Hilarious
http://www.beecy.net/frank/
And-so-well-done!
Monday, September 20, 2004
Misled?
CBS and Dan Rather have now brought themselves to allow as how maybe they were misled.
What poppycock. "Misled" of course gets them cleanly off the hook. After all, slick salesmen "mislead" people. When your Granny paid $2000 to that fellow to asphalt her driveway and then she never saw him again, she had been misled. Get it? It was NOT her fault!
By merely admitting to being "misled" and expressing "regret" CBS continues to try to ignore, sidestep, and spin this whole imbroglio.
CBS needs to admit they committed a major journalistic mistake and then compounded it by refusing to admit any wrongdoing until today.
Then, they need to open themselves up to an independent investigation to address the appearance of improper practices.
Don't hold your breath. With their behavior over the past two weeks, CBS has shown total disregard for truth, honesty, fairness, and accountability.
Only their name is to be trusted. When you watch Dan Rather and the CBS Evening News, you do indeed see BS.
CBS and Dan Rather have now brought themselves to allow as how maybe they were misled.
What poppycock. "Misled" of course gets them cleanly off the hook. After all, slick salesmen "mislead" people. When your Granny paid $2000 to that fellow to asphalt her driveway and then she never saw him again, she had been misled. Get it? It was NOT her fault!
By merely admitting to being "misled" and expressing "regret" CBS continues to try to ignore, sidestep, and spin this whole imbroglio.
CBS needs to admit they committed a major journalistic mistake and then compounded it by refusing to admit any wrongdoing until today.
Then, they need to open themselves up to an independent investigation to address the appearance of improper practices.
Don't hold your breath. With their behavior over the past two weeks, CBS has shown total disregard for truth, honesty, fairness, and accountability.
Only their name is to be trusted. When you watch Dan Rather and the CBS Evening News, you do indeed see BS.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
A dime's worth of difference.
Someone famously said that "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between America's two major parties.
While perhaps true at one time or another, today there are stark differences between the donkeys and the elephants.
After boiling all the yap-yap blather down to the bare bones, I find two extremely important differences.
The Democratic Party thinks most Americans are victims, of one kind or another, who must be "protected" from everyone (except maybe terrorists). Since the beginning of the Democratic Party in the 1820's, one of the overarching prime principles they have argued for is that "the people" are a weak lot, helpless, hapless, taken advantage of and powerless to fight back.
In contrast, the Republican Party has maintained from its genesis, that America is made up of individuals, and thus INDIVIDUAL liberty and responsibility is the only true hope of this nation.
Democrats used this difference to their advantage for most of the 20th Century. They convinced large segments of voters that THEY were for the little guy, while the GOP was for the rich. The facts are somewhat different.
Both parties actually favor "the rich". Life on this earth itself is geared toward the powerful. Money and power have many more options than poverty and weakness. This outstanding essay from William F. Buckley illustrates this beautifully.
Where the difference resides is in that while the Democrats would eternally enslave poor people and ensnare them in a net of never ending dependence, the GOP insists that EVERYONE be given a chance to stand or fall on their own.
As a core principle, Republicans believe that only through rigor can there be vigor. Patting folks on the head and giving them something today, does not prepare them for tomorrow, and more importantly does not allow them to become valuable and contributing members of society and co-owners of America's wealth and power.
The Democratic Party of 2004 finds itself firmly stuck in the ideas and problems of the 1930's. Because many Americans needed help during the Depression, the Democrats think they always will need that same level of "help". They have never caught on to the fact that the patient is much better and no longer needs the level of services that the New Deal provided.
To his ever lasting credit, Bill Clinton largely ended welfare (as we knew it for roughly 30 years) but his party can't seem to learn the lesson and move on to the new world.
The other clear and huge difference between the two parties is related to foreign policy and the use of America's power. Unlike the first difference, this one is of much more recent vintage.
Partisan squabbles are supposed to end at the water's edge, and generally speaking did for many decades. That is not to say that there weren't violent arguments about war and peace down through the ages, but through it all one principle was agreed to by America's leaders: American power should be used justly, wisely, sparingly, but at all times.....In America's Best Interests.
Today's Democratic Party is dominated by people who believe that American power is bad. Not just bad but evil. (What amazes me is how any GOP criticism of John Kerry's positions, immediately brings counter charges that the Republicans are "questioning my patriotism". Huh? No what Republicans and conservatives are "questioning" are your loony ideas. Ideas that if put in practice would endanger our nation and freedom around the world.)
Kerry Spot at NRO (scroll down to the 9/16 5:37PM entry) has referenced a Pew Research finding that suggests that 51% of Democrats blame the United States for 9-11.
That's what I'm talkin' about. Incredible.
The Democratic Party of FDR, Truman, Scoop Jackson and Joe Lieberman, no longer exists (Joe has not figured that out yet). In its place we have a pasty faced pack of fools who, riddled with guilt and cowardice, tries to appease murdering thugs by scorning the nation of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, and you.
George W. Bush's Republican Party is too liberal and too wedded to big government, but on the two items discussed above, the GOP is still the only choice for conservatives.
Someone famously said that "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between America's two major parties.
While perhaps true at one time or another, today there are stark differences between the donkeys and the elephants.
After boiling all the yap-yap blather down to the bare bones, I find two extremely important differences.
The Democratic Party thinks most Americans are victims, of one kind or another, who must be "protected" from everyone (except maybe terrorists). Since the beginning of the Democratic Party in the 1820's, one of the overarching prime principles they have argued for is that "the people" are a weak lot, helpless, hapless, taken advantage of and powerless to fight back.
In contrast, the Republican Party has maintained from its genesis, that America is made up of individuals, and thus INDIVIDUAL liberty and responsibility is the only true hope of this nation.
Democrats used this difference to their advantage for most of the 20th Century. They convinced large segments of voters that THEY were for the little guy, while the GOP was for the rich. The facts are somewhat different.
