Erick Erickson = Meathead
If there is a more misused conservative site on the web than Redstate I don't what it is. Its "editor" is a goofball named Erick Erickson who is famous for calling out people he disagrees with and then having to eat his words later.
He has a post up today that is a tremendous waste of time to read so I'd suggest you not bother, but in case you are curious here it is.
In this piece, that he indicates he has spent much time on, Erickson frets about nouns and adjectives. No, really! For instance:
"Let’s review our grammar for one moment. A noun is a word that defines what an object is, i.e. a dog. An adjective is a word that describes one attribute of the noun, i.e. the dog is brown. The noun is the dog because that defines the object in question and the adjective is the color of the dog, describing one attribute of the dog.
Christians, for example, typically say “I am a Christian” as opposed to saying “I am Christian.” The former sets the Christian into a defined group that believes in Jesus Christ. The latter describes one attribute of the person. Because Christianity typically defines who the person is, it is typically used as a noun, not an adjective.
I, for example, am a Christian before I am anything else. If you want an adjective describing me the Christian, I’d say I am Presbyterian.
I hope you are following me, because there are rough waters ahead."
Well...not really. Erickson's BIG POINT is that many Republicans are Adjective Conservatives instead of Noun Conservatives. (And we wonder why conservatives (no matter your grammarian niche) are easy to make fun of?).
You see, a Noun Conservative is like, well, CONSERVATIVE!!!!!! While an Adjective Conservative is sort of......just conservative.
Erickson thrashes around for over one thousand words (!) making the excruciatingly stupid non point that Noun Conservatives put being Conservative first, while Adjective Conservatives put being a good Republican first. Erickson whines:
"Conservatives fight for freedom. Republicans fight for Republicanism, but I have no freaking clue what that actually means any more."
Well let me give you a "freaking" clue Erick:
Republicans by and large fight for Conservative Values. They come in many different levels and flavors, but primarily they are conservative. There are a few moderates, and maybe a stray liberal or two in the north-east , whose parents were Dewey Republicans, but the overwhelming numbers of Republican elected officials are conservative.
So Erick, when a Republican fights for Republicanism, he is fighting for Conservatism. Its a classic Chicken and Egg riddle. Republicans fight for conservatism so it makes sense for conservatives to fight for the Republican party.
Where we stop holding to party loyalty out of a sense of conservative principle is a difficult decision. Each conservative must make that decision for them self. It has nothing to do with adjectives and nouns and only a jerk like Erick Erickson would come up with such a stupid and ill-considered "test".
Saturday, June 13, 2009
David Letterman's Shame
This story pains me because 30 years or so ago David Letterman was a fresh young comedian who I and other guys my age gravitated toward. He was edgy, off-beat, and most importantly, funny.
He was not a Carson-clone by any stretch but he was like Carson in one vital respect: He was A-Political. He made fun of conservatives and liberals alike and his overall demeanor and commentary gave no (or at least very little) clue to his personal ideological leanings.
When Johnny Carson left the Tonight Show in 1992 I was a firm Letterman supporter who thought he should have been the next host. Jay Leno was and is a comedian who has limited interview ability. For all of his hilarity Johnny Carson could be an incisive interviewer and Letterman owns some of those same skills.
As the years ran into decades Letterman, bitter at having lost out to Leno, seemed to become increasingly angry in his attempts at humor until what had been funny in a smart-mouth nephew sort of way started feeling mean and hostile like a cranky uncle who you suspect might occasionally smack your aunt around.
Throughout the presidency of George W. Bush, Letterman steadily moved left-ward in his commentary until finally turning his show into a late night hate fest of all things Republican. Now he has gone totally berserk by making sick jokes at the expense of a 14 year-old girl.
Ask yourself a simple question: Would Letterman have made that joke about the young daughter of any person in the world other than Sarah Palin?
This is a sick little episode that demonstrates how far the political left in this country has degraded our public discourse. People of good intention can either speak out and condemn these perverted antics or stand silent and watch as our society moves farther along the way to anything goes chaos.
This story pains me because 30 years or so ago David Letterman was a fresh young comedian who I and other guys my age gravitated toward. He was edgy, off-beat, and most importantly, funny.
He was not a Carson-clone by any stretch but he was like Carson in one vital respect: He was A-Political. He made fun of conservatives and liberals alike and his overall demeanor and commentary gave no (or at least very little) clue to his personal ideological leanings.
When Johnny Carson left the Tonight Show in 1992 I was a firm Letterman supporter who thought he should have been the next host. Jay Leno was and is a comedian who has limited interview ability. For all of his hilarity Johnny Carson could be an incisive interviewer and Letterman owns some of those same skills.
As the years ran into decades Letterman, bitter at having lost out to Leno, seemed to become increasingly angry in his attempts at humor until what had been funny in a smart-mouth nephew sort of way started feeling mean and hostile like a cranky uncle who you suspect might occasionally smack your aunt around.
