I'm sick of perpetual candidates, seeking one office while holding another. I'd love to see an amendment to address this ridiculousness, combine it with a clause to rectify the ridiculousness of barring the Presidency from people who just happen to have not been born in the United States or its territories.
So this amendment would do two things, first, allow any citizen, foreign born or not who has lived continuously in the United States as a citizen for at least a decade prior to the election be eligible to for our highest office. That should be enough, we need the best politicians available to seek our highest office, and the native only clause in the constitution has barred some excellent people from even contemplating a run at the presidency. The other part of the amendment would require any current federal elected office holder (with two exceptions) to resign their current office at least 14 months prior to the election (sitting Presidents or Vice-Presidents excluded). Senators McCain, Obama, Clinton, Biden, Dodd, all did lousy jobs being Senators while they were candidates. If they're serious about being President, I think they should go for that position without the safety net of falling back into their old comfy job in the Senate. They are shortchanging the people of their respective states, and the United States as a whole by this nonsense. In the same clause of the amendment, also bar folks from running for more than one federal office concurrently. That way, the primary losers could still try and win back their Senate seats, though their appointed replacements might have something to say about that, and in the case of an ex-Senator losing the general election, they'll be forced to sit out a few years before jumping back in to the Senate. It may seem contradictory to want more people eligible on the one hand, but place greater limits on one of the primary pools that has produced candidates, but by in large, those trying to go straight from the Senate to the presidency haven't been the best available, they've simply been the ones most familiar with DC, and the ones DC was most familiar with. In my mind, that's more a disqualification for the office rather than a qualification, and an amendment like this wouldn't ban them from running, it'd just give them something a little extra to consider should they choose to make the attempt.
Nobody should be Senator for more than two terms, that so many of them linger for so much longer is sad, but those that stick around longest have access to all the best pork, and pork still buys votes in most states, despite protestations to the contrary. This wouldn't be a big change, but at least it would make these candidates face some real consequences for their ego driven attempts at higher office. Anybody in the House wouldn't be as affected, given that they know they can always get back in two years, but the Senators would lose quite a bit of DC influence if they run and fail, and in my opinion that's exactly how it should be.
If I checked my archives I'd probably find I've made a similar complaint before, but this issue won't go away, so I'll keep complaining.
Showing posts with label The Perpetual Election Campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Perpetual Election Campaign. Show all posts
30 January 2008
Re-Ordering An Ordered List From Dec 17th, 2007
Way back when, I gave an ordered list of my preferences for presidential candidates. The voters in the states that have voted so far, seem to have disagreed with me pretty strongly. Here's the old list:
1)Fred Thompson
2)Rudy Giuliani
3)Mitt Romney
4)Hillary Clinton
5)John McCain
6)Barack Obama
7)John Edwards
8)Mike Huckabee (yes, he's that contemptible)
Now, the revised list:
1)John McCain
2)Mitt Romney
3)Barack Obama
4)Hillary Clinton
Why the revision? Simple, McCain is bad in many ways, and has all the habits of someone who spent too long in the Senate, but that doesn't mean he would be a bad president. Romney would still be a fine GOP candidate, and most likely a fine president, but I have come to accept that McCain wouldn't be nearly as bad as I feared back in December. McCain is better positioned to shrink government, appoint justices who believe in the consitution, and fight an aggressive war on terror. As a Senator he was always the "Maverick" Republican that the pressed love to get soundbites from trashing his fellow Republicans. As a party leader, and president, the press won't like him much anymore, and he'll probably govern more conservatively as an executive than he did as a legislator (at least that's my hope). If "shamnesty" does pass under McCain, that won't be a disaster for this country, we can absorb another wave of laborers from Mexico, and given the heat he's taken during the campaign, the next iteration of the McCain-Kennedy bill will likely be much tougher with regards to enforcement, so it won't be all bad.
Romney is still an attractive candidate, though something of a cypher. In that way he's similar to Obama. Romney 'looks' presidential, and a lot of times, that's been enough to get folks elected. There's no doubt that he'll work hard, bring an active intellect to the job, and find ways to work with people on both sides of the aisle. He would also be a stronger candidate to oppose Obama, should Obama manage to get the Dems nomination, but I think either GOP candidate will easily defeat either Dem candidate, so electability shouldn't enter into the argument.
Obama, is still The Obama, he that will wash away all our sins. That may be enough to grab the nomination away from Clinton, but it won't be enough to win the general election. The Obama is everything you want him to be, and nothing. He'll be your mirror, only he doesn't reflect back who you are, he reflects back who you wish you were. But from a policy standpoint I still get a strong, that Democratic president from the 70s who shall not be named vibe from him. And that should be enough to scare anyone. Add to that all the Kennedy talk, and he embodies all that is wrong with the Democratic party, and suggests he would be a disaster as president. Despite all that, he's still preferable to another Clinton administration.
Clinton has slipped behind McCain and Obama in my rankings for one main reason, her husband. It is becoming clearer with every passing week, that they have every intention of being a co-presidency again. It's a horrible idea, will further divide this country into two polarized camps, and make a mockery of the constitution. She'd mix all the paranoia of Nixon, but with an even extra large dose of maternalism/paternalism. On the plus side, if she were to be elected, she'd tear her party apart, on the negative side, she might also rip the country apart in the process. She's the biggest risk to our security and prosperity over the next eight years. It didn't seem that way a few weeks ago, but that seems pretty clear to me now.
Thankfully, Huckabee has fallen off the map, his win in Iowa hasn't been followed up anywhere else, and he won't be a factor after Super Tuesday. I'd still rate him behind Clinton if I were to bother including him in the rankings.
1)Fred Thompson
2)Rudy Giuliani
3)Mitt Romney
4)Hillary Clinton
5)John McCain
6)Barack Obama
7)John Edwards
8)Mike Huckabee (yes, he's that contemptible)
Now, the revised list:
1)John McCain
2)Mitt Romney
3)Barack Obama
4)Hillary Clinton
Why the revision? Simple, McCain is bad in many ways, and has all the habits of someone who spent too long in the Senate, but that doesn't mean he would be a bad president. Romney would still be a fine GOP candidate, and most likely a fine president, but I have come to accept that McCain wouldn't be nearly as bad as I feared back in December. McCain is better positioned to shrink government, appoint justices who believe in the consitution, and fight an aggressive war on terror. As a Senator he was always the "Maverick" Republican that the pressed love to get soundbites from trashing his fellow Republicans. As a party leader, and president, the press won't like him much anymore, and he'll probably govern more conservatively as an executive than he did as a legislator (at least that's my hope). If "shamnesty" does pass under McCain, that won't be a disaster for this country, we can absorb another wave of laborers from Mexico, and given the heat he's taken during the campaign, the next iteration of the McCain-Kennedy bill will likely be much tougher with regards to enforcement, so it won't be all bad.
Romney is still an attractive candidate, though something of a cypher. In that way he's similar to Obama. Romney 'looks' presidential, and a lot of times, that's been enough to get folks elected. There's no doubt that he'll work hard, bring an active intellect to the job, and find ways to work with people on both sides of the aisle. He would also be a stronger candidate to oppose Obama, should Obama manage to get the Dems nomination, but I think either GOP candidate will easily defeat either Dem candidate, so electability shouldn't enter into the argument.
