Emanations and penumbras
Useful political discourse usually involves hard work. "Live free or die" is pretty simple and probably was not the product of an all night skull session, but such easy nuggets are few and far between.
However much of what is wrong, cockeyed, and out of whack, with political thought in this country, is HARD to explain in short, easy to understand ways.
The boys over at Powerline have done the hard work and produced a brilliant essay on Hugh Hefner's influence on American thought. "Hugh Hefner" in this case serves mainly as a metaphor for the broader problems present in today's America.
They very carefully draw the picture dot by dot, and show that much of what passes as serious thought in this country is devoid of...well...seriousness.
Thursday, January 08, 2004
Texas Redistricting
When assessing redistricting efforts I attempt to retain my objectivity. Whether I support the map for partisan reasons or not, I want to be honest about whether it is a map drawn up within reasonable bounds.
The fight that has stood Texas on its ear the past couple of years seems to finally have been resolved in favor of the Republicans. The Dems will undoubtedly appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court but that likely will not lead to a reversal of the present ruling.
I realized today that I have never seen any of the maps, old, new, proposed. None. So I went hunting. Here is the "old" map and here is the "new" map.
My guiding principle is that gerrymandering is fine, but it should not extend to ridiculous shapes that wind back and forth like pretzels, and that as far as possible localities should not be split up.
Looking at the old and new together I would rate the new Republican plan as slightly more ugly than the old plan. Both of them however leave a lot to be desired, and neither party has any room to call the kettle black.
The good news? The GOP will likely pick up 6 seats in this November's election.
When assessing redistricting efforts I attempt to retain my objectivity. Whether I support the map for partisan reasons or not, I want to be honest about whether it is a map drawn up within reasonable bounds.
The fight that has stood Texas on its ear the past couple of years seems to finally have been resolved in favor of the Republicans. The Dems will undoubtedly appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court but that likely will not lead to a reversal of the present ruling.
I realized today that I have never seen any of the maps, old, new, proposed. None. So I went hunting. Here is the "old" map and here is the "new" map.
My guiding principle is that gerrymandering is fine, but it should not extend to ridiculous shapes that wind back and forth like pretzels, and that as far as possible localities should not be split up.
Looking at the old and new together I would rate the new Republican plan as slightly more ugly than the old plan. Both of them however leave a lot to be desired, and neither party has any room to call the kettle black.
The good news? The GOP will likely pick up 6 seats in this November's election.
Monday, January 05, 2004
How Does Dean Aim To Win? Part 2:
In 1988, you had a terrible personality match up. George H.W. Bush and Mike Dukakis were both lacking in the charisma and warmth departments. LIKEABLE thus was not the main factor. I think this was a clear case of people deciding that Bush was simply the safer choice. Dukakis had some fairly nutty ideas and came across like a snotty math teacher. Bush merely pledged to continue Reagan's policies, and thus IDEAS (Reagan's in this case) carried the day. Bush clearly had better QUALIFIED credentials, but Dukakis also met the minimum requirements. Chalk Bush's win up to the enormous popularity of Ronald Reagan and his eight years in the White House. Along with 1976, keep this race in mind when considering 2004.
1992. Do we HAVE to discuss this one? Actually I already have in the first post of my dissertation on George Soros. Boiling the campaign down to its essentials, Bill Clinton clobbered GHWB in the LIKEABLE column. Bill Clinton is a likeable guy! Think what you will of his policies and his personal life, BC would be a fun person to hang with. Enough people decided that was important enough to earn their vote. Clinton was easily on top in IDEAS (GHWB never had many to begin with), and with Ross Perot swinging from the rafters, Clinton also appeared QUALIFIED.
1996 was more of the same as Bob Dole was simply crushed in the LIKEABLE line item, while failing to bring any IDEAS to the table. QUALIFIED was pretty much a wash, since few people are going to question a sitting presidents ability to do the job at at least a minimal level.
Then there was 2000! This was the first election since 1960 where someone who probably lost tight contests in QUALIFIED and IDEAS was able to pull out the win due to LIKEABLE. What I am really saying is that Al Gore lost because hordes of people could not stand him. Gore was the better speaker, he had more experience, and he had more ideas (liberal yes, but not off the scale) that he could discuss in great depth. What Gore lacked was a scintilla of humanity.
LIKEABLE only takes you so far and this is why Bush barely won, while losing the popular vote. He appeared at times to have a very shallow grasp of foreign affairs. His habit of mangling the English language was embarrassing. And finally, let's admit something else, GWB has a certain kind of goofiness about his physical movements sometimes. Some guys LOOK like THE PRESIDENT, while others don't. Frankly GWB too often looks like a freshman congressman more than the President. However, George W. Bush has humanity. He is able to touch people and relate to people in a way Al Gore can only dream of. So in 2000 LIKEABLE brought GWB the presidency.
Next, how does Howard Dean expect to win?
In 1988, you had a terrible personality match up. George H.W. Bush and Mike Dukakis were both lacking in the charisma and warmth departments. LIKEABLE thus was not the main factor. I think this was a clear case of people deciding that Bush was simply the safer choice. Dukakis had some fairly nutty ideas and came across like a snotty math teacher. Bush merely pledged to continue Reagan's policies, and thus IDEAS (Reagan's in this case) carried the day. Bush clearly had better QUALIFIED credentials, but Dukakis also met the minimum requirements. Chalk Bush's win up to the enormous popularity of Ronald Reagan and his eight years in the White House. Along with 1976, keep this race in mind when considering 2004.
1992. Do we HAVE to discuss this one? Actually I already have in the first post of my dissertation on George Soros. Boiling the campaign down to its essentials, Bill Clinton clobbered GHWB in the LIKEABLE column. Bill Clinton is a likeable guy! Think what you will of his policies and his personal life, BC would be a fun person to hang with. Enough people decided that was important enough to earn their vote. Clinton was easily on top in IDEAS (GHWB never had many to begin with), and with Ross Perot swinging from the rafters, Clinton also appeared QUALIFIED.
1996 was more of the same as Bob Dole was simply crushed in the LIKEABLE line item, while failing to bring any IDEAS to the table. QUALIFIED was pretty much a wash, since few people are going to question a sitting presidents ability to do the job at at least a minimal level.
Then there was 2000! This was the first election since 1960 where someone who probably lost tight contests in QUALIFIED and IDEAS was able to pull out the win due to LIKEABLE. What I am really saying is that Al Gore lost because hordes of people could not stand him. Gore was the better speaker, he had more experience, and he had more ideas (liberal yes, but not off the scale) that he could discuss in great depth. What Gore lacked was a scintilla of humanity.
LIKEABLE only takes you so far and this is why Bush barely won, while losing the popular vote. He appeared at times to have a very shallow grasp of foreign affairs. His habit of mangling the English language was embarrassing. And finally, let's admit something else, GWB has a certain kind of goofiness about his physical movements sometimes. Some guys LOOK like THE PRESIDENT, while others don't. Frankly GWB too often looks like a freshman congressman more than the President. However, George W. Bush has humanity. He is able to touch people and relate to people in a way Al Gore can only dream of. So in 2000 LIKEABLE brought GWB the presidency.
Next, how does Howard Dean expect to win?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)