Credit where credit is due
I took John McEntyre at RealClearPolitics to task the other day and now I'll balance the scales.
McEntyre has a first rate column this morning about a way Republicans can gain some traction in the 2008 Election and beyond.
This type of forward thinking is what will lead the GOP back to power in Washington.
Hand wringing and wailing at the Moon will only prolong the agony of defeat.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Land of the Fake? Or should that be "Flake" ?
Will Rogers once observed that there there types of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
Had Mr. Rogers lived to experience our brave new world he might have added that there are three kinds of fools: Fools, Damned Fools, and Media Fools.
I channeled Will Rogers as I read this article by Dick Meyer. I've never liked Myers in part because I'm always getting him confused with Dick Morris. On top of that he works for CBS.
Here Meyer (no he's NOT the one of the famous toe incident) bemoans how "fake" everything and everyone is in tacky old worn out America. Nothing is real, everything is scripted blah blah blah.
He actually briefly grasps a good point or two when he properly castigates the shallowness of most of our entertainment and political discourse. But then he takes a head first dive into the stupidity barrier with this humdinger:
"An important quality public people who garner our confidence seem to share is an ability to be genuine and b.s.-free. It's hard to come up with a long list, but a short list might include John McCain, pre-Bush Colin Powell, Don Imus, Jon Stewart and Oprah Winfrey."
Good grief. Putting aside McCain, Powell and Imus for the moment, this turkey actually holds up Jon Stewart and Oprah Winfrey as role models of authenticity? What an unmitigated idiot.
Jon Stewart is a comedian who makes his living exaggerating real events and inventing imagined ones. Oprah is a less violent but much tearier version of Jerry Springer. No matter how much one may admire Oprah the person, her show is a celebration of all things gooey and glitzy.
In this context John McCain, Colin Powell, and Don Imus are also jokes as far as I'm concerned. Whatever their talents, and they are considerable, if they represent the best in authenticity that this country has to offer we are in worst shape than Dick Meyer imagines.
And by the way, if Powell was "genuine" how did George W. Bush change him? Does W have a anti-genuinizer that he runs people through?
Gee Wally, if Colin changed due to Evil George doesn't mean he wasn't "genuine" to begin with?
I have no idea what Meyer was trying to accomplish with this garbage, but he has made a Media Fool of himself with the effort.
Will Rogers once observed that there there types of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
Had Mr. Rogers lived to experience our brave new world he might have added that there are three kinds of fools: Fools, Damned Fools, and Media Fools.
I channeled Will Rogers as I read this article by Dick Meyer. I've never liked Myers in part because I'm always getting him confused with Dick Morris. On top of that he works for CBS.
Here Meyer (no he's NOT the one of the famous toe incident) bemoans how "fake" everything and everyone is in tacky old worn out America. Nothing is real, everything is scripted blah blah blah.
He actually briefly grasps a good point or two when he properly castigates the shallowness of most of our entertainment and political discourse. But then he takes a head first dive into the stupidity barrier with this humdinger:
"An important quality public people who garner our confidence seem to share is an ability to be genuine and b.s.-free. It's hard to come up with a long list, but a short list might include John McCain, pre-Bush Colin Powell, Don Imus, Jon Stewart and Oprah Winfrey."
Good grief. Putting aside McCain, Powell and Imus for the moment, this turkey actually holds up Jon Stewart and Oprah Winfrey as role models of authenticity? What an unmitigated idiot.
Jon Stewart is a comedian who makes his living exaggerating real events and inventing imagined ones. Oprah is a less violent but much tearier version of Jerry Springer. No matter how much one may admire Oprah the person, her show is a celebration of all things gooey and glitzy.
In this context John McCain, Colin Powell, and Don Imus are also jokes as far as I'm concerned. Whatever their talents, and they are considerable, if they represent the best in authenticity that this country has to offer we are in worst shape than Dick Meyer imagines.
And by the way, if Powell was "genuine" how did George W. Bush change him? Does W have a anti-genuinizer that he runs people through?
Gee Wally, if Colin changed due to Evil George doesn't mean he wasn't "genuine" to begin with?
I have no idea what Meyer was trying to accomplish with this garbage, but he has made a Media Fool of himself with the effort.
Monday, November 20, 2006
"Mess in Iraq" ?
This piece at RealClearPolitics about Jon Tester and Jim Webb bothers me for several reasons but primarily because of the line "Tester's populism (if he doesn't stray too far to the redistributionist left) will sell well in a libertarian-leaning West that is fed up with out of control federal spending and the mess in Iraq".