Obama, is still The Obama, he that will wash away all our sins. That may be enough to grab the nomination away from Clinton, but it won't be enough to win the general election. The Obama is everything you want him to be, and nothing. He'll be your mirror, only he doesn't reflect back who you are, he reflects back who you wish you were. But from a policy standpoint I still get a strong, that Democratic president from the 70s who shall not be named vibe from him. And that should be enough to scare anyone. Add to that all the Kennedy talk, and he embodies all that is wrong with the Democratic party, and suggests he would be a disaster as president. Despite all that, he's still preferable to another Clinton administration.
Clinton has slipped behind McCain and Obama in my rankings for one main reason, her husband. It is becoming clearer with every passing week, that they have every intention of being a co-presidency again. It's a horrible idea, will further divide this country into two polarized camps, and make a mockery of the constitution. She'd mix all the paranoia of Nixon, but with an even extra large dose of maternalism/paternalism. On the plus side, if she were to be elected, she'd tear her party apart, on the negative side, she might also rip the country apart in the process. She's the biggest risk to our security and prosperity over the next eight years. It didn't seem that way a few weeks ago, but that seems pretty clear to me now.
Thankfully, Huckabee has fallen off the map, his win in Iowa hasn't been followed up anywhere else, and he won't be a factor after Super Tuesday. I'd still rate him behind Clinton if I were to bother including him in the rankings.
04 January 2008
Ugggghhh.
Iowa Republican Caucus goers turned out in record number (but dwarved by the record numbers who turned out on the Dem side), and picked a populist-rhetoric spewer with a heavy dose of conservative Christianity as their favorite candidate. Not the first time they've done such, Pat Robertson got 25% of their vote in '88 (but didn't win), and Pat Buchanan got 23% of their vote (but didn't win).
If Huckabee were to attempt to govern as he is running, he'd be dangerous for this country. But it was only about 40,000 folks who showed up to vote for him, which was a plurality of Republican caucus goers, but rather than Huckabee "winning" 34.29% of the vote I'd rather think of this as 65.71% of Iowa Republican caucus goers who rejected his brand of populism.
As far as the Democrats go, I don't hate Obama nearly as much as I hate Huckabee, he'd be less awful for the country as President. All the Dems run on populism, too, on the populist rhetoric front, he's far less crazy than Edwards, and on par with Clinton. I doubt he'd govern like he's run, but there's a long time till November, and he managed a pretty good victory in a state that wouldn't seem to be a natural fit for his campaign. Iowa Democrats don't believe in releasing the number of folks who vote for each candidate, instead releasing delegate numbers, by that measure Sen. Obama garnered 37.58% of state delegates selected. The total turn out was 227,000 people, smashing last year's record attendance, largely attributable to Independents showing up to vote for Obama, and folks under the age of 29 showing up in unprecedented numbers. But again at most Obama energized 80,000 people to vote for him, which means there were 140,000 Iowa Democratic caucus goers who weren't impressed with Sen. Obama.
Also, his "I AM THE DREAM" speech rankled (at least me). To paraphrase his victory speech, Obama basically claimed that what Martin Luther King, Jr. saw up on that hill when he peered into the future and saw racial equanimity and inclusiveness, that it was Sen. Obama's smiling visage beaming back at him. Talk about audaciousness. I don't know that this sort of audacity will sell well as the campaign goes on. It sold well with its target audience. Today, many liberals (just watch any random 3 hour stretch of CNN or MSNBC) are suffering from dislocated shoulders from patting themselves on the back so hard for their willingness to overcome racial prejudice and vote for Sen. Obama in Iowa. For some reason, they are not punishing themselves equally for their disgusting show of rank prejudice in their rejection of Sen. Clinton and how that clearly shows the continued unlevel playing field faced by women in our horribly gender-biased culture.
In summary, there were two winners in Iowa, Obama and Huckabee, and four losers.
Sen. Clinton's defeat in Iowa was a huge chink in her armor, and destroyed her, 'I'm the inevitable candidate' strategy. The next biggest loser was Gov. Romney, he spent $7million and received around 30,000 votes. That's $233 per vote cast. That's a lousy return on his investment. The third biggest losers were the race-hustling "black leadership" establishment. The Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world just saw their hold over white liberals smashed forever. White liberals can now point to Obama as proof that they are no longer prejudice, so they don't need to kowtow to these race pimps. Sharpton was on Kimmel last night (and crossing a picket line to do it), and he didn't seem at all happy, and was claiming he may jump into the campaign. The fourth biggest losers were unions. They split their support between Edwards and Clinton, and saw both those candidates do poorly.
Sen. Obama has the potential to win the Democratic nomination without having to pander to two of the groups that Democrats have traditionally pandered to, the unions and the race-hustlers. That gives him a great opportunity to change the kind of issues that a viable Democratic candidate can tackle. He could attack school unions, support vouchers. He could praise welfare reform, and push even stronger entitlement reforms. He could begin tacking towards the middle if he does very well in South Carolina. If he doesn't, then he'll have to stick to his mix of lefty rhetoric leavened with talk of hope, inclusiveness, and working across the aisle (but no specifics).
Nothing's been decided yet, there's a lot of campaigning left, but Obama and Huckabee have strengthened, Romney and Clinton have been wounded, Thompson may have helped himself quite a bit by coming in a narrow third, and Giuliani may still end up looking very smart by ignoring Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
If Huckabee were to attempt to govern as he is running, he'd be dangerous for this country. But it was only about 40,000 folks who showed up to vote for him, which was a plurality of Republican caucus goers, but rather than Huckabee "winning" 34.29% of the vote I'd rather think of this as 65.71% of Iowa Republican caucus goers who rejected his brand of populism.
As far as the Democrats go, I don't hate Obama nearly as much as I hate Huckabee, he'd be less awful for the country as President. All the Dems run on populism, too, on the populist rhetoric front, he's far less crazy than Edwards, and on par with Clinton. I doubt he'd govern like he's run, but there's a long time till November, and he managed a pretty good victory in a state that wouldn't seem to be a natural fit for his campaign. Iowa Democrats don't believe in releasing the number of folks who vote for each candidate, instead releasing delegate numbers, by that measure Sen. Obama garnered 37.58% of state delegates selected. The total turn out was 227,000 people, smashing last year's record attendance, largely attributable to Independents showing up to vote for Obama, and folks under the age of 29 showing up in unprecedented numbers. But again at most Obama energized 80,000 people to vote for him, which means there were 140,000 Iowa Democratic caucus goers who weren't impressed with Sen. Obama.
Also, his "I AM THE DREAM" speech rankled (at least me). To paraphrase his victory speech, Obama basically claimed that what Martin Luther King, Jr. saw up on that hill when he peered into the future and saw racial equanimity and inclusiveness, that it was Sen. Obama's smiling visage beaming back at him. Talk about audaciousness. I don't know that this sort of audacity will sell well as the campaign goes on. It sold well with its target audience. Today, many liberals (just watch any random 3 hour stretch of CNN or MSNBC) are suffering from dislocated shoulders from patting themselves on the back so hard for their willingness to overcome racial prejudice and vote for Sen. Obama in Iowa. For some reason, they are not punishing themselves equally for their disgusting show of rank prejudice in their rejection of Sen. Clinton and how that clearly shows the continued unlevel playing field faced by women in our horribly gender-biased culture.
In summary, there were two winners in Iowa, Obama and Huckabee, and four losers.