Throughout the presidency of George W. Bush, Letterman steadily moved left-ward in his commentary until finally turning his show into a late night hate fest of all things Republican. Now he has gone totally berserk by making sick jokes at the expense of a 14 year-old girl.
Ask yourself a simple question: Would Letterman have made that joke about the young daughter of any person in the world other than Sarah Palin?
This is a sick little episode that demonstrates how far the political left in this country has degraded our public discourse. People of good intention can either speak out and condemn these perverted antics or stand silent and watch as our society moves farther along the way to anything goes chaos.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
More Lies & Deception From Barack Obama
There is a great post on Powerline today totally undressing The One. In part it reads:
"If you look at the flooding that's going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, 'If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?'" the president told the reporters. "That indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously."
Obama began by saying that "the science around climate change is real; it is potentially devastating."
Obama to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no reason to think that the flooding has anyhing to do with global warming. The Red River is unfortunately prone to Spring flooding. It is a regularly recurring phenomenon. As Wikipedia explains:
The Red River in Manitoba and the U.S. States of Minnesota and North Dakota has flooded repeatedly through the centuries, endangering lives and property. The river is highly prone to flooding because of its northward flow. As spring approaches, the snow is melted from south to north alongside the riverflow. There is also the possibility that the surplus water can hit unmelted ice on the river and back up. The flatness of the terrain and small slope of the river is a significant factor.
To the extent that Obama's comments mean anything, they represent what he has elsewhere termed the triumph of ideology over science, or another crisis presenting an opportunity that should not be wasted."
Well stated.
There is a great post on Powerline today totally undressing The One. In part it reads:
"If you look at the flooding that's going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, 'If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?'" the president told the reporters. "That indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously."
Obama began by saying that "the science around climate change is real; it is potentially devastating."
Obama to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no reason to think that the flooding has anyhing to do with global warming. The Red River is unfortunately prone to Spring flooding. It is a regularly recurring phenomenon. As Wikipedia explains:
The Red River in Manitoba and the U.S. States of Minnesota and North Dakota has flooded repeatedly through the centuries, endangering lives and property. The river is highly prone to flooding because of its northward flow. As spring approaches, the snow is melted from south to north alongside the riverflow. There is also the possibility that the surplus water can hit unmelted ice on the river and back up. The flatness of the terrain and small slope of the river is a significant factor.
To the extent that Obama's comments mean anything, they represent what he has elsewhere termed the triumph of ideology over science, or another crisis presenting an opportunity that should not be wasted."
Well stated.
Monday, March 23, 2009
What's Missing?
Read the AP story reproduced in full below as it appeared on Yahoo and then see if you can spot what very important tidbit of information is missing:
NY state senator indicted, accused of assault
By COLLEEN LONG, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK – A freshman state senator sworn in to office despite allegations he slashed his girlfriend's face with broken glass in a jealous rage has been indicted on domestic assault charges, prosecutors said Monday.
A grand jury in Queens indicted Hiram Monserrate on three counts of second-degree felony assault and three counts of third-degree misdemeanor assault. Arraignment is expected later this week. He faces seven years in prison if convicted on the most serious charges.
The 41-year-old former police officer was arrested after Karla Giraldo's face was slashed Dec. 19 at his New York City home. The gash over her eye required 25 stitches. Both said it was an accident.
Monserrate, who was in Albany on Monday for a legislative session, issued a statement saying he did not commit a crime.
"I've said all along this was accident. Karla has said all along this was accident. The district attorney's politically motivated decision to pursue this case doesn't change the fact that this was an accident," he said.
Monserrate told police he tripped while holding a glass of water and that the glass accidentally hit Giraldo.
But authorities say evidence, including surveillance videos, painted a picture of a heated argument and a frightened, bleeding woman in distress.
According to the police report, Giraldo, 29, initially said she was assaulted, then changed her account after learning officers planned to arrest Monserrate. She later told police she did not wish to press charges.
#
Read the AP story reproduced in full below as it appeared on Yahoo and then see if you can spot what very important tidbit of information is missing:
NY state senator indicted, accused of assault
By COLLEEN LONG, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK – A freshman state senator sworn in to office despite allegations he slashed his girlfriend's face with broken glass in a jealous rage has been indicted on domestic assault charges, prosecutors said Monday.
A grand jury in Queens indicted Hiram Monserrate on three counts of second-degree felony assault and three counts of third-degree misdemeanor assault. Arraignment is expected later this week. He faces seven years in prison if convicted on the most serious charges.
The 41-year-old former police officer was arrested after Karla Giraldo's face was slashed Dec. 19 at his New York City home. The gash over her eye required 25 stitches. Both said it was an accident.
Monserrate, who was in Albany on Monday for a legislative session, issued a statement saying he did not commit a crime.
