(Preliminary Note: I am writing this at 11:00 AM, while sequestered at the Federal Courthouse in Milwaukee. I have no Internet access and am unaware of any exit poll data. My only bit of empirical evidence is that I didn’t have to wait in line this morning to vote.)
(Preliminary Note for the optimistic Republican: Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.)
As longtime readers of WHTC may recall, I accurately predicted the results of all 50 states in the 2004 presidential election. See here for details. I haven’t had the time to track the polls as closely this year, but I didn’t want to pass up a chance to match the feat again.
Unfortunately for the future of the Republic, I see Obama winning fairly comfortably, 311-227. I think McCain has run a pretty good campaign overall, but the currents working against him will prove too tough to overcome.
McCain States
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
West Virginia
Wyoming
Obama States
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
The good news is that we should know a lot by early in the evening. If things look hopeful, I’ll stay tuned into the night. If they don’t, I’ll do homework while watching my wife play Star Wars: The Force Unleashed on our Wii. A good night either way. Here is a mini-schedule of the important early closings with some things to watch for:
7:00 ET: Georgia, Indiana, and Virginia. If the networks don’t call Georgia and Indiana for McCain early, or if they immediately call Virginia for Obama, things will look pretty grim.
7:30 ET: North Carolina and Ohio. Cliches endure for a reason: As Ohio goes, so goes the presidential race. Though unlikely, an immediate call in North Carolina for McCain would be a strong indicator of a good night for him.
8:00 ET: Florida, Missouri, and Pennsylvania. Florida and Missouri have been two of the closest states coming down the stretch; both are must-wins for McCain. The GOP, meanwhile, has campaigned harder in Pennsylvania in the last month than in any other state, so an early call for Obama would be disastrous.
(Closing Note: A semi-regular blogging schedule should resume in December. This semester has been brutal.)
Showing posts with label 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
No time to blog
But I simply had to note that I'm ready to run through a brick wall after listening to the end of Senator McCain's speech. The words don't do it justice:
If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you’re disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist in our Armed Forces. Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an illiterate adult to read. Comfort the afflicted. Defend the rights of the oppressed. Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier. Because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself.
I’m going to fight for my cause every day as your President. I’m going to fight to make sure every American has every reason to thank God, as I thank Him: that I’m an American, a proud citizen of the greatest country on earth, and with hard work, strong faith and a little courage, great things are always within our reach. Fight with me. Fight with me.
Fight for what’s right for our country.
Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.
Fight for our children’s future.
Fight for justice and opportunity for all.
Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.
Stand up for each other; for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America.
Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. Nothing is inevitable here. We’re Americans, and we never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.
Thank you, and God Bless you.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Am I part of the conservative press?
Senator Obama on the perceived shabby treatment of his wife:
"It's infuriating, but it's not surprising, because let's face it: What happened was that the conservative press—Fox News and the National Review and columnists of every ilk—went fairly deliberately at her in a pretty systematic way...and treated her as the candidate in a way that you just rarely see the Democrats try to do against Republicans. And I've said this before: I would never have my campaign engage in a concerted effort to make Cindy McCain an issue, and I would not expect the Democratic National Committee or people who were allied with me to do it. Because essentially, spouses are civilians. They didn't sign up for this. They're supporting their spouse. So it took a toll. If you start being subjected to rants by Sean Hannity and the like, day in day out, that'll drive up your negatives.
"Everybody who knows Michelle knows how extraordinary she is. She's ironically the most quintessentially American woman I know. She grew up in a "Leave it to Beaver" family. She is the best mother I know. And our kids are a testimony to that, because she's really had to raise them, oftentimes without me being there. She's the most honest person I know, she's smart, she's funny, so yeah, it infuriates me. And I think that it is an example of the erosion of civility in our political culture that she's been subjected to these attacks, and my attitude is that the people who have attacked her in the ways that they have...if they've got a difference with me on policy, they should debate me. Not her."
Other people have already tackled this, but I'd like to address one specific point. The "most quintessentially American woman (you) know" probably shouldn't have been ashamed of America for her entire adult life prior to her husband's presidential campaign. I'm no expert on the Beav (ha!), but I'm pretty sure June Cleaver had some pride in her country.
Secondly, if Michelle Obama gives high-profile speeches where she discusses her policy views, we absolutely unequivocally should debate her. She's pushing her own views as a reason to elect her husband. We who oppose those views have a responsibility to take her to task.
"It's infuriating, but it's not surprising, because let's face it: What happened was that the conservative press—Fox News and the National Review and columnists of every ilk—went fairly deliberately at her in a pretty systematic way...and treated her as the candidate in a way that you just rarely see the Democrats try to do against Republicans. And I've said this before: I would never have my campaign engage in a concerted effort to make Cindy McCain an issue, and I would not expect the Democratic National Committee or people who were allied with me to do it. Because essentially, spouses are civilians. They didn't sign up for this. They're supporting their spouse. So it took a toll. If you start being subjected to rants by Sean Hannity and the like, day in day out, that'll drive up your negatives.
"Everybody who knows Michelle knows how extraordinary she is. She's ironically the most quintessentially American woman I know. She grew up in a "Leave it to Beaver" family. She is the best mother I know. And our kids are a testimony to that, because she's really had to raise them, oftentimes without me being there. She's the most honest person I know, she's smart, she's funny, so yeah, it infuriates me. And I think that it is an example of the erosion of civility in our political culture that she's been subjected to these attacks, and my attitude is that the people who have attacked her in the ways that they have...if they've got a difference with me on policy, they should debate me. Not her."
Other people have already tackled this, but I'd like to address one specific point. The "most quintessentially American woman (you) know" probably shouldn't have been ashamed of America for her entire adult life prior to her husband's presidential campaign. I'm no expert on the Beav (ha!), but I'm pretty sure June Cleaver had some pride in her country.
Secondly, if Michelle Obama gives high-profile speeches where she discusses her policy views, we absolutely unequivocally should debate her. She's pushing her own views as a reason to elect her husband. We who oppose those views have a responsibility to take her to task.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Jim Geraghty is a National Treasure
The man is tireless in his efforts to draw attention to Obama's various gaffes, contradictions, inconsistencies, and outright lies. He also relentlessly goes after an even more deserving target: Michelle Obama.
