Score: 08 out of a possible 30 (27%)
Wesley Clark ran on one issue; quitting Iraq. He is, therefore, already irrelevant to 2008, but Mr. Trippi does not seem to grasp that fact. Here’s his scorecard:
Charisma – 0. Clark was disliked by his fellow generals, was known as a boor in both military and political circles, and consistently failed to excite.
System – 1. Clark ran as an outsider. The problem is, he was so much an outsider, he was obviously clueless about how the government works. I gave him 1 point because as a former general, at least he is comfortable with bureaucracy.
Decency – 3. Average, nothing notable either direction.
Team Player – 0. Like everyone discussed so far, this guy demands the spotlight, even when he has nothing to add to the show.
Clutch Toughness – 0. When challenged in 2004, Clark was unprepared and looked out of his depth.
Vision – 0. Quick, what is the first thing Clark would do as President? Who would be his first cabinet appointment? Hear that silence? That’s the depth of the Clark plan.
Overall Score: 04 out of a possible 30 (13%)
Then there’s Bill Richardson. Everyone says what a great “resume” he has, and so does Trippi. Here’s the problem; Richardson has been around a lot, but his results are distinctly lacking. At least he’s been a governor, although anyone who thinks the former Governor of New Mexico would translate into Democrat wins in any other Southwest state does not understand the region.
Charisma – 2. He has regional appeal, but it’s not the ‘wow’ kind and it’s definitely not national. .
System – 3. Richardson knows how to run a small state government. No indication he is ready for the big time.
Decency – 3. Average
Team Player – 2. Supports his friends, hates his enemies.
Clutch Toughness – 3. Average, no evidence Richardson has ever been in a long, tough fight.
Vision – 2. If America is just like Tempe, Richardson’s your man. If more is required, Richardson is a poser.
Overall Score: 15 out of a possible 30 (50%)
By now you should have caught the theme. Let’s move on now to the ‘up and comers’, guys Trippi thinks are the future of the Democratic Party. The numbers get more serious in this group.
John Edwards
Charisma – 5. Edwards has flair, and knows how to speechify.
System – 0. Edwards has never yet shown he understands how to get things done. All flash, no substance.
Decency – 0. Edwards is a trial lawyer, total shark, willing to lie or smear his opponent to get his way.
Team Player – 0. Even when he was Kerry’s running mate, Edwards made no effort to put the top name first; Breck Boy was always making clear that he expected more to come for himself, and never a thought to anyone else.
Clutch Toughness – 0. Edwards got thumped in the VP Debates by Cheney. He showed his ‘wounded poodle’ side right then and there. His family herald should feature a man disguised as a woman with a white flag, running away.
Vision – 0. Edwards is paper-thin, the kind of guy to make a car salesman look like a moral paragon.
Overall Score: 5 out of a possible 30 (17%)
Barack Obama
Charisma – 5. Handsome, young, urbane and articulate, Obama shows well on television and carries himself well as long as he does not have to answer any hard questions. Reminds me of a black Gary Hart.
System – 2. He’s done well so far and is a fast riser, but he has no experience yet. No accomplishments besides being pretty.
Decency – 4. Seems like a good guy, but as yet unwilling to tackle moral issues directly.
Team Player – 4. gets along with just about everyone, and if there are rifts he does a good job of not letting them show.
Clutch Toughness – 0. Obama has never yet been tested, nor risen to a challenge.
Vision – 3. He’s not big on specifics, but Obama’s general optimism and fluent populism serve him well in general terms so far.
Overall Score: 18 out of a possible 30 (60%)
Evan Bayh
Charisma – 1. Bayh is a nice person who is generally well-respected. That does not translate into holding significant influence or being able to bring people aboard his plan. Note that there has as yet not been any “Bayh Bill” to make a major change, nor any grassroots movement to see this guy lead the country.
System – 4. Bayh knows the system, but A- he is a Senator, not a Governor, and B- Bayh acts like a follower, not a leader.
Decency – 5. By all accounts a decent man.
Team Player – 5. He really reminds me of Gerry Ford. Now is that good or bad?
Clutch Toughness – 0. Bayh has never once been in a tough fight, much less won one.
Vision – 0. What quote best sums up Evan Bayh? Anything come to mind?
Overall Score: 15 out of a possible 30 (50%)
Tom Vilsack
Charisma – 4. I hate to admit it, but Trippi may have a good candidate here. Personable and smart, Vilsack looks and sounds good. He should sell well in the Midwest and the Northeast in general, including some of the Bush territory.
System – 4. Nothing spectacular, but a good job as Governor. No mistakes to speak of.
Decency – 5. Very clean, and he looks it.
Team Player – 1. no significant alliances or major backers, but it’s early yet.
Clutch Toughness – 0. Vilsack has never yet been tested.
Vision – 1. Vilsack knows day-to-day. He has yet to show a comprehension suited to the big stage.
Overall Score: 15 out of a possible 30 (50%)
So, rated for actual qualities, here’s (back to front) Trippi’s list for 2008:
Wesley Clark – 13%
John Kerry – 13%
John Edwards – 17%
Joe Biden - 20%
Al Gore – 23%
Russ Feingold - 27%
Hillary Clinton – 37%
Evan Bayh – 50%
Bill Richardson – 50%
Tom Vilsack – 50%
Barack Obama – 60%
The sense I catch, is that Clark, Kerry, Edwards, Gore, and Clinton are out of the race but will fight that reality to some degree. Bayh and Richardson are not really suited to the job, nor have they shown the credentials they ought to have by now. That leaves Obama, Trippi’s presumed “rock star” for the Democrats, and Tom Vilsack, the Governor of Iowa. Obama will be more in the spotlight, because of his race, but Vilsack could be much more formidable when it comes down to really making the run. Both men are charismatic and intelligent, and they know how to present a clean face to the public.