"I've said all along this was accident. Karla has said all along this was accident. The district attorney's politically motivated decision to pursue this case doesn't change the fact that this was an accident," he said.
Monserrate told police he tripped while holding a glass of water and that the glass accidentally hit Giraldo.
But authorities say evidence, including surveillance videos, painted a picture of a heated argument and a frightened, bleeding woman in distress.
According to the police report, Giraldo, 29, initially said she was assaulted, then changed her account after learning officers planned to arrest Monserrate. She later told police she did not wish to press charges.
#
Thursday, November 13, 2008
No Great Loss Without Some Small Gain
I love that old saying because it is very true. It especially is true when applied to politics. In the ashes of defeat are sown the seeds of victory. When you lose as a party or ideology it is so tough to get back on your feet and continue the battle. For me personally, the lag between the election of a Democrat president and when they take office is the worst. November 4 to January 20 seems like an eternity right now. I want Obama to be inaugurated so we can start counting down the days.
But back to the saying, Karl Rove has a piece in today's Wall Street Journal that all Republicans should read and learn well. He looks forward to 2010 and even handedly views the prospects of the party. He makes a clear case that the GOP can recover and reassert itself but only if it takes the job seriously and makes good decisions going forward.
"In a sign Mr. Obama's victory may have been more personal than partisan or philosophical, Democrats picked up just 10 state senate seats (out of 1,971) and 94 state house seats (out of 5,411). By comparison, when Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980, Republicans picked up 112 state senate seats (out of 1,981) and 190 state house seats (out of 5,501).
In the states this year, five chambers shifted from Republican to Democrats, while four shifted from either tied or Democratic control to Republican control. In the South, Mr. Obama had "reverse coattails." Republicans gained legislative seats across the region. In Tennessee both the house and senate now have GOP majorities for the first time since the Civil War."
Somehow the fact that the GOP held its own at the state level and for instance had bright spots such as Tennessee seems to have been missed by the old media. Rove then has more good news:
"The 2010 Census could allocate as many as four additional congressional districts to Texas, two each to Arizona and Florida, and one district to each of a number of (mostly) red-leaning states, while subtracting seats from (mostly) blue-leaning states like Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania and, for the first time, California. Redistricting and reapportionment could help tilt the playing field back to the GOP in Congress and the race for the White House by moving seven House seats (and electoral votes) from mostly blue to mostly red states."
So Republicans keep your collective chins up. Things WILL get better.
I love that old saying because it is very true. It especially is true when applied to politics. In the ashes of defeat are sown the seeds of victory. When you lose as a party or ideology it is so tough to get back on your feet and continue the battle. For me personally, the lag between the election of a Democrat president and when they take office is the worst. November 4 to January 20 seems like an eternity right now. I want Obama to be inaugurated so we can start counting down the days.
But back to the saying, Karl Rove has a piece in today's Wall Street Journal that all Republicans should read and learn well. He looks forward to 2010 and even handedly views the prospects of the party. He makes a clear case that the GOP can recover and reassert itself but only if it takes the job seriously and makes good decisions going forward.
"In a sign Mr. Obama's victory may have been more personal than partisan or philosophical, Democrats picked up just 10 state senate seats (out of 1,971) and 94 state house seats (out of 5,411). By comparison, when Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980, Republicans picked up 112 state senate seats (out of 1,981) and 190 state house seats (out of 5,501).
In the states this year, five chambers shifted from Republican to Democrats, while four shifted from either tied or Democratic control to Republican control. In the South, Mr. Obama had "reverse coattails." Republicans gained legislative seats across the region. In Tennessee both the house and senate now have GOP majorities for the first time since the Civil War."
Somehow the fact that the GOP held its own at the state level and for instance had bright spots such as Tennessee seems to have been missed by the old media. Rove then has more good news:
"The 2010 Census could allocate as many as four additional congressional districts to Texas, two each to Arizona and Florida, and one district to each of a number of (mostly) red-leaning states, while subtracting seats from (mostly) blue-leaning states like Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania and, for the first time, California. Redistricting and reapportionment could help tilt the playing field back to the GOP in Congress and the race for the White House by moving seven House seats (and electoral votes) from mostly blue to mostly red states."
So Republicans keep your collective chins up. Things WILL get better.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Not All Left-Wingers Are Nuts
There is a simply outstanding article today in Salon by Camille Paglia. It is about two weeks late but still makes for very interesting reading.
It seems rather obvious to me that Paglia intentionally waited till now so that there would be no chance of any problem for Barack Obama resulting from her piece.
Paglia is a leftist of unquestioned credentials and policy positions but she is very unusual in that she also sees events and people as they are not through some rose colored fog of what she wants them to be.
The most remarkable statements involve William Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, and Barack Obama's birth certificate.