See his latest here:
If it's possible, I may dislike her more than I dislike Theresa Heinz Kerry.
See his latest here:
Michelle Obama: Americans Spending $600 Stimulus Checks on Earrings
Amanda Carpenter notes:Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle, complained the government’s $600 economic stimulus check was only enough to buy “a pair of earrings” while stumping for her husband.
“You're getting $600 - what can you do with that?” Mrs. Obama said in Pontiac, Michigan last week. “Not to be ungrateful or anything, but maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn't pay down every bill every month. The short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good, and it may even feel good that first month when you get that check, and then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings."
She made these remarks at a “working women’s roundtable discussion.”
Well, it's not like Michelle Obama makes comments like this all the time.not everyone can afford to keep it all together, especially here in Muskingum County, where, according to the census, the median household income in 2004 was $37,192, below both the Ohio and national average. Out of that, there’s the mortgage. And child care. Health care. Education. Lessons. “I know we’re spending — I added it up for the first time — we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we’re spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth,” Mrs. Obama tells the women. “And summer programs. That’s the other huge cost. Barack is saying, ‘Whyyyyyy are we spending that?’ And I’m saying, ‘Do you know what summer camp costs?’”
One wonders whether that $600 budgeted for earrings could be spent on, say, fruit:"Now we’re keeping, like, a bowl of fresh fruit in the house. But you have to go to the fruit stand a couple of times a week to keep that fruit fresh enough that a six-year-old—she’s not gonna eat the pruney grape, you know. At that point it’s, like, ‘Eww!’ She’s not gonna eat the brown banana or the shrivelledy-up things. It’s got to be fresh for them to want it. Who’s got time to go to the fruit stand? Who can afford it, first of all?”
Eh, nevermind the fruit. It's probably not worth it, what with all the nefarious labeling of products:"And the notion of trying to think about a lunch every day! . . . So you grab the Lunchables, right? And the fruit-juice-box thing, and we think—we think—that’s juice. And you start reading the labels and you realize there’s high-fructose corn syrup in everything we’re eating. Every jelly, every juice. Everything that’s in a bottle or a package is like poison in a way that most people don’t even know. . "
What with the $600 earrings, the $10,000 summer camps, unaffordable fruit and hidden poisons on the store shelves, daily life in America seems particularly tough on women:"I wake up every morning wondering how on earth I am going to pull off that next minor miracle to get through the day. I know that everybody in this room is going through this. That is the dilemma women face today. Every woman that I know, regardless of race, education, income, background, political affiliation, is struggling to keep her head above water." (This presumably includes her friend Oprah.)
(COUGHoprahCOUGH) So who's to blame?"What I notice about men, all men, is that their order is me, my family, God is in there somewhere, but me is first."
Dear Obama campaign, please make sure this is the theme of her prime-time address at the convention.
If it's possible, I may dislike her more than I dislike Theresa Heinz Kerry.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Dedicated to Barack and Michelle
Aerosmith's Eat the Rich:
Well I woke up this morningI promise more blogging once finals are over.
On the wrong side of the bed
And how I got to thinkin'
About all the things you said
About ordinary people
And how they make you sick
And if callin' names kicks back on you
Then I hope this does the trick
'Cause I'm sick of your complainin'
About how many bills
And I'm sick of all your bitchin'
'Bout your poodles and your pills
And I just can't see no humor
About your way of life
And I think I can do more for you
With this here fork and knife
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Liveblogging Barack
Thanks to the miracle of Spring Break, I'll be brining you a liveblog of Obama's major speech today.
9:12: Senator Obama's major speech on race and politics is set to begin in a few minutes. Obama is giving the speech in large part to address the serious criticism that has arisen during the past week over the extremely offensive remarks of Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. These include "G-- d--- America," "the US of KKK A," and, referring to 9/11, "America's chickens are coming home to roost." Part of the reason that the controversy has become so important is that not only is Wright Obama's long time pastor, but he also married Obama, baptized his two children and received more than $20,000 in donations from the Obama family as recently as a few years ago.
Also, there are no less than 8 American flags behind the podium.
9:50: More than 35 minutes late, it appears the speech is almost ready to begin.
9:54: Obama begins by referencing both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It is a profoundly moving opening. Though this speech is being given in a small room, it immediately evokes much of the soaring oratory from his arena speeches.
9:56: He does a really good job at placing himself into a long train of racial uniters by discussing both America's history ("striving for a more perfect union") as well as his own ("not the most conventional of candidates").
10:00: Obama mentions Wright for the first time. "Unity" has replaced "Change" as the theme du jour of the Obama campaign. He's casting himself as the middle ground between racial dividers on both the right and the left (Rev. Wright).
10:01: Obama concedes that he disagrees with some of Wright's political views and acknowledges that they are profoundly distorted views of the country. He appears to be distancing himself more now than he has up to this point.
10:02: He pronounces "divisive" as dih-VIH-sive. Never heard that before.
10:03: He begins to defend his membership in the church, calling recent reports "caricatures." Even if that's true, I've never been to a church that could be caricatured in the way that Wright's church has been.
10:06: The church is a work in progress that makes up the joy and bitterness that is the black experience in America. Indeed, Wright contains the contradictions-the good and the bad- that make up the black community. I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community in America. People like Wright and my (possibly racist?) grandmother are an undeniable part of me.
10:09: We cannot ignore race at this time in our history. To do so would be as big a sin as Wright's speech to begin with. He gets his first applause when he comes full circle on the unity issue: If we ignore race, we cannot come together to solve the issues facing our country today.
10:10: Gets another education when addressing segregated schools: 50 years after Brown v. Board, we still haven't solved the problem of inferior schools.
10:12: Addressing the persistence of black poverty, he throws a bone to white middle America, acknowledging that old welfare policies may have exacerbated the problem.
10:15: The anger in the black community is real and powerful. We can't dismiss it. We must understand it. But we must understand the white experience as well. Most white people don't feel benefited by their race, don't believe they must bus their schools to the inner city, and don't understand why they must pay a price for affirmative action when they did nothing wrong. Both black anger and white resentment are counterproductive.
