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.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
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.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)