"P" Stands for Pervert
Larry Craig (P-Idaho) should resign immediately. To limp on for another 16 months through the end of his term would be pointless and an embarrassment.
That one hapless sicko is however a minor issue when compared to the Republican Party's problem with perverts.
Nothing less than a top to bottom shakeout of all the weirdos and crooks in the Party is needed. The GOP must adopt high standards of personal behavior and then hew to them.
No one with any sense actually thinks that our "leaders" never misbehave. Lets make it real simple: Having a girlfriend in the time honored tradition of Warren G. Harding, FDR and JFK is acceptable, hiring prostitutes or prowling the men's room to get your kicks is not.
Messing with underage kids (and that includes 22 year old bimbos like Bill Clinton frolicked with) is unacceptable.
So is trying to score coke. Ditto taking bribes.
Its real simple. If you want to serve as an elected or appointed Republican you have to refrain from REALLY STUPID and DISGUSTING behavior.
Monday, August 27, 2007
I don't think so Jay....
Jay Cost is a bright young man who is quite adept at number crunching and insisting on using logic while sifting through polling data. But....
He really is not well enough grounded in political history to get very far away from numbers. His column of August 23 via RealClearPolitics is a glaring and blaring case in point.
I have no quibble with his main point which is that Mitt Romney is not handling "the Mormon question" very well. To be frank I have not been paying a lot of attention to that specific issue. I have heard some of the chattering and I've listened to Glenn Beck a time or two (more on Beck later), but I really am not interested enough in Romney one way or the other to care how he handles it.
I've never thought he could win the nomination and I remain convinced of same. But back to Jay Cost...
He makes what is simply an absurd assertion while comparing Romney's situation with JFK's:
"The "Catholic issue" in 1960 was largely due to the fact that Catholics were of second- and third-wave immigrant groups. To many Americans, they were still the "other" in 1960. They were still perceived to be foreign. Being Catholic was coterminous with being Irish or Italian. To say that Kennedy had to deal with the Catholic issue was, at least in part, a polite way to say that Kennedy had to deal with the "Irish issue." He needed to dispel the phony belief that Irish-Americans who were Catholics were somehow not real Americans. It was nativism as much as anything that compelled Kennedy to deal with the subject."
This is just wrong. Plain wrong. While certainly in 1960 being "an ethnic" was not an advantage (is it in 2007?) Kennedy had several obstacles larger than being Irish. He was from the Northeast at a time when that was no longer a plus. In fact he was the LAST candidate from that part of the country to become president.
Since then we've elected men from Texas, California, Georgia, California, Texas, Arkansas, and Texas again. To take it even farther the defeated candidates were from: Arizona, Minnesota, South Dakota, Michigan, Georgia, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Texas, Kansas, Tennessee, and Massachusetts again.
So since Kennedy won (?) in 1960, only TWO Northeasterners have been nominated by either party (both Democrats from Massachusetts) and both were defeated. Clearly the Northeast is not the area you would choose to be from if you had a choice. If I get a round to it I'll expound on how that might play out in the 2008 election, at a later date.
Along with geography, Kennedy had several other problems. He had an accent. Not an "Irish accent" mind you but a Bahstan accent. People from Boston talk funny whether they are Irish or not.
And by the way Kennedy did not look or act like the stereotypical Irishman that one often saw in movies back in the 30's & 40's. He didn't have carrot orange hair. He didn't have a big nose. He didn't get in fist fights. He never pranced around in a little green frock saying "a wee bit" either.
In fact I have NEVER seen Kennedy's "Irishness" mentioned as a determent in the 1960 campaign until Cost's piece of last week.
In fact contrary to what Cost asserts, Catholicism was a HUGE issue in 1960. There was specific concerns about the Pope and what influence he might have on Kennedy. I don't recall ever reading about concurrent concerns about the IRA, too much drinkin', or a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Is this a major big deal? No, but I do wish someone at RCP would pull Jay aside and suggest he stick to numbers and stay out of the deep end of the pool.
Jay Cost is a bright young man who is quite adept at number crunching and insisting on using logic while sifting through polling data. But....
He really is not well enough grounded in political history to get very far away from numbers. His column of August 23 via RealClearPolitics is a glaring and blaring case in point.
I have no quibble with his main point which is that Mitt Romney is not handling "the Mormon question" very well. To be frank I have not been paying a lot of attention to that specific issue. I have heard some of the chattering and I've listened to Glenn Beck a time or two (more on Beck later), but I really am not interested enough in Romney one way or the other to care how he handles it.
I've never thought he could win the nomination and I remain convinced of same. But back to Jay Cost...
He makes what is simply an absurd assertion while comparing Romney's situation with JFK's:
"The "Catholic issue" in 1960 was largely due to the fact that Catholics were of second- and third-wave immigrant groups. To many Americans, they were still the "other" in 1960. They were still perceived to be foreign. Being Catholic was coterminous with being Irish or Italian. To say that Kennedy had to deal with the Catholic issue was, at least in part, a polite way to say that Kennedy had to deal with the "Irish issue." He needed to dispel the phony belief that Irish-Americans who were Catholics were somehow not real Americans. It was nativism as much as anything that compelled Kennedy to deal with the subject."
This is just wrong. Plain wrong. While certainly in 1960 being "an ethnic" was not an advantage (is it in 2007?) Kennedy had several obstacles larger than being Irish. He was from the Northeast at a time when that was no longer a plus. In fact he was the LAST candidate from that part of the country to become president.
Since then we've elected men from Texas, California, Georgia, California, Texas, Arkansas, and Texas again. To take it even farther the defeated candidates were from: Arizona, Minnesota, South Dakota, Michigan, Georgia, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Texas, Kansas, Tennessee, and Massachusetts again.
So since Kennedy won (?) in 1960, only TWO Northeasterners have been nominated by either party (both Democrats from Massachusetts) and both were defeated. Clearly the Northeast is not the area you would choose to be from if you had a choice. If I get a round to it I'll expound on how that might play out in the 2008 election, at a later date.
Along with geography, Kennedy had several other problems. He had an accent. Not an "Irish accent" mind you but a Bahstan accent. People from Boston talk funny whether they are Irish or not.