Paglia also continues to defend Sarah Palin and insists that Palin is intelligent and highly capable.
You really need to click the link above and read the whole thing.
There is a simply outstanding article today in Salon by Camille Paglia. It is about two weeks late but still makes for very interesting reading.
It seems rather obvious to me that Paglia intentionally waited till now so that there would be no chance of any problem for Barack Obama resulting from her piece.
Paglia is a leftist of unquestioned credentials and policy positions but she is very unusual in that she also sees events and people as they are not through some rose colored fog of what she wants them to be.
The most remarkable statements involve William Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, and Barack Obama's birth certificate.
Paglia also continues to defend Sarah Palin and insists that Palin is intelligent and highly capable.
You really need to click the link above and read the whole thing.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
RedState Has Become A Joke
I mentioned a few weeks ago that I was less than thrilled with a certain well known website. As promised I held my fire until the election was past. Now its past. It is time now for straight talk no matter who it offends.
redstate.com is a joke. A bad joke. Almost nothing about it is useful or professional. A site as poorly ran and edited as redstate.com is a liability to conservatives and Republicans. I don't plan to spend much time on this so let's cut to the facts.
1. The "managing editor" of the site posted on the "front page" that Republican Congressman Tom Cole "is a douchebag". Within hours he had to retract his comments because in fact the terrible sin that he had accused Cole of was bogus. Several things wrong with this: Bitterly attacking a conservative Republican without checking his facts. Using gutter language at all and especially toward an ally. No professionalism and no class.
2. Just days ago "the editors" came out and endorsed two Democrats running for congress from Alaska against Don Young and Ted Stevens. Why did Ethan Berkowitz and Mark Begich rate an endorsement from redstate.com? Because "the editors" are idiots. It apparently never occurred to "the editors" that if Begich were elected he would serve 6 years, but if Stevens were elected he'd serve maybe 6 months. Stevens is a convicted felon and the Democrats are going to hound him all over hell's half acre until he "retires". Gee....I wonder who might end up taking his place?
3. During the financial institution meltdown when the old media was all atwitter about the economic crisis, redstate.com headlined the same story. Day after day we had to read about how awful everything was and how uncertain the future was/is. The is analogous to a liberal blog constantly drawing attention to William Ayers or Americans born in Kenya. It was just absurd.
RedState stepped up several years ago and was a force for good. Now it is pathetic and not much use to anyone.
I mentioned a few weeks ago that I was less than thrilled with a certain well known website. As promised I held my fire until the election was past. Now its past. It is time now for straight talk no matter who it offends.
redstate.com is a joke. A bad joke. Almost nothing about it is useful or professional. A site as poorly ran and edited as redstate.com is a liability to conservatives and Republicans. I don't plan to spend much time on this so let's cut to the facts.
1. The "managing editor" of the site posted on the "front page" that Republican Congressman Tom Cole "is a douchebag". Within hours he had to retract his comments because in fact the terrible sin that he had accused Cole of was bogus. Several things wrong with this: Bitterly attacking a conservative Republican without checking his facts. Using gutter language at all and especially toward an ally. No professionalism and no class.
2. Just days ago "the editors" came out and endorsed two Democrats running for congress from Alaska against Don Young and Ted Stevens. Why did Ethan Berkowitz and Mark Begich rate an endorsement from redstate.com? Because "the editors" are idiots. It apparently never occurred to "the editors" that if Begich were elected he would serve 6 years, but if Stevens were elected he'd serve maybe 6 months. Stevens is a convicted felon and the Democrats are going to hound him all over hell's half acre until he "retires". Gee....I wonder who might end up taking his place?
3. During the financial institution meltdown when the old media was all atwitter about the economic crisis, redstate.com headlined the same story. Day after day we had to read about how awful everything was and how uncertain the future was/is. The is analogous to a liberal blog constantly drawing attention to William Ayers or Americans born in Kenya. It was just absurd.
RedState stepped up several years ago and was a force for good. Now it is pathetic and not much use to anyone.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Deja Vu
Just about exactly two years ago I held forth on why the Democrats were successful in THAT election. In a three part piece I laid out a hypothesis on how the American voting public is segmented. I identified 7 groups of voters:
A. Republicans
B. Republican Leaning Independents
C. Right of Center Independents
D. Independents
E. Left of Center Independents
F. Democrat Leaning Independents
G. Democrats
I then explained how I think those 7 groups act in various election conditions:
"A & G stick with their party through thick and thin and each group constitutes about 35% of all voters. These two segments also tend to vote in fairly high and consistent numbers. They are true believers and take ever opportunity to vote their beliefs.
Segments B & F don't consider themselves as members of either party but effectively they function as such. They also tend to be regular voters but tend to vote in higher number when their side seems to be on the upswing. They only vote for the other side in extreme cases such as McGovern or Goldwater. I assign them each roughly 5% of the voting public.