The problem is, neither man has much experience in national leadership, and neither has really been in a test yet. Neither has made a statement about Terrorism, about Social Security, or about where they want to take America. It’s two years out, but the race is already underway, and these guys need to start their engines in terms of proving their place in the field. As for Trippi, I can’t quite decide if he included the nine losers along with the two strong candidates as a way to contrast the two groups, or if he really believes that people like Biden, Kerry, or Gore could possibly catch fire any more than a wet fish would.
Monday, November 13, 2006
I Work For God, But I Never Claimed I Was Employee of the Month
Ah, that fine line between righteousness and self-righteousness! Just about a week ago, I learned that I had to go in for surgery ASAP, to remove my appendix, which most unreasonably chose to announce its displeasure by rupturing. This was merely the latest in a series of odd or inconvenient events which seemed to be sending a signal of some kind:
[] My daughter developed a chronic cough, possibly due to allergies but worrisome
[] I passed a kidney stone, and missed some school and work
[] My wife lost a filling in her teeth
[] My follow-up CT Scan showed a “problem” with my appendix
[] The day I was to see my specialist, my car busted a hose and broke down
[] My specialist told me I needed immediate surgery
[] My “hi-speed” internet became “no-speed” internet, as Roadrunner went out completely for more than a week and RR’s IT people are not only incompetent, but arrogant and rude by policy and character
[] While I was in surgery to have my appendix removed, the country went nuts and voted out the only adults in Congress
[] My alma mater has not only continued a dismal losing streak, they are now getting blown out by teams with losing records
[] My wife’s dentist has a demon working in the office, who twice refused to honor her appointment
[] I have not had a cup of coffee in over two weeks now
OK, so if you don’t know me that last item may seem trivial, but I just about have the Folgers people on my speed-dial for a reason.
Anyway, this list is a pretty sour mess for just a couple weeks of events, and does not even include all the fun things like what was waiting for me when I went back to work this morning, or trying to catch up in my classes, with two major projects due and a series of tests and assignments to do before final exams in just two weeks. So this may explain the paltry blogging for the past bit.
All this put together seems to suggest that the Lord has been trying to get my attention; like many people I can get a bit of “tunnel vision” when I get going, and this fall I was pretty single-minded. It’s true to say that men only think of one thing – at a time. Some of the time it’s Sports, or Politics, or Food, but we do tend to act like dogs chasing cars, even when we blog.
I don’t want to sound preachy – too late, I know – but I started blogging on a regular basis because I felt that I was supposed to be doing this. Hey, not that I know everything, but I try to be informative, to provoke debate or at least pose an intriguing question or notion. I love the response I get back from readers – fascinating really, how some people post a comment on the thread while others send an e-mail. Also kind of interesting to notice that my old stuff gets as much attention as my new stuff – either some of my ‘vintage’ material is pretty good, or I have been pretty bad lately, you tell me.
This past week has been a time of reflection for me, with a resolution to be a better husband, father, man, employee, and citizen. Three of those goals are pretty much private things; I’m a decent man all things considered, my wife and daughters know I love them, and I do good work at the company. That said, I want to make sure I neither get complacent, nor miss a chance to improve. But I also understand that no one of us knows everything in Life, nor has all the right answers to even one of the important questions; it’s not a one-size-fits-all reality, and in many ways even if my answer is right and true, there may well be more to learn and comprehend beyond what I hold. And there are dangers and problems which are not always obvious – I could have prevented the kidney stone problem, maybe, with more care years ago about my diet, instead of waiting as long as I did to improve my balance and reduce my sodium intake, but the doctors assure me there was no way to prevent my appendicitis; no one knows exactly why it happens, or why it affects the people it does. Even wise men cannot foresee the unknowable, and I would be rash to consider myself wise.
Well, it’s Monday, this column is long, a bit vague, and fairly egocentric. You know what that means – I’m back!
[] My daughter developed a chronic cough, possibly due to allergies but worrisome
[] I passed a kidney stone, and missed some school and work
[] My wife lost a filling in her teeth
[] My follow-up CT Scan showed a “problem” with my appendix
[] The day I was to see my specialist, my car busted a hose and broke down
[] My specialist told me I needed immediate surgery
[] My “hi-speed” internet became “no-speed” internet, as Roadrunner went out completely for more than a week and RR’s IT people are not only incompetent, but arrogant and rude by policy and character
[] While I was in surgery to have my appendix removed, the country went nuts and voted out the only adults in Congress
[] My alma mater has not only continued a dismal losing streak, they are now getting blown out by teams with losing records
[] My wife’s dentist has a demon working in the office, who twice refused to honor her appointment
[] I have not had a cup of coffee in over two weeks now
OK, so if you don’t know me that last item may seem trivial, but I just about have the Folgers people on my speed-dial for a reason.
Anyway, this list is a pretty sour mess for just a couple weeks of events, and does not even include all the fun things like what was waiting for me when I went back to work this morning, or trying to catch up in my classes, with two major projects due and a series of tests and assignments to do before final exams in just two weeks. So this may explain the paltry blogging for the past bit.
All this put together seems to suggest that the Lord has been trying to get my attention; like many people I can get a bit of “tunnel vision” when I get going, and this fall I was pretty single-minded. It’s true to say that men only think of one thing – at a time. Some of the time it’s Sports, or Politics, or Food, but we do tend to act like dogs chasing cars, even when we blog.