What "mess in Iraq"?
Since the election I have heard a number of conservative pundits/commentators speak about Iraq as though it is agreed by all parties to be a disaster.
If by "mess" John McIntyre means to imply that the American effort there is a mess, I disagree strongly.
Criminals make things messy and to that extent Iraq is indeed a mess. However the combined opinion of the Mainstream Media notwithstanding, Iraq is far from being an unmitigated disaster.
First, there is no "war" in Iraq. There was a war. It started in March of 2003 and ended for all practical purposes within a few weeks. It ended absolutely when Saddam Hussein was pulled out of a hole in the ground in late 2003.
The war was short and very well fought on the American side, and it has been over for at least
three years.
The "mess" in Iraq is called law enforcement stateside. Consider these facts from THE NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MEMORIAL FUND website.
*Since the first recorded police death in 1792, there have been more than 17,000 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. Currently, there are 17,535 names engraved on the walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial.
*A total of 1,635 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty during the past 10 years, an average of one death every 53 hours or 164 per year. There were 155 law enforcement officers killed in 2005.
*On average, more than 56,000 law enforcement officers are assaulted each year, resulting in over 16,000 injuries.
*The 1970s were the deadliest decade in law enforcement history, when a total of 2,260 officers died, or an average of 226 each year.
*The deadliest year in law enforcement history was 1974, when 275 officers were killed. That figure dropped dramatically in the 1990s, to an average of 159 per year.
*The deadliest day in law enforcement history was September 11, 2001, when 72 officers were killed while responding to the terrorist attacks on America.
Think about it. 72 of our finest killed on one day, September 11, 2001. And that was just police officers. In fact all of those figures cited above were "just police officers". They don't include fire and EMS deaths due to stupid and criminal activity of others. They don't include private security guards. They don't include private citizens defending themselves and loved ones.
As horrific as the American deaths are in Iraq, they are the price we are paying to stabilize that country and allow it time to stand and walk on its own. A free and democratic Iraq will make for a safer and more secure America.
The "mess" in Iraq is the price we are paying to protect America from another 9-11. That even many conservatives have lost sight of this basic fact is frightening.
This piece at RealClearPolitics about Jon Tester and Jim Webb bothers me for several reasons but primarily because of the line "Tester's populism (if he doesn't stray too far to the redistributionist left) will sell well in a libertarian-leaning West that is fed up with out of control federal spending and the mess in Iraq".
What "mess in Iraq"?
Since the election I have heard a number of conservative pundits/commentators speak about Iraq as though it is agreed by all parties to be a disaster.
If by "mess" John McIntyre means to imply that the American effort there is a mess, I disagree strongly.
Criminals make things messy and to that extent Iraq is indeed a mess. However the combined opinion of the Mainstream Media notwithstanding, Iraq is far from being an unmitigated disaster.
First, there is no "war" in Iraq. There was a war. It started in March of 2003 and ended for all practical purposes within a few weeks. It ended absolutely when Saddam Hussein was pulled out of a hole in the ground in late 2003.
The war was short and very well fought on the American side, and it has been over for at least
three years.
The "mess" in Iraq is called law enforcement stateside. Consider these facts from THE NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MEMORIAL FUND website.
*Since the first recorded police death in 1792, there have been more than 17,000 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. Currently, there are 17,535 names engraved on the walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial.
*A total of 1,635 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty during the past 10 years, an average of one death every 53 hours or 164 per year. There were 155 law enforcement officers killed in 2005.
*On average, more than 56,000 law enforcement officers are assaulted each year, resulting in over 16,000 injuries.
*The 1970s were the deadliest decade in law enforcement history, when a total of 2,260 officers died, or an average of 226 each year.
*The deadliest year in law enforcement history was 1974, when 275 officers were killed. That figure dropped dramatically in the 1990s, to an average of 159 per year.
*The deadliest day in law enforcement history was September 11, 2001, when 72 officers were killed while responding to the terrorist attacks on America.
Think about it. 72 of our finest killed on one day, September 11, 2001. And that was just police officers. In fact all of those figures cited above were "just police officers". They don't include fire and EMS deaths due to stupid and criminal activity of others. They don't include private security guards. They don't include private citizens defending themselves and loved ones.
As horrific as the American deaths are in Iraq, they are the price we are paying to stabilize that country and allow it time to stand and walk on its own. A free and democratic Iraq will make for a safer and more secure America.