And by the way Kennedy did not look or act like the stereotypical Irishman that one often saw in movies back in the 30's & 40's. He didn't have carrot orange hair. He didn't have a big nose. He didn't get in fist fights. He never pranced around in a little green frock saying "a wee bit" either.
In fact I have NEVER seen Kennedy's "Irishness" mentioned as a determent in the 1960 campaign until Cost's piece of last week.
In fact contrary to what Cost asserts, Catholicism was a HUGE issue in 1960. There was specific concerns about the Pope and what influence he might have on Kennedy. I don't recall ever reading about concurrent concerns about the IRA, too much drinkin', or a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Is this a major big deal? No, but I do wish someone at RCP would pull Jay aside and suggest he stick to numbers and stay out of the deep end of the pool.
Friday, July 27, 2007
If it quacks like a duck.....it's probably a pundit
There's an otherwise interesting article today on National Journal by Carl Cannon that contains an often repeated stupidity that maintains that because of the 22nd Amendment, presidents are effectively "lame ducks" during the entirety of their second term.
Presidents (or any elected person) are "lame ducks" only when their time in office is so short that they simply won't have time to address any issues. To the extent this magical point can be identified for the Presidency, it likely falls sometime between the nominating conventions and January 20.
Obviously the President retains his full constitutional powers through Noon January 20. Just as obviously he can respond to emergencies or developing situations through that same time. However it is unquestioned that in terms of new policies that require Congressional approval, the President becomes quite lame some time in the late Spring or early Summer of his last full year in office.
Having said that, the fact remains that many pundits and experts apparently think the president is lamed by his own re-election. In fact they seem to think that while being elected or re-elected is rather ho-hum, being ELIGIBLE for re-election gives one a mysterious power over political opponents.
Here Cannon makes a statement and then quotes Stanley Kutler:
"....it is fair to say that the 22nd Amendment introduced a systemic weakness to the highest office in the land.
"It makes a president a lame duck on the first day of his second term," said Stanley Kutler, a retired history professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School. "A president in his first term is able by sheer dint of will, personality, and power to push things through Congress that some congressmen may not particularly like. But it all ends in the second term because he's no longer a threat to them in the same way. He can't run again. There is a built-in factor weakening the president."
I think that is all very wrong but the really absurd words are these:
"It makes a president a lame duck on the first day of his second term...He can't run again"
Kutler clearly believes that a re-elected President's inability to be re-elected, AGAIN, makes him ineffective. Balderdash. A newly re-elected President has FOUR years left in his term. That is two years more than all 435 members of the House and 1/3 of the Senate. Years 5 & 6 of a Presidential term are actually the years where he SHOULD exercise the MOST power. After all, he has just been re-elected! His policies have just been re-affirmed by the voters. In George W. Bush's case he won re-election by a wider margin than he was first elected by, with none of the "Florida Fiasco" to deal with.
Beginning with Year 7 there is a new dynamic at work. Now the President is on different footing as most major policy changes take several years to be ironed out. The president is running out of time. He would best use his time tying up loose ends and tending to international relations as opposed to launching large domestic initiatives.
The President is still not a lame duck, but his administration is starting to limp a bit and this becomes more pronounced as Year 7 (and 2007 is Year 7 for George W. Bush) proceeds. In Bush's case his approval ratings are so low that he as very little room left to maneuver. However I'll give him till about next June or July before comfortably thinking of pasting on the "lame duck" label.
There's an otherwise interesting article today on National Journal by Carl Cannon that contains an often repeated stupidity that maintains that because of the 22nd Amendment, presidents are effectively "lame ducks" during the entirety of their second term.
Presidents (or any elected person) are "lame ducks" only when their time in office is so short that they simply won't have time to address any issues. To the extent this magical point can be identified for the Presidency, it likely falls sometime between the nominating conventions and January 20.
Obviously the President retains his full constitutional powers through Noon January 20. Just as obviously he can respond to emergencies or developing situations through that same time. However it is unquestioned that in terms of new policies that require Congressional approval, the President becomes quite lame some time in the late Spring or early Summer of his last full year in office.
Having said that, the fact remains that many pundits and experts apparently think the president is lamed by his own re-election. In fact they seem to think that while being elected or re-elected is rather ho-hum, being ELIGIBLE for re-election gives one a mysterious power over political opponents.
Here Cannon makes a statement and then quotes Stanley Kutler:
"....it is fair to say that the 22nd Amendment introduced a systemic weakness to the highest office in the land.
"It makes a president a lame duck on the first day of his second term," said Stanley Kutler, a retired history professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School. "A president in his first term is able by sheer dint of will, personality, and power to push things through Congress that some congressmen may not particularly like. But it all ends in the second term because he's no longer a threat to them in the same way. He can't run again. There is a built-in factor weakening the president."
I think that is all very wrong but the really absurd words are these:
"It makes a president a lame duck on the first day of his second term...He can't run again"
Kutler clearly believes that a re-elected President's inability to be re-elected, AGAIN, makes him ineffective. Balderdash. A newly re-elected President has FOUR years left in his term. That is two years more than all 435 members of the House and 1/3 of the Senate. Years 5 & 6 of a Presidential term are actually the years where he SHOULD exercise the MOST power. After all, he has just been re-elected! His policies have just been re-affirmed by the voters. In George W. Bush's case he won re-election by a wider margin than he was first elected by, with none of the "Florida Fiasco" to deal with.
Beginning with Year 7 there is a new dynamic at work. Now the President is on different footing as most major policy changes take several years to be ironed out. The president is running out of time. He would best use his time tying up loose ends and tending to international relations as opposed to launching large domestic initiatives.
The President is still not a lame duck, but his administration is starting to limp a bit and this becomes more pronounced as Year 7 (and 2007 is Year 7 for George W. Bush) proceeds. In Bush's case his approval ratings are so low that he as very little room left to maneuver. However I'll give him till about next June or July before comfortably thinking of pasting on the "lame duck" label.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Why and What Now - Part 3
Last Fall after the 2006 elections I began a three part look at why the Democrats had such a good time of it. Here at last is the final installment.