Sen. Clinton's defeat in Iowa was a huge chink in her armor, and destroyed her, 'I'm the inevitable candidate' strategy. The next biggest loser was Gov. Romney, he spent $7million and received around 30,000 votes. That's $233 per vote cast. That's a lousy return on his investment. The third biggest losers were the race-hustling "black leadership" establishment. The Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world just saw their hold over white liberals smashed forever. White liberals can now point to Obama as proof that they are no longer prejudice, so they don't need to kowtow to these race pimps. Sharpton was on Kimmel last night (and crossing a picket line to do it), and he didn't seem at all happy, and was claiming he may jump into the campaign. The fourth biggest losers were unions. They split their support between Edwards and Clinton, and saw both those candidates do poorly.
Sen. Obama has the potential to win the Democratic nomination without having to pander to two of the groups that Democrats have traditionally pandered to, the unions and the race-hustlers. That gives him a great opportunity to change the kind of issues that a viable Democratic candidate can tackle. He could attack school unions, support vouchers. He could praise welfare reform, and push even stronger entitlement reforms. He could begin tacking towards the middle if he does very well in South Carolina. If he doesn't, then he'll have to stick to his mix of lefty rhetoric leavened with talk of hope, inclusiveness, and working across the aisle (but no specifics).
Nothing's been decided yet, there's a lot of campaigning left, but Obama and Huckabee have strengthened, Romney and Clinton have been wounded, Thompson may have helped himself quite a bit by coming in a narrow third, and Giuliani may still end up looking very smart by ignoring Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
02 January 2008
No Offense Meant (honest) . . .
. . . but I'm seriously sick of Iowa.
It's not your fault Iowans, it's just your status as first in the nation Caucus in the most over-analyzed election in world history.
Are you looking forward to being forgotten again for 3.5 years?
It's not your fault Iowans, it's just your status as first in the nation Caucus in the most over-analyzed election in world history.
Are you looking forward to being forgotten again for 3.5 years?
27 December 2007
Pointing Out Podcasts (and Not Making Them)
One of these days, maybe I'll get around to podcasting, but today's not one of them. Just don't like what my voice sounds like recorded. Whatever 'voice' you here when you read my text is probably better than my actual voice, so I prefer to leave it that way.
But others aren't so reluctant about adding their voices onto the internet, and those little 'casts are often interesting listens.
Two good ones from this week are to be found at Pajamas Media and ESPN.
First up, the Glenn and Helen (aka Instapundit and Dr Helen) do their podcast interview thing, and as always, they do it well. Johah Goldberg is pushing his provocative new book, Liberal Fascism, and hearing them interview him regarding his tome is rather entertaining. They also discuss the ongoing (and perpetual) presidential campaign and speak about Sen. Clinton and Gov. Huckabee in particular.
[direct link to the 22.3mb mp3 here]
Jumping to a completely different subject, My Nemesis Bill Simmons™ interviews his buddy Jimmy Kimmel on the BS Report for 12/26. Jimmy has some interesting things to say on the ongoing writers' strike, and the incoherence of the Spinks brothers. Also, there's football stuff with Cousin Sal as they hash out their weekly 'guess the spread' chat. Jimmy Kimmel will probably be the best host sans writers. He always gives the impression of actually listening to the people he's talking to, and when his subject is engaged, he can be very engaging right back. Letterman has flashes of fiestiness, but mostly he's just bored, and Leno with writers comes across as unprepared and just killing time, so Leno with writers might end up being like watching a slow motion train wreck. Conan, on the other hand, will probably just wiggle, dance, and mug at the camera for 35+ minutes a night, make odd noises for another 6-8 minutes, and chat with one guest. They're all coming back next week, it'll be worth tuning in (or DVR-ing, given the hour they are on) for the first few shows, anyway.
[direct link to the 11.2mb mp3 here]
But others aren't so reluctant about adding their voices onto the internet, and those little 'casts are often interesting listens.
Two good ones from this week are to be found at Pajamas Media and ESPN.
First up, the Glenn and Helen (aka Instapundit and Dr Helen) do their podcast interview thing, and as always, they do it well. Johah Goldberg is pushing his provocative new book, Liberal Fascism, and hearing them interview him regarding his tome is rather entertaining. They also discuss the ongoing (and perpetual) presidential campaign and speak about Sen. Clinton and Gov. Huckabee in particular.
[direct link to the 22.3mb mp3 here]
Jumping to a completely different subject, My Nemesis Bill Simmons™ interviews his buddy Jimmy Kimmel on the BS Report for 12/26. Jimmy has some interesting things to say on the ongoing writers' strike, and the incoherence of the Spinks brothers. Also, there's football stuff with Cousin Sal as they hash out their weekly 'guess the spread' chat. Jimmy Kimmel will probably be the best host sans writers. He always gives the impression of actually listening to the people he's talking to, and when his subject is engaged, he can be very engaging right back. Letterman has flashes of fiestiness, but mostly he's just bored, and Leno with writers comes across as unprepared and just killing time, so Leno with writers might end up being like watching a slow motion train wreck. Conan, on the other hand, will probably just wiggle, dance, and mug at the camera for 35+ minutes a night, make odd noises for another 6-8 minutes, and chat with one guest. They're all coming back next week, it'll be worth tuning in (or DVR-ing, given the hour they are on) for the first few shows, anyway.
[direct link to the 11.2mb mp3 here]
18 December 2007
Shouldn't That Read, Gestating?
I'm just saying . . .
I would have gone with "GESTATING..." beneath the latest banner headline at Drudge. Looks like the Dems are about to let the scandalpalooza be unleashed upon each other. Expect revelations regarding the other top candidates to follow.
National Enquirer is a rag, and full of half truths and occasional outright lies, but with something that specific, they probably wouldn't have let hit the stands without some corroboration beyond the word of the woman claiming to be having a John Edwards 'lovebaby'.
The real question is, who paid her to come forward, the tabloids, Obama folk, or Clinton folk?
(I'm not saying the GOP is above this sort of perfidy, but they'd love to run against Sen. Edwards, so I don't see them dropping a bombshell like this before it would help them in the general election)
17 December 2007
The Most Significant Photo of 2007 . . .
Right here, that's it, this is the most significant photo taken in the year 2007. Think it will win a Pullitzer? Whichever photog snapped this photo effectively ended Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
There's no recovering from that, image isn't everything, but it counts for a lot, and her image in that photo isn't the image most Americans would want us to project as a nation. You don't have to be wrinkle free to be president, but you can't look haggard and bedraggled, either.
Drudge captioned it "The Toll of the Campaign", but campaigning as arduous as it is, is still nothing compared to the toll that actually serving in the roll these folks hope to fill. Sen. Clinton has had some scary pictures in the past, but none have escaped that looked like this one.
She's done, whether or not the intention of the person behind the lens was to alter the path of the election or not, that's what this snap will do. She may have been too negative, too managed, and too divisive to ever convince the primary voters to choose her. So her winning was far from assured, but just as the "Dean Scream" solidified the concept of Gov. Dean that many voters already had of him, and just pushed away a ton of undecided voters, this photo will turn off the people who were on the fence regarding Hillary.
In some ways, she's lucky the writer's strike is still going on. If all the Late Night talk shows were ongoing, you know they would have had a bit of fun at her expense with regards to that photo, thus exposing this image to the millions of folks who don't read Drudge daily or have yet to begin really paying much attention to the campaign. Even the Daily Show probably would have piled on (given Stewart's fawning during Sen. Obama's appearance, they seem like they're in Camp Obama rather than Camp Clinton).