10:19: We must work together to overcome the racial divide. The black community must unite with the white community to work toward our shared goals. The black community must demand more from its fathers and must not succumb to despair and cynicism in the face of discrimination. This is good stuff that will really appeal to middle America.
10:21: He is really hitting a stride now, evoking ideals of overcoming our flawed past to come together to form a more perfect union.
10:23: Hits the bible, saying we must be our brother's keeper. Further, Wright is a distraction, and by focusing on him, we cannot accomplish the change for which the country longs.
10:25: The children of America are not "those kids," but "our kids." Whites and blacks and Hispanics don't have health care. People of every race have lost their jobs and homes. Corporations are shipping jobs of people of all colors.
10:29: He closes with a story of a nine-year-old white girl whose mom lost her job because her mom got sick and had to miss work. The girl convinced her mom that her favorite food was mustard and relish sandwiches in order to save money on food. The girl eventually worked for the Obama campaign. In doing so, she met an elderly black man who said he was he was supporting Obama because of that young white girl. I actually thought it was a goofy ending. He would have been much better off closing with the flourish of a few minutes earlier.
Summary: He only touched on Wright briefly, and didn't really address the specific criticisms that have been brought. But his genius is in his ability to move the debate. This speech was an eloquent argument for racial unity. If he can get that to be the lead story, it will be very effective in calming white fears. I'll be interested to see the news coverage tonight.
9:12: Senator Obama's major speech on race and politics is set to begin in a few minutes. Obama is giving the speech in large part to address the serious criticism that has arisen during the past week over the extremely offensive remarks of Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. These include "G-- d--- America," "the US of KKK A," and, referring to 9/11, "America's chickens are coming home to roost." Part of the reason that the controversy has become so important is that not only is Wright Obama's long time pastor, but he also married Obama, baptized his two children and received more than $20,000 in donations from the Obama family as recently as a few years ago.
Also, there are no less than 8 American flags behind the podium.
9:50: More than 35 minutes late, it appears the speech is almost ready to begin.
9:54: Obama begins by referencing both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It is a profoundly moving opening. Though this speech is being given in a small room, it immediately evokes much of the soaring oratory from his arena speeches.
9:56: He does a really good job at placing himself into a long train of racial uniters by discussing both America's history ("striving for a more perfect union") as well as his own ("not the most conventional of candidates").
10:00: Obama mentions Wright for the first time. "Unity" has replaced "Change" as the theme du jour of the Obama campaign. He's casting himself as the middle ground between racial dividers on both the right and the left (Rev. Wright).
10:01: Obama concedes that he disagrees with some of Wright's political views and acknowledges that they are profoundly distorted views of the country. He appears to be distancing himself more now than he has up to this point.
10:02: He pronounces "divisive" as dih-VIH-sive. Never heard that before.
10:03: He begins to defend his membership in the church, calling recent reports "caricatures." Even if that's true, I've never been to a church that could be caricatured in the way that Wright's church has been.
10:06: The church is a work in progress that makes up the joy and bitterness that is the black experience in America. Indeed, Wright contains the contradictions-the good and the bad- that make up the black community. I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community in America. People like Wright and my (possibly racist?) grandmother are an undeniable part of me.
10:09: We cannot ignore race at this time in our history. To do so would be as big a sin as Wright's speech to begin with. He gets his first applause when he comes full circle on the unity issue: If we ignore race, we cannot come together to solve the issues facing our country today.
10:10: Gets another education when addressing segregated schools: 50 years after Brown v. Board, we still haven't solved the problem of inferior schools.
10:12: Addressing the persistence of black poverty, he throws a bone to white middle America, acknowledging that old welfare policies may have exacerbated the problem.
10:15: The anger in the black community is real and powerful. We can't dismiss it. We must understand it. But we must understand the white experience as well. Most white people don't feel benefited by their race, don't believe they must bus their schools to the inner city, and don't understand why they must pay a price for affirmative action when they did nothing wrong. Both black anger and white resentment are counterproductive.
10:19: We must work together to overcome the racial divide. The black community must unite with the white community to work toward our shared goals. The black community must demand more from its fathers and must not succumb to despair and cynicism in the face of discrimination. This is good stuff that will really appeal to middle America.
10:21: He is really hitting a stride now, evoking ideals of overcoming our flawed past to come together to form a more perfect union.
10:23: Hits the bible, saying we must be our brother's keeper. Further, Wright is a distraction, and by focusing on him, we cannot accomplish the change for which the country longs.
10:25: The children of America are not "those kids," but "our kids." Whites and blacks and Hispanics don't have health care. People of every race have lost their jobs and homes. Corporations are shipping jobs of people of all colors.
10:29: He closes with a story of a nine-year-old white girl whose mom lost her job because her mom got sick and had to miss work. The girl convinced her mom that her favorite food was mustard and relish sandwiches in order to save money on food. The girl eventually worked for the Obama campaign. In doing so, she met an elderly black man who said he was he was supporting Obama because of that young white girl. I actually thought it was a goofy ending. He would have been much better off closing with the flourish of a few minutes earlier.
Summary: He only touched on Wright briefly, and didn't really address the specific criticisms that have been brought. But his genius is in his ability to move the debate. This speech was an eloquent argument for racial unity. If he can get that to be the lead story, it will be very effective in calming white fears. I'll be interested to see the news coverage tonight.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Rocky 2008!
I recognize that the cross-section of people who love both Rocky IV and politics is probably quite small, but what the hell.
Come to think of it, a McCain v. Obama general election could set up just like the entire plot of Rocky IV (see my post immediately below).
Playing the role of Ivan Drago, the unstoppable Communist force dominating the boxing world is Barack Obama, the unstoppable near-Communist dominating the political world.
John McCain plays Rocky Balboa, a formerly great figure who's now thought to be over the hill by most observers.
Starring as Apollo Creed, Rocky's former nemesis turned respected peer, is Hillary Clinton.
In Act I, it is revealed that Dragobama is coming to America to fight an exhibition bout against Apollary. Though Rocky tries to talk her out of the fight, she's convinced that she can show this uppity youngster a thing or two. However, from the opening bell, it becomes quickly apparent that Apollary was woefully unprepared for the onslaught unleashed by Dragobama. Apollary's corner fails to throw in the towel, and Apollary is left beaten, bloodied, and on life support. Closing out Act I is Dragobama's fateful line, "If she dies, she dies."