Both parties actually favor "the rich". Life on this earth itself is geared toward the powerful. Money and power have many more options than poverty and weakness. This outstanding essay from William F. Buckley illustrates this beautifully.
Where the difference resides is in that while the Democrats would eternally enslave poor people and ensnare them in a net of never ending dependence, the GOP insists that EVERYONE be given a chance to stand or fall on their own.
As a core principle, Republicans believe that only through rigor can there be vigor. Patting folks on the head and giving them something today, does not prepare them for tomorrow, and more importantly does not allow them to become valuable and contributing members of society and co-owners of America's wealth and power.
The Democratic Party of 2004 finds itself firmly stuck in the ideas and problems of the 1930's. Because many Americans needed help during the Depression, the Democrats think they always will need that same level of "help". They have never caught on to the fact that the patient is much better and no longer needs the level of services that the New Deal provided.
To his ever lasting credit, Bill Clinton largely ended welfare (as we knew it for roughly 30 years) but his party can't seem to learn the lesson and move on to the new world.
The other clear and huge difference between the two parties is related to foreign policy and the use of America's power. Unlike the first difference, this one is of much more recent vintage.
Partisan squabbles are supposed to end at the water's edge, and generally speaking did for many decades. That is not to say that there weren't violent arguments about war and peace down through the ages, but through it all one principle was agreed to by America's leaders: American power should be used justly, wisely, sparingly, but at all times.....In America's Best Interests.
Today's Democratic Party is dominated by people who believe that American power is bad. Not just bad but evil. (What amazes me is how any GOP criticism of John Kerry's positions, immediately brings counter charges that the Republicans are "questioning my patriotism". Huh? No what Republicans and conservatives are "questioning" are your loony ideas. Ideas that if put in practice would endanger our nation and freedom around the world.)
Kerry Spot at NRO (scroll down to the 9/16 5:37PM entry) has referenced a Pew Research finding that suggests that 51% of Democrats blame the United States for 9-11.
That's what I'm talkin' about. Incredible.
The Democratic Party of FDR, Truman, Scoop Jackson and Joe Lieberman, no longer exists (Joe has not figured that out yet). In its place we have a pasty faced pack of fools who, riddled with guilt and cowardice, tries to appease murdering thugs by scorning the nation of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, and you.
George W. Bush's Republican Party is too liberal and too wedded to big government, but on the two items discussed above, the GOP is still the only choice for conservatives.
Goodness!
It has been almost six months since my last post. I promise that won't happen again. I will be posting each Monday and Thursday and otherwise as the spirit moves me.
I have had a very hectic Spring and Summer but now I am ready to get down to it again.
The presidential race is shaping up much as I thought it would. The Kerry campaign however has been much more incompetent than I could have hoped.
I really am beginning to suspect that it is being systematically sabotaged from with-in.
My prediction from back in January still stands. Bush in a narrow but clear victory.
I will be reevaluating my state by state predictions before the end of the month.
It has been almost six months since my last post. I promise that won't happen again. I will be posting each Monday and Thursday and otherwise as the spirit moves me.
I have had a very hectic Spring and Summer but now I am ready to get down to it again.
The presidential race is shaping up much as I thought it would. The Kerry campaign however has been much more incompetent than I could have hoped.
I really am beginning to suspect that it is being systematically sabotaged from with-in.
My prediction from back in January still stands. Bush in a narrow but clear victory.
I will be reevaluating my state by state predictions before the end of the month.
Friday, March 19, 2004
Kerry begins his fall
As I have steadfastly maintained, John Kerry is looking less "presidential" every day.
The fact is that Bill Clinton has more class and grace than this product of Bahstan blue bloods.
John Kerry is a jerk. A self centered, ego maniacal, me first, jerk. Now he has added cussing a Secret Service agent for bumping His Highness, to his resume.
He brings NOTHING to the table beyond his desire to be important. A Kerry presidency would be a disaster that would make conservatives long for the Clinton Administration.
In fact I will go farther: President John Kerry would make Jimmy Carter look good.
Again, barring some horrific event, this election will be won by George W. Bush. What I have seen of the Bush campaign thus far, convinces me that Karl Rove is in full possession of his faculties, and will roast Mr. Kerry as he richly deserves.
As I have steadfastly maintained, John Kerry is looking less "presidential" every day.
The fact is that Bill Clinton has more class and grace than this product of Bahstan blue bloods.
John Kerry is a jerk. A self centered, ego maniacal, me first, jerk. Now he has added cussing a Secret Service agent for bumping His Highness, to his resume.
He brings NOTHING to the table beyond his desire to be important. A Kerry presidency would be a disaster that would make conservatives long for the Clinton Administration.
In fact I will go farther: President John Kerry would make Jimmy Carter look good.
Again, barring some horrific event, this election will be won by George W. Bush. What I have seen of the Bush campaign thus far, convinces me that Karl Rove is in full possession of his faculties, and will roast Mr. Kerry as he richly deserves.
Friday, February 27, 2004
A double dose of good news for the President.
The economy continues to roll as the fourth quarter numbers have been released and show a growth rate of 4.1%.
This paragraph buried deep inn the AP story is enlightening:
"The economy's performance in the second half of last year marked the best back-to-back quarterly performance since the first two quarters of 1984."
In other words, since Ronald Reagan was president. Or put another way, better than Slick Willie ever managed. Do you suppose Peter Jennings will point that out on the news this evening?
The second bit of happy news is that the National Journal has just released its rankings of the members of the U.S. Congress, and one John Kerry is the MOST LIBERAL Senator. Yep, more liberal than Teddy K and more liberal than Barby Boxer. This is stunning stuff and Karl Rove MUST be drooling with thoughts of the ads he can run this Fall.
I will say it again, Bush will win re-election, and he will do it fairly easily.
The economy continues to roll as the fourth quarter numbers have been released and show a growth rate of 4.1%.
This paragraph buried deep inn the AP story is enlightening:
"The economy's performance in the second half of last year marked the best back-to-back quarterly performance since the first two quarters of 1984."