Maybe it won't have the impact I'm expecting, maybe I'm shallower than the Democratic Primary and Caucus voters, but somehow I doubt it.
14 December 2007
Lazy Like a Fox . . .
That's ol' Fred Thompson, he's a sly ol' dog who the media seems determined to downplay at every opportunity. Will GOP voters do the same? I think not, for one, GOP voters aren't particularly interested in what most of the media has to say, so their ability to influence us into picking a moralizing, prissy, big government Southern Governor who is very reminiscent of a certain peanut lovin' Governor who shall remain nameless as per the policy of this blog, is far less than they might think.
The love being shown towards Gov. Huckabee by the media is a transparent attempt to try and manipulate the GOP into nominating the one candidate who would lose to any of the potential Democratic candidates, and even if by some gawdawful circumstance he became President, would work with the Dems in Congress to pass every bit of nanny-state legislation that their fevered dreams can come up with.
Nope, a real Federalist, a real Republican, and a real Southerner like Sen. Fred Thompson scares the bejeebus out of media types, so best to do everything in their power now to prop up a joke of a candidate like Gov. Huckabee.
Likewise, the threat posed by a GOP willing to nominate a Northern socially liberal yet financially conservative and hawkish on defense candidate like Mayor Giuliani is equally anathema to the folks in the news business. Rudy would eat Hillary for lunch, and ask for more. Likewise, if Obama ends up being the Democratic standard bearer, Rudy would kill him in direct debates, and would force the Dems to spend money in states they would normally take for granted.
The Dems best bet for the White House is a GOP that nominates a moralizing, preaching, big government nanny stater like Gov. Huckabee. We can't let that happen, even Sen. McCain would make a better candidate than Huckabee.
I'd be thrilled if Sen. Thompson continues to build towards the nomination (despite what the press says, he still has a strong chance of winning), I'd be happy if Giuliani manages to maintain his front-runner status all the way to the convention (he'd be an excellent candidate, and great President), and even Romney has his charms and would no doubt run an able campaign and handle the office well. The GOP has three strong candidates who would give either Hillary or Obama fits in the general election, which is why the media seems intent on pushing the "Huckaboom" so intently.
Huckabee is a joke, a bad one, and if he gets the nomination, say hello to Pres. Clinton or Pres. Obama. We need another "Man from Hope" like we need a return to the glory days of the late 70s. Pres. Huckabee is something that should never happen, he'd be the wrong man at any time in our history, but the next 4-8 years are critical, and he'd be wrong on every level to overcome the challenges we face.
The love being shown towards Gov. Huckabee by the media is a transparent attempt to try and manipulate the GOP into nominating the one candidate who would lose to any of the potential Democratic candidates, and even if by some gawdawful circumstance he became President, would work with the Dems in Congress to pass every bit of nanny-state legislation that their fevered dreams can come up with.
Nope, a real Federalist, a real Republican, and a real Southerner like Sen. Fred Thompson scares the bejeebus out of media types, so best to do everything in their power now to prop up a joke of a candidate like Gov. Huckabee.
Likewise, the threat posed by a GOP willing to nominate a Northern socially liberal yet financially conservative and hawkish on defense candidate like Mayor Giuliani is equally anathema to the folks in the news business. Rudy would eat Hillary for lunch, and ask for more. Likewise, if Obama ends up being the Democratic standard bearer, Rudy would kill him in direct debates, and would force the Dems to spend money in states they would normally take for granted.
The Dems best bet for the White House is a GOP that nominates a moralizing, preaching, big government nanny stater like Gov. Huckabee. We can't let that happen, even Sen. McCain would make a better candidate than Huckabee.
I'd be thrilled if Sen. Thompson continues to build towards the nomination (despite what the press says, he still has a strong chance of winning), I'd be happy if Giuliani manages to maintain his front-runner status all the way to the convention (he'd be an excellent candidate, and great President), and even Romney has his charms and would no doubt run an able campaign and handle the office well. The GOP has three strong candidates who would give either Hillary or Obama fits in the general election, which is why the media seems intent on pushing the "Huckaboom" so intently.
Huckabee is a joke, a bad one, and if he gets the nomination, say hello to Pres. Clinton or Pres. Obama. We need another "Man from Hope" like we need a return to the glory days of the late 70s. Pres. Huckabee is something that should never happen, he'd be the wrong man at any time in our history, but the next 4-8 years are critical, and he'd be wrong on every level to overcome the challenges we face.
10 December 2007
That Paragraph is Looking Less Far-Fetched Compared to When I Wrote It in July . . .
Here's an AP Video (with annoying ad before video starts) report of the O&O show. From this immodest blog many months ago, a throwaway paragraph in a post about something else...
Did I know back then that Oprah would publicly campaign with Obama back then?
She had mentioned she backed Obama back in May, but that's very different from actually stumping with him.
Would she give up her day job to run for VP?
And those folks who set up the Oprah/Obama08 site on cafepress must be doing great lately.
All this talk about whether or not The Oprah can help Sen. Obama in the Democratic primaries is just talk. Of course support coming from Her Most High and Holy Oprahness counts for alot amongst a lot of voters (especially in the Dem primaries).
Is this just a sister trying to help a brother out? Or is there a quid pro quo thing going on (as in VP Winfrey)?
Although if somehow a Obama/Winfrey ticket were to actually win, I'd be worried about some crazed Oprah fan getting too impatient with regards to a hoped for Winfrey presidency. I'd watch my back if I were Pres. Obama.
(and when you see "Pres. Obama" in type or hear it in your mind, it seems such an unlikely last name for an American president, same with Dukakis, he was defeated by his name alone (and his old school left liberal policies which were way out of step with the majority of American voters))
When Oprah is President Obama's Vice President (you know the O&O ticket makes sense, don't you?), I'll bet she does things that would make even Cheney blush. I also bet there won't be a single lawsuit brought against her by some petty bureaucrat fearful of her secretive ways.
Did I know back then that Oprah would publicly campaign with Obama back then?
She had mentioned she backed Obama back in May, but that's very different from actually stumping with him.
Would she give up her day job to run for VP?
And those folks who set up the Oprah/Obama08 site on cafepress must be doing great lately.
All this talk about whether or not The Oprah can help Sen. Obama in the Democratic primaries is just talk. Of course support coming from Her Most High and Holy Oprahness counts for alot amongst a lot of voters (especially in the Dem primaries).
Is this just a sister trying to help a brother out? Or is there a quid pro quo thing going on (as in VP Winfrey)?
Although if somehow a Obama/Winfrey ticket were to actually win, I'd be worried about some crazed Oprah fan getting too impatient with regards to a hoped for Winfrey presidency. I'd watch my back if I were Pres. Obama.
(and when you see "Pres. Obama" in type or hear it in your mind, it seems such an unlikely last name for an American president, same with Dukakis, he was defeated by his name alone (and his old school left liberal policies which were way out of step with the majority of American voters))
28 November 2007
Somewhat Live Blogging the "YouTube" Debate
Hi all, I'm still around, just haven't been feeling "bloggy" lately.
I forgot to get the alcohol provision restocked before this event, so I'll have to sober blog this stuff.
Hopefully, I'll be able to do this without intoxicating libations.
5:11pm PST
First off, can CNN be more self-congratulatory? Why waste time with the line-up+intros? At least Mr. Cooper is his usual attractively impish self.