I don’t want to sound preachy – too late, I know – but I started blogging on a regular basis because I felt that I was supposed to be doing this. Hey, not that I know everything, but I try to be informative, to provoke debate or at least pose an intriguing question or notion. I love the response I get back from readers – fascinating really, how some people post a comment on the thread while others send an e-mail. Also kind of interesting to notice that my old stuff gets as much attention as my new stuff – either some of my ‘vintage’ material is pretty good, or I have been pretty bad lately, you tell me.
This past week has been a time of reflection for me, with a resolution to be a better husband, father, man, employee, and citizen. Three of those goals are pretty much private things; I’m a decent man all things considered, my wife and daughters know I love them, and I do good work at the company. That said, I want to make sure I neither get complacent, nor miss a chance to improve. But I also understand that no one of us knows everything in Life, nor has all the right answers to even one of the important questions; it’s not a one-size-fits-all reality, and in many ways even if my answer is right and true, there may well be more to learn and comprehend beyond what I hold. And there are dangers and problems which are not always obvious – I could have prevented the kidney stone problem, maybe, with more care years ago about my diet, instead of waiting as long as I did to improve my balance and reduce my sodium intake, but the doctors assure me there was no way to prevent my appendicitis; no one knows exactly why it happens, or why it affects the people it does. Even wise men cannot foresee the unknowable, and I would be rash to consider myself wise.
Well, it’s Monday, this column is long, a bit vague, and fairly egocentric. You know what that means – I’m back!
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Thanks, Veterans
I am still recovering from surgery, and I have a term paper due in three days, but for all that, I should have made time earlier to say it:
Thank you, veterans.
Not just because of today, but for everything. Every one of you, every branch, every era, every job, every tour.
Although I admit the Coasties deserve a little extra, just because everyone usually forgets them.
So, Semper Paratus, Semper Fi, "Gig Em", or whatever call or slogan makes you proud. We're proud to know you, and our country owes you a lot.
Thanks.
Thank you, veterans.
Not just because of today, but for everything. Every one of you, every branch, every era, every job, every tour.
Although I admit the Coasties deserve a little extra, just because everyone usually forgets them.
So, Semper Paratus, Semper Fi, "Gig Em", or whatever call or slogan makes you proud. We're proud to know you, and our country owes you a lot.
Thanks.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Don’t Bet Against Bush, Even Now
All right, I admit it. For the first time since his first run for office, Dubs lost to the Donks. Of course, I have been clear that this was largely due to the snubbing of Dubs by his own party. Somebody want to explain to me again, why it was so smart to reject the man who got 62 million votes plus not so very long ago? I called that move stupid just a couple days ago, but really, ‘stupid’ just doesn’t do justice to how profoundly foolhardy the GOP acted in its rejection of its core constituency. Others have pointed out just how stale the “Contract With America” got by this year. Others have warned that acting just like Democrats was a sure way to get Democrats elected. Others have observed that the issues voters cared about the most; winning in Iraq, securing our borders, cleaning the government of trash from either party – these were ignored by Republican politicos who thought they could slide by with a wink and a smile. But it needs to be said again, that it was incalculably poor strategy to turn away from Dubya. All that did was let the Donks play ‘divide and conquer’, all that did was force Republican voters to decide whether they supported their country’s President or their Congressman/Senator, all that did was confuse and anger the base, so that for the first time in memory. Republicans, especially Conservatives, simply gave up and put the electoral gun to their own head in hopes it would “send a message”. Well it did, only the message sent was to the Democrats, and that message was as white a flag as anything Paris could have issued.
So there we are. The party of William “Freezer” Jefferson and Harry “Land Deal” Reid, of Ted “Swim Team” Kennedy and Chucky “Statesman” Schumer, or Nancy “Paxil” Pelosi and Alcee “The Impeached” Hastings, is now in charge of how much you will be taxed, how (if!) we establish a self-sufficient state in Iraq, and even what the Constitution says. But even now, there is hope. Don’t forget that in 2001, the Congress was not in all that much better shape than it is now. Remember how Jim Jeffords gave the Senate to the Democrats? Remember how hard it was for Dubya to get Congress to remember its duty in the first part of 2001? Frankly, Dubya did a pretty good job during the pre-9/11 days, when the Donks played a lot of cards to sway popular sentiment their way. And he will persevere through these coming dark days, to keep his sworn duty to the nation. He’s done it before without the fair-weather support, and he will do his job to the best of his ability, which is considerable.
I heard today that John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi together announced that impeachment proceedings of President Bush are “off the table”. Think about that, and ask yourself why they would say that now. It’s because they understood what those pink-fluff poodles in the GOP who deserted Dubya forgot; Job Approval for President Bush is one thing, but the man himself remains well-respected and liked. Dubya may be down now, but he remains a winner, and only a very great fool would bet against him. Even now.
So there we are. The party of William “Freezer” Jefferson and Harry “Land Deal” Reid, of Ted “Swim Team” Kennedy and Chucky “Statesman” Schumer, or Nancy “Paxil” Pelosi and Alcee “The Impeached” Hastings, is now in charge of how much you will be taxed, how (if!) we establish a self-sufficient state in Iraq, and even what the Constitution says. But even now, there is hope. Don’t forget that in 2001, the Congress was not in all that much better shape than it is now. Remember how Jim Jeffords gave the Senate to the Democrats? Remember how hard it was for Dubya to get Congress to remember its duty in the first part of 2001? Frankly, Dubya did a pretty good job during the pre-9/11 days, when the Donks played a lot of cards to sway popular sentiment their way. And he will persevere through these coming dark days, to keep his sworn duty to the nation. He’s done it before without the fair-weather support, and he will do his job to the best of his ability, which is considerable.