In other words, since Ronald Reagan was president. Or put another way, better than Slick Willie ever managed. Do you suppose Peter Jennings will point that out on the news this evening?
The second bit of happy news is that the National Journal has just released its rankings of the members of the U.S. Congress, and one John Kerry is the MOST LIBERAL Senator. Yep, more liberal than Teddy K and more liberal than Barby Boxer. This is stunning stuff and Karl Rove MUST be drooling with thoughts of the ads he can run this Fall.
I will say it again, Bush will win re-election, and he will do it fairly easily.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Four More Years.
I am increasingly of a mind that George W. Bush will sweep back to power with a much larger win than 2000.
A race between two non-incumbents is much more unpredictable than when an incumbent is present.
Public opinion polls that purport to measure approval and disapproval can be tweaked in any way the poll taker wants the results to go. However the more questions that are asked, the harder it is for a dishonest polling effort to cover its tracks.
For instance, a poll that shows President Bush has only a 48% approval rating on foreign policy, yet also shows 65% support the Iraq War, almost by definition is unreliable.
When reading poll results, always read the full list of questions, find out what the sample number were (how many Dems, how many GOP etc), and when the poll was taken.
George W. Bush will win in November barring some huge disaster. My earlier prediction of a very narrow victory for Bush is still operative, but I now think Bush will collect closer to 350 electoral votes than the minimum of 270.
I am increasingly of a mind that George W. Bush will sweep back to power with a much larger win than 2000.
A race between two non-incumbents is much more unpredictable than when an incumbent is present.
Public opinion polls that purport to measure approval and disapproval can be tweaked in any way the poll taker wants the results to go. However the more questions that are asked, the harder it is for a dishonest polling effort to cover its tracks.
For instance, a poll that shows President Bush has only a 48% approval rating on foreign policy, yet also shows 65% support the Iraq War, almost by definition is unreliable.
When reading poll results, always read the full list of questions, find out what the sample number were (how many Dems, how many GOP etc), and when the poll was taken.
George W. Bush will win in November barring some huge disaster. My earlier prediction of a very narrow victory for Bush is still operative, but I now think Bush will collect closer to 350 electoral votes than the minimum of 270.
Friday, February 13, 2004
Drudge claims in question.
The news that Wesley Clark has now endorsed John Kerry calls in to strong doubt the Drudge Report story regarding possible Bimbo Eruptions in the ultra-liberal Senator's campaign.
Drudge had quoted Clark as predicting that "Kerry will implode over an intern issue." It seems very unlikely that even a quack like Clark would endorse Kerry if he thought he was going to "implode".
As I noted yesterday, Drudge and facts often go their separate ways and this may well be the latest spat between the two.
The news that Wesley Clark has now endorsed John Kerry calls in to strong doubt the Drudge Report story regarding possible Bimbo Eruptions in the ultra-liberal Senator's campaign.
Drudge had quoted Clark as predicting that "Kerry will implode over an intern issue." It seems very unlikely that even a quack like Clark would endorse Kerry if he thought he was going to "implode".
As I noted yesterday, Drudge and facts often go their separate ways and this may well be the latest spat between the two.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Here we go again.
I thought it was odd that Howard Dean was attacking Kerry with such ferocity the past few days. Given that Dean racked up 8% or so of the votes in states like Virginia and Tennessee while Kerry was at or over 50%, I naturally expected the other candidates to start kissing up to the apparent nominee.
I chalked Dean's comments up to the fact that he is Dean. Now however, it looks like there may be more to it than that. The Drudge Report has a high wattage alert that suggests that John Kerry's campaign is about to blow up over charges of "recent alleged infidelity".
Drudge admittedly has an uneven track record. There have been numerous times when he has totally missed the fact train. However, this report has a whiff of believability to it. Among other things, it maintains that "A serious investigation of the woman and the nature of her relationship with Sen. John Kerry has been underway at TIME magazine, ABC NEWS, the WASHINGTON POST and the ASSOCIATED PRESS, where the woman in question once worked."
The next few days may well turn the Democratic race on it ear. Again.
I thought it was odd that Howard Dean was attacking Kerry with such ferocity the past few days. Given that Dean racked up 8% or so of the votes in states like Virginia and Tennessee while Kerry was at or over 50%, I naturally expected the other candidates to start kissing up to the apparent nominee.
I chalked Dean's comments up to the fact that he is Dean. Now however, it looks like there may be more to it than that. The Drudge Report has a high wattage alert that suggests that John Kerry's campaign is about to blow up over charges of "recent alleged infidelity".
Drudge admittedly has an uneven track record. There have been numerous times when he has totally missed the fact train. However, this report has a whiff of believability to it. Among other things, it maintains that "A serious investigation of the woman and the nature of her relationship with Sen. John Kerry has been underway at TIME magazine, ABC NEWS, the WASHINGTON POST and the ASSOCIATED PRESS, where the woman in question once worked."
The next few days may well turn the Democratic race on it ear. Again.
Friday, February 06, 2004
The love that won't shut up..
That is a hilarious line in a recent Powerline post from The Big Trunk.
Ever so often a short and simple phrase will sum up your feeling in way that 10,000 words could not.
That is a hilarious line in a recent Powerline post from The Big Trunk.
Ever so often a short and simple phrase will sum up your feeling in way that 10,000 words could not.
The Good News that is all bad.
We live in strange times. Take this report from the AP for instance.
Unemployments drops to 5.6%, 112,000 new jobs added last month as opposed to only 12,000 added in December, yet it is bad news.
Why?
Because economists were PREDICTING that even more jobs would be added, that's why.
So because some economists misread their crystal ball, we should all wring our hands in despair. Right? Well not really.
The economy continues to exhibit signs that it is in a moderate but steady march in the right direction. Brick by brick the recovery is being built. By Summer I believe John Kerry will be twisting and turning in the strong wind of a full blown expansion.
We live in strange times. Take this report from the AP for instance.