Rocky is faced with an existential dilemma. Having just seen his peer killed in the ring by Dragobama, he concludes that his only choice is to face him for one final showdown: a debate at UC-Berkeley. His wife, however, has other ideas. When she tells him he can't win, he recognizes that maybe she's right, but he's going to fight anyway:
At this point, we cut to a training montage: Rocky, telling people the truth, Dragobama speaking empty platitudes. Rocky, riding the straight talk express, Dragobama, using class warfare rhetoric. The scene ends with Rocky standing atop Mount Rushmore repeatedly screming "Dragobama!" at the top of his lungs.
We arrive at the big debate. Polls show Rocky with nearly no chance. At the beginning of the debate, as the foes shake hands, Dragobama greets Rocky with, "You will lose" and "I must break you." Dragobama unleashes his dazzling array of oratorical assaults on Rocky. Though Rocky takes a vicious beating, he continues to fight. Just when things look hopeless, Rocky lands a wholly unexpected counter punch that fells Dragobama. Seizing an opening, Rocky pounces on him, attacking him as weak on national security, pro-taxes, and too inexperienced to lead this great nation. Even the Berkeley crowd is inspired by Rocky's words and begin to chant his name. Dragobama is unable to recover, and Rocky scores a KO by winning the electoral college 269-267.
After the debate, Rocky turns to the liberal crowd, and delivers this rousing speech:
Fade to black.
Come to think of it, a McCain v. Obama general election could set up just like the entire plot of Rocky IV (see my post immediately below).
Playing the role of Ivan Drago, the unstoppable Communist force dominating the boxing world is Barack Obama, the unstoppable near-Communist dominating the political world.
John McCain plays Rocky Balboa, a formerly great figure who's now thought to be over the hill by most observers.
Starring as Apollo Creed, Rocky's former nemesis turned respected peer, is Hillary Clinton.
In Act I, it is revealed that Dragobama is coming to America to fight an exhibition bout against Apollary. Though Rocky tries to talk her out of the fight, she's convinced that she can show this uppity youngster a thing or two. However, from the opening bell, it becomes quickly apparent that Apollary was woefully unprepared for the onslaught unleashed by Dragobama. Apollary's corner fails to throw in the towel, and Apollary is left beaten, bloodied, and on life support. Closing out Act I is Dragobama's fateful line, "If she dies, she dies."
Rocky is faced with an existential dilemma. Having just seen his peer killed in the ring by Dragobama, he concludes that his only choice is to face him for one final showdown: a debate at UC-Berkeley. His wife, however, has other ideas. When she tells him he can't win, he recognizes that maybe she's right, but he's going to fight anyway:
No, maybe I can't win. Maybe the only thing I can do is just take everything he's got. But to beat me, he's going to have to kill me. And to kill me, he's gonna have to have the heart to stand in front of me. And to do that, he's got to be willing to die himself. I don't know if he's ready to do that. I don't know.With the world against him and no one-not even his wife-thinking he stands a chance, Rocky goes into the wilderness and trains.
At this point, we cut to a training montage: Rocky, telling people the truth, Dragobama speaking empty platitudes. Rocky, riding the straight talk express, Dragobama, using class warfare rhetoric. The scene ends with Rocky standing atop Mount Rushmore repeatedly screming "Dragobama!" at the top of his lungs.
We arrive at the big debate. Polls show Rocky with nearly no chance. At the beginning of the debate, as the foes shake hands, Dragobama greets Rocky with, "You will lose" and "I must break you." Dragobama unleashes his dazzling array of oratorical assaults on Rocky. Though Rocky takes a vicious beating, he continues to fight. Just when things look hopeless, Rocky lands a wholly unexpected counter punch that fells Dragobama. Seizing an opening, Rocky pounces on him, attacking him as weak on national security, pro-taxes, and too inexperienced to lead this great nation. Even the Berkeley crowd is inspired by Rocky's words and begin to chant his name. Dragobama is unable to recover, and Rocky scores a KO by winning the electoral college 269-267.
After the debate, Rocky turns to the liberal crowd, and delivers this rousing speech:
During this debate, I've seen a lot of changing, in the way you feel about me, and in the way I feel about you. In here, there were two guys killing each other, but I guess that's better than twenty million. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if I can change, and you can change, everybody can change!
Fade to black.
Everybody look at me!
I gave my son my sticker today. Never too early to teach him a lesson about voter fraud.
I did pencil in McCain today, and thanks to my vote, he carried Wisconsin. I didn't see his entire victory speech, but I really enjoyed this line, turning his sights on Obama:
I promise to fight every minute of every day of this campaign to ensure that voters aren't deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change.Maybe I'm just fooling myself, but I'm beginning to believe that Obama is actually beatable. It's kind of like the scene in Rocky IV when Rocky finally gets Drago to bleed and Rocky's trainer Duke says, "You see? You see? He's not a machine, he's a man, he's a man."
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Election Probabilities
Chances of Republican Victory:
McCain v. Clinton: 50%
Romney v. Clinton: 30%
McCain v. Obama: 20%
Romney v. Obama: 5%
I think the chances of any Republican beating Obama are quite slim. The only chances Romney has are if Obama makes some big gaffe or if the Democratic primary process drags on considerably and leaves Obama damaged goods. (Bill Clinton is certainly doing his part in this regard.) McCain has a better shot against Obama, but it would still be a very difficult fight.
Both Republicans have a better shot against Clinton, but only McCain gives the party an even shot of holding the White House. McCain has a chance to pull in a number of independents that Romney likely wouldn't. Regardless of who the GOP candidate is, if Clinton is the opponent, the election would largely be a referendum on her.
What say you, Big Jim?
McCain v. Clinton: 50%
Romney v. Clinton: 30%
McCain v. Obama: 20%
Romney v. Obama: 5%
I think the chances of any Republican beating Obama are quite slim. The only chances Romney has are if Obama makes some big gaffe or if the Democratic primary process drags on considerably and leaves Obama damaged goods. (Bill Clinton is certainly doing his part in this regard.) McCain has a better shot against Obama, but it would still be a very difficult fight.