I heard today that John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi together announced that impeachment proceedings of President Bush are “off the table”. Think about that, and ask yourself why they would say that now. It’s because they understood what those pink-fluff poodles in the GOP who deserted Dubya forgot; Job Approval for President Bush is one thing, but the man himself remains well-respected and liked. Dubya may be down now, but he remains a winner, and only a very great fool would bet against him. Even now.
May God Rest You, Ed Bradley, and Give Your Family Solace
Ed Bradley, one of CBS’ most famous newsmen, has died at age 65 of Leukemia. I took this news without much emotion at first, because it was difficult to sort out what I felt. On the one hand, I have long regarded the figureheads at CBS, and especially at “60 Minutes”, as enemies of truth and justice, willing to give up any ideal for the chance to hurt conservatives and advance their top story, whether true or not. The problem, of course, is that this kind of thinking comes from diminishing a person to one-dimension and losing sight of them as a human being. The political fights come and go, but the people are always what matters. Sixty-five years may not seem young to many people, but it’s a tragedy for someone to be taken from full health to death so quickly. Ed deserved a chance he did not get.
Perhaps, having heard ominous news from my own doctors just last week, I am more sensitive than I used to be to dangers like cancer. I got lucky, Ed did not. Is it really that simple, that cavalier? I think not, though my own views are largely immaterial to the people who mourn the passing of their friend and family member. To Mr. Bradley’s family, his colleagues at CBS, and to his many friends, I offer my condolences, and wish you comfort and solace in this time.
Perhaps, having heard ominous news from my own doctors just last week, I am more sensitive than I used to be to dangers like cancer. I got lucky, Ed did not. Is it really that simple, that cavalier? I think not, though my own views are largely immaterial to the people who mourn the passing of their friend and family member. To Mr. Bradley’s family, his colleagues at CBS, and to his many friends, I offer my condolences, and wish you comfort and solace in this time.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
The Election, In Brief
I was unconscious when we lost the House and – possibly – Senate, recovering from having my appendix removed after passing a kidney stone the week before. But before I went in for surgery, I had already warned why Republicans were in trouble; many weak Republicans deserted the President, preferring to believe the Democrats’ spin that they could only keep their seats by distancing themselves from Dubya. This was a stupid, stupid decision and ultimately the biggest factor in their defeat. Putting it bluntly, to win this year the GOP needed turnout at least equal to the Donks’ turnout, and it just did not happen. Why should a Republican support a guy acting like a Democrat? And there was simply no hope that anyone who preferred the Democrat would switch to the Republican because he started acting like a Democrat. In the end, acting like a Democrat only helped the Democrats, though some Democrats won by acting like Republicans.
Quitting support for the President essentially meant quitting being a Republican Congressman or Senator.
Quitting support for the President essentially meant quitting being a Republican Congressman or Senator.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Sunday Update
Last week I passed a kidney stone.
The radiology tests now show I have appendicitus. I will be meeting with a urosurgeon to discuss my condition, which I strongly suspect means surgery this week.
The GOP better win on Tuesday - I sure don't need any more pain in that region.
The radiology tests now show I have appendicitus. I will be meeting with a urosurgeon to discuss my condition, which I strongly suspect means surgery this week.
The GOP better win on Tuesday - I sure don't need any more pain in that region.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
The Man Of Consequence: Why George W. Bush Still Matters
I have written over and over again, that the Democrats have things wrong. They are on the wrong side of the War on Terrorism, wrong on Immigration Reform, wrong on Social Security Reform, wrong about the Economy, wrong about Taxes, wrong about so many things. But the Democrats are correct, to some degree, about the fact that President George W. Bush matters, even in mid-term elections.
John Hawkins at Right Wing News took a poll of “right of center bloggers”, and asked them to select their top six choices from a list of purported reasons why the GOP is having difficulties this election. As always, John’s polls are informative, but I did not much like his list. A number of strong reasons – obvious to me at least – were not available as choices. As someone who lives near Sugar Land, I find it fitting to demand a write-in vote. The biggest single reason the Republicans are having difficulties this election, is because for some inane reason they started listening to the Democrats’ spin and abandoned the President. This plays right into an old strategy, but one which appears to still work – Divide and Conquer.
It’s simple, really – most Americans think about President Bush when they consider the Republican plan for how to handle Iraq, meet the threat from Terrorism, reform how taxes are assessed and collected, how we should choose federal judges and Supreme Court justices, and what cultures will be encouraged and protected in the United States. No other elected official comes close to such a complete alignment with a party position. No Democrat has established any sort of policy positions on the issues Americans repeatedly confirm they care about, and even the other leading Republicans only voice a part of the plan. President Bush is the Republican Party, so far as the people are concerned. Small wonder then, that the Democrats wanted to separate every Republican candidate from the President, because that is the one thing which would weaken Republicans more than anything else. No one is required to agree with the President on every issue, nor are you required to support him on every issue. But if you are a Republican, then you have to understand that President George W. Bush is your party’s voice and standard for all intents and purposes. The Democrats fear Dubya, and rightly so. And any Republican who plans on winning the fights which matter, will stand by their President.
John Hawkins at Right Wing News took a poll of “right of center bloggers”, and asked them to select their top six choices from a list of purported reasons why the GOP is having difficulties this election. As always, John’s polls are informative, but I did not much like his list. A number of strong reasons – obvious to me at least – were not available as choices. As someone who lives near Sugar Land, I find it fitting to demand a write-in vote. The biggest single reason the Republicans are having difficulties this election, is because for some inane reason they started listening to the Democrats’ spin and abandoned the President. This plays right into an old strategy, but one which appears to still work – Divide and Conquer.