My hypothesis on why 2006 was a good year for Democrats is based on a theory (explained here in Part 1 and Part 2) of the segmentation of the American voting public. I theorized that the voting public falls roughly into seven segments. For additional clarity I have renamed several of the groups while leaving their distinctions intact:
A. Republicans
B. Republican Leaning
C. Right of Center
D. Independents
E. Left of Center
F. Democrat Leaning
G. Democrats
Clearly both Democrats and Republicans always get their bases (A&G) which I peg at about 35% each. Next they almost always get the voters that lean their way (B&F) for another 5% each. These groups tend to vote in high numbers even when their party is down. In 2006 virtually all voters in these four groups voted the standard "party line". It is highly likely that Group B voted less robustly than normal while Group F did the opposite, thus modestly solidifying a big night for the Democrats.
It is in the middle three groups that elections are won and lost. Right of Center/Left of Center voters have no allegiance to party. Their natural ideological bent is clearly in the direction of one party or the other but there is no fealty attached to that fact. Thus Groups C & E are greatly affected by what choices they are presented with at the ballot box.
Whereas Group B will hold their nose and vote for a weak Republican out of a vestige of party loyalty, Group C has no such compunction and often will just stay home. However, due to ideology, Group C rarely will vote for a Democrat unless that candidate is a true centrist. To state it another way, Groups C & E vote only when there is a candidate available whose IDEAS they support.
In 2006 Group E liked what Democrats were saying and as usual loathed what Republicans were saying. Thus Group E turned out in heavy numbers for the Democratic candidates. Conversely Group C was out of patience with the Republicans and did not find any clues that the GOP would change after election day. Furthermore the Democrats were essentially still worse (from this group's perspective), thus Group C spent election day shopping, working, hiking or doing anything but voting.
When Group C looked at all the candidates and found them all lacking and did not vote, that drove the final nail in the Republicans' self-built coffin. George Allen, Jim Talent, and Conrad Burns all lost because Group C stayed home while Group E voted in droves.
Finally we have the true Independents. People who don't identify with the ideology of either party. This group must be further divided into two sub-groups. The first sub-group doesn't have ideological moorings of any kind. They tend to vote "for the man" and generally don't gravitate toward polarizing figures. They are primarily upper-middle to upper income, very well educated and vote in high numbers. These voters don't much like failures or goof ups so they tend to vote for candidates who are close to the center, speak well, and appear to be intelligent.
These independents normally break pretty much 50-50 if the two parties each have presentable and moderate candidates. To the extent one party or the other nominates either a more strident ideologue or someone who seems less than gifted intellectually, Independents will skew the other direction.
In 2006 the Republicans were the Keystone Kops. From George W. Bush's mangling of English, to the Vice-President shooting a fellow hunter, to the intern scandal and out of control spending, the GOP looked like a bunch of hapless hacks. To voters in this group that is unforgivable. In another year these voters might well have elected Senator Steele from Maryland and Senator Kean from New Jersey. In 2006 they likely went something on the order of 3-1 or 4-1 for Democrats and in so doing sealed the Republican swamping.
The second sub-group are fringe players who vote to "make a statement" or indulge their personal whimsy of the moment. They go for oddballs and extremists and tend to vote for guys like Nader, Buchanan, and whoever is running on the Libertarian ticket. They have a very limited impact on who actually wins or loses because they usually either vote for a candidate who doesn't have a chance or they don't vote at all.
In summation I want to make it clear that this is MY take on 2006. I'm not claiming that proof exists to back up my belief. Intuitively this what I think happens in politics:
Swings in political fortunes are not primarily attributable to voters who switch back and forth from one party to the other from one election to the next.
Instead, the key difference is who votes and who doesn't.
EDITORIAL NOTE: I revised and added to this post on July 25, 2007, upon realizing I had dropped some of my analysis (relating to independents) between my notes and the keyboard.
Last Fall after the 2006 elections I began a three part look at why the Democrats had such a good time of it. Here at last is the final installment.
My hypothesis on why 2006 was a good year for Democrats is based on a theory (explained here in Part 1 and Part 2) of the segmentation of the American voting public. I theorized that the voting public falls roughly into seven segments. For additional clarity I have renamed several of the groups while leaving their distinctions intact:
A. Republicans
B. Republican Leaning
C. Right of Center
D. Independents
E. Left of Center
F. Democrat Leaning
G. Democrats
Clearly both Democrats and Republicans always get their bases (A&G) which I peg at about 35% each. Next they almost always get the voters that lean their way (B&F) for another 5% each. These groups tend to vote in high numbers even when their party is down. In 2006 virtually all voters in these four groups voted the standard "party line". It is highly likely that Group B voted less robustly than normal while Group F did the opposite, thus modestly solidifying a big night for the Democrats.
It is in the middle three groups that elections are won and lost. Right of Center/Left of Center voters have no allegiance to party. Their natural ideological bent is clearly in the direction of one party or the other but there is no fealty attached to that fact. Thus Groups C & E are greatly affected by what choices they are presented with at the ballot box.
Whereas Group B will hold their nose and vote for a weak Republican out of a vestige of party loyalty, Group C has no such compunction and often will just stay home. However, due to ideology, Group C rarely will vote for a Democrat unless that candidate is a true centrist. To state it another way, Groups C & E vote only when there is a candidate available whose IDEAS they support.
In 2006 Group E liked what Democrats were saying and as usual loathed what Republicans were saying. Thus Group E turned out in heavy numbers for the Democratic candidates. Conversely Group C was out of patience with the Republicans and did not find any clues that the GOP would change after election day. Furthermore the Democrats were essentially still worse (from this group's perspective), thus Group C spent election day shopping, working, hiking or doing anything but voting.
When Group C looked at all the candidates and found them all lacking and did not vote, that drove the final nail in the Republicans' self-built coffin. George Allen, Jim Talent, and Conrad Burns all lost because Group C stayed home while Group E voted in droves.
Finally we have the true Independents. People who don't identify with the ideology of either party. This group must be further divided into two sub-groups. The first sub-group doesn't have ideological moorings of any kind. They tend to vote "for the man" and generally don't gravitate toward polarizing figures. They are primarily upper-middle to upper income, very well educated and vote in high numbers. These voters don't much like failures or goof ups so they tend to vote for candidates who are close to the center, speak well, and appear to be intelligent.
