Pundits make me tired.
Among the head banging pain that follows from "losing" an election is having to read and listen to pundits who frankly don't know James Buchanan from Pat.
This column from National Review Online is a wondrous example. Jonathan Martin's premise is that the Republican Party has "lost the burbs" so bar the door because the heathens tramp without.
Citing results from Missouri and Virginia, Martin paints a bleak picture for the GOP's future in the large suburban areas of Fairfax County and St. Louis County.
He ends with this brilliant conclusion: "Statewide Republican candidates may not be able to win the mega-suburbs because of demographic shifts, but Davis and Oliver, two individuals who have a sure grip on politics local and national, agree that they must remain at least competitive to win.That much was proven in spades last week. "
Um yes....let me make a note "Must remain at least competitive to win". Wow, why didn't I think of that? This is utter nonsense. Allen and Talent lost because they got fewer votes than their opponents did.
However Allen lost by less that one half of one percent and Talent lost by about two percent. Point being? Well for starters a close race is a close race. The fact that you lost big in one area is something that absolutely should be looked at and studied to keep it from happening again. But....IF you lose narrowly and IF you lost some areas by large margins, that MUST mean you also WON some areas by large margins. Right? The key is getting 50% plus 1, not even vote distribution or "winning the burbs".
The over absorption by writers and pundits with one of the elephant's toes drives me up any and all walls, especially when it comes from a publication like NR. Don't misunderstand, both Allen and Talent failed to win enough votes in those two counties. Period. But there is no reason to feel that that in and of itself is cause for unprecedented heartburn.
As more urbanites move into suburban areas, those suburban areas will more closely resemble urban areas in their voting paterns. No surprise there. However the red voters HAVE to be somewhere. You know, the ones who voted 51% for GWB two years ago?
And that brings me to the follow up to my post of last week. Tomorrow "Why and What Now Part 2"
Thursday, November 16, 2006
You're stuck with her now
A good column today from Robert Novak about Nancy Pelosi and her "leadership" since the election.
Novak has been around so long he is one of the few pundits left who can speak first hand about the Sherman Adams scandal. He sometimes ah....overstates things a bit, however in this piece he makes some interesting and highly plausible assertions.
The money paragraphs are these two:
"Pelosi's mistake confirms longstanding, privately held Democratic apprehension about her abilities. Their concerns do not reflect the Republican indictment of her as a reflexive San Francisco liberal. Some of her most trenchant congressional critics are on the left wing of the party. These colleagues worry that her decision-making may be distorted by personal considerations.
Hoyer is the most accomplished Democratic legislator in the House, widely respected on both sides of the aisle. He, not Pelosi, would be preparing to be speaker had he not lost to her in a 2001 contest for minority whip, thanks to nearly complete support from her huge California delegation. That put Pelosi ahead of Hoyer on the leadership escalator. While Hoyer would win a secret poll of the Democratic caucus as more qualified, Democrats cannot turn aside the first female speaker."
If Novak is close to the truth, the next couple of years will be highly interesting. Watching the Democrats live with the stench from their own finely hewn political correctness petard shall be great fun.
A good column today from Robert Novak about Nancy Pelosi and her "leadership" since the election.
Novak has been around so long he is one of the few pundits left who can speak first hand about the Sherman Adams scandal. He sometimes ah....overstates things a bit, however in this piece he makes some interesting and highly plausible assertions.
The money paragraphs are these two:
"Pelosi's mistake confirms longstanding, privately held Democratic apprehension about her abilities. Their concerns do not reflect the Republican indictment of her as a reflexive San Francisco liberal. Some of her most trenchant congressional critics are on the left wing of the party. These colleagues worry that her decision-making may be distorted by personal considerations.
Hoyer is the most accomplished Democratic legislator in the House, widely respected on both sides of the aisle. He, not Pelosi, would be preparing to be speaker had he not lost to her in a 2001 contest for minority whip, thanks to nearly complete support from her huge California delegation. That put Pelosi ahead of Hoyer on the leadership escalator. While Hoyer would win a secret poll of the Democratic caucus as more qualified, Democrats cannot turn aside the first female speaker."
If Novak is close to the truth, the next couple of years will be highly interesting. Watching the Democrats live with the stench from their own finely hewn political correctness petard shall be great fun.