It’s simple, really – most Americans think about President Bush when they consider the Republican plan for how to handle Iraq, meet the threat from Terrorism, reform how taxes are assessed and collected, how we should choose federal judges and Supreme Court justices, and what cultures will be encouraged and protected in the United States. No other elected official comes close to such a complete alignment with a party position. No Democrat has established any sort of policy positions on the issues Americans repeatedly confirm they care about, and even the other leading Republicans only voice a part of the plan. President Bush is the Republican Party, so far as the people are concerned. Small wonder then, that the Democrats wanted to separate every Republican candidate from the President, because that is the one thing which would weaken Republicans more than anything else. No one is required to agree with the President on every issue, nor are you required to support him on every issue. But if you are a Republican, then you have to understand that President George W. Bush is your party’s voice and standard for all intents and purposes. The Democrats fear Dubya, and rightly so. And any Republican who plans on winning the fights which matter, will stand by their President.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
A Horror Story
Washington DC, Friday November 10 2006 (AP) – Democrats are still celebrating the takeover of both chambers of Congress in Tuesday’s mid-term elections, striking a serious blow to Republicans and the influence of now-lame-duck President George W. Bush.
Shaking his head, DNC Chairman Howard Dean laughed at his good fortune. “We had terrible turnout”, admitted the head of the Democrats’ national committee, “but we lucked out because the Republicans stayed home, too.
“It would have been very easy for the Republicans to have saved control of at least one chamber, but they sat on their butts and that worked for us.”
Baghdad, Iraq Monday February 5 2007 (AP) – Ordered by Congress to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible, U.S. troops began the first of a series of scaled pull-outs, removing 25,000 troops from positions deemed by Congress to be “too risky”. In related news, sectarian violence surged in Fallujah, Sadr City, and along the border with Saudi Arabia, as insurgents took heart in the American retreat. Over a thousand people are believed to have died in the new surge in violence over the past ten days.
Washington DC, Monday March 12 2007 (AP) – The U.S. Economy continued its slide for the third straight month, with Unemployment and the Consumer Price index both rising again. Economists say confidence in the economy has weakened due to fears of tax increases and a Congress which is hostile to the average person.
Beijing, Wednesday March 14 2007 (AP) – Iran and China have signed a landmark cooperation and defense treaty, announced today in a ceremony in Tienamen Square. Analysts believe that the weakened U.S. position in Asian and the Middle East made the deal more attractive than It would have been in past years, especially since Senate Foreign Relations committee chairman Joseph Biden has publicly warned that Congress would not approve “any more adventures” overseas for the foreseeable future.
Washington DC, Monday May 21 2007 (AP) – The Senate today slapped a stinging rebuke to the Bush Administration, by demanding a complete review and “overhaul” to intelligence-gathering procedures. In a move unprecedented since the Church Committee hearings of the 1970s, the Senate announced that the proceedings would be aired live and in public. Concerns about protecting “critical sources and methods” would be endangered by the publicity were brushed aside as “spooks trying to cover their behinds”.
The Hague, June 8 2007 (AP) – The International Court of Justice today indicted sixteen U.S. Marines on charges of abusing the human rights of over one hundred suspected members of Al Qaeda, by detaining Iranian nationals and incarcerating them without due process under the terms of Sharia. The case is widely viewed as a test case to determine the new American mood with regard to nations like Iran and North Korea. “It appears that the Congress has finally tired of allowing Bush to treat sovereign nations like beggars” commented an Iranian diplomat through Al-Jazeera. Veterans groups in the U.S. protested that turning over American troops to be tried in a foreign court was unconscionable, but a spokesman for the State Department explained that the new bill by Congress, which overrode President Bush’s veto, requires the United States comply with international law “in all respects”, including abiding by rulings from the ICJ.
Washington DC, Friday June 29 2007 (AP) – Just before the Fourth of July break, Congress dropped a bombshell on the taxpayer, increasing the employer and employee portion of SSI taxes to 22.7% each, with a warning that further increases may be necessary. Explaining the hike, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said “look, no one likes raising taxes, but the only way to fix this problem is to put more money into the system.”
Baghdad, Friday July 20 2007 (AP) – U.S. troops are exiting Iraq as quickly as possible, promised General Peter Schoomaker, Army Chief of Staff, but casualties are an inevitable price paid by “quitting before the job is finished”. U.S. forces have lost over a thousand casualties, including more than six hundred deaths, since the February decision by Congress to pull out of Iraq. Analysts say the country is effectively in civil war at this time, “total chaos in places” as confidence in the nascent democracy was shattered by the sudden decision by the United States to go home.
Islamabad, Monday July 23 2007 (AP) – In a stunning move, the government of Pakistan has cut relations with the United States, opened talks with Iran regarding regional issues, and opened a consulate for Al Qaeda. Officials for President Musharraf explained, “we are merely adjusting to the reality of new conditions.”
Washington DC, Monday, July 27 2007 (AP) – The Fairness Doctrine is back, and bigger than ever. Both chambers of Congress passed a measure which will not only require radio stations and cable television networks to provide “equal time and resources” to contrasting points of view, but for the first time also requires that political opinion websites, often called political “blogs”, be registered their financing reported, and agree to abide by “fair and reasonable” standards. Questions remain regarding enforcement, but one official who spoke on condition of anonymity said, “we can make sure extreme voices don’t get out of hand”.
Is it all just a bad dream? If you sit on your butt or don’t vote Republican, maybe not.
Happy Halloween!
NOW GO VOTE!
Shaking his head, DNC Chairman Howard Dean laughed at his good fortune. “We had terrible turnout”, admitted the head of the Democrats’ national committee, “but we lucked out because the Republicans stayed home, too.
“It would have been very easy for the Republicans to have saved control of at least one chamber, but they sat on their butts and that worked for us.”