These independents normally break pretty much 50-50 if the two parties each have presentable and moderate candidates. To the extent one party or the other nominates either a more strident ideologue or someone who seems less than gifted intellectually, Independents will skew the other direction.
In 2006 the Republicans were the Keystone Kops. From George W. Bush's mangling of English, to the Vice-President shooting a fellow hunter, to the intern scandal and out of control spending, the GOP looked like a bunch of hapless hacks. To voters in this group that is unforgivable. In another year these voters might well have elected Senator Steele from Maryland and Senator Kean from New Jersey. In 2006 they likely went something on the order of 3-1 or 4-1 for Democrats and in so doing sealed the Republican swamping.
The second sub-group are fringe players who vote to "make a statement" or indulge their personal whimsy of the moment. They go for oddballs and extremists and tend to vote for guys like Nader, Buchanan, and whoever is running on the Libertarian ticket. They have a very limited impact on who actually wins or loses because they usually either vote for a candidate who doesn't have a chance or they don't vote at all.
In summation I want to make it clear that this is MY take on 2006. I'm not claiming that proof exists to back up my belief. Intuitively this what I think happens in politics:
Swings in political fortunes are not primarily attributable to voters who switch back and forth from one party to the other from one election to the next.
Instead, the key difference is who votes and who doesn't.
EDITORIAL NOTE: I revised and added to this post on July 25, 2007, upon realizing I had dropped some of my analysis (relating to independents) between my notes and the keyboard.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Simple Math
Given our love for reducing everything to a simple winner and loser, it is no surprise that many people believe Liberalism is in the dominant force in this Nation. Certainly on the surface Liberals seem to win about as often as Conservatives, but this fails to take to account the fact that by World standards, most of our Liberals ARE Conservative!
Take Hillary. Please. She is what we call a LIBERAL. A complete and total liberal. 15 years ago she was considered a borderline radical. Due to the requirements of American politics even she has steadily tacked to the Right ever since, but a Liberal she remains. Yet in a World where most of our European "allies" never wanted us to go into Iraq, Hillary voted FOR the Iraq War. The "Conservative" Party in Britain was and is AGAINST the Iraq War. Using this gauge the Party of Winston Churchill is more "liberal" than Hillary Clinton.
In reality, Conservatism has been the dominant political ideology in this Nation since its founding. While the political cycle sees the pendulum swing over to the left on a regular basis, with the exception of 1933-1980, Conservatives have never long been out of power. Even during those dark years conservatives won the White House 4 out of 12 times and lost 3 times by small to tiny margins ('48, '60, '76).
Be that as it may however, the fact remains that part of this Nation is utterly and irredeemably Liberal, and if the GOP is to be a true majority party, it must find a way to snag a few of those liberal leaning districts. Some conservatives don't understand this and they throw tantrums when moderate Republicans take positions that are to the left of the GOP base.
Principle is a fine thing and I recommend it to all my friends, but "principle" has to get along with some other words such as "reality" and "practicality". The Founders ( I feel vaguely as though I'm a mindless drone on an episode of Star Trek when I use that term) set our government up in such a way so that people who have all the answers don't get to implement them without convincing a lot of other people first.
Many on the Right and Left, get very impatient with people who disagree with them. This is a human frailty to be sure, but political people toward the extremes tend to have it in larger doses than the rest of us.
My polemic is inspired by another that I read on PoliPundit this morning. Michael Illions, aka A. J. Sparxx, unloads on Rep. Mike Ferguson (NJ7) because Ferguson has been insufficiently conservative. Ferguson is now expressing some reservations about the President's handling of Iraq, and he (Ferguson) wants to see some results, and soon.
Quoted in a piece on NJ.com from the Star Ledger, Ferguson rather mildly states:
"I am beyond frustrated, either we get good news by September, or something radical has to change. And it's tough to imagine a scenario where they will meet the benchmarks by then."
The quote follows this factoid:
"Republican Rep. Mike Ferguson has supported President Bush on every vote over the Iraq war, from the invasion to the surge."
Hardly sounds like a RINO does he? Yet that is what Illions/Sparxx proceeds to call him as he huffs:
"His support of the Union intimidation bill, the wage increase and voting against drilling in ANWR and the Jeff Flake amendments from last year to curtail spending, how could he be anything else but a RINO. Let’s not forget his poor ratings with the NRA, Club for Growth and NumbersUSA. "
So there. You're only a Republican if you vote our way 100% of the time AND get good ratings from a bunch of organizations all of whom have their own (sometimes quite honorable) axes to grind. And no, we don't care that you only won your district in a "blue state" by 1% in the last election
If we dumped every Republican who doesn't meet Illions/Sparxx's criteria, the GOP caucus will be able to meet in the coat closet and none of this will matter because the Democrat/Liberals will be running the entire gummint.
But at least we would be pure and wouldn't have to worry about lugging around that Big Tent anymore.
Given our love for reducing everything to a simple winner and loser, it is no surprise that many people believe Liberalism is in the dominant force in this Nation. Certainly on the surface Liberals seem to win about as often as Conservatives, but this fails to take to account the fact that by World standards, most of our Liberals ARE Conservative!
Take Hillary. Please. She is what we call a LIBERAL. A complete and total liberal. 15 years ago she was considered a borderline radical. Due to the requirements of American politics even she has steadily tacked to the Right ever since, but a Liberal she remains. Yet in a World where most of our European "allies" never wanted us to go into Iraq, Hillary voted FOR the Iraq War. The "Conservative" Party in Britain was and is AGAINST the Iraq War. Using this gauge the Party of Winston Churchill is more "liberal" than Hillary Clinton.
In reality, Conservatism has been the dominant political ideology in this Nation since its founding. While the political cycle sees the pendulum swing over to the left on a regular basis, with the exception of 1933-1980, Conservatives have never long been out of power. Even during those dark years conservatives won the White House 4 out of 12 times and lost 3 times by small to tiny margins ('48, '60, '76).
Be that as it may however, the fact remains that part of this Nation is utterly and irredeemably Liberal, and if the GOP is to be a true majority party, it must find a way to snag a few of those liberal leaning districts. Some conservatives don't understand this and they throw tantrums when moderate Republicans take positions that are to the left of the GOP base.