First real question is at Rudy re: sanctuary cities. His answer sounds OK, Romney is given a follow up by Cooper, he hits hard, but fairly, this is a problem for Mayor Giuliani, and he should find it in his heart to change his views on this, or he'll have trouble getting the nomination. Rudy hits back, slightly below the belt over the hiring practices in Romney's own household. Nasty is fun, though, I really don't mind nasty.
5:18 PST
Thompson says all the right things on the immigration issue. Takes a swipe at Romney and Giuliani, and makes a veiled reference to Bernard Kerik without bringing up his name (that sly ol' slow talkin' fox, I'll call him Matlock for the rest of this debate). McCain gets his shot, denies that amnesty was amnesty, he's saddened, he's often saddened, he always seems shocked, shocked that big huge government bipartisan problem solving bills tend to backfire (see McCain-Feingold). He's enforcement first, now, but who cares what he thinks, he's a Senator for life, and won't ever be President.
5:49 PST
D'oh! a brown out just ate my last 2 updates, I was really witty, though, you'll have to take my word for it, in summary, Go Matlock Go! (liked his answer on taxes and privatizing Social Security), Crazy Uncle (aka Ron Paul) sounded as crazy as usual. Huckabee talks the right talk on "Fair Tax" but I don't trust him to spend a dime of political capital to make it happen should he find himself President somehow.
Coop isn't having an easy time moderating, and "Sen. Thompson, what's up with that?" What's up with that? Seriously, dude, seriously, dude, seriously? The Thompson YouTube attack ad is kind of weak actually, what's up with that?
5:56 PST
Prof. Althouse is comment-blogging the debate this time instead of live blogging. Show-off. If I had a popular site with a big base of commenters, I'd do that, too, but instead I'll stick it out with this semi-live, live blog.
6:00 PST
2nd Amendment in focus, Hunter chastises the questioner on gun safety (proving that he knows his guns), Giuliani doesn't backtrack on his record on gun control, he's pro-Federalism on this (sort of), leave it up to the states. Sen. Thompson hits back on the issue, Giuliani sticks to his "guns" so to speak on his record on gun control in NYC. Someone wants to know about the candidates guns, can't imagine that question getting asked of the Dems.
6:06 PST
Black-on-Black crime question (a guy named "Printess" what's up with that?), Romney doesn't pander on the issue, pushes family, and Bill Cosby. Giuliani is given a chance to hit Romney on crime, doesn't make it a 'black-on-black' issue, just makes it a crime issue, pushes "broken windows", which by the way is doing good things here in Los Angeles under Chief Bratton currently.
6:11 PST
Abortion, abortion, abortion, whatever. Seems like CNN is going with the Guns, Gods and Gays stereotype of GOP voters, I'm guessing a big Gay section of the debate will follow at some point. Rudy goes with a pro-Federalism argument again.
6:13 PST
What's up with the "What Would Jesus Do" with regard to the death penalty. Well he said pretty clearly in the bible, "render unto Caesar", so I'm guessing he would be against it personally, but he'd also be against imposing a religious standard to civil and criminal penalties. Huckabee gives the right answer "Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office", I still Don't ♥ Huckabee, however.
6:16 PST
More cynically stated "God" crap. Trying to trap the GOP on biblical literalism. Clearly biased question choosing by CNN to make the GOP seem like nuts. May back fire on them, though, on the coasts they may seem like nuts, but in the vast middle where the majority of electoral votes lie, this stuff plays.
6:24 PST
Time for foreign policy, sort of. First question, 'how can we make them love us more?'. Screw that, and Giuliani answers, 'screw that' also. We fight those that want to kill us, we also don't hate all Muslims, but we will kill those that want to kill us, and we won't apologize to anyone for that will and exercise of our power. McCain goes on the attack against the Dems, and tries to puff himself up on the Iraq issue, he has strong credentials in this area, but the air is already out of his balloon, he's always been mostly popular within the beltway and unloved everywhere else, and nothing can change that.
6:31 PST
It's Helmet Hair (aka Romney) v. Blinky (aka McCain) over waterboarding. Whatever, McCain has the better position, but he doesn't present it well. Buzz Brockway of GA wants us in Iraq (or at least the region) just as we are in Europe and East Asia. Seems a reasonable position, Thompson, err I mean Matlock, doesn't answer the question, just mentions we need to stay as long as it takes. Invest in victory, not defeat is a good line. Crazy Uncle (Ron Paul) crazily crazes up some crazy talk about crazy going ons in crazy Iraq. Blinky (McCain) responds in his usual manner, as a Senator, he's a good Senator, he'd be a terrible President, he's right on many issues, but he just wouldn't be able to govern, or move support towards his cause. Crazy Uncle (Ron Paul) crazily ties in our "occupation" of the region to terror attacks on our soil. Tancredo (sorry, not important enough to come up with a nickname) attacks him on that issue, as he should.
6:38 PST
Unfair question aimed at Giuliani about him 'using 9/11' to get the nomination. Whatever, What's up with that? Giuliani dodges the issue, seems like many of the YouTube questions were designed to get the Dems to go even "Dem-mier" while the GOP questions picked are aimed at embarrassing the GOP over their "GOP-ness". Don't accuse CNN of being biased, though, no that can't be, they're impartial as can be.
6:43 PST
Woohoo! Last break, this trial is almost over, never let me Soberblog these debates again, it's not worth it. Soberblogging is a sobering experience. As soon as this is over, it's off to Costco and I'm picking up a vat of Vodka (last time I was there it was $14.99 for 1.75L of Smirnoff, can't beat that price) so this never happens again, I won't be caught without spirits while watching one of these debates again.
6:46 PST
Huckster's campaign ad emphasizes his godliness. Meh. On to the questions, I knew the gay questions would come up, they've done the Gods and Guns portion of the media stereotype against the GOP. Hunter (also no nickname, sorry Dunk) and Huckster cite unit cohesion, Romney dodges, supports, "don't ask, don't tell" and backtracks from past statements. Frankly, don't ask don't tell is stupid, and gays should be allowed to serve, but if they get harrassed they should deal with it, or if they act inappropriately, they should be chastised. In otherwords, they should be treated just like all the other troops.
More gay questions, Huckster wouldn't mind "log cabin" support, reiterates his opposition against same sex marriage, but offers to be their President, anyway. Good answer, still a huckster.
6:54 PST
A debt question to wrap things up, debt is overblown, the absolute number is astounding, but by GDP terms it's within historical norms. Matlock (Thompson) is right that youngsters need to be protected from oldsters from destroying the economy with entitlements. Helmet Hair (Romney) invokes Reagan (a fellow Helmet Hair Club for Men member), but to little effect.
A Mars question? Mars by 2020, screw NASA, NASA is a boondoggle, private industry can do better than that bloated, outdated, and outmoded piece of bureaucracy. Tancredo (still no nickname), hammers home the point that Mars shouldn't be a priority with deficits, whatever.
6:58 PST
A black man asks, "why don't we vote for you?". Meh. I don't remember a southern born white male getting to ask that question of Hillary, I wonder why? Giuliani mentions 'reaching out', economic opportunity, but this kind of question doesn't deserve a response. The only real response is that black voters have been swindled, and used, and screwed by the Democrats, but they've been listening to the crap from that side for so long that they are unwilling to realize that the liberal agenda is counter to the values that would help black people to prosper as much as everyone else.
7:01 PST
Leroy Brooks asks about the "Stars and Bars", that's another ridiculous flag. I can just see the CNN producers conspiring together as they choose their questions for maximum effect. It's obvious, it's stupid, and it's cynical, but that's CNN for you. Who cares about real issues, let's beat dead horses.