Unemployments drops to 5.6%, 112,000 new jobs added last month as opposed to only 12,000 added in December, yet it is bad news.
Why?
Because economists were PREDICTING that even more jobs would be added, that's why.
So because some economists misread their crystal ball, we should all wring our hands in despair. Right? Well not really.
The economy continues to exhibit signs that it is in a moderate but steady march in the right direction. Brick by brick the recovery is being built. By Summer I believe John Kerry will be twisting and turning in the strong wind of a full blown expansion.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
The Fat Lady warms up.
Last night's win of five states by John Kerry pretty well finishes the race. John Edwards needed to win at least two states in order to maintain a strong position. He barely missed doing so in Oklahoma, losing by less than 1500 votes out of over 300,000 cast.
I still feel that Kerry is probably the weakest frontrunner that I have seen over the last 30 years. By this I mean that a TON of voters still chose someone else last night. Edwards and Clark drew respectable numbers and so did Dean and Lieberman considering they were the 4th and 5th place duo.
With only Lieberman dropping out, this race still has possible pitfalls for Kerry, but I suspect he will manage to avoid them. When preaching to the choir an experienced pol like Kerry will manage to hold the lead 99% of the time.
What was most impressive for Kerry was the fact that he carried states in all regions. Delaware, Missouri, Arizona/New Mexico and North Dakota.
Given the way this race has unfolded, I think a Kerry-Edwards ticket is very likely, with one caveat. IF the Democrats decide to "give up" on the South (except for Florida), then Edwards is far less attractive and Kerry may opt for a more experienced face from a swing state.
I still believe that Kerry has a record that the Bush Campaign will simply destroy, and I expect that 10 months from now the Democratic Party will once more be plunged into a round of intensive navel contemplation.
Last night's win of five states by John Kerry pretty well finishes the race. John Edwards needed to win at least two states in order to maintain a strong position. He barely missed doing so in Oklahoma, losing by less than 1500 votes out of over 300,000 cast.
I still feel that Kerry is probably the weakest frontrunner that I have seen over the last 30 years. By this I mean that a TON of voters still chose someone else last night. Edwards and Clark drew respectable numbers and so did Dean and Lieberman considering they were the 4th and 5th place duo.
With only Lieberman dropping out, this race still has possible pitfalls for Kerry, but I suspect he will manage to avoid them. When preaching to the choir an experienced pol like Kerry will manage to hold the lead 99% of the time.
What was most impressive for Kerry was the fact that he carried states in all regions. Delaware, Missouri, Arizona/New Mexico and North Dakota.
Given the way this race has unfolded, I think a Kerry-Edwards ticket is very likely, with one caveat. IF the Democrats decide to "give up" on the South (except for Florida), then Edwards is far less attractive and Kerry may opt for a more experienced face from a swing state.
I still believe that Kerry has a record that the Bush Campaign will simply destroy, and I expect that 10 months from now the Democratic Party will once more be plunged into a round of intensive navel contemplation.
Thursday, January 29, 2004
A pair of ninnies
Two very bad political decisions came to light today.
Two very bad political decisions came to light today.
First, Howard Dean has announced that he will run no TV ads in the seven states voting on February 3. Instead he will save his dwindling resources for Michigan, Washington, and Wisconsin. Bad idea.
Kerry has a huge head of steam built up. If Dean does not knock it down ASAP then it's Katie Bar The Door.
Dean's best (in fact only) chance to win in the latter three states, is to exceed expectations on Tuesday. No way will he do that if he does not run all out in the next round.
Second, President Bush's horrible decision to up the funding for the execrable National Endowment for the Arts. This may well be the straw that breaks the conservative camel's back (or rather its spirit). It is amazing beyond my ability to manipulate the English language, that W is repeating the same politically stupid arc that his father did.
Like the Adams, it appears the Bush family is intent on a double dose of single terms.
Incredible.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
The Fat Lady Has Not Yet Sung
Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina. That is a daunting mixture of states if you are a liberal from Massachusetts who can easily be linked with the most famous liberal from Massachusetts.
Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina. That is a daunting mixture of states if you are a liberal from Massachusetts who can easily be linked with the most famous liberal from Massachusetts.
While John Kerry has clearly earned "frontrunner" status, I think maybe we should all step back and take a deep breath.
For starters, Kerry has yet to break the 40% barrier, and if you combine the vote of Dean, Edwards, and Clark, you reach exactly 50%. (In the FINAL count, Dean edged up to 26%, 12% behind Kerry.)Put another way, 62 percent of John Kerry's next door neighbors refused to vote for him.
John Kerry and his ultra-liberal track-record, will not play in those seven states I listed above, like he has in Iowa and New Hampshire. North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, are in the most conservative tier of states. Arizona and New Mexico have been trending more in the Democratic direction in recent years, but they are a completely different kettle of fish than either Iowa or New Hampshire. Delaware is solidly Democratic and the most likely one to be a pushover for Kerry. Missouri will be VERY interesting, especially if Richard Gephardt decides to make an endorsement.
The biggest point in Kerry's favor is the fact that his strongest opponent till now is also a liberal from New England. Howard Dean will also be on unfriendly terrain.
Clearly this coming Tuesday is THE big chance for Edwards, Clark, and Lieberman to make a strong showing. Lieberman is being written off by just about everyone, but he still has a chance to play the spoiler.
The expectation game is also a worry for Kerry. What if in a state like Oklahoma, Kerry comes in 4th? Or 5th? How will that play in the national media if results are mixed across the other states?
If I had to bet the ranch, I'd bet on Kerry, but given the choice I wouldn't wager on this race at all.
New Hampsire in their rear view....
With John Kerry's strong showing in both Iowa and New Hampshire, we now move into the meat of the primary season. The question on everyone's mind is: Can Kerry be stopped?
I suspect the answer is NO. While Dean has money, he has lost the traction he generated early on. Michael Barone made an interesting case on Fox last night, when he traced the beginning of Dean's collapse to the incident on January 11, when he had a run in with a questioner in Iowa.