Principle is a fine thing and I recommend it to all my friends, but "principle" has to get along with some other words such as "reality" and "practicality". The Founders ( I feel vaguely as though I'm a mindless drone on an episode of Star Trek when I use that term) set our government up in such a way so that people who have all the answers don't get to implement them without convincing a lot of other people first.
Many on the Right and Left, get very impatient with people who disagree with them. This is a human frailty to be sure, but political people toward the extremes tend to have it in larger doses than the rest of us.
My polemic is inspired by another that I read on PoliPundit this morning. Michael Illions, aka A. J. Sparxx, unloads on Rep. Mike Ferguson (NJ7) because Ferguson has been insufficiently conservative. Ferguson is now expressing some reservations about the President's handling of Iraq, and he (Ferguson) wants to see some results, and soon.
Quoted in a piece on NJ.com from the Star Ledger, Ferguson rather mildly states:
"I am beyond frustrated, either we get good news by September, or something radical has to change. And it's tough to imagine a scenario where they will meet the benchmarks by then."
The quote follows this factoid:
"Republican Rep. Mike Ferguson has supported President Bush on every vote over the Iraq war, from the invasion to the surge."
Hardly sounds like a RINO does he? Yet that is what Illions/Sparxx proceeds to call him as he huffs:
"His support of the Union intimidation bill, the wage increase and voting against drilling in ANWR and the Jeff Flake amendments from last year to curtail spending, how could he be anything else but a RINO. Let’s not forget his poor ratings with the NRA, Club for Growth and NumbersUSA. "
So there. You're only a Republican if you vote our way 100% of the time AND get good ratings from a bunch of organizations all of whom have their own (sometimes quite honorable) axes to grind. And no, we don't care that you only won your district in a "blue state" by 1% in the last election
If we dumped every Republican who doesn't meet Illions/Sparxx's criteria, the GOP caucus will be able to meet in the coat closet and none of this will matter because the Democrat/Liberals will be running the entire gummint.
But at least we would be pure and wouldn't have to worry about lugging around that Big Tent anymore.
Warner or Warner?
There are increasing signs and whispers out of my state of Virginia that Senator John Warner may not run again. This could be very bad news for Republicans.
Warner is not actively fundraising or making moves that one would expect if he were getting ready to run for a sixth term.
At this point it is all speculation, but it appears unlikely that he would be dragging this out if he was going to run. By diddling around he would seem to only embolden the Democrats and give various people ideas.
In a year that already will be difficult, things will be even worse for the GOP if a "safe" Virginia seat is suddenly in play. John Warner is not a favorite of conservatives but he is a darn site better than anyone the Democrats would plug in his place.
The 600 pound gorilla sitting on the sidelines is former Gov. Mark Warner. Mark Warner is widely believed to be a near shoo-in for the seat against anyone except John Warner. Actually the two already did battle back in 1996 with John escaping a surprisingly tough race with about 52% of the vote. That however was the race that elevated Mark Warner to A List status and ultimately lead to his election to the Governor's Mansion in 2001.
Mark Warner though is a bit of a question mark himself due to his early and not entirely explained exit from the Democratic presidential contest last year. Generally considered a serious entry due to his moderate persona and popularity in a "red state", Warner surprised and disappointed many with his withdrawal.
John Warner may yet announce that he's going to give it one more run, but at 80 years of age he may decide that 30 years is quite enough.
There are increasing signs and whispers out of my state of Virginia that Senator John Warner may not run again. This could be very bad news for Republicans.
Warner is not actively fundraising or making moves that one would expect if he were getting ready to run for a sixth term.
At this point it is all speculation, but it appears unlikely that he would be dragging this out if he was going to run. By diddling around he would seem to only embolden the Democrats and give various people ideas.
In a year that already will be difficult, things will be even worse for the GOP if a "safe" Virginia seat is suddenly in play. John Warner is not a favorite of conservatives but he is a darn site better than anyone the Democrats would plug in his place.
The 600 pound gorilla sitting on the sidelines is former Gov. Mark Warner. Mark Warner is widely believed to be a near shoo-in for the seat against anyone except John Warner. Actually the two already did battle back in 1996 with John escaping a surprisingly tough race with about 52% of the vote. That however was the race that elevated Mark Warner to A List status and ultimately lead to his election to the Governor's Mansion in 2001.
Mark Warner though is a bit of a question mark himself due to his early and not entirely explained exit from the Democratic presidential contest last year. Generally considered a serious entry due to his moderate persona and popularity in a "red state", Warner surprised and disappointed many with his withdrawal.
John Warner may yet announce that he's going to give it one more run, but at 80 years of age he may decide that 30 years is quite enough.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
War? What war?
The Democrats and their fellow travelers love to show the clip of George W. Bush in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner and chortle at what a fool he was and is. As is usually the case however, it is the Libs who are the fools.
America can not lose the Iraq War for the simple reason that we have already won it. It is over. Within a few short weeks we ran that country's despot leader out of Baghdad and eventually caught and killed him and his two evil sons.
The "Iraq War" began and ended in 2003.
What we have been witnessing since then, for nearly four horrible years, is a police action. America's fighting men are striving to bring law to Iraq in almost the identical way the Cavalry brought law to the Old West. Well, actually not identical, because the U.S. Cavalry had the good sense to not set up shop in the middle of Dodge City.
Generally speaking the U.S. Army of the 19Th Century brought law to the Old West by providing a frame work with which the LOCAL people could keep their own law. As I have maintained for almost three years now, our troops should be pulled out of the urban and suburban areas of Iraq and redeployed to forts in the desert. Forts that can not be car bombed or reached by rifle fire. From these forts, America could establish a framework to keep out Iran, Syria, or other nations bent on mischief, while leaving responsibility for law and order to the locals.
I supported the Iraq War. I continued to support after it was over. I support staying in Iraq. I am however quite displeased and shocked by the decision making that has apparently brought us to the mess we currently face. I find it bewildering that the Bush Administration seemingly has no idea how to end this process. How could men so bright and experienced be so damn dumb?
What we now face is not good. What we now face is an endless cycle of bombings and death that go round and round with no goal, no ultimate "Hey we nailed it now let's go home" moment in sight.
