"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)