The older gentleman, who was described as a Republican, requested that Dean treat "his neighbor" George Bush, with more kindness. Dean wound up telling the man to shut up. According to Barone, the tracking polls the very next day showed Dean losing support.
Edwards also has the money to go on, but I agree with many others who have pointed out that there is something about Edwards that seems less than ready for prime time.
Clark is hopeless. Arrogant and stupid is a bad combination.
Lieberman may actually begin to finish ahead of Clark when the action shifts to the more conservative South and Midwest.
At this point I think a Kerry-Edwards ticket seems a very likely outcome.
Friday, January 23, 2004
The Great New Hampshire debate
I watched (or more accurately listened to) a fair amount of last night's debate while installing a phone jack in the island of our kitchen.
The clear winner I thought was Kerry. He was smooth and believable. He did not come off as arrogant or puffed up after his sudden change of fortune.
Lieberman did well but it is doubtful it really matters.
Edwards did well on certain questions but stumbled around on others. I did note that he took at least one opportunity to kiss up to Kerry. It is never too soon to start positioning for Veep.
Clark showed further evidence of his loony cluelessness. This guy is easily the scariest of the five "serious" candidates.
Dean did fine, but he is in deep trouble and "fine" probably won't do more than stop the bleeding. He may have held onto to second place but I don't think he will mount a serious challenge to Kerry.
I thought Kucinich and Sharpton came off even loopier than I anticipated. My opinion of Peter Jennings ticked up a notch in light of his question to Sharpton regarding the Federal Reserve. Clearly Jennings used that question to reveal the Reverend Al to be the buffoon we all knew he was.
One moment that I thought was hilarious was when a member of the panel asked Kucinich about the "No Child Left Behind Act". The questioner started asking the question and then as an aside said something like "The No Child Left Behind Act" which I think you voted for" he then kind of paused to get a response, and the camera showed Kucinich with a look like a deer caught in headlights. Kucinich barely nodded his head, agreeing that he voted for the act. However, I suspect he really was not sure. When you are involved in thousands of votes, many times voting on several different versions of the same bill, it is easy to lose track of how you voted on the final bill. But no one would want to admit on national television that they don't remember how they voted. Not even Dennis Kucinich.
I watched (or more accurately listened to) a fair amount of last night's debate while installing a phone jack in the island of our kitchen.
The clear winner I thought was Kerry. He was smooth and believable. He did not come off as arrogant or puffed up after his sudden change of fortune.
Lieberman did well but it is doubtful it really matters.
Edwards did well on certain questions but stumbled around on others. I did note that he took at least one opportunity to kiss up to Kerry. It is never too soon to start positioning for Veep.
Clark showed further evidence of his loony cluelessness. This guy is easily the scariest of the five "serious" candidates.
Dean did fine, but he is in deep trouble and "fine" probably won't do more than stop the bleeding. He may have held onto to second place but I don't think he will mount a serious challenge to Kerry.
I thought Kucinich and Sharpton came off even loopier than I anticipated. My opinion of Peter Jennings ticked up a notch in light of his question to Sharpton regarding the Federal Reserve. Clearly Jennings used that question to reveal the Reverend Al to be the buffoon we all knew he was.
One moment that I thought was hilarious was when a member of the panel asked Kucinich about the "No Child Left Behind Act". The questioner started asking the question and then as an aside said something like "The No Child Left Behind Act" which I think you voted for" he then kind of paused to get a response, and the camera showed Kucinich with a look like a deer caught in headlights. Kucinich barely nodded his head, agreeing that he voted for the act. However, I suspect he really was not sure. When you are involved in thousands of votes, many times voting on several different versions of the same bill, it is easy to lose track of how you voted on the final bill. But no one would want to admit on national television that they don't remember how they voted. Not even Dennis Kucinich.
Return to the Electoral College
It has oft been said that if George W. Bush simply wins the same states he won last time, he will increase his margin due to the impact of the 2000 Census on the Electoral College.
I have done a quick overview of the states and find that this election in my mind will again be very close. Assuming John Kerry is the Democratic Nominee, I see very few states changing hands. Below is a list of the states, their 2004 Electoral Votes, who I pick to win, and a running tabulation of each candidate's total vote.
Alabama 9 Bush 9
Alaska 3 Bush 12
Arizona 10 Bush 22
Arkansas 6 Bush 28
California 55 Kerry 55
Colorado 9 Bush 37
Connecticut 7 Kerry 62
Delaware 3 Kerry 65
District of Columbia 3 Kerry 68
Florida 27 Bush 64
Georgia 15 Bush 79
Hawaii 4 Kerry 72
Idaho 4 Bush 83
Illinois 21 Kerry 93
Indiana 11 Bush 94
Iowa 7 Bush (a switch) 101
Kansas 6 Bush 107
Kentucky 8 Bush 115
Louisiana 9 Bush 124
Maine 4 Kerry 97
Maryland 10 Kerry 107
Massachusetts 12 Kerry 119
Michigan 17 Kerry 136
Minnesota 10 Kerry 146
Mississippi 6 Bush 130
Missouri 11 Bush 141
Montana 3 Bush 144
Nebraska 5 Bush 149
Nevada 5 Kerry (a switch) 151
New Hampshire 4 Bush 153
New Jersey 15 Kerry 166
New Mexico 5 Bush (a switch) 158
New York 31 Kerry 197
North Carolina 15 Bush 173
North Dakota 3 Bush 176
Ohio 20 Bush 196
Oklahoma 7 Bush 203
Oregon 7 Kerry 204
Pennsylvania 21 Kerry 225
Rhode Island 4 Kerry 229
South Carolina 8 Bush 211
South Dakota 3 Bush 214
Tennessee 11 Bush 225
Texas 34 Bush 259
Utah 5 Bush 264
Vermont 3 Kerry 232
Virginia 13 Bush 277*****
Washington 11 Kerry 243
West Virginia 5 Bush 282
Wisconsin 10 Kerry 253
Wyoming 3 Bush 285
Bush 285
Kerry 253
You can see that I have only three states switching from their 2000 result. Nevada moves to the Democratic side and New Mexico and Iowa go for Bush. If we take New Mexico and Iowa away from Bush and give them back to Kerry it makes the vote:
Bush 273
Kerry 265
Under that scenario imagine that New Hampshire, which went for Bush by only 7000 votes (Bush got 48% to Gore's 47%), switched its 4 votes to Kerry. That would bring about this result:
Bush 269
Kerry 269
I suggest we all fasten our chin-straps, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
It has oft been said that if George W. Bush simply wins the same states he won last time, he will increase his margin due to the impact of the 2000 Census on the Electoral College.