There were huge screw ups in WWII, but from Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima passed just over 3 1/2 years. Mr. President time is short. For our nation's future you MUST begin to end our stay in Iraq. Vietnam was a debacle we spent 30 years and more recovering from. Get us to a stopping point in Iraq. Get us to a spot where we can honorably tell the Iraqis "We have done all we can, now it is up to you".
Get us there NOW Mr. President. Time grows very short.
The Democrats and their fellow travelers love to show the clip of George W. Bush in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner and chortle at what a fool he was and is. As is usually the case however, it is the Libs who are the fools.
America can not lose the Iraq War for the simple reason that we have already won it. It is over. Within a few short weeks we ran that country's despot leader out of Baghdad and eventually caught and killed him and his two evil sons.
The "Iraq War" began and ended in 2003.
What we have been witnessing since then, for nearly four horrible years, is a police action. America's fighting men are striving to bring law to Iraq in almost the identical way the Cavalry brought law to the Old West. Well, actually not identical, because the U.S. Cavalry had the good sense to not set up shop in the middle of Dodge City.
Generally speaking the U.S. Army of the 19Th Century brought law to the Old West by providing a frame work with which the LOCAL people could keep their own law. As I have maintained for almost three years now, our troops should be pulled out of the urban and suburban areas of Iraq and redeployed to forts in the desert. Forts that can not be car bombed or reached by rifle fire. From these forts, America could establish a framework to keep out Iran, Syria, or other nations bent on mischief, while leaving responsibility for law and order to the locals.
I supported the Iraq War. I continued to support after it was over. I support staying in Iraq. I am however quite displeased and shocked by the decision making that has apparently brought us to the mess we currently face. I find it bewildering that the Bush Administration seemingly has no idea how to end this process. How could men so bright and experienced be so damn dumb?
What we now face is not good. What we now face is an endless cycle of bombings and death that go round and round with no goal, no ultimate "Hey we nailed it now let's go home" moment in sight.
There were huge screw ups in WWII, but from Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima passed just over 3 1/2 years. Mr. President time is short. For our nation's future you MUST begin to end our stay in Iraq. Vietnam was a debacle we spent 30 years and more recovering from. Get us to a stopping point in Iraq. Get us to a spot where we can honorably tell the Iraqis "We have done all we can, now it is up to you".
Get us there NOW Mr. President. Time grows very short.
Much ado....
I enjoy reading Jay Cost's commentaries at RealClearPolitics but he increasingly seems to take up large amounts of e-paper to disprove and correct where no practical need exists. Like the Princess and the pea, Jay is made uncomfortable by tiny grains of perceived inaccuracy and driven nigh to madness by improperly nuanced argument.
His latest tirade (and you should read it before continuing here) is aimed at that amorphous meanie Conventional Wisdom and his sister Many Pundits. As neither CW or MP have anyone with a vested interest in rushing to thier defense, they make inviting targets for anyone wishing to trash a straw man or woman.
In this case, Jay is unhappy with the perception that John McCain’s presidential campaign is in trouble because McCain is too moderate for the Republican Party. As is increasingly the case Jay doesn’t argue with the basic notion (that McCain is in trouble), or even with specifics (McCain is in trouble because he is too moderate), but rather with the precise block by block reasoning of the notion taker.
Let us say, for instance, that you awake and upon seeing bright light declare that day has come and the sun is shining. Jay will immediately "TUT TUT" and point out that you have improperly laid the factual groundwork for your statement. After all, someone COULD be shining a flashlight in your eyes.
Jay goes through a torturous explanation of such things as the "median voter theorem" , "single-peaked preferences" , "the Nash equilibrium" and various assorted other examples of geek speak that is of limited utility beyond a college classroom.
At the bottom of it all is the thrilling nugget that a 2 man race is different from a 3 man race (or 4,5, or 25). No fooling Jay?
The point he labors for so mightily is that under certain circumstances (none of which he argues is present in the current race for the GOP nomination) some one COULD win while being to the left of the party's base.
Let’s assume that there were three candidates, "A", "B", & "C", and 99 voters spread out precisely evenly across the expanse of GOP ideology, with 1 being far left and 99 being far right. Now let us assume that "B" and "C" both chose to perch on, oh lets say 51. Then let us say that "A" perched on 40. Under this utterly goofy scenario, "A" would win because he would get roughly 45 votes while "B" & "C" would each get about 27 votes.
Why is that scenario "goofy"? Because no group of voters of any party, religion, ethnicity, culture, tradition, age, or other known category, are evenly dispersed across the entire spectrum of opinion. In the case of the GOP, McCain has vastly annoyed something on the order of 90% of the party. Therefore he starts out at about 10 instead of at 40 like "A" does above, AND, the rest of the candidates are not clumped together at point 51 as "B" & "C" are above, but strung out from about 20 to 90.
McCain has ticked off the ultraconservatives with his support for "campaign finance reform", the recent immigration bill, and for various and sundry snarky comments over the past 7 years. He is now anathema to the few "liberal" Republicans there are, by his strong support for the Iraq War/Police Action. Ditto for any Independents who might vote in a GOP primary.
To support McCain at this point requires you to support:
A) McCain -Feingold
B) 2007 Immigration Bill
C) Iraq War/Police Action
And further, one must be unconcerned about electing a 72 year old cancer survivor with a bad temper.
Thus at the end of the day Jay Cost has his nose disjointed about nothing.
McCain IS losing in great part because he is so far removed from the median voter in today’s Republican Party. I think he also has other flaws that make him unlikely to win the nomination under any circumstances, but by starting out so far to the extreme he is clearly doomed.
As I said here last November, McCain 2000 was a creation of the media, and what the media creates.....
I enjoy reading Jay Cost's commentaries at RealClearPolitics but he increasingly seems to take up large amounts of e-paper to disprove and correct where no practical need exists. Like the Princess and the pea, Jay is made uncomfortable by tiny grains of perceived inaccuracy and driven nigh to madness by improperly nuanced argument.
His latest tirade (and you should read it before continuing here) is aimed at that amorphous meanie Conventional Wisdom and his sister Many Pundits. As neither CW or MP have anyone with a vested interest in rushing to thier defense, they make inviting targets for anyone wishing to trash a straw man or woman.