Good news!
I am pleased that the Democrats did the right thing and selected Steny Hoyer instead of Crooked Jack Murtha as their Majority Leader. The 149 to 86 vote is a major embarrassment to Nancy Pelosi and is a sign that the Dems may really want to move their party in a constructive direction.
Next we will see what happens with the Alcee Hastings mess. After this black eye Pelosi may well trim her sails a bit.
Best of all it is a major league smackdown of Crooked Jack Murtha. We need more such comeuppances in our political world.
I am pleased that the Democrats did the right thing and selected Steny Hoyer instead of Crooked Jack Murtha as their Majority Leader. The 149 to 86 vote is a major embarrassment to Nancy Pelosi and is a sign that the Dems may really want to move their party in a constructive direction.
Next we will see what happens with the Alcee Hastings mess. After this black eye Pelosi may well trim her sails a bit.
Best of all it is a major league smackdown of Crooked Jack Murtha. We need more such comeuppances in our political world.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Speaking of the American Spectator...
While checking out the Crooked Jack Murtha link this morning I noticed this outstanding piece by Philip Klein . In it he makes a very persuasive case for Rudy Giuliani's chances for the '08 Republican nomination.
Despite Giuliani's much more liberal stances on several issues, I have felt myself drifting more and more toward him as the best choice in two years. I simply don't like or trust John McCain. I believe McCain-Feingold was bad law and is contrary to freedom of speech.
While I greatly admire his war service and am deeply in his dept (as are all Americans) for his defense of this country, I do not believe he is the man to put in the White House. Furthermore I have grave concerns about his ultimate ability to win.
McCain as electoral juggernaut is almost entirely a result of the media's love for him because he was not and is not George W. Bush. Dubya is now a lame duck and the media will slowly but surely decide that mouse is dead (how is that for a tortured metaphor?) and start looking for a new toy.
McCain has some moderating tendencies but as far as I know he is still Pro-Life and Pro-Iraq War. Those two stances will quickly make him a marked man as we get closer to 2008. Point being that he won't long remain the media darling he currently is and when they turn on him will conservatives really care enough to come to his aid?
Far from being The Man Who Can Beat Hillary, I think he may turn out to be The Man Who Will Lose To Hillary.
Mitt Romney does nothing for me. Nothing. He is little more than a cipher at this point but any man who could get elected Governor of Massachusetts in 2002 has some tough questions to answer as far as I'm concerned.
More and more I'm thinking Rudy's the one.
While checking out the Crooked Jack Murtha link this morning I noticed this outstanding piece by Philip Klein . In it he makes a very persuasive case for Rudy Giuliani's chances for the '08 Republican nomination.
Despite Giuliani's much more liberal stances on several issues, I have felt myself drifting more and more toward him as the best choice in two years. I simply don't like or trust John McCain. I believe McCain-Feingold was bad law and is contrary to freedom of speech.
While I greatly admire his war service and am deeply in his dept (as are all Americans) for his defense of this country, I do not believe he is the man to put in the White House. Furthermore I have grave concerns about his ultimate ability to win.
McCain as electoral juggernaut is almost entirely a result of the media's love for him because he was not and is not George W. Bush. Dubya is now a lame duck and the media will slowly but surely decide that mouse is dead (how is that for a tortured metaphor?) and start looking for a new toy.
McCain has some moderating tendencies but as far as I know he is still Pro-Life and Pro-Iraq War. Those two stances will quickly make him a marked man as we get closer to 2008. Point being that he won't long remain the media darling he currently is and when they turn on him will conservatives really care enough to come to his aid?
Far from being The Man Who Can Beat Hillary, I think he may turn out to be The Man Who Will Lose To Hillary.
Mitt Romney does nothing for me. Nothing. He is little more than a cipher at this point but any man who could get elected Governor of Massachusetts in 2002 has some tough questions to answer as far as I'm concerned.
More and more I'm thinking Rudy's the one.
Media Bias - Big Surprise
I can't see this piece by Ruth Marcus in today's Washington Post as anything other than absolute proof of the kind of media bias we supposedly wild eyed Conservatives have been complaining about for 30 years.