I have done a quick overview of the states and find that this election in my mind will again be very close. Assuming John Kerry is the Democratic Nominee, I see very few states changing hands. Below is a list of the states, their 2004 Electoral Votes, who I pick to win, and a running tabulation of each candidate's total vote.
Alabama 9 Bush 9
Alaska 3 Bush 12
Arizona 10 Bush 22
Arkansas 6 Bush 28
California 55 Kerry 55
Colorado 9 Bush 37
Connecticut 7 Kerry 62
Delaware 3 Kerry 65
District of Columbia 3 Kerry 68
Florida 27 Bush 64
Georgia 15 Bush 79
Hawaii 4 Kerry 72
Idaho 4 Bush 83
Illinois 21 Kerry 93
Indiana 11 Bush 94
Iowa 7 Bush (a switch) 101
Kansas 6 Bush 107
Kentucky 8 Bush 115
Louisiana 9 Bush 124
Maine 4 Kerry 97
Maryland 10 Kerry 107
Massachusetts 12 Kerry 119
Michigan 17 Kerry 136
Minnesota 10 Kerry 146
Mississippi 6 Bush 130
Missouri 11 Bush 141
Montana 3 Bush 144
Nebraska 5 Bush 149
Nevada 5 Kerry (a switch) 151
New Hampshire 4 Bush 153
New Jersey 15 Kerry 166
New Mexico 5 Bush (a switch) 158
New York 31 Kerry 197
North Carolina 15 Bush 173
North Dakota 3 Bush 176
Ohio 20 Bush 196
Oklahoma 7 Bush 203
Oregon 7 Kerry 204
Pennsylvania 21 Kerry 225
Rhode Island 4 Kerry 229
South Carolina 8 Bush 211
South Dakota 3 Bush 214
Tennessee 11 Bush 225
Texas 34 Bush 259
Utah 5 Bush 264
Vermont 3 Kerry 232
Virginia 13 Bush 277*****
Washington 11 Kerry 243
West Virginia 5 Bush 282
Wisconsin 10 Kerry 253
Wyoming 3 Bush 285
Bush 285
Kerry 253
You can see that I have only three states switching from their 2000 result. Nevada moves to the Democratic side and New Mexico and Iowa go for Bush. If we take New Mexico and Iowa away from Bush and give them back to Kerry it makes the vote:
Bush 273
Kerry 265
Under that scenario imagine that New Hampshire, which went for Bush by only 7000 votes (Bush got 48% to Gore's 47%), switched its 4 votes to Kerry. That would bring about this result:
Bush 269
Kerry 269
I suggest we all fasten our chin-straps, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Thursday, January 22, 2004
The issue that dare not speak it's name.
Of the many special interest groups who exist today on the U.S. political stage, homosexuals are one of the most unusual.
How a person feels about homosexuals is a product of upbringing and personal belief. The coalitions in favor of and opposed to, according homosexuals full rights in American Law, are both made up of unusually diverse groups.
The time draws near when the Republican Party will need to come out of the closet and take a stand one way or the other. For many years, the unofficial position of the GOP has been one that is against homosexual rights, while at the same time carefully avoiding making that a major issue in any campaigns.
The reasons for this are obvious. Most importantly, many swing voters are of the belief that what two adults do is their, and their alone, business. Also, there are homosexual conservatives, and naturally the GOP has desired holding on to their votes and money.
The homosexuals however are getting restless. The time is near when there will be a major push to legalize marriage between two men and between two women. When that moment comes, there can be no fence straddling by the Republicans. The decision made at that point will define the future of American politics for many years.
If the GOP comes out against homosexual marriage, they will lose virtually every homosexual vote from that point forward. Additionally, they will lose a good size chunk of cultural liberals/fiscal conservatives who will be uncomfortable supporting an anti-homosexual Republican Party.
If the GOP instead takes a stand in favor of homosexual marriage, the party will lose massive amounts of support from Bible believing Christians, and many other cultural conservatives. Additionally, they will fail to pick up support from traditionally Democratic, but culturally conservative groups, who might move toward the Republicans if homosexual marriage becomes an issue that defines the differences between the two major parties.
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual and sometimes conservative, illustrates the impatience that ever more characterizes the homosexual lobby. On his blog he writes:
".....the president wants the credit of being tolerant without talking the real talk, let alone walking the real walk. If gay people have dignity and value in God's sight, why are we unmentionable? Why are we talked about as if we are some kind of untouchable? Why in three years has this president not even been able to say the word 'gay' or 'homosexual'? The reason: because Bush will not confront bigotry outright. He wants to benefit from it while finding a formula to distance himself from it. That's not a moral stand. It's moral avoidance."
Sullivan is correct that President Bush is still attempting to finesse the issue. No surprise there, since politicians of all stripes finesse as many issues as possible. But Sullivan points out a very important fact. President Bush has to date failed to take an up or down position on homosexual marriage, and he likely will be able to continue with that non-position through the 2004 election.
In future national elections however, it becomes increasingly likely that the Republican Party will be forced to take a stand. Just as it did on abortion a quarter century ago. Just as it did on slavery a century and a half ago.
Moral issues don't go away. Moral issues can't be ignored forever. Moral issues eventually demand that both major parties take an official stand.