Both Republicans have a better shot against Clinton, but only McCain gives the party an even shot of holding the White House. McCain has a chance to pull in a number of independents that Romney likely wouldn't. Regardless of who the GOP candidate is, if Clinton is the opponent, the election would largely be a referendum on her.
What say you, Big Jim?
The Right Talk Express
The Corner is one of my favorite websites. But the vitriol displayed by some contributors to McCain has made it almost unreadable. In the last 24 hours, he's been compared to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy, and Lord Voldemort.
I understand that Levin, Lopez, and some others don't care for McCain. But their insistence on looking at everything he does through a bad faith lens combined with their uncritical fawning over Romney are unbecoming and unhelpful. There are huge distinctions to be drawn between McCain and Clinton/Obama, and these "conservative leaders" are doing both the movement and the nation a disservice with their unwillingness to draw them.
I understand that Levin, Lopez, and some others don't care for McCain. But their insistence on looking at everything he does through a bad faith lens combined with their uncritical fawning over Romney are unbecoming and unhelpful. There are huge distinctions to be drawn between McCain and Clinton/Obama, and these "conservative leaders" are doing both the movement and the nation a disservice with their unwillingness to draw them.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
A short list of awesome things
1. This story about robots evolving and learning how to lie. Awesome and troubling at the same time.
2. The video game Bully. It's a less homicidal version of Grand Theft Auto. It's the first video game I have bought in a while, and it's been a blast.
3. This dream I had last night (or was it two nights ago?) where I was running for president and got into a verbal fight with Mike Huckabee in a parking garage overlooking Notre Dame's spring football game. Awesome because it gives a deep insight into my psyche and the things that occupy my brain power.
4. Antonin Scalia. It's really fun to see ostensibly liberal law students persuaded by sheer force of his reasoning. It's equally fun to see other liberal students trash him because they think they are supposed to, without actually addressing his arguments.
5. Eli Manning and the New York Giants. Simply because I don't think I could have stomached two weeks of Packer hype and Favre news converage without harming myself or others.
2. The video game Bully. It's a less homicidal version of Grand Theft Auto. It's the first video game I have bought in a while, and it's been a blast.
3. This dream I had last night (or was it two nights ago?) where I was running for president and got into a verbal fight with Mike Huckabee in a parking garage overlooking Notre Dame's spring football game. Awesome because it gives a deep insight into my psyche and the things that occupy my brain power.
4. Antonin Scalia. It's really fun to see ostensibly liberal law students persuaded by sheer force of his reasoning. It's equally fun to see other liberal students trash him because they think they are supposed to, without actually addressing his arguments.
5. Eli Manning and the New York Giants. Simply because I don't think I could have stomached two weeks of Packer hype and Favre news converage without harming myself or others.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Social Conservatives, Electability, and Mike Huckabee
Generally, voting based purely on "electability" is dumb. We saw that in 2004 when the democrats nominated John Kerry even though no one seemed to have any actual affinity for him. A collective groupthink set in where everyone seemed to convince everyone else that Kerry would be the most likely candidate to win in the general election. Maybe that was true and maybe it wasn't. But the fact remains that very few people were actually fired up or excited by Kerry. Had democrats nominated their true love, Howard Dean, who knows what would have happened?
Having said all that, electability needs to be a factor when deciding whom to support. I bring this up because social conservatives understandably love Mike Huckabee. It makes sense, given his outspoken views on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Social conservatives view Huckabee as one of them. While I still think it's unlikely that Huckabee will be nominated (because he hasn't shown a real ability to pull in voters outside his base), if he were the nominee, it would be disastrous for the GOP in general and social conservatives in particular.
Were Huckabee the nominee, he would alienate most moderates and all liberals with his uncompromising far right social views. Further, he would alienate a large segment of the conservative base with his populist, leftist, protectionist economic rhetoric. Alienating voters across the political spectrum is generally a bad policy for winning elections. He would have virtually no chance in the general election. Simply put, nominating Huckabee would give the Democratic party two years of complete control over the federal government.
In those two years, the democratic majority would roll back protections against the unborn, put gay marriage on the table, and most importantly, replace John Paul Stevens (and possibly Ruth Bader Ginsburg) with young liberal Justices. These moves would render the efforts of the last 20 years to develop a culture of life in America and overturn Roe entirely meaningless. If you're a social conservative, the worst thing you can do for your cause is nominate Mike Huckabee.
Having said all that, electability needs to be a factor when deciding whom to support. I bring this up because social conservatives understandably love Mike Huckabee. It makes sense, given his outspoken views on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Social conservatives view Huckabee as one of them. While I still think it's unlikely that Huckabee will be nominated (because he hasn't shown a real ability to pull in voters outside his base), if he were the nominee, it would be disastrous for the GOP in general and social conservatives in particular.
Were Huckabee the nominee, he would alienate most moderates and all liberals with his uncompromising far right social views. Further, he would alienate a large segment of the conservative base with his populist, leftist, protectionist economic rhetoric. Alienating voters across the political spectrum is generally a bad policy for winning elections. He would have virtually no chance in the general election. Simply put, nominating Huckabee would give the Democratic party two years of complete control over the federal government.
In those two years, the democratic majority would roll back protections against the unborn, put gay marriage on the table, and most importantly, replace John Paul Stevens (and possibly Ruth Bader Ginsburg) with young liberal Justices. These moves would render the efforts of the last 20 years to develop a culture of life in America and overturn Roe entirely meaningless. If you're a social conservative, the worst thing you can do for your cause is nominate Mike Huckabee.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Last minute impressions
With the Iowa caucuses upon us, I've been watching a lot of news coverage. The more I watch, the more I like Romney and dislike Huckabee. Huckabee is just extremely disingenuous in trying to run a "positive" campaign while constantly bashing Romney. Here's a note to Mike: Just because you don't mention your opponent by name, it doesn't make your insults any less negative.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Who's up for some Christmas late night election discussion?
I know I am!
Actually, I'm on late night guard in case my son wakes up. He may or may not be sick and is definitely teething, so he's hurting quite a bit.