Marcus excoriates Nancy Pelosi for even considering aligning herself with a crook like Jack Murth. She even helpfully provides a link to the video from the ABScam investigation currently on the American Spectator web site.
Might not that be a first? The WaPo linking to the American Spectator? ;-)
You may wonder why I consider this media bias. It is very simple. Where was Ruth Marcus two weeks ago? Before election day? Before Crooked Jack Murtha was re-elected? Before Nancy Pelosi was officially Speaker-In-Waiting?
It is obvious that EVERYTHING that has Marcus in an uproar was known pre-election.
It was known that Murtha was and is a crook and that he desired to be Majority Leader and that he was tight as tick with Nancy Pelosi.
And Marcus' opening line removes any ambiguity: "The videotape is grainy, dark and devastating."
"Devastating" but not newsworthy until now and only golden silence on this topic from the likes of Ruth Marcus....until after the election.
I can't see this piece by Ruth Marcus in today's Washington Post as anything other than absolute proof of the kind of media bias we supposedly wild eyed Conservatives have been complaining about for 30 years.
Marcus excoriates Nancy Pelosi for even considering aligning herself with a crook like Jack Murth. She even helpfully provides a link to the video from the ABScam investigation currently on the American Spectator web site.
Might not that be a first? The WaPo linking to the American Spectator? ;-)
You may wonder why I consider this media bias. It is very simple. Where was Ruth Marcus two weeks ago? Before election day? Before Crooked Jack Murtha was re-elected? Before Nancy Pelosi was officially Speaker-In-Waiting?
It is obvious that EVERYTHING that has Marcus in an uproar was known pre-election.
It was known that Murtha was and is a crook and that he desired to be Majority Leader and that he was tight as tick with Nancy Pelosi.
And Marcus' opening line removes any ambiguity: "The videotape is grainy, dark and devastating."
"Devastating" but not newsworthy until now and only golden silence on this topic from the likes of Ruth Marcus....until after the election.
Monday, November 13, 2006
The Libertarian Effect? Please spare me.
This post over at the usually reliable RealClearPolitics makes my head swim.
The Libertarian Party itself is a joke and Mr. Kaminsky seems to realize that by pointing out that "for the rest of this article, please recognize that I am speaking of the small-"l" libertarian, and not the Libertarian Party of the candidates mentioned above". But uh...your whole point started out being that the Libertarian PARTY got enough votes to tilt the Montana and Missouri Senate races. This is not profound nor of particular interest to someone looking for clues as to why Republicans lost both houses of Congress.
In Virginia the Third Party candidate was in fact from the ultra liberal side. Yes, a Green Party candidate ALMOST cost James Webb his win. Webb finished a little over 9000 votes ahead of George Allen while GG Parker the "Independent Green" garnered over 26,000 votes. Using Kaminsky's logic the Democrats need to assiduously court "Green" voters to maintain their majorities.
Third Parties almost always serve as a vent for the chronically grouchy and forever loopy among us. It never has and never well make sense to waste your time supporting lost causes. I'd love a viable third party to appear but until some huge status quo altering event takes place it won't happen.
This post over at the usually reliable RealClearPolitics makes my head swim.
The Libertarian Party itself is a joke and Mr. Kaminsky seems to realize that by pointing out that "for the rest of this article, please recognize that I am speaking of the small-"l" libertarian, and not the Libertarian Party of the candidates mentioned above". But uh...your whole point started out being that the Libertarian PARTY got enough votes to tilt the Montana and Missouri Senate races. This is not profound nor of particular interest to someone looking for clues as to why Republicans lost both houses of Congress.
In Virginia the Third Party candidate was in fact from the ultra liberal side. Yes, a Green Party candidate ALMOST cost James Webb his win. Webb finished a little over 9000 votes ahead of George Allen while GG Parker the "Independent Green" garnered over 26,000 votes. Using Kaminsky's logic the Democrats need to assiduously court "Green" voters to maintain their majorities.
Third Parties almost always serve as a vent for the chronically grouchy and forever loopy among us. It never has and never well make sense to waste your time supporting lost causes. I'd love a viable third party to appear but until some huge status quo altering event takes place it won't happen.
I told you so
A couple of years ago I posted two entries regarding in part Andrew Sullivan. They are here and here.