7:03 PST
Finally the Ron Paul video, I was mistaken, he's not Crazy Uncle, he's our saviour, Ron Paul forever!!!!!!!!!!! (just kidding)
7:05 PST
An infrastructure question. Infrastructure is a local matter, the Federal Government can set standards, but the best thing to do is to stop taking money from the states and let them decide on a local basis how it should be done. Rudy agrees with me, woohoo! Crazy Uncle crazily crazes about how the infrastructure fairies will fix the infrastructure with fairie dust as soon as he's President. McCain pushes for an unconstitutional Presidential line item veto, and Giuliani calls him on it, reminds him that the Supreme Court has already decided that (not Giuliani, even though he was the defendant in the case that decided this issue).
7:08 PST
Crazy questioner asks Crazy Uncle to run as an independent, or else. Crazy Uncle refuses, poor Crazy Uncle, instead he rants about how great a fundraiser he is, he's the vanguard of a mass movement, he's bigger than Elvis, dammit (I can't believe I voted for him in 1988).
7:09 PST
Final question about Giuliani rooting for the BoSox once the Yankees lost. Whatever, as mayor the Yanks won 4 championships, since he left, none, coincidence? Cute answer. Romney hates the Yankees always.
There's no way I'll watch CNN's post debate spin, that's way too much for me to handle while unintoxicated.
I forgot to get the alcohol provision restocked before this event, so I'll have to sober blog this stuff.
Hopefully, I'll be able to do this without intoxicating libations.
5:11pm PST
First off, can CNN be more self-congratulatory? Why waste time with the line-up+intros? At least Mr. Cooper is his usual attractively impish self.
First real question is at Rudy re: sanctuary cities. His answer sounds OK, Romney is given a follow up by Cooper, he hits hard, but fairly, this is a problem for Mayor Giuliani, and he should find it in his heart to change his views on this, or he'll have trouble getting the nomination. Rudy hits back, slightly below the belt over the hiring practices in Romney's own household. Nasty is fun, though, I really don't mind nasty.
5:18 PST
Thompson says all the right things on the immigration issue. Takes a swipe at Romney and Giuliani, and makes a veiled reference to Bernard Kerik without bringing up his name (that sly ol' slow talkin' fox, I'll call him Matlock for the rest of this debate). McCain gets his shot, denies that amnesty was amnesty, he's saddened, he's often saddened, he always seems shocked, shocked that big huge government bipartisan problem solving bills tend to backfire (see McCain-Feingold). He's enforcement first, now, but who cares what he thinks, he's a Senator for life, and won't ever be President.
5:49 PST
D'oh! a brown out just ate my last 2 updates, I was really witty, though, you'll have to take my word for it, in summary, Go Matlock Go! (liked his answer on taxes and privatizing Social Security), Crazy Uncle (aka Ron Paul) sounded as crazy as usual. Huckabee talks the right talk on "Fair Tax" but I don't trust him to spend a dime of political capital to make it happen should he find himself President somehow.
Coop isn't having an easy time moderating, and "Sen. Thompson, what's up with that?" What's up with that? Seriously, dude, seriously, dude, seriously? The Thompson YouTube attack ad is kind of weak actually, what's up with that?
5:56 PST
Prof. Althouse is comment-blogging the debate this time instead of live blogging. Show-off. If I had a popular site with a big base of commenters, I'd do that, too, but instead I'll stick it out with this semi-live, live blog.
6:00 PST
2nd Amendment in focus, Hunter chastises the questioner on gun safety (proving that he knows his guns), Giuliani doesn't backtrack on his record on gun control, he's pro-Federalism on this (sort of), leave it up to the states. Sen. Thompson hits back on the issue, Giuliani sticks to his "guns" so to speak on his record on gun control in NYC. Someone wants to know about the candidates guns, can't imagine that question getting asked of the Dems.
6:06 PST
Black-on-Black crime question (a guy named "Printess" what's up with that?), Romney doesn't pander on the issue, pushes family, and Bill Cosby. Giuliani is given a chance to hit Romney on crime, doesn't make it a 'black-on-black' issue, just makes it a crime issue, pushes "broken windows", which by the way is doing good things here in Los Angeles under Chief Bratton currently.
6:11 PST
Abortion, abortion, abortion, whatever. Seems like CNN is going with the Guns, Gods and Gays stereotype of GOP voters, I'm guessing a big Gay section of the debate will follow at some point. Rudy goes with a pro-Federalism argument again.
6:13 PST
What's up with the "What Would Jesus Do" with regard to the death penalty. Well he said pretty clearly in the bible, "render unto Caesar", so I'm guessing he would be against it personally, but he'd also be against imposing a religious standard to civil and criminal penalties. Huckabee gives the right answer "Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office", I still Don't ♥ Huckabee, however.
6:16 PST
More cynically stated "God" crap. Trying to trap the GOP on biblical literalism. Clearly biased question choosing by CNN to make the GOP seem like nuts. May back fire on them, though, on the coasts they may seem like nuts, but in the vast middle where the majority of electoral votes lie, this stuff plays.
6:24 PST
Time for foreign policy, sort of. First question, 'how can we make them love us more?'. Screw that, and Giuliani answers, 'screw that' also. We fight those that want to kill us, we also don't hate all Muslims, but we will kill those that want to kill us, and we won't apologize to anyone for that will and exercise of our power. McCain goes on the attack against the Dems, and tries to puff himself up on the Iraq issue, he has strong credentials in this area, but the air is already out of his balloon, he's always been mostly popular within the beltway and unloved everywhere else, and nothing can change that.
6:31 PST
It's Helmet Hair (aka Romney) v. Blinky (aka McCain) over waterboarding. Whatever, McCain has the better position, but he doesn't present it well. Buzz Brockway of GA wants us in Iraq (or at least the region) just as we are in Europe and East Asia. Seems a reasonable position, Thompson, err I mean Matlock, doesn't answer the question, just mentions we need to stay as long as it takes. Invest in victory, not defeat is a good line. Crazy Uncle (Ron Paul) crazily crazes up some crazy talk about crazy going ons in crazy Iraq. Blinky (McCain) responds in his usual manner, as a Senator, he's a good Senator, he'd be a terrible President, he's right on many issues, but he just wouldn't be able to govern, or move support towards his cause. Crazy Uncle (Ron Paul) crazily ties in our "occupation" of the region to terror attacks on our soil. Tancredo (sorry, not important enough to come up with a nickname) attacks him on that issue, as he should.
6:38 PST
Unfair question aimed at Giuliani about him 'using 9/11' to get the nomination. Whatever, What's up with that? Giuliani dodges the issue, seems like many of the YouTube questions were designed to get the Dems to go even "Dem-mier" while the GOP questions picked are aimed at embarrassing the GOP over their "GOP-ness". Don't accuse CNN of being biased, though, no that can't be, they're impartial as can be.
6:43 PST
Woohoo! Last break, this trial is almost over, never let me Soberblog these debates again, it's not worth it. Soberblogging is a sobering experience. As soon as this is over, it's off to Costco and I'm picking up a vat of Vodka (last time I was there it was $14.99 for 1.75L of Smirnoff, can't beat that price) so this never happens again, I won't be caught without spirits while watching one of these debates again.