Let's start with a look at the Democratic field.
Here, there are three names that merit any consideration: Hillary, Barack, and Edwards. Edwards is at an immediate disadvantage, since he must suffer the indignity of being identifiable only by his last name.
Hillary's advantages and disadvantages are almost universally known. Pluses: Strong name recognition, a competent and professional organization, a large lead in national polls. Minuses: a vitriolic hatred from nearly half the nation, significant past scandals, a cold demeanor. If she wins Iowa and New Hampshire, she will unquestionably win the nomination. If she fails to win those states, she'll still likely be the favorite, but the race will become much more interesting.
Obama's strength lies in his compelling stump speech, his unprecedented fundraising skills, and his ability to market himself as the candidate of 'change.' His formidable talents, however, have not translated into strong debate performances or a surge in national polls. He does have considerable support in the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. To win the nomination, he's going to have to close strong in Iowa to convince Democratic partisans that he is (1) experienced enough to lead the country and (2) strong enough to fight off Republican attacks.
Edwards is an interesting case. Four years ago, he rode his boyish good looks, inoffensive speech, and southern charm to give John Kerry his only real opposition in the primaries. This time around, he's the unapologetic, fire-breathing populist liberal who hasn't found a rich person he can't disparage. He has many weaknesses as a candidate, foremost the contrast between his rhetoric and his lifestyle, but he appeals to the Angry Left. He has very little support after the early states, so to have any chance at winning the nomination, he's going to have to win Iowa convincingly and ride a wave of free media coverage into the other states. Anything short of a large Iowa victory will not be enough.
Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, and Dennis Kucinich are irrelevant. Having said that, I think Biden's been spectacular in the debates I've seen.
On the Republican side, there are six (Six!) candidates worth discussing.
Rudy Giuliani has long been the national frontrunner. For more than a year, he's led virtually every national poll of Republicans, based on his strong name recognition and great support as New York City's 9/11 mayor. The question a year ago is the same question he faces today: How will his liberal social policies affect his chances? As the first primaries become closer, it appears that the answer is "Considerably and negatively." Though Rudy has done an admirable job on the campaign trial playing up his national security and low-tax credentials, his denial of the pro-life segment of the party has begun to hurt him. To win the nomination, he simply has to do well enough to get to February 5th with enough credibility to carry states like Florida.
Before Giuliani was the frontrunner, most observers expected John McCain to be the party's 2008 nominee. However, over the past 18 months, McCain's campaign imploded and appeared on the verge of ruin. It's only been over the past few months that conservative voters have given him a second look and decided that they might like what they see. His weaknesses (a maverick reputation, a good relationship with the media, and his age) aren't going away, but McCain appears to be positioning himself as the second choice of many voters. To win, he'll need to replicate his 2000 success in New Hampshire and convince enough conservatives that he is the least of several evils.
Of the major contenders, only Mitt Romney has run a traditional Republican campaign. Romney has spent millions more than anyone in Iowa, campaigned aggressively in New Hampshire, and touted his conservative credentials. Those credentials, however, have come into question because of Romney's changed position on many issues. It's expected that candidates will position themselves effectively to win elections, but when a politician changes his position on abortion, stem-cell research, gun rights, immigration, and a host of other issues, it leaves voters wondering what the man really believes. For Romney to win, I believe he must win Iowa. Given the time and money he invested there, anything other than a victory will inevitably be portrayed as a failure.
Mike Huckabee has come from nowhere to be Romney's most credible challenger in Iowa. The former governor of Arkansas has used a strong emphasis on religion as well as a unique brand of working class populism to appeal to a large segment of primary voters who had been dissatisfied with the slate of candidates. Since his meteoric rise in the polls, Huckabee has faced increased scrutiny over his tenure as governor and inconsistencies within his positions. Like Romney, Huckabee probably needs to win Iowa to have a realistic shot at winning the nomination. He faces an uphill battle because he lacks Romney's fundraising revenues as well as Giuliani's and McCain's name recognition. Consequently, free media coverage is a key to his campaign.
Fred Thompson is the last of the major Republican candidate. A year ago, no one considered him as a possibility, but six months ago, he was viewed as a potential savior in an otherwise weak field. Like most political messiahs, Thompson has underwhelmed. (See also Clark, Wesley.) Thompson has shown little desire to do the kind of retail politicking necessary in Iowa and New Hampshire and has instead seemed content to rely on his fame to earn him the nomination. Thompson's best shot at winning the nomination is a muddled early race that leaves no clear frontrunner but several candidates bruised. At that point, Thompson would need to perform well in the southern primaries and emerge as a compromise choice among voters.
Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination. Still, he deserves to be mentioned because he has really tapped into a mine of anger among a distinct core of supporters. He has translated this support into more than $12 million in donations in the fourth quarter. This is absolutely uncharted territory for a argely unknown Congressman from Texas. Depending on how Paul decides to use the money, he could go a long way to determining who wins the nomination-indeed he could help decide the presidency if he runs as an independent candidate.
I have to confirm with Big Jim, but I'm pretty sure our editorial endorsement will be coming out soon. Perhaps surprisingly, I think we're on the same page.
Actually, I'm on late night guard in case my son wakes up. He may or may not be sick and is definitely teething, so he's hurting quite a bit.
Let's start with a look at the Democratic field.
Here, there are three names that merit any consideration: Hillary, Barack, and Edwards. Edwards is at an immediate disadvantage, since he must suffer the indignity of being identifiable only by his last name.
Hillary's advantages and disadvantages are almost universally known. Pluses: Strong name recognition, a competent and professional organization, a large lead in national polls. Minuses: a vitriolic hatred from nearly half the nation, significant past scandals, a cold demeanor. If she wins Iowa and New Hampshire, she will unquestionably win the nomination. If she fails to win those states, she'll still likely be the favorite, but the race will become much more interesting.
Obama's strength lies in his compelling stump speech, his unprecedented fundraising skills, and his ability to market himself as the candidate of 'change.' His formidable talents, however, have not translated into strong debate performances or a surge in national polls. He does have considerable support in the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. To win the nomination, he's going to have to close strong in Iowa to convince Democratic partisans that he is (1) experienced enough to lead the country and (2) strong enough to fight off Republican attacks.