Segments C & E are much different animals. Their natural tendencies are toward the Right or Left but they are not wedded to partisan ideals to enough of an extent that it outweighs other considerations. Issues such as a war going badly, corruption, or incompetence can cause these two segments to swing over and vote for the "other" party.Segments C & E tend to vote much heavier when their side is doing well. They get discouraged easily and just throw in the towel and don't bother voting. Dukakis largely lost the E's. Bush 41 lost the C's in 1992. Kerry lost the E's. Gore and Bush probably came out about even. Perot got a bunch of both of them in 1992, not nearly as many in 1996. These two segments each represent about 5% of all voters.
Our last segment is D and these are the true independents. Accounting for about 10% of the voting population they generally have no use for either party. They are largely upper middle class and above in income and education. They are not interested in "family values" as such. Economics, social justice, the environment, and libertarian principles tend to drive various sub-groups of this segment.This segment is highly volatile and swings heavily from one election cycle to the next. They vote sporadically depending on how bummed out they are by things in general. Various sub-groups of this Segment loved Ross Perot and/or Ralph Nader. The last president they really got behind was Reagan although Clinton did fairly well with them. "Doing well" with independents entails not just winning their favor but actually energizing them enough to come out and vote."
Obviously in 2008 again the two edge groups A&G voted for their party. as we move toward the middle (of my grouping not necessarily the political spectrum) the B-C & E-F groups also went their normal way. Thus even in a terrible year for Republicans, John McCain and Sarah Palin got 46% of the vote.
Where I suspect McCain lost the election was in the very middle, the D group. Barack Obama excited this segment like no candidate has. Ever. The good news for Republicans is that if (when?) Barack Obama makes a few stumbles this will be the first group to desert him. The bad news for Republicans is that Barack Obama just won a 4 year term as President of the United States.
Just about exactly two years ago I held forth on why the Democrats were successful in THAT election. In a three part piece I laid out a hypothesis on how the American voting public is segmented. I identified 7 groups of voters:
A. Republicans
B. Republican Leaning Independents
C. Right of Center Independents
D. Independents
E. Left of Center Independents
F. Democrat Leaning Independents
G. Democrats
I then explained how I think those 7 groups act in various election conditions:
"A & G stick with their party through thick and thin and each group constitutes about 35% of all voters. These two segments also tend to vote in fairly high and consistent numbers. They are true believers and take ever opportunity to vote their beliefs.
Segments B & F don't consider themselves as members of either party but effectively they function as such. They also tend to be regular voters but tend to vote in higher number when their side seems to be on the upswing. They only vote for the other side in extreme cases such as McGovern or Goldwater. I assign them each roughly 5% of the voting public.
Segments C & E are much different animals. Their natural tendencies are toward the Right or Left but they are not wedded to partisan ideals to enough of an extent that it outweighs other considerations. Issues such as a war going badly, corruption, or incompetence can cause these two segments to swing over and vote for the "other" party.Segments C & E tend to vote much heavier when their side is doing well. They get discouraged easily and just throw in the towel and don't bother voting. Dukakis largely lost the E's. Bush 41 lost the C's in 1992. Kerry lost the E's. Gore and Bush probably came out about even. Perot got a bunch of both of them in 1992, not nearly as many in 1996. These two segments each represent about 5% of all voters.
Our last segment is D and these are the true independents. Accounting for about 10% of the voting population they generally have no use for either party. They are largely upper middle class and above in income and education. They are not interested in "family values" as such. Economics, social justice, the environment, and libertarian principles tend to drive various sub-groups of this segment.This segment is highly volatile and swings heavily from one election cycle to the next. They vote sporadically depending on how bummed out they are by things in general. Various sub-groups of this Segment loved Ross Perot and/or Ralph Nader. The last president they really got behind was Reagan although Clinton did fairly well with them. "Doing well" with independents entails not just winning their favor but actually energizing them enough to come out and vote."
Obviously in 2008 again the two edge groups A&G voted for their party. as we move toward the middle (of my grouping not necessarily the political spectrum) the B-C & E-F groups also went their normal way. Thus even in a terrible year for Republicans, John McCain and Sarah Palin got 46% of the vote.
Where I suspect McCain lost the election was in the very middle, the D group. Barack Obama excited this segment like no candidate has. Ever. The good news for Republicans is that if (when?) Barack Obama makes a few stumbles this will be the first group to desert him. The bad news for Republicans is that Barack Obama just won a 4 year term as President of the United States.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Noble or Mean?
That appears to be the choice we have tomorrow. Abraham Lincoln's quote that appears at the top of this blog is as relevant today as it was 145 years ago. A vote for Barack Obama in my opinion is a vote for nothing more than empty promises and destruction of the American Dream. A vote for John McCain means we keep moving forward with the struggle for a better life on this planet. Some final comments before the decision is made.