The "mess" in Iraq is the price we are paying to protect America from another 9-11. That even many conservatives have lost sight of this basic fact is frightening.
Why and What Now - Part 2
As stated two weeks ago, my hypothesis on why 2006 was a good year for Democrats is based on a theory of the segmentation of the American voting public. I theorized that the voting public falls roughly into the following seven segments:
A. Republicans
B. Republican Leaning Independents
C. Right of Center Independents
D. Independents
E. Left of Center Independents
F. Democrat Leaning Independents
G. Democrats
Segments A & G stick with their party through thick and thin and each group constitutes about 35% of all voters. These two segments also tend to vote in fairly high and consistent numbers. They are true believers and take ever opportunity to vote their beliefs.
Segments B & F don't consider themselves as members of either party but effectively they function as such. They also tend to be regular voters but tend to vote in higher number when their side seems to be on the upswing. They only vote for the other side in extreme cases such as McGovern or Goldwater. I assign them each roughly 5% of the voting public.
Segments C & E are much different animals. Their natural tendencies are toward the Right or Left but they are not wedded to partisan ideals to enough of an extent that it outweighs other considerations. Issues such as a war going badly, corruption, or incompetence can cause these two segments to swing over and vote for the "other" party.
Segments C & E tend to vote much heavier when their side is doing well. They get discouraged easily and just throw in the towel and don't bother voting. Dukakis largely lost the E's. Bush 41 lost the C's in 1992. Kerry lost the E's. Gore and Bush probably came out about even. Perot got a bunch of both of them in 1992, not nearly as many in 1996. These two segments each represent about 5% of all voters.
Our last segment is D and these are the true independents. Accounting for about 10% of the voting population they generally have no use for either party. They are largely upper middle class and above in income and education. They are not interested in "family values" as such. Economics, social justice, the environment, and libertarian principles tend to drive various sub-groups of this segment.
This segment is highly volatile and swings heavily from one election cycle to the next. They vote sporadically depending on how bummed out they are by things in general. Various sub-groups of this Segment loved Ross Perot and/or Ralph Nader. The last president they really got behind was Reagan although Clinton did fairly well with them. "Doing well" with independents entails not just winning their favor but actually energizing them enough to come out and vote.
In Part 3 I'll apply my Segmentation Template onto the 2006 Elections.
As stated two weeks ago, my hypothesis on why 2006 was a good year for Democrats is based on a theory of the segmentation of the American voting public. I theorized that the voting public falls roughly into the following seven segments:
A. Republicans
B. Republican Leaning Independents
C. Right of Center Independents
D. Independents
E. Left of Center Independents
F. Democrat Leaning Independents
G. Democrats
Segments A & G stick with their party through thick and thin and each group constitutes about 35% of all voters. These two segments also tend to vote in fairly high and consistent numbers. They are true believers and take ever opportunity to vote their beliefs.
Segments B & F don't consider themselves as members of either party but effectively they function as such. They also tend to be regular voters but tend to vote in higher number when their side seems to be on the upswing. They only vote for the other side in extreme cases such as McGovern or Goldwater. I assign them each roughly 5% of the voting public.
Segments C & E are much different animals. Their natural tendencies are toward the Right or Left but they are not wedded to partisan ideals to enough of an extent that it outweighs other considerations. Issues such as a war going badly, corruption, or incompetence can cause these two segments to swing over and vote for the "other" party.
Segments C & E tend to vote much heavier when their side is doing well. They get discouraged easily and just throw in the towel and don't bother voting. Dukakis largely lost the E's. Bush 41 lost the C's in 1992. Kerry lost the E's. Gore and Bush probably came out about even. Perot got a bunch of both of them in 1992, not nearly as many in 1996. These two segments each represent about 5% of all voters.
Our last segment is D and these are the true independents. Accounting for about 10% of the voting population they generally have no use for either party. They are largely upper middle class and above in income and education. They are not interested in "family values" as such. Economics, social justice, the environment, and libertarian principles tend to drive various sub-groups of this segment.
This segment is highly volatile and swings heavily from one election cycle to the next. They vote sporadically depending on how bummed out they are by things in general. Various sub-groups of this Segment loved Ross Perot and/or Ralph Nader. The last president they really got behind was Reagan although Clinton did fairly well with them. "Doing well" with independents entails not just winning their favor but actually energizing them enough to come out and vote.
In Part 3 I'll apply my Segmentation Template onto the 2006 Elections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)