I mention this now because of Sullivan's new book and the review of it written by Jonah Goldberg for National Review.
I said it before and I'll state it again: This will be THE defining issue for the Republican Party over the next decade.
A couple of years ago I posted two entries regarding in part Andrew Sullivan. They are here and here.
I mention this now because of Sullivan's new book and the review of it written by Jonah Goldberg for National Review.
I said it before and I'll state it again: This will be THE defining issue for the Republican Party over the next decade.
Self serving clowns
I actually read this before the election via a link from Kos. This guy (and Kos too for that matter) are like a couple of goobers I knew way back in the day when I was a Teenage Republican.
These two (ah heck lets call them Fey and Vey) were staunch Republicans as long as the GOP was the sexy party. As soon as the bloom was off the Rose they suddenly tacked leftward.
First Fey and then Vey decided the Republicans were just "too conservative" and that even though the Democrats were not perfect at least they (Fey and Vey) felt "more comfortable" there than with the mean ole losers in the GOP.
This Cole creature is of a piece with them. Happy to be a Republican until a bad spot comes along. Frontrunners, all of them. More than that I suspect this type has always cringed when one of the "beautiful people" cuts down a Republican, or when Colbert or Jon Stewart do Anti-Bush joke #10,001. This kind of pantywaist belongs in the Mommy Party and good riddance to bad rubbish to them all.
I actually read this before the election via a link from Kos. This guy (and Kos too for that matter) are like a couple of goobers I knew way back in the day when I was a Teenage Republican.
These two (ah heck lets call them Fey and Vey) were staunch Republicans as long as the GOP was the sexy party. As soon as the bloom was off the Rose they suddenly tacked leftward.
First Fey and then Vey decided the Republicans were just "too conservative" and that even though the Democrats were not perfect at least they (Fey and Vey) felt "more comfortable" there than with the mean ole losers in the GOP.
This Cole creature is of a piece with them. Happy to be a Republican until a bad spot comes along. Frontrunners, all of them. More than that I suspect this type has always cringed when one of the "beautiful people" cuts down a Republican, or when Colbert or Jon Stewart do Anti-Bush joke #10,001. This kind of pantywaist belongs in the Mommy Party and good riddance to bad rubbish to them all.
Well well
I am shocked that Nancy Pelosi is apparently backing John Murtha for House Majority Leader and Alcee Hastings for Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Unless there is a deep game being played here, this would seem to run counter to what common sense would indicate is the path to a sustained Democratic majority in the House.
Scandel played a huge part in the GOP losses last week and yet here is the soon-to-be-Speaker endorsing two crooks? Alcee Hastings is just plain dirty and that is on the record for the whole world to see. He was impeached, convicted, and removed from the bench by a Democratic controlled Congress.
John Jack Murtha is nothing more than a penny-ante political hack who has been overestimating his importance for over 25 years. There is ample video evidence of his corruption starting at least as far back as ABSCAM. Why he has never been called to account is far beyond me.
Why would Pelosi jeopardize everything the Democrats have just won by supporting these two losers? Is it possible she is not the canny politico I feared she is and is instead just a garden variety liberal goof?
I am more hopeful now that the "new" Democratic Party will be just as stupid as the old one.
I am shocked that Nancy Pelosi is apparently backing John Murtha for House Majority Leader and Alcee Hastings for Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Unless there is a deep game being played here, this would seem to run counter to what common sense would indicate is the path to a sustained Democratic majority in the House.
Scandel played a huge part in the GOP losses last week and yet here is the soon-to-be-Speaker endorsing two crooks? Alcee Hastings is just plain dirty and that is on the record for the whole world to see. He was impeached, convicted, and removed from the bench by a Democratic controlled Congress.
John Jack Murtha is nothing more than a penny-ante political hack who has been overestimating his importance for over 25 years. There is ample video evidence of his corruption starting at least as far back as ABSCAM. Why he has never been called to account is far beyond me.
Why would Pelosi jeopardize everything the Democrats have just won by supporting these two losers? Is it possible she is not the canny politico I feared she is and is instead just a garden variety liberal goof?
I am more hopeful now that the "new" Democratic Party will be just as stupid as the old one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)