I believe the polls have wandered off the statistically valid reservation this year and have become part of the story instead of neutral bystanders. Certainly we should know by late tomorrow evening whether I and many commentators with whom I agree are right or deluded.
If the turnout is as massive as "they" say it is going to be, I think that is good for McCain and indicates that it is not just the Democrats who are motivated to vote. Since I also suspect that young and "new" voters won't show up as the media and the Barack Obama campaign are assuring us they will, a large turn out overall is again a good thing for McCain-Palin.
Sarah Palin has invigorated the GOP base as no one since Ronald Reagan and again I take that as a major sign that points toward an upset win for McCain.
The IBD poll continues to show a very close race, within the MOE and with Barack Obama well below 50%. Given that IBD nailed the 2004 margin better than any other pollster, one has to take their numbers very seriously.
So here we are. Will America move harshly to the left or surprise the experts and only move slightly left square into the middle?
My prediction for what it is worth comes down to one state. Pennsylvania. Whoever wins the Keystone State, wins the election.
Go vote my friends and may God continue to bless America.
That appears to be the choice we have tomorrow. Abraham Lincoln's quote that appears at the top of this blog is as relevant today as it was 145 years ago. A vote for Barack Obama in my opinion is a vote for nothing more than empty promises and destruction of the American Dream. A vote for John McCain means we keep moving forward with the struggle for a better life on this planet. Some final comments before the decision is made.
I believe the polls have wandered off the statistically valid reservation this year and have become part of the story instead of neutral bystanders. Certainly we should know by late tomorrow evening whether I and many commentators with whom I agree are right or deluded.
If the turnout is as massive as "they" say it is going to be, I think that is good for McCain and indicates that it is not just the Democrats who are motivated to vote. Since I also suspect that young and "new" voters won't show up as the media and the Barack Obama campaign are assuring us they will, a large turn out overall is again a good thing for McCain-Palin.
Sarah Palin has invigorated the GOP base as no one since Ronald Reagan and again I take that as a major sign that points toward an upset win for McCain.
The IBD poll continues to show a very close race, within the MOE and with Barack Obama well below 50%. Given that IBD nailed the 2004 margin better than any other pollster, one has to take their numbers very seriously.
So here we are. Will America move harshly to the left or surprise the experts and only move slightly left square into the middle?
My prediction for what it is worth comes down to one state. Pennsylvania. Whoever wins the Keystone State, wins the election.
Go vote my friends and may God continue to bless America.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Eight Days
That is how much time is left to win this election. The polls are predictably beginning to tighten and I expect them to more or less continue to do so through election day.
Two reasons. First I think that is what will actually happen on the ground as a large portion of undecideds go for McCain. Second, since I think the polls are off in their methods and they know or suspect it, I think they will begin to tighten their "assumptions" to try and cover their posterior(s).
I expect this election to come down to what we always thought it would. Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire, Virginia. Those are the four states that at the end of the day will make the difference. Of course if Pennsylvania goes to McCain then that makes a huge change in the math.
Several things lead me to have some hope. Ed Rendell seems cranky and worried. Partly this is because he is a smart politician, but it also is likely that he really is concerned.
Early voting was supposed to be our first chance to see the Obama Tsunami in action and so far its been a flat tire.
In my personal experience I am hearing a lot of unease about Obama. Very few are wild about McCain but many are very concerned about the implications of an Obama victory.
Sarah Palin continues to draw huge crowds. I believe there is a vast underground of support for her in some traditionally Democratic friendly demographic groups.
The Bradley/Wilder/Gannt Effect. I think it exists but I have no feel for its size. If it is 2% or more it will have a huge impact. Remember that the BWG Effect involves people telling pollsters they will vote for Obama when in fact they intend to vote for McCain. So if 2 % end up doing this then it would wipe out a 4 point Obama lead. If the Effect is 5% then it would cause a 10 point swing.
This race is very close and as always turn out is the key.
That is how much time is left to win this election. The polls are predictably beginning to tighten and I expect them to more or less continue to do so through election day.
Two reasons. First I think that is what will actually happen on the ground as a large portion of undecideds go for McCain. Second, since I think the polls are off in their methods and they know or suspect it, I think they will begin to tighten their "assumptions" to try and cover their posterior(s).
I expect this election to come down to what we always thought it would. Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire, Virginia. Those are the four states that at the end of the day will make the difference. Of course if Pennsylvania goes to McCain then that makes a huge change in the math.
Several things lead me to have some hope. Ed Rendell seems cranky and worried. Partly this is because he is a smart politician, but it also is likely that he really is concerned.
Early voting was supposed to be our first chance to see the Obama Tsunami in action and so far its been a flat tire.
In my personal experience I am hearing a lot of unease about Obama. Very few are wild about McCain but many are very concerned about the implications of an Obama victory.