Baghdad, Iraq Monday February 5 2007 (AP) – Ordered by Congress to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible, U.S. troops began the first of a series of scaled pull-outs, removing 25,000 troops from positions deemed by Congress to be “too risky”. In related news, sectarian violence surged in Fallujah, Sadr City, and along the border with Saudi Arabia, as insurgents took heart in the American retreat. Over a thousand people are believed to have died in the new surge in violence over the past ten days.
Washington DC, Monday March 12 2007 (AP) – The U.S. Economy continued its slide for the third straight month, with Unemployment and the Consumer Price index both rising again. Economists say confidence in the economy has weakened due to fears of tax increases and a Congress which is hostile to the average person.
Beijing, Wednesday March 14 2007 (AP) – Iran and China have signed a landmark cooperation and defense treaty, announced today in a ceremony in Tienamen Square. Analysts believe that the weakened U.S. position in Asian and the Middle East made the deal more attractive than It would have been in past years, especially since Senate Foreign Relations committee chairman Joseph Biden has publicly warned that Congress would not approve “any more adventures” overseas for the foreseeable future.
Washington DC, Monday May 21 2007 (AP) – The Senate today slapped a stinging rebuke to the Bush Administration, by demanding a complete review and “overhaul” to intelligence-gathering procedures. In a move unprecedented since the Church Committee hearings of the 1970s, the Senate announced that the proceedings would be aired live and in public. Concerns about protecting “critical sources and methods” would be endangered by the publicity were brushed aside as “spooks trying to cover their behinds”.
The Hague, June 8 2007 (AP) – The International Court of Justice today indicted sixteen U.S. Marines on charges of abusing the human rights of over one hundred suspected members of Al Qaeda, by detaining Iranian nationals and incarcerating them without due process under the terms of Sharia. The case is widely viewed as a test case to determine the new American mood with regard to nations like Iran and North Korea. “It appears that the Congress has finally tired of allowing Bush to treat sovereign nations like beggars” commented an Iranian diplomat through Al-Jazeera. Veterans groups in the U.S. protested that turning over American troops to be tried in a foreign court was unconscionable, but a spokesman for the State Department explained that the new bill by Congress, which overrode President Bush’s veto, requires the United States comply with international law “in all respects”, including abiding by rulings from the ICJ.
Washington DC, Friday June 29 2007 (AP) – Just before the Fourth of July break, Congress dropped a bombshell on the taxpayer, increasing the employer and employee portion of SSI taxes to 22.7% each, with a warning that further increases may be necessary. Explaining the hike, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said “look, no one likes raising taxes, but the only way to fix this problem is to put more money into the system.”
Baghdad, Friday July 20 2007 (AP) – U.S. troops are exiting Iraq as quickly as possible, promised General Peter Schoomaker, Army Chief of Staff, but casualties are an inevitable price paid by “quitting before the job is finished”. U.S. forces have lost over a thousand casualties, including more than six hundred deaths, since the February decision by Congress to pull out of Iraq. Analysts say the country is effectively in civil war at this time, “total chaos in places” as confidence in the nascent democracy was shattered by the sudden decision by the United States to go home.
Islamabad, Monday July 23 2007 (AP) – In a stunning move, the government of Pakistan has cut relations with the United States, opened talks with Iran regarding regional issues, and opened a consulate for Al Qaeda. Officials for President Musharraf explained, “we are merely adjusting to the reality of new conditions.”
Washington DC, Monday, July 27 2007 (AP) – The Fairness Doctrine is back, and bigger than ever. Both chambers of Congress passed a measure which will not only require radio stations and cable television networks to provide “equal time and resources” to contrasting points of view, but for the first time also requires that political opinion websites, often called political “blogs”, be registered their financing reported, and agree to abide by “fair and reasonable” standards. Questions remain regarding enforcement, but one official who spoke on condition of anonymity said, “we can make sure extreme voices don’t get out of hand”.
Is it all just a bad dream? If you sit on your butt or don’t vote Republican, maybe not.
Happy Halloween!
NOW GO VOTE!
Monday, October 30, 2006
You Know What They Say About Assumptions
Today is Monday, which apparently is Lame Excuse Day in the corridors of Real Clear Politics and Spin. I say this, because even as the RCP guys have backtracked a little bit on their weasel post of October 20, these guys are still saying, in the same sort of voice we hear from Couric, Pelosi, and other minions of Leftist Lying, that the race is a foregone conclusion. RCP is still, quite without merit, claiming that “the lack of any released polling is a sign that this race is almost definitely a Democratic pickup”. I must repeat the obvious, that the absence of information must never be taken as evidence for any assertion, because by definition you cannot derive something from nothing. You would hardly be satisfied with a doctor who did no tests, and used the lack of tests as a basis for his diagnosis. You would hardly be satisfied with a mechanic who didn’t bother to check out your car before telling you what he thought was wrong. Even those old mystic types who ripped out goat entrails to see the future, at least based their predictions on something. There are only two kinds of people who would deliberately try to sell the idea that no data must mean ‘x’. RCP is either getting really, really lazy, or else they are flat being dishonest. Even as they continue to spin this race as “over”, the story they link to in their most recent update calls the race “a statistical tie”.
The Houston Chronicle, not known for supporting Republicans, even admitted that when Zogby’s poll specifically named the candidates running for TX-22, “Sekula-Gibbs drew 52 percent support in that situation, with Lampson holding at 35 percent.”
President Bush is visiting Sugar Land today, and since he claimed 64% of TX-22’s vote in 2004, this can only help Sekula-Gibbs.