6:46 PST
Huckster's campaign ad emphasizes his godliness. Meh. On to the questions, I knew the gay questions would come up, they've done the Gods and Guns portion of the media stereotype against the GOP. Hunter (also no nickname, sorry Dunk) and Huckster cite unit cohesion, Romney dodges, supports, "don't ask, don't tell" and backtracks from past statements. Frankly, don't ask don't tell is stupid, and gays should be allowed to serve, but if they get harrassed they should deal with it, or if they act inappropriately, they should be chastised. In otherwords, they should be treated just like all the other troops.
More gay questions, Huckster wouldn't mind "log cabin" support, reiterates his opposition against same sex marriage, but offers to be their President, anyway. Good answer, still a huckster.
6:54 PST
A debt question to wrap things up, debt is overblown, the absolute number is astounding, but by GDP terms it's within historical norms. Matlock (Thompson) is right that youngsters need to be protected from oldsters from destroying the economy with entitlements. Helmet Hair (Romney) invokes Reagan (a fellow Helmet Hair Club for Men member), but to little effect.
A Mars question? Mars by 2020, screw NASA, NASA is a boondoggle, private industry can do better than that bloated, outdated, and outmoded piece of bureaucracy. Tancredo (still no nickname), hammers home the point that Mars shouldn't be a priority with deficits, whatever.
6:58 PST
A black man asks, "why don't we vote for you?". Meh. I don't remember a southern born white male getting to ask that question of Hillary, I wonder why? Giuliani mentions 'reaching out', economic opportunity, but this kind of question doesn't deserve a response. The only real response is that black voters have been swindled, and used, and screwed by the Democrats, but they've been listening to the crap from that side for so long that they are unwilling to realize that the liberal agenda is counter to the values that would help black people to prosper as much as everyone else.
7:01 PST
Leroy Brooks asks about the "Stars and Bars", that's another ridiculous flag. I can just see the CNN producers conspiring together as they choose their questions for maximum effect. It's obvious, it's stupid, and it's cynical, but that's CNN for you. Who cares about real issues, let's beat dead horses.
7:03 PST
Finally the Ron Paul video, I was mistaken, he's not Crazy Uncle, he's our saviour, Ron Paul forever!!!!!!!!!!! (just kidding)
7:05 PST
An infrastructure question. Infrastructure is a local matter, the Federal Government can set standards, but the best thing to do is to stop taking money from the states and let them decide on a local basis how it should be done. Rudy agrees with me, woohoo! Crazy Uncle crazily crazes about how the infrastructure fairies will fix the infrastructure with fairie dust as soon as he's President. McCain pushes for an unconstitutional Presidential line item veto, and Giuliani calls him on it, reminds him that the Supreme Court has already decided that (not Giuliani, even though he was the defendant in the case that decided this issue).
7:08 PST
Crazy questioner asks Crazy Uncle to run as an independent, or else. Crazy Uncle refuses, poor Crazy Uncle, instead he rants about how great a fundraiser he is, he's the vanguard of a mass movement, he's bigger than Elvis, dammit (I can't believe I voted for him in 1988).
7:09 PST
Final question about Giuliani rooting for the BoSox once the Yankees lost. Whatever, as mayor the Yanks won 4 championships, since he left, none, coincidence? Cute answer. Romney hates the Yankees always.
There's no way I'll watch CNN's post debate spin, that's way too much for me to handle while unintoxicated.
15 November 2007
Where's The Feet?!?
While digging around the message boards during today's Woot! OFF (wiki has an extensive page describing the arcana of the Woot! community), I see the phrase, "Where's The Feet" come up from time to time. The clever, clever (childish) community of Woot! users have taken to creating phrases to represent certain popular internet acronyms. I'll give you a few guesses as to what "Where's The Feet" means.
It's been a long wait all day for the "Bandolier of Carrots" to show up (aka Bag of Crap).
One day, I will get in and order 3 bags of crap, but so far no luck.
But, that has nothing to do with this post, that's just prologue, the "Where's The Feet" moment for me today comes from watching the Democratic Debate.
Too much sound and fury signifying nothing. What's scarier, is that their sound and fury might actually signify something. If they mean what they say, and do what they claim they want to do when elected, then we're all FUBAR'd.
It's not just partisanship, I swear, it's that so much of their rhetoric is about bad mouthing the United States, bad mouthing individual freedoms, and bad mouthing free trade. I know they'll claim that their highlighting the excesses of the Bush Administration alone, but they use the same language and tactics as all the other America haters, and much of what they complain about isn't specific to the past 6+ years.
Mr. Blitzer is a horrid moderator, also. He's not making any serious attempt to get these folks to answer a damn question, instead he's allowing the talking points to flow like so much white noise.
There's got to be a better way for candidates to highlight the differences between themselves and communicate that to voters. Cause this crap isn't helpful.
UPDATE:
I hit publish too soon. I'm thinking "where's the feet" with relation to a mother parading around her marine son to ask her stilted 'the conservatives are beating the drums of war on Iran' question. What's the deal with Dems always portraying troops as children? He's a grown assed man, clearly, he doesn't need his mother to speak for him. And no conditions attached dialog with crazed dictators has ever worked in the past (unless there's a threat of a big stick backing it up), why should it work with regards to the mullahs and their mad President in Iran? If the Democratic party succeeds in taking away the stick, no amount of carrots will move Iran away from the brink of destablizing the region and continuing their ongoing pursuit of WMD. This issue is way too important for this mealy-mouthed crap. Kudos to Sen. Clinton as being the only Dem in this group to vote with the resolution declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, and shame on her for pandering to the peaceniks by suggesting that all it will take is 'dialog' to solve this problem. We need to do everything we can to undermine the mullahocracy, the people of Iran are sick of the corruption, sick of being the enemy of the rest of the world, and sick of the religious police, but they aren't sick enough yet to risk their lives in large numbers. We have to do whatever we can to push the people of Iran towards a "counter-revolution" and topple their current leaders. Chatting with those leaders won't help that cause.
It's been a long wait all day for the "Bandolier of Carrots" to show up (aka Bag of Crap).
One day, I will get in and order 3 bags of crap, but so far no luck.
But, that has nothing to do with this post, that's just prologue, the "Where's The Feet" moment for me today comes from watching the Democratic Debate.
Too much sound and fury signifying nothing. What's scarier, is that their sound and fury might actually signify something. If they mean what they say, and do what they claim they want to do when elected, then we're all FUBAR'd.
It's not just partisanship, I swear, it's that so much of their rhetoric is about bad mouthing the United States, bad mouthing individual freedoms, and bad mouthing free trade. I know they'll claim that their highlighting the excesses of the Bush Administration alone, but they use the same language and tactics as all the other America haters, and much of what they complain about isn't specific to the past 6+ years.
Mr. Blitzer is a horrid moderator, also. He's not making any serious attempt to get these folks to answer a damn question, instead he's allowing the talking points to flow like so much white noise.
There's got to be a better way for candidates to highlight the differences between themselves and communicate that to voters. Cause this crap isn't helpful.