In this case, Jay is unhappy with the perception that John McCain’s presidential campaign is in trouble because McCain is too moderate for the Republican Party. As is increasingly the case Jay doesn’t argue with the basic notion (that McCain is in trouble), or even with specifics (McCain is in trouble because he is too moderate), but rather with the precise block by block reasoning of the notion taker.
Let us say, for instance, that you awake and upon seeing bright light declare that day has come and the sun is shining. Jay will immediately "TUT TUT" and point out that you have improperly laid the factual groundwork for your statement. After all, someone COULD be shining a flashlight in your eyes.
Jay goes through a torturous explanation of such things as the "median voter theorem" , "single-peaked preferences" , "the Nash equilibrium" and various assorted other examples of geek speak that is of limited utility beyond a college classroom.
At the bottom of it all is the thrilling nugget that a 2 man race is different from a 3 man race (or 4,5, or 25). No fooling Jay?
The point he labors for so mightily is that under certain circumstances (none of which he argues is present in the current race for the GOP nomination) some one COULD win while being to the left of the party's base.
Let’s assume that there were three candidates, "A", "B", & "C", and 99 voters spread out precisely evenly across the expanse of GOP ideology, with 1 being far left and 99 being far right. Now let us assume that "B" and "C" both chose to perch on, oh lets say 51. Then let us say that "A" perched on 40. Under this utterly goofy scenario, "A" would win because he would get roughly 45 votes while "B" & "C" would each get about 27 votes.
Why is that scenario "goofy"? Because no group of voters of any party, religion, ethnicity, culture, tradition, age, or other known category, are evenly dispersed across the entire spectrum of opinion. In the case of the GOP, McCain has vastly annoyed something on the order of 90% of the party. Therefore he starts out at about 10 instead of at 40 like "A" does above, AND, the rest of the candidates are not clumped together at point 51 as "B" & "C" are above, but strung out from about 20 to 90.
McCain has ticked off the ultraconservatives with his support for "campaign finance reform", the recent immigration bill, and for various and sundry snarky comments over the past 7 years. He is now anathema to the few "liberal" Republicans there are, by his strong support for the Iraq War/Police Action. Ditto for any Independents who might vote in a GOP primary.
To support McCain at this point requires you to support:
A) McCain -Feingold
B) 2007 Immigration Bill
C) Iraq War/Police Action
And further, one must be unconcerned about electing a 72 year old cancer survivor with a bad temper.
Thus at the end of the day Jay Cost has his nose disjointed about nothing.
McCain IS losing in great part because he is so far removed from the median voter in today’s Republican Party. I think he also has other flaws that make him unlikely to win the nomination under any circumstances, but by starting out so far to the extreme he is clearly doomed.
As I said here last November, McCain 2000 was a creation of the media, and what the media creates.....
Sunday, January 14, 2007
The Liberal Mind
Since childhood I have loved the detective story. From the Hardy Boys to Ellery Queen to Dashiell Hammett to Nero Wolfe to Spenser.
I discovered Robert B. Parker’s books over twenty years ago and have been a regular reader since.
While the books have gotten shorter and more trite over time, Spenser and now Jesse Stone have become old friends of a sort and I always enjoy checking in on their latest exploits.
Of late I have fallen a bit behind and thus I just finished last year’s new Jesse Stone book Sea Change. It is a book positively drenched in sex. The plot revolves around a couple of yacht owning playboys who have no morals and no interests beyond their next conquest.
An early clue is gleaned when a video tape is found showing the murdered woman involved in activities not properly done before an audience.
A subplot is the revulsion Chief Jesse Stone feels when he views the video tape and a dozen or so others that he finds on one of the yachts. This revulsion is central to the plot, and to the continuing storyline that follows from one Stone book to the next. In short, Stone and his ex-wife are trying to put their relationship back together but he has a hard time accepting and dealing with her, ah, former slut-hood.
Robert B. Parker is a liberal. Any sentient human being would need to read only one of his books to make that deduction. True, he is not an especially annoying liberal and one can imagine that he is a liberal more due to peer pressure and inertia than out of a great dedication to the cause, but a liberal he is.
Over the years a few of the Spenser books have featured a homosexual cop as an occasional character. Then in 2000’s Hugger Mugger he introduced Teddy Sapp, a homosexual bartender/tough guy who lives in Georgia of all places.
I had assumed this “inclusiveness” was all just part of the liberal mind at work, but when I recently learned that BOTH of Parker’s two sons are homosexuals, it suggested to me that perhaps more was involved.
Parker is a guy who clearly has based Spenser largely on what he (Parker) is or wants to be. Until recently as age has made it rather more difficult to pull off, the cover photos of Parker had gotten progressively more Spenser-like over the years.
While he is tough, clever, resourceful, and very much a heterosexual, Spenser is also “tolerant” toward homosexuals in the best liberal party-line sense. He may not “understand” male to male attraction, but by golly he tolerates it and would never let another guy’s homosexuality come between them. So to speak.
Chief Jesse Stone is much like Spenser in his broad-minded approach to life, which brings us back to Sea Change.
The most interesting and the most ridiculous line in the entire book is this one on page 56:
“Jesse had always thought that heterosexual anal sex verged on gross”.
This whole situation is unremarkable when viewed as just a piece of fiction, but becomes vastly amusing when considered in a political context.
Parker has painted Stone and himself into an impossible corner. Putting aside anyone’s opinion of anal sex of any variety, is it likely that there is a straight man alive in the entire World who would classify heterosexual anal sex as “gross” or “verging on gross" while at the same time considering homosexual anal sex as “non-gross” ?
This scenario is so absurd that I have to wonder how it ever got by the editors not to mention Parker's own common sense.
To make it clearer for anyone who has not read the book, the line quoted above is a 100% throw-away. It did not have to be there. It serves no greater purpose. There were plenty of other aspects of the case for Stone to be repelled by (underage girls being preyed on by old men for instance).
While I have to view the line as a Freudian slip of the first order, it is more than that. It is a damning indictment of liberal "thinking” in general. Parker would never have DARED to suggest that homosexual anal sex “verged on gross” but it is fine to say heterosexual anal sex does. The former would be terribly intolerant while the latter is just, well, an opinion.