Why was there no polling information for so long? The obvious must once again be observed:
[] Through the first couple months of 2006, the widespread belief was that DeLay would run for re-election, and was seen as a very strong incumbent. I note that RCP never bothered to consider that the absence of polling then would have been an “indicator” that DeLay had already wrapped up another term, if we applied RCP’s methodology. The fact that DeLay is not planning for his next term, rather effectively disproves that fable RCP has been selling that ‘no polling’ tells us anything.
[] Ronnie Earle’s vendetta against DeLay was years in the making, and had several starts and stops and spurts along the way. As a result, DeLay ran in the primaries because the GOP wanted a consistent message sent to the district. As for Lampson, he did not even open his office to campaign in TX-22 until April 8th. The pollsters waited for the dust to settle before they could poll on the race, since there was a lot of doubt about who was running.
[] Shelley Sekula-Gibbs was not even running until September. This means that the polls had to decide whether – and how – to poll TX-22, since the nature of the write-in requirement made this election unique.
In total then, the lack of polling was clearly not due to anyone locking up the race, but rather the result of a series of events which raised questions about who was running, and how polls should address the decision. It is simply false to claim that Lampson has effectively won this race, and patently dishonest to manipulate a lack of data to claim a result not in evidence. In actual fact, there is no question at all that if this race were a normal head-to-head race with both Lampson and Sekula-Gibbs on the ticket for their respective parties, Sekula-Gibbs would enjoy a tremendous lead, and notions that the Democrats could hope to take this seat would be a poor joke. The only reason that Lampson is in the position he is, is the result of Democrat dirty tricks. I mention this, because most people outside the District do not understand the underlying facts of this race:
[] Lampson has never lived in Sugar Land, but comes from Beaumont. His eligibility for the Congressional race is not unlike Hillary Clinton’s “residency” which allowed her to run for Senator of New York. Sugar Land Texas, however, is very distinctly not New York, and such tricks do not sit well with many voters.
[] TX-22 is strongly Republican and Conservative. It has been described as “leaning” Republican, but that is very much an understatement.
[] Sekula-Gibbs is very well known in Sugar Land. Her candidacy to run for TX-22 comes from not only her residency there, but also her reputation, which is largely positive.
With those facts in mind, it would seem strange that this should be a race at all, but the Donks played their card well, even if it is a filthy card. Republicans who vote “straight-ticket” not only will not have a vote registered for Sekula-Gibbs, but would not even have a chance to write-in her name, because the Donks got the courts to rule both that DeLay could not run, but that no one else could be put in as a Republican on the ballot, so there is no Republican slot on that race. The real question then, is how many Republicans will understand how to write-in Sekula-Gibbs in this election. The 25% “undecided” response in the Zogby poll, it appears, comes from not only people who are undecided, but also include those who are unsure how to write-in Sekula-Gibbs.
From the available information, garnered from local news reports and the internal data from Zogby’s poll, it would seem reasonable to say that Lampson will collect almost all of the Democrat vote in TX-22. That sounds great, but as I said, that being a largely Republican district means that Lampson is looking to collect between 25 and 35 percent of the voter base there, depending on Donk turnout. As for Sekula-Gibbs, she is actually quite popular, but will lose a chunk of the Republican vote from people who fail to properly write her in. Her share of the voter base starts at 52 percent, but loses 15-20 points due to the write-in complication. Figuring in Republican turnout as well, her basic numbers are between 22 and 42 percent of the voter base. Adding those two together, plus the GOP voters who fail to write in Sekula-Gibbs, and that leaves about 17 percent of truly undecided voters. It is possible for anything from a 47% Lampson 28% Sekula-Gibbs result, to a 54% Sekula-Gibbs 31% Lampson result. The only honest answer here is that
A) This race is very much still undecided
B) Turnout will be critical for each side
C) Calling this a sure Democrat takeover is both dishonest and foolish.
The chief reason I mention this, is because so many on the Left and in the Media are calling TX-22 as an example of some kind of Donkey Tide, and come November 7 there will be a lot of those ‘experts’ trying to explain how their lies and distortions were either honest mistakes, or somehow not as bad as they will look in the light of actual results.
I repeat my earlier conclusion: I have no complaint against a partisan choosing to cheer for their side, but when someone who purports to be objective plays a trick like this, I will not hesitate to call them out. For whatever reason, RCP has abandoned honest evaluation of the evidence in favor of a disguised partisanship, and this conduct is clearly unethical.
The Houston Chronicle, not known for supporting Republicans, even admitted that when Zogby’s poll specifically named the candidates running for TX-22, “Sekula-Gibbs drew 52 percent support in that situation, with Lampson holding at 35 percent.”
President Bush is visiting Sugar Land today, and since he claimed 64% of TX-22’s vote in 2004, this can only help Sekula-Gibbs.
Why was there no polling information for so long? The obvious must once again be observed:
[] Through the first couple months of 2006, the widespread belief was that DeLay would run for re-election, and was seen as a very strong incumbent. I note that RCP never bothered to consider that the absence of polling then would have been an “indicator” that DeLay had already wrapped up another term, if we applied RCP’s methodology. The fact that DeLay is not planning for his next term, rather effectively disproves that fable RCP has been selling that ‘no polling’ tells us anything.
[] Ronnie Earle’s vendetta against DeLay was years in the making, and had several starts and stops and spurts along the way. As a result, DeLay ran in the primaries because the GOP wanted a consistent message sent to the district. As for Lampson, he did not even open his office to campaign in TX-22 until April 8th. The pollsters waited for the dust to settle before they could poll on the race, since there was a lot of doubt about who was running.
[] Shelley Sekula-Gibbs was not even running until September. This means that the polls had to decide whether – and how – to poll TX-22, since the nature of the write-in requirement made this election unique.