The decision made by the Republicans on homosexual marriage will be the most defining position taken by the Party since it became the defender of the unborn in the late 70's and early 80's.
Of the many special interest groups who exist today on the U.S. political stage, homosexuals are one of the most unusual.
How a person feels about homosexuals is a product of upbringing and personal belief. The coalitions in favor of and opposed to, according homosexuals full rights in American Law, are both made up of unusually diverse groups.
The time draws near when the Republican Party will need to come out of the closet and take a stand one way or the other. For many years, the unofficial position of the GOP has been one that is against homosexual rights, while at the same time carefully avoiding making that a major issue in any campaigns.
The reasons for this are obvious. Most importantly, many swing voters are of the belief that what two adults do is their, and their alone, business. Also, there are homosexual conservatives, and naturally the GOP has desired holding on to their votes and money.
The homosexuals however are getting restless. The time is near when there will be a major push to legalize marriage between two men and between two women. When that moment comes, there can be no fence straddling by the Republicans. The decision made at that point will define the future of American politics for many years.
If the GOP comes out against homosexual marriage, they will lose virtually every homosexual vote from that point forward. Additionally, they will lose a good size chunk of cultural liberals/fiscal conservatives who will be uncomfortable supporting an anti-homosexual Republican Party.
If the GOP instead takes a stand in favor of homosexual marriage, the party will lose massive amounts of support from Bible believing Christians, and many other cultural conservatives. Additionally, they will fail to pick up support from traditionally Democratic, but culturally conservative groups, who might move toward the Republicans if homosexual marriage becomes an issue that defines the differences between the two major parties.
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual and sometimes conservative, illustrates the impatience that ever more characterizes the homosexual lobby. On his blog he writes:
".....the president wants the credit of being tolerant without talking the real talk, let alone walking the real walk. If gay people have dignity and value in God's sight, why are we unmentionable? Why are we talked about as if we are some kind of untouchable? Why in three years has this president not even been able to say the word 'gay' or 'homosexual'? The reason: because Bush will not confront bigotry outright. He wants to benefit from it while finding a formula to distance himself from it. That's not a moral stand. It's moral avoidance."
Sullivan is correct that President Bush is still attempting to finesse the issue. No surprise there, since politicians of all stripes finesse as many issues as possible. But Sullivan points out a very important fact. President Bush has to date failed to take an up or down position on homosexual marriage, and he likely will be able to continue with that non-position through the 2004 election.
In future national elections however, it becomes increasingly likely that the Republican Party will be forced to take a stand. Just as it did on abortion a quarter century ago. Just as it did on slavery a century and a half ago.
Moral issues don't go away. Moral issues can't be ignored forever. Moral issues eventually demand that both major parties take an official stand.
The decision made by the Republicans on homosexual marriage will be the most defining position taken by the Party since it became the defender of the unborn in the late 70's and early 80's.
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
Looking back at Iowa
I have spent the past 40 hours cogitating on the result in Iowa. I was thoroughly flabbergasted over the last week as Kerry and Edwards surged from the basement to the penthouse.
I still am not sure that anyone really has explained what happened. Many pundits point to this or that and proclaim the answer found. I think they are all right and all wrong.
Let us consider the fact that of the four serious candidates in Iowa, two moved up and two moved down. Had it simply been a case of John Kerry catching fire (something that is hard to imagine) then one might think that this was nothing more than outstanding political operations on his part. But Edwards too? And how to explain the tandem free-fall of Dean and Gephardt?
The major factors that I think brought about the current alignment are as follows:
1. Dean began imploding in December, with his idiotic statements on various international issues.
2. The capture of Saddam Hussein hastened the process as Dean began to look loony even by liberal standards.
3. Gephardt paid dearly for his unstinting (for a Democrat) support of the Iraq War.
4. Old-line union support ain't what it used to be.
5. Kerry and Edwards were the comfortable middle ground left between the old hat, boring, pro-war Gephardt and the manic, angry, anti-war Dean.
Americans are moderate when gauged against worldwide standards of conduct, even our loony left. In the end the Iowa voters opted for what they saw as the calmer, nicer, liberal but not nutty, against the war but not totally, choices.
Then, Howard Dean proved that they were right about him. He proceeded to go nuts and act like a mad dog. Caucus night he bounced out on stage, whacked Sen. Tom Harkin a violent high-five, handed Harkin his coat, yanked the microphone from him, and went into an enraged tantrum of weird behavior before the nation's eyes.
Dean is finished. At this point a Kerry-Edwards ticket seems likely. Stay tuned.
I have spent the past 40 hours cogitating on the result in Iowa. I was thoroughly flabbergasted over the last week as Kerry and Edwards surged from the basement to the penthouse.
I still am not sure that anyone really has explained what happened. Many pundits point to this or that and proclaim the answer found. I think they are all right and all wrong.
Let us consider the fact that of the four serious candidates in Iowa, two moved up and two moved down. Had it simply been a case of John Kerry catching fire (something that is hard to imagine) then one might think that this was nothing more than outstanding political operations on his part. But Edwards too? And how to explain the tandem free-fall of Dean and Gephardt?
The major factors that I think brought about the current alignment are as follows:
1. Dean began imploding in December, with his idiotic statements on various international issues.
2. The capture of Saddam Hussein hastened the process as Dean began to look loony even by liberal standards.
3. Gephardt paid dearly for his unstinting (for a Democrat) support of the Iraq War.
4. Old-line union support ain't what it used to be.
5. Kerry and Edwards were the comfortable middle ground left between the old hat, boring, pro-war Gephardt and the manic, angry, anti-war Dean.
Americans are moderate when gauged against worldwide standards of conduct, even our loony left. In the end the Iowa voters opted for what they saw as the calmer, nicer, liberal but not nutty, against the war but not totally, choices.
Then, Howard Dean proved that they were right about him. He proceeded to go nuts and act like a mad dog. Caucus night he bounced out on stage, whacked Sen. Tom Harkin a violent high-five, handed Harkin his coat, yanked the microphone from him, and went into an enraged tantrum of weird behavior before the nation's eyes.