Edwards is an interesting case. Four years ago, he rode his boyish good looks, inoffensive speech, and southern charm to give John Kerry his only real opposition in the primaries. This time around, he's the unapologetic, fire-breathing populist liberal who hasn't found a rich person he can't disparage. He has many weaknesses as a candidate, foremost the contrast between his rhetoric and his lifestyle, but he appeals to the Angry Left. He has very little support after the early states, so to have any chance at winning the nomination, he's going to have to win Iowa convincingly and ride a wave of free media coverage into the other states. Anything short of a large Iowa victory will not be enough.
Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, and Dennis Kucinich are irrelevant. Having said that, I think Biden's been spectacular in the debates I've seen.
On the Republican side, there are six (Six!) candidates worth discussing.
Rudy Giuliani has long been the national frontrunner. For more than a year, he's led virtually every national poll of Republicans, based on his strong name recognition and great support as New York City's 9/11 mayor. The question a year ago is the same question he faces today: How will his liberal social policies affect his chances? As the first primaries become closer, it appears that the answer is "Considerably and negatively." Though Rudy has done an admirable job on the campaign trial playing up his national security and low-tax credentials, his denial of the pro-life segment of the party has begun to hurt him. To win the nomination, he simply has to do well enough to get to February 5th with enough credibility to carry states like Florida.
Before Giuliani was the frontrunner, most observers expected John McCain to be the party's 2008 nominee. However, over the past 18 months, McCain's campaign imploded and appeared on the verge of ruin. It's only been over the past few months that conservative voters have given him a second look and decided that they might like what they see. His weaknesses (a maverick reputation, a good relationship with the media, and his age) aren't going away, but McCain appears to be positioning himself as the second choice of many voters. To win, he'll need to replicate his 2000 success in New Hampshire and convince enough conservatives that he is the least of several evils.
Of the major contenders, only Mitt Romney has run a traditional Republican campaign. Romney has spent millions more than anyone in Iowa, campaigned aggressively in New Hampshire, and touted his conservative credentials. Those credentials, however, have come into question because of Romney's changed position on many issues. It's expected that candidates will position themselves effectively to win elections, but when a politician changes his position on abortion, stem-cell research, gun rights, immigration, and a host of other issues, it leaves voters wondering what the man really believes. For Romney to win, I believe he must win Iowa. Given the time and money he invested there, anything other than a victory will inevitably be portrayed as a failure.
Mike Huckabee has come from nowhere to be Romney's most credible challenger in Iowa. The former governor of Arkansas has used a strong emphasis on religion as well as a unique brand of working class populism to appeal to a large segment of primary voters who had been dissatisfied with the slate of candidates. Since his meteoric rise in the polls, Huckabee has faced increased scrutiny over his tenure as governor and inconsistencies within his positions. Like Romney, Huckabee probably needs to win Iowa to have a realistic shot at winning the nomination. He faces an uphill battle because he lacks Romney's fundraising revenues as well as Giuliani's and McCain's name recognition. Consequently, free media coverage is a key to his campaign.
Fred Thompson is the last of the major Republican candidate. A year ago, no one considered him as a possibility, but six months ago, he was viewed as a potential savior in an otherwise weak field. Like most political messiahs, Thompson has underwhelmed. (See also Clark, Wesley.) Thompson has shown little desire to do the kind of retail politicking necessary in Iowa and New Hampshire and has instead seemed content to rely on his fame to earn him the nomination. Thompson's best shot at winning the nomination is a muddled early race that leaves no clear frontrunner but several candidates bruised. At that point, Thompson would need to perform well in the southern primaries and emerge as a compromise choice among voters.
Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination. Still, he deserves to be mentioned because he has really tapped into a mine of anger among a distinct core of supporters. He has translated this support into more than $12 million in donations in the fourth quarter. This is absolutely uncharted territory for a argely unknown Congressman from Texas. Depending on how Paul decides to use the money, he could go a long way to determining who wins the nomination-indeed he could help decide the presidency if he runs as an independent candidate.
I have to confirm with Big Jim, but I'm pretty sure our editorial endorsement will be coming out soon. Perhaps surprisingly, I think we're on the same page.
Monday, October 22, 2007
If it's good enough for Chuck Norris...
it's good enough for me. You just knew he'd pick a Republican.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
I completely agree with you. Always.
(Editor's Note: This is the first in a series of 2008 presidential candidate profiles.)
Hi, I'm Mitt Romney, and I think you should vote for me as the next President of the United States.
Why? Because I always agree with you.
Always.
You hate abortion? Hey, me too! Well, sure, I used to support abortion, but that was before I realized you didn't like it.
Ronald Reagan.
Guns? I love 'em. Been hunting since I was a kid. Fishing, too.
Well, maybe I haven't hunted in a literal sense, but I still think we should use guns to shoot immigrants. You do hate immigrants, right?
Stem cells? I've hated them since I first heard about them. Oh, there's a video on YouTube where I say I support stem cell research? Well, just ignore that. You see, back then, I hadn't had my deep, lifelong, profound change of heart. I also wasn't running for president at the time.
Ronald Reagan.
Gays? I give you my word, my sacred word, that I will strongly denounce homosexual civil unions until the day that I die. Or the day I receive the GOP nomination, whichever comes first.
Ronald Reagan.
What's that? Republicans like curling? Seriously?
As you know, I've been curling all my life. Using the brooms, pushing that big round stone thing, I love it all.
Well, no, I haven't actually curled, but you know what I mean. Right?
Right?
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
FAQ
Thought I'd take the opportunity to publicly answer some questions I've been asked recently.
Q: Is your son sleeping through the night yet?
A: No, although last night he had his longest stretch of continuous sleep yet, over 5.5 hours. It was the first night during which he only woke up once. Needless to say, it was enjoyable.
Q: Have you read Harry Potter yet?
A: No. We have the book, but my wife is currently working her way through it as I reread the penultimate book.
Q: Are you still supporting John McCain?
A: Yes, although I fear his chances are quite slim. I disagree with him on some pretty important issues, but I still think he gets the big picture better than anyone else out there. On a slight tangent, I'll probably throw up in my mouth a bit if Romney is the nominee.