In total then, the lack of polling was clearly not due to anyone locking up the race, but rather the result of a series of events which raised questions about who was running, and how polls should address the decision. It is simply false to claim that Lampson has effectively won this race, and patently dishonest to manipulate a lack of data to claim a result not in evidence. In actual fact, there is no question at all that if this race were a normal head-to-head race with both Lampson and Sekula-Gibbs on the ticket for their respective parties, Sekula-Gibbs would enjoy a tremendous lead, and notions that the Democrats could hope to take this seat would be a poor joke. The only reason that Lampson is in the position he is, is the result of Democrat dirty tricks. I mention this, because most people outside the District do not understand the underlying facts of this race:
[] Lampson has never lived in Sugar Land, but comes from Beaumont. His eligibility for the Congressional race is not unlike Hillary Clinton’s “residency” which allowed her to run for Senator of New York. Sugar Land Texas, however, is very distinctly not New York, and such tricks do not sit well with many voters.
[] TX-22 is strongly Republican and Conservative. It has been described as “leaning” Republican, but that is very much an understatement.
[] Sekula-Gibbs is very well known in Sugar Land. Her candidacy to run for TX-22 comes from not only her residency there, but also her reputation, which is largely positive.
With those facts in mind, it would seem strange that this should be a race at all, but the Donks played their card well, even if it is a filthy card. Republicans who vote “straight-ticket” not only will not have a vote registered for Sekula-Gibbs, but would not even have a chance to write-in her name, because the Donks got the courts to rule both that DeLay could not run, but that no one else could be put in as a Republican on the ballot, so there is no Republican slot on that race. The real question then, is how many Republicans will understand how to write-in Sekula-Gibbs in this election. The 25% “undecided” response in the Zogby poll, it appears, comes from not only people who are undecided, but also include those who are unsure how to write-in Sekula-Gibbs.
From the available information, garnered from local news reports and the internal data from Zogby’s poll, it would seem reasonable to say that Lampson will collect almost all of the Democrat vote in TX-22. That sounds great, but as I said, that being a largely Republican district means that Lampson is looking to collect between 25 and 35 percent of the voter base there, depending on Donk turnout. As for Sekula-Gibbs, she is actually quite popular, but will lose a chunk of the Republican vote from people who fail to properly write her in. Her share of the voter base starts at 52 percent, but loses 15-20 points due to the write-in complication. Figuring in Republican turnout as well, her basic numbers are between 22 and 42 percent of the voter base. Adding those two together, plus the GOP voters who fail to write in Sekula-Gibbs, and that leaves about 17 percent of truly undecided voters. It is possible for anything from a 47% Lampson 28% Sekula-Gibbs result, to a 54% Sekula-Gibbs 31% Lampson result. The only honest answer here is that
A) This race is very much still undecided
B) Turnout will be critical for each side
C) Calling this a sure Democrat takeover is both dishonest and foolish.
The chief reason I mention this, is because so many on the Left and in the Media are calling TX-22 as an example of some kind of Donkey Tide, and come November 7 there will be a lot of those ‘experts’ trying to explain how their lies and distortions were either honest mistakes, or somehow not as bad as they will look in the light of actual results.
I repeat my earlier conclusion: I have no complaint against a partisan choosing to cheer for their side, but when someone who purports to be objective plays a trick like this, I will not hesitate to call them out. For whatever reason, RCP has abandoned honest evaluation of the evidence in favor of a disguised partisanship, and this conduct is clearly unethical.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
School Update
For those interested;
Completed Quiz on Chapter 10 in Accounting, got 100%, brings class average up to a nudge above 83% (Assignment 4 of 6 submitted but no grade yet);
Took Economics Quiz on Chapters 7, 10, and 11 today, scored 95%, class average at 99%;
Term Paper due for Business & Society Monday October 30 at 8 AM.
Quiz on Chapter 6 in Accounting this week.
Assignment 5 in Accounting due this Saturday.
Term Paper in Economics due November 14.
Just in case you wondered why I am not as chatty as usual.
Oh, and for the record Time Warner Roadrunner High-Speed Internet is a lying, bumbling, collection of con men and incompetents. More than half of Houston, they say, is unable to access their wonderful service for the second straight day, at least 34 hours and counting by my clock. What's even more telling about the "expertise" of these people is that they do not know what, precisely, is wrong, they will not say what they are doing to fix the problem, they have no idea when it will befixed, and they resent the hell out of customers being at all displeased by any of these things.
I am on dial-up right now. Don't expect any glowing reviews about Total Wripoff Roadkill Won't-Work Internet anytime soon.
Completed Quiz on Chapter 10 in Accounting, got 100%, brings class average up to a nudge above 83% (Assignment 4 of 6 submitted but no grade yet);
Took Economics Quiz on Chapters 7, 10, and 11 today, scored 95%, class average at 99%;
Term Paper due for Business & Society Monday October 30 at 8 AM.
Quiz on Chapter 6 in Accounting this week.
Assignment 5 in Accounting due this Saturday.
Term Paper in Economics due November 14.
Just in case you wondered why I am not as chatty as usual.
Oh, and for the record Time Warner Roadrunner High-Speed Internet is a lying, bumbling, collection of con men and incompetents. More than half of Houston, they say, is unable to access their wonderful service for the second straight day, at least 34 hours and counting by my clock. What's even more telling about the "expertise" of these people is that they do not know what, precisely, is wrong, they will not say what they are doing to fix the problem, they have no idea when it will befixed, and they resent the hell out of customers being at all displeased by any of these things.
I am on dial-up right now. Don't expect any glowing reviews about Total Wripoff Roadkill Won't-Work Internet anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