Dean is finished. At this point a Kerry-Edwards ticket seems likely. Stay tuned.
Friday, January 16, 2004
This commentary induced by the recent PBS series on the Civil War, is the first really disappointing piece I have read on Powerline.
It is bellicose in tone and ignorant in content. I won't bother to refute Deacon's comments point by point but I will use a couple for illustration. He mentions a certain "Marshall Twitchell, a union officer who installed himself in upper Louisiana after the Civil War, became a wealthy planter, saw most of his family killed by a white gang, and lost both arms in an assassination attempt before escaping to the North. PBS found the great-great grandson of the leader of the gang that drove Twitchell out. This guy couldn't suppress his pride in his ancestor or his glee in Twitchell's fate. I couldn't help wondering whether there was any way to prosecute this yahoo for his great-great grandaddie's crimes."
Whoa! This type of namecalling and anger toward "this yahoo" is more in line with how liberals view the world than the conservatives on Powerline. What Deacon casually ignores is: How did a union officer "install himself"? Was it legal? Or was Twitchell just another crook using the cover of war to enrich himself? That he "installed himself" AND became a "wealthy planter" suggests that Mr. Twitchell was no saint. Perhaps he richly deserved what the yahoo's ancestor dished out.
Deacon's treatment of Andrew Johnson is also execrable, referring to him as "the racist egomaniac Andrew Johnson". While Johnson will never rate high on anyone's list of great presidents, he in fact carried out much of Lincoln's plan for the South. To make anything out of the fact that he was "racist" is absurd. Virtually every white person on Earth was racist in that time. Abe Lincoln himself was racist. When judging the people of the 1860's, one can not superimpose modern day feelings about race. In the time he lived, Johnson was a moderate who sided with the Union in spite of being a border state Democrat.
Finally, Deacon exhibits a pollyanna mentality when viewing the "white Northerners" of the Civil War period. Read any good book on the presidency of Lincoln, and you will find that "white Northerners" darn near drove him over the edge. Nothing Lincoln did made more than about 30% of the "white Northerners" happy at any one time. You had the abolitionists who demanded that Lincoln free the slaves NOW!, regardless of how many border states that action might deliver to the Confederacy. You had the other extreme, who demanded he NOT free the slaves because they believed the North would be flooded with Negroes (although that is not the "n" word they typically used). And there was a middle ground that disliked slavery, and wanted it contained to the South, but were unwilling to accept blacks as anything approaching equal.
The Civil War was brought about by stupidity and greed. On both sides. The vision of Lincoln was to preserve the Union, heal the wounds and get back to "normal" as soon as possible. Lincoln understood that it was slavery and the South's leaders who were rotten, not the common people. Cut off the corrupt head and the average people could be brought back into the fold.
What liberals (and seemingly Deacon) want, is to forever re-fight the war. Continue to punish the South and rub its defeated nose in the dirt. Pretend that the North was all sweetness and light, and the South was all venal and greedy.
Perhaps the most puzzling thing is why Deacon would swallow PBS's version of any serious subject matter in the first place.
It is bellicose in tone and ignorant in content. I won't bother to refute Deacon's comments point by point but I will use a couple for illustration. He mentions a certain "Marshall Twitchell, a union officer who installed himself in upper Louisiana after the Civil War, became a wealthy planter, saw most of his family killed by a white gang, and lost both arms in an assassination attempt before escaping to the North. PBS found the great-great grandson of the leader of the gang that drove Twitchell out. This guy couldn't suppress his pride in his ancestor or his glee in Twitchell's fate. I couldn't help wondering whether there was any way to prosecute this yahoo for his great-great grandaddie's crimes."
Whoa! This type of namecalling and anger toward "this yahoo" is more in line with how liberals view the world than the conservatives on Powerline. What Deacon casually ignores is: How did a union officer "install himself"? Was it legal? Or was Twitchell just another crook using the cover of war to enrich himself? That he "installed himself" AND became a "wealthy planter" suggests that Mr. Twitchell was no saint. Perhaps he richly deserved what the yahoo's ancestor dished out.
Deacon's treatment of Andrew Johnson is also execrable, referring to him as "the racist egomaniac Andrew Johnson". While Johnson will never rate high on anyone's list of great presidents, he in fact carried out much of Lincoln's plan for the South. To make anything out of the fact that he was "racist" is absurd. Virtually every white person on Earth was racist in that time. Abe Lincoln himself was racist. When judging the people of the 1860's, one can not superimpose modern day feelings about race. In the time he lived, Johnson was a moderate who sided with the Union in spite of being a border state Democrat.
Finally, Deacon exhibits a pollyanna mentality when viewing the "white Northerners" of the Civil War period. Read any good book on the presidency of Lincoln, and you will find that "white Northerners" darn near drove him over the edge. Nothing Lincoln did made more than about 30% of the "white Northerners" happy at any one time. You had the abolitionists who demanded that Lincoln free the slaves NOW!, regardless of how many border states that action might deliver to the Confederacy. You had the other extreme, who demanded he NOT free the slaves because they believed the North would be flooded with Negroes (although that is not the "n" word they typically used). And there was a middle ground that disliked slavery, and wanted it contained to the South, but were unwilling to accept blacks as anything approaching equal.
The Civil War was brought about by stupidity and greed. On both sides. The vision of Lincoln was to preserve the Union, heal the wounds and get back to "normal" as soon as possible. Lincoln understood that it was slavery and the South's leaders who were rotten, not the common people. Cut off the corrupt head and the average people could be brought back into the fold.
What liberals (and seemingly Deacon) want, is to forever re-fight the war. Continue to punish the South and rub its defeated nose in the dirt. Pretend that the North was all sweetness and light, and the South was all venal and greedy.
Perhaps the most puzzling thing is why Deacon would swallow PBS's version of any serious subject matter in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)