Sigmund Freud himself would have probably enjoyed dissecting Parker’s apparent need to say somewhere, in some fashion, that anal sex is gross. Since his sons are homosexuals, and since Parker is a good liberal, it would NEVER do to utter a negative directed toward the sacred cow of glorious homosexual sex. So Parker lamely has a character take a dim view of “heterosexual anal sex”.
I could go on but frankly I tire of this nonsense rather quickly. You either get it or you don’t and if you don’t then 10,000 more words of explanation would not assist you.
Since childhood I have loved the detective story. From the Hardy Boys to Ellery Queen to Dashiell Hammett to Nero Wolfe to Spenser.
I discovered Robert B. Parker’s books over twenty years ago and have been a regular reader since.
While the books have gotten shorter and more trite over time, Spenser and now Jesse Stone have become old friends of a sort and I always enjoy checking in on their latest exploits.
Of late I have fallen a bit behind and thus I just finished last year’s new Jesse Stone book Sea Change. It is a book positively drenched in sex. The plot revolves around a couple of yacht owning playboys who have no morals and no interests beyond their next conquest.
An early clue is gleaned when a video tape is found showing the murdered woman involved in activities not properly done before an audience.
A subplot is the revulsion Chief Jesse Stone feels when he views the video tape and a dozen or so others that he finds on one of the yachts. This revulsion is central to the plot, and to the continuing storyline that follows from one Stone book to the next. In short, Stone and his ex-wife are trying to put their relationship back together but he has a hard time accepting and dealing with her, ah, former slut-hood.
Robert B. Parker is a liberal. Any sentient human being would need to read only one of his books to make that deduction. True, he is not an especially annoying liberal and one can imagine that he is a liberal more due to peer pressure and inertia than out of a great dedication to the cause, but a liberal he is.
Over the years a few of the Spenser books have featured a homosexual cop as an occasional character. Then in 2000’s Hugger Mugger he introduced Teddy Sapp, a homosexual bartender/tough guy who lives in Georgia of all places.
I had assumed this “inclusiveness” was all just part of the liberal mind at work, but when I recently learned that BOTH of Parker’s two sons are homosexuals, it suggested to me that perhaps more was involved.
Parker is a guy who clearly has based Spenser largely on what he (Parker) is or wants to be. Until recently as age has made it rather more difficult to pull off, the cover photos of Parker had gotten progressively more Spenser-like over the years.
While he is tough, clever, resourceful, and very much a heterosexual, Spenser is also “tolerant” toward homosexuals in the best liberal party-line sense. He may not “understand” male to male attraction, but by golly he tolerates it and would never let another guy’s homosexuality come between them. So to speak.
Chief Jesse Stone is much like Spenser in his broad-minded approach to life, which brings us back to Sea Change.
The most interesting and the most ridiculous line in the entire book is this one on page 56:
“Jesse had always thought that heterosexual anal sex verged on gross”.
This whole situation is unremarkable when viewed as just a piece of fiction, but becomes vastly amusing when considered in a political context.
Parker has painted Stone and himself into an impossible corner. Putting aside anyone’s opinion of anal sex of any variety, is it likely that there is a straight man alive in the entire World who would classify heterosexual anal sex as “gross” or “verging on gross" while at the same time considering homosexual anal sex as “non-gross” ?
This scenario is so absurd that I have to wonder how it ever got by the editors not to mention Parker's own common sense.
To make it clearer for anyone who has not read the book, the line quoted above is a 100% throw-away. It did not have to be there. It serves no greater purpose. There were plenty of other aspects of the case for Stone to be repelled by (underage girls being preyed on by old men for instance).
While I have to view the line as a Freudian slip of the first order, it is more than that. It is a damning indictment of liberal "thinking” in general. Parker would never have DARED to suggest that homosexual anal sex “verged on gross” but it is fine to say heterosexual anal sex does. The former would be terribly intolerant while the latter is just, well, an opinion.
Sigmund Freud himself would have probably enjoyed dissecting Parker’s apparent need to say somewhere, in some fashion, that anal sex is gross. Since his sons are homosexuals, and since Parker is a good liberal, it would NEVER do to utter a negative directed toward the sacred cow of glorious homosexual sex. So Parker lamely has a character take a dim view of “heterosexual anal sex”.
I could go on but frankly I tire of this nonsense rather quickly. You either get it or you don’t and if you don’t then 10,000 more words of explanation would not assist you.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Seeds of the coming conservative implosion
I have long thought, deep in my realistic core, that the "conservative movement" would eventually fall apart along the faultline running between cultural/religeous conservatives and fiscal/foreign policy conservatives.
While I am firmly in both camps, it is clear after a moments thought that at some near or distant point the two groups will no longer be able to paper over their differences.
Nothing better illustrates this than this post this morning from Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics.
Sadly, Mr. Bevan is as arrogant and dismissive of Christian beliefs as Teddy Kennedy or John Kerry could ever be.
His final line makes it starkly clear:
"Nevertheless, for Ms. David to arrogantly assert "there is no opposing view to science" when she knows there is legitimate disagreement about the science behind the claim of global warming itself is nearly as bad as the guy who claims the world is only 14,000 years old."
So an arrogant liberal lying about the science behind global warming is not quite so bad as a Christian parent concerned about what his children are taught and stating his beliefs. Thanks Tom. With friends like you.......
I have long thought, deep in my realistic core, that the "conservative movement" would eventually fall apart along the faultline running between cultural/religeous conservatives and fiscal/foreign policy conservatives.
While I am firmly in both camps, it is clear after a moments thought that at some near or distant point the two groups will no longer be able to paper over their differences.
Nothing better illustrates this than this post this morning from Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics.
Sadly, Mr. Bevan is as arrogant and dismissive of Christian beliefs as Teddy Kennedy or John Kerry could ever be.
His final line makes it starkly clear:
"Nevertheless, for Ms. David to arrogantly assert "there is no opposing view to science" when she knows there is legitimate disagreement about the science behind the claim of global warming itself is nearly as bad as the guy who claims the world is only 14,000 years old."
So an arrogant liberal lying about the science behind global warming is not quite so bad as a Christian parent concerned about what his children are taught and stating his beliefs. Thanks Tom. With friends like you.......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)