UPDATE:
I hit publish too soon. I'm thinking "where's the feet" with relation to a mother parading around her marine son to ask her stilted 'the conservatives are beating the drums of war on Iran' question. What's the deal with Dems always portraying troops as children? He's a grown assed man, clearly, he doesn't need his mother to speak for him. And no conditions attached dialog with crazed dictators has ever worked in the past (unless there's a threat of a big stick backing it up), why should it work with regards to the mullahs and their mad President in Iran? If the Democratic party succeeds in taking away the stick, no amount of carrots will move Iran away from the brink of destablizing the region and continuing their ongoing pursuit of WMD. This issue is way too important for this mealy-mouthed crap. Kudos to Sen. Clinton as being the only Dem in this group to vote with the resolution declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, and shame on her for pandering to the peaceniks by suggesting that all it will take is 'dialog' to solve this problem. We need to do everything we can to undermine the mullahocracy, the people of Iran are sick of the corruption, sick of being the enemy of the rest of the world, and sick of the religious police, but they aren't sick enough yet to risk their lives in large numbers. We have to do whatever we can to push the people of Iran towards a "counter-revolution" and topple their current leaders. Chatting with those leaders won't help that cause.
11 September 2007
Remembrance, 2007 Edition
Last year I pointed to this Rudy Giuliani piece printed in USA Today for the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
It's still relevant, and I haven't seen anybody saying anything better this anniversary, so I'll point to Giuliani's comments, again.
I still think he'd be a good choice for President, but I'd be happier personally with President Fred Thompson running things.
I suspect that a President Hillary Clinton wouldn't be a disaster with regards to the war on terror, despite the lefty talking points she's been parroting from time to time during the endless campaign.
Any of the other Democrats would be disastrous, however.
It's still relevant, and I haven't seen anybody saying anything better this anniversary, so I'll point to Giuliani's comments, again.
I still think he'd be a good choice for President, but I'd be happier personally with President Fred Thompson running things.
I suspect that a President Hillary Clinton wouldn't be a disaster with regards to the war on terror, despite the lefty talking points she's been parroting from time to time during the endless campaign.
Any of the other Democrats would be disastrous, however.
06 September 2007
Election 2008, Fred is IN! (I'm feigning surprise, can you tell?)
A campaign in 2007-8 based on a strong belief in Federalism?
I want to believe.
He's not running for President, he's running for James Madison.
I'm cool with that.
Specific proposals I'd like to see in support of stronger federalism, dismantle more than half the cabinet level positions.
A cabinet of six is plenty, State, Defense, AG, combine Interior/Agriculture/Energy into the Department of Gaia, combine Treasury/Commerce/Labor into the Department of Prosperity, Combine Homeland Security/Transportation and call it Transportation, and eliminate HUD, HHS, Education and Veteran Affairs, not because those things are unimportant, but because all those things would be better served as primarily (if not purely) state and local concerns, and the massive reduction of the cabinet is fully justifiable on 10th amendment grounds.
That's what I'd like to see as a first step towards believing Sen. Thompson's federalism. Promise to slash the size of the Executive branch, and I'll be very impressed.
Another proposal I'd like to see would be a reining in of the creeping (and creepy) influence of the Vice President. It wasn't just VP Cheney who did this, VP Gore did some pretty shady things, too. The VP should just be an understudy, and senatorial tie-breaker, nothing more. I'd love to see a Presidential candidate promise to gimp the newly muscular Vice Presidency before he goes through the selection process.
Do those two things, and I'm liable to turn this into an all Fred08.com all the time website.
04 September 2007
LOL Edwards?!?
A SHOCKING NEW REVELATION ABOUT EDWARDS-CARE
(figured I'd give DRUDGE his headline up front)
Original image courtesy the Edwards 2008 Flickr page (the Iowa- Labor Day set), and big mistake allowing "remix" ing in the creative commons license for these images. Not all remixers are your friends. Some might even find your ideas regarding subjects such as health care rather astonishing.
31 August 2007
LOL Hillary?!?
How I suffer for my art. I went through Sen. Clinton's appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman last night, frame by frame to find just the right image with which to add a caption.
(OK, i didn't really go through the whole performance (and it was a performance) frame by frame, I just figured a moment when they were both laughing would fit the caption I already had in mind, but it sounds more dramatic if I claim to have gone through this appearance as if I were some Kennedy assassination conspiracy nut studying the Zapruder film)
Drudge had a headline screaming (with a question mark) that Sen. Thompson will finally announce officially his run for presidency on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. When Arnold Schwarzenegger made his official announcement for his run at the California Governorship on Leno, it was done well, all the copycats since, have been lame.
The two main latenight shows have become important stops on the campaign
I left out the cable shows in this equation, though the Daily Show has become a major stop for politicians, and so long as your politics lines up with his, Stewart will treat you very well (when Sen. Obama was on, I was pretty sure that despite being straight, Jon Stewart was fully prepared to sex him up, but good).
I'm not going into the usual whine about how this makes the whole political process as unserious and publicity driven as pushing the latest TV show or feature film. I'm not going to write about how politicians are trying to sell themselves as celebrities rather than engage in policy discussions. I'm not even going to complain about how wooden, stiff and boring most of these folks are when they try and do their 'I can laugh at myself' schtick during one of these appearances.
Nope, not even going to mention any of that.
But, I will mention that few people look good captured in the middle of a wide grin with their head tilted downward (Sen. Clinton and Mr. Letterman being no exception).
20 June 2007
Ostalgie
Folks will get nostalgic over anything.
Even the depredations, degradations and debilitation under communism.
That's one hotel I'll leave off my list should I ever visit Berlin.
(would anyone be surprised that the AP story takes a mostly approving tone?)
Time to trot out that Zappa quote:
Found the interview that quote was taken from (dating from Oct 1988), not sure that Zappa would be a big fan of the internet or blogosphere, either that or he'd be one of the most prolific bloggers around, one or the other, really.
Another quote from the same interview,
Still don't particularly like his music, and he says plenty in the interview I find disagreeable, but he says it in a compelling manner, so read the whole thing.
Even the depredations, degradations and debilitation under communism.
That's one hotel I'll leave off my list should I ever visit Berlin.
(would anyone be surprised that the AP story takes a mostly approving tone?)
Time to trot out that Zappa quote:
...I've also talked about the End of the World being a question of whether it's going to be by fire, ice, paperwork, or nostalgia. And there's a good chance that it's going to be nostalgia because the distance between the event and the nostalgia for the even has gotten shorter and shorter and shorter with each nostalgia cycle. So, projecting into the future, you could get to a point where you would take a step and be so nostalgic for that point where you would take a step and be so nostalgic for that step you just took that you would literally freeze in your tracks to experience the nostalgize of the last step, or the last word, or your last whatever. The world just comes to a halt - remembering.
Found the interview that quote was taken from (dating from Oct 1988), not sure that Zappa would be a big fan of the internet or blogosphere, either that or he'd be one of the most prolific bloggers around, one or the other, really.
Another quote from the same interview,
I don't know whether anybody truly wants to be interested in a campaign for two years, and I think that's one of the reasons why they run them for two years. Because they want to numb the electorate. They want to keep the voter turn-out low. If you keep the voter turn-out low, then you realize that the only people who have managed to stay interested long enough have to be weird. The average guy, who just wants to exercise his democratic right to vote, he's so turned off by the whole thing. He's seen these guys over and over, he's heard the lies, he's looked at it and just gone "Yuck!" And now it's not a privilege to vote. It's a horrible obligation and they don't even want to know about it. And especially when you tell them that the election's already over, then why should they bother? Why should they leave their job or go, especially on the East Coast when it's cold, to someplace in November to pull a handle or poke a hole in a piece of paper? Who cares? The election's over. They want you to believe that.
Still don't particularly like his music, and he says plenty in the interview I find disagreeable, but he says it in a compelling manner, so read the whole thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)