Q: Is your son sleeping through the night yet?
A: No, although last night he had his longest stretch of continuous sleep yet, over 5.5 hours. It was the first night during which he only woke up once. Needless to say, it was enjoyable.
Q: Have you read Harry Potter yet?
A: No. We have the book, but my wife is currently working her way through it as I reread the penultimate book.
Q: Are you still supporting John McCain?
A: Yes, although I fear his chances are quite slim. I disagree with him on some pretty important issues, but I still think he gets the big picture better than anyone else out there. On a slight tangent, I'll probably throw up in my mouth a bit if Romney is the nominee.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Ron Paul smells funny.
He also hates puppies.
Just following J-Pod's advice to boost traffic here.
In all honesty, he (Paul, not J-Pod) is quite the kook. As of now, I am ignorant as to his personal hygiene and his attitude towards undeveloped canines.
Just following J-Pod's advice to boost traffic here.
In all honesty, he (Paul, not J-Pod) is quite the kook. As of now, I am ignorant as to his personal hygiene and his attitude towards undeveloped canines.
John Hood Makes a Lot of Sense; Jackson? Not So Much
From the Corner:
Hood's "half-baked" line reminded me of a thought I had a couple of days as I watched the The Return of the King for the first time in while, spurred on by Rico's previous comment about trilogies. The thought was: how has the drug culture affected the film versions of The Lord of the Rings?
Gollum, or should I say Smeagol, is played as a mostly-sympathetic junkie. Even Gollum's gollums (ha ha!) are more pitiful coughs than the original self-pitiable (and thus non-pitiable) gurglings. Tolkien never uses the word addiction, at least not to my knowledge, so I can't imagine him having Gandalf talk of Gollum's need for it with quite the inflection Ian McKellan uses. I would also add the movies are very clearly riffing on marijuana with the pipeweed. "Finest weed in the Southfarthing . . ." and all that. I'm too lazy to check, but I can't remember Tolkien's leaf ever being used as a shortening of pipeweed. My next thought was whether the cast and crew thought that these references were necessary, in that either there was no other conceivable way of portraying Gollum or there wasn't any possibility of them passing up the opportunity for the jokes. Sad.
Finally, we've finally got a Tolkien label now. Seriously, I'm surprised it's taken this long.
Reviewing outtakes from last night's GOP debate, some Democratic blogging, and poll averages, a few quarter-baked thoughts have come to mind.
First, if the war is the prime voting issue, the top three GOP candidates would all make credible presidents. Among the top Dems, only Hillary Clinton would. As an American, and particularly as a Southern Scotch-Irish win-at-all-costs type, I find myself hoping for Clinton as the nominee, thus to reduce lethal risk to the Republic.
However, despite her great talents and resources, I still think Clinton is the weakest candidate for Democrats. She brings lots of baggage. She splits the base on the war. She annoys independent voters ready for a fresh face. I know it's way early, but the head-to-head polls show her to be weaker than Obama or Edwards against the Republican field.
Plus, the GOP race is not yet fully formed. Newt Gingrich said earlier this week that he will probably get it in September (he's speaking to my group in NC on Thursday, so I'm hoping for more details). Fred Thompson seems likely to get in, too. Their hovering over the current field has distorted the polling significantly, as they are collectively drawing about 20 percent of the primary electorate — consisting of conservative stalwarts and disaffected partisans (not exactly the same) who don't like Giuliani or McCain and don't really know who Romney is. Once Thompson and Gingrich get in, things will change dramatically. Could be that they'll just further the split, making it a Giuliani-McCain matchup by default and re-creating a 1996 dynamic. Or there could be flame-outs and a conservative coalescence around a non-McCain alternative to Giuliani.
Finally, Giuliani is a loser unless he forms and delivers a clearer, more reassuring message to conservatives on social issues, abortion and others. The Paul Coverdell solution is a viable one, but Giuliani just isn't convincing on it yet. He's well-known and admired outside the Northeast corridor as a NYC mayor, thus explaining his 25-30 percent in the national polls, but that's about it. There's no silent majority for a tough-talking social liberal among GOP primary voters. That's a fantasy. He leads because there is a large field. It will shrink.
Hood's "half-baked" line reminded me of a thought I had a couple of days as I watched the The Return of the King for the first time in while, spurred on by Rico's previous comment about trilogies. The thought was: how has the drug culture affected the film versions of The Lord of the Rings?
Gollum, or should I say Smeagol, is played as a mostly-sympathetic junkie. Even Gollum's gollums (ha ha!) are more pitiful coughs than the original self-pitiable (and thus non-pitiable) gurglings. Tolkien never uses the word addiction, at least not to my knowledge, so I can't imagine him having Gandalf talk of Gollum's need for it with quite the inflection Ian McKellan uses. I would also add the movies are very clearly riffing on marijuana with the pipeweed. "Finest weed in the Southfarthing . . ." and all that. I'm too lazy to check, but I can't remember Tolkien's leaf ever being used as a shortening of pipeweed. My next thought was whether the cast and crew thought that these references were necessary, in that either there was no other conceivable way of portraying Gollum or there wasn't any possibility of them passing up the opportunity for the jokes. Sad.
Finally, we've finally got a Tolkien label now. Seriously, I'm surprised it's taken this long.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Communication is key
Thomas Sowell kinda sorta comes out for Giuliani and Gingrich here. Sowell, one of the finest teachers in contemporary journalism, argues for a Republican presidential candidate who can communicate:
At a crucial time in the history of this country and of Western Civilization, the Democrats are embracing foreign policies with a long track record of defeat, which can be punctuated by the ultimate defeat, terrorist nations and movements with nuclear weapons.
That is the background against which the many aspiring presidential candidates of both parties must be judged.
Among the Democrats, the various candidates all seem to be trying to outdo each other in advocating defeatist policies, as if we can unilaterally call off the war on terror by pulling out of Iraq with our tail between our legs, turning the country over to the terrorists as a base from which to destabilize the region and launch more attacks against the West—including the United States.
That is why it is important, even for those of us who are not Republicans, that the Republicans come up with a candidate who not only has guts and brains but who also knows how to communicate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)