Sarah Palin continues to draw huge crowds. I believe there is a vast underground of support for her in some traditionally Democratic friendly demographic groups.
The Bradley/Wilder/Gannt Effect. I think it exists but I have no feel for its size. If it is 2% or more it will have a huge impact. Remember that the BWG Effect involves people telling pollsters they will vote for Obama when in fact they intend to vote for McCain. So if 2 % end up doing this then it would wipe out a 4 point Obama lead. If the Effect is 5% then it would cause a 10 point swing.
This race is very close and as always turn out is the key.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
I have always enjoyed watching "old" TV shows much more than current fare. This becomes more true the older I get.
There are some good and interesting shows on these days but much of the landscape is an utter wasteland. The CSI shows are reasonably good although I think they would be better if they concentrated less on bizarre story lines. The Law & Order shows are good except I can't stand the bozo on Criminal Intent so I never watch that one. The episodes of both of those franchises though, really start to blur and run together after a while.
One show that I find enjoyable and full of some surprises is House. There was an episode a season or two back where House convinced a young girl, who had been raped, to have an abortion. This really annoyed me until I saw a later episode where he again tried to harangue a woman into an abortion. This time however the mother resisted.
This lead to a decision to operate on the unborn baby (which House insisted on referring to as "the fetus"). The woman's abdomen was opened and a female doctor (who had argued against abortion) reached in to get access to the baby. A tiny hand reached out and very lightly grasped her finger. The camera zoomed in on House's face as he stood frozen, eyes locked on that tiny searching hand.
This was as powerful a moment as I've seen on network television in many years. No words were spoken. None were needed. The unmistakable point was made with nothing more than a tiny hand reaching forth from its mother's belly and a look of shock and then dawning realization on the face of a cynic.
There are some good and interesting shows on these days but much of the landscape is an utter wasteland. The CSI shows are reasonably good although I think they would be better if they concentrated less on bizarre story lines. The Law & Order shows are good except I can't stand the bozo on Criminal Intent so I never watch that one. The episodes of both of those franchises though, really start to blur and run together after a while.
One show that I find enjoyable and full of some surprises is House. There was an episode a season or two back where House convinced a young girl, who had been raped, to have an abortion. This really annoyed me until I saw a later episode where he again tried to harangue a woman into an abortion. This time however the mother resisted.
This lead to a decision to operate on the unborn baby (which House insisted on referring to as "the fetus"). The woman's abdomen was opened and a female doctor (who had argued against abortion) reached in to get access to the baby. A tiny hand reached out and very lightly grasped her finger. The camera zoomed in on House's face as he stood frozen, eyes locked on that tiny searching hand.
This was as powerful a moment as I've seen on network television in many years. No words were spoken. None were needed. The unmistakable point was made with nothing more than a tiny hand reaching forth from its mother's belly and a look of shock and then dawning realization on the face of a cynic.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Very interesting post today from DJ Drummond at Stolen Thunder.
DJ is providing some much needed perspective on the various polls this year.
I remain unconvinced that the polls showing Obama up by 3 to 8 points are valid. Pollsters this year seem to have all gone off the tracks to one extent or another. I suspect that they all believe that Obama should be ahead and thus they are to an extent cooking the polls to bring that about.
There are two distinct groups of polls. First there are the media polls done by the networks and major newspapers. These are almost always suspect and I ignore them as useless.
Then there are the other polls done by Rasmussen, Gallup, IBD, Zogby, Battleground, etc, which are from a technical standpoint highly accurate. The problem comes in the various weighting standards that are being used. When Gallup releases not one, not two, but THREE different polling models with large differences in the results, then how sure can anyone be that any of the polling is accurate?
Barack Obama is clearly the most radical major party nominee ever. Sarah Palin is drawing huge crowds, and John McCain keeps fighting. This race is not over yet.
DJ is providing some much needed perspective on the various polls this year.
I remain unconvinced that the polls showing Obama up by 3 to 8 points are valid. Pollsters this year seem to have all gone off the tracks to one extent or another. I suspect that they all believe that Obama should be ahead and thus they are to an extent cooking the polls to bring that about.
There are two distinct groups of polls. First there are the media polls done by the networks and major newspapers. These are almost always suspect and I ignore them as useless.
Then there are the other polls done by Rasmussen, Gallup, IBD, Zogby, Battleground, etc, which are from a technical standpoint highly accurate. The problem comes in the various weighting standards that are being used. When Gallup releases not one, not two, but THREE different polling models with large differences in the results, then how sure can anyone be that any of the polling is accurate?
Barack Obama is clearly the most radical major party nominee ever. Sarah Palin is drawing huge crowds, and John McCain keeps fighting. This race is not over yet.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Circular Firing Squad
The title expresses my opinion of much of the right of center blogoshere these days. As it becomes more probable that Barack Obama will win election to the White House nerves are fraying and splits in the Republican coalition are becoming visible. After eight years of the presidency and control of Congress from 1995-2006 many conservatives have forgotten that the enemy is liberalism not other conservatives.
This in not surprising. The Democrats went through the same process before they finally started getting it together the past several years. This is all a natural part of the movement of the political pendulum.
I post on a certain well known conservative blog. I am a minor weenie of no importance there and post mainly as a way to vent and discuss but am under no illusion that it accomplishes much if anything.
Prior to election day I won't publicly attack the site but afterwards I will make my opinion known. It is currently a cluttered mess. Both the site itself and the way it is ran editorially are disasters.
The way the user interface is arranged is pitiful but it is the weird editorial policies that make the site worthless as a tool to advance conservative thinking. The editors (there seem to be various ones who have varying levels of power) on the one hand might take a position pillorying Republican Congressmen for voting for or against a particular bill but on the other get their panties in a knot because a poster says something "rude" or "politically incorrect".
Thus they try to stir up revolutionary fervor while at the same time erecting silly totems that no one is allowed to dishonor.
While opposition to abortion is an absolute MUST on this site, they also have set themselves up to be gay police, jumping on anyone who suggests that homosexuality is wrong. This approach is untenable. You can't oppose abortion on moral grounds and then deny someone else the right to oppose homosexuality on moral grounds.
Of course the editorial policy can certainly follow those seemingly divergent paths but to ban anyone who dares utter a negative word toward gays is to effectively cede the high ground on any moral issue.
And about banning. It is contrary to basic conservative principles to ban someone for disagreeing with you. If your purpose is to only present views that are within a strict range, then require that all posts be approved. Or just don't allow outsiders to post. It is completely understandable for a webmaster to want to present only views XYZ. But if that is your desire don't invite others to participate and then treat them like crap.
The title expresses my opinion of much of the right of center blogoshere these days. As it becomes more probable that Barack Obama will win election to the White House nerves are fraying and splits in the Republican coalition are becoming visible. After eight years of the presidency and control of Congress from 1995-2006 many conservatives have forgotten that the enemy is liberalism not other conservatives.
This in not surprising. The Democrats went through the same process before they finally started getting it together the past several years. This is all a natural part of the movement of the political pendulum.
I post on a certain well known conservative blog. I am a minor weenie of no importance there and post mainly as a way to vent and discuss but am under no illusion that it accomplishes much if anything.
Prior to election day I won't publicly attack the site but afterwards I will make my opinion known. It is currently a cluttered mess. Both the site itself and the way it is ran editorially are disasters.
The way the user interface is arranged is pitiful but it is the weird editorial policies that make the site worthless as a tool to advance conservative thinking. The editors (there seem to be various ones who have varying levels of power) on the one hand might take a position pillorying Republican Congressmen for voting for or against a particular bill but on the other get their panties in a knot because a poster says something "rude" or "politically incorrect".
Thus they try to stir up revolutionary fervor while at the same time erecting silly totems that no one is allowed to dishonor.
While opposition to abortion is an absolute MUST on this site, they also have set themselves up to be gay police, jumping on anyone who suggests that homosexuality is wrong. This approach is untenable. You can't oppose abortion on moral grounds and then deny someone else the right to oppose homosexuality on moral grounds.
Of course the editorial policy can certainly follow those seemingly divergent paths but to ban anyone who dares utter a negative word toward gays is to effectively cede the high ground on any moral issue.
And about banning. It is contrary to basic conservative principles to ban someone for disagreeing with you. If your purpose is to only present views that are within a strict range, then require that all posts be approved. Or just don't allow outsiders to post. It is completely understandable for a webmaster to want to present only views XYZ. But if that is your desire don't invite others to participate and then treat them like crap.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
It is about 13 months since I last posted here. Today has held some drama as John McCain has challenged Barack Obama to postpone the Friday debate and go to Washington to work on the economy.
At this point Obama has apparently refused the suggestion. That may just be a fig leaf so there can be "negotiations" that will iron out the problem and Obama thus avoids appearing to follow McCain's lead.
Very exciting times we live in.
Today various polls show Obama in the lead by 1 to 9 points.
The Battleground Poll however has McCain up 2.
The polls this year are playing a lot of games with sample mix. Until I see polls with a reasonable mix that show Obama up, I will continue to think that this race is very tight.
At this point Obama has apparently refused the suggestion. That may just be a fig leaf so there can be "negotiations" that will iron out the problem and Obama thus avoids appearing to follow McCain's lead.
Very exciting times we live in.
Today various polls show Obama in the lead by 1 to 9 points.
The Battleground Poll however has McCain up 2.
The polls this year are playing a lot of games with sample mix. Until I see polls with a reasonable mix that show Obama up, I will continue to think that this race is very tight.
Friday, August 31, 2007
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)