A pair of ninnies

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Clark is cooked.

If this report just put out by Drudge is correct, it is difficult to imagine Wesley Clark surviving this revelation.

Clark is really worse than Dean. More unprincipled and more of a liar. I would imagine that it is unprecedented for a "serious" contender for a major party nomination, to be so clearly undeserving of it.

I am not a Democrat, but I hope that if I was, I would be grossly offended by this man's deceit and bald opportunism.

This combined with what is starting to come out about Howard Dean's past opinions on use of force, should make Gephardt and Kerry look like principled statesmen by comparison to the Wes & Howie vaudeville act.

The Race Tightens

I am shocked at the latest set of polls coming out of Iowa. Not so much that Howard Dean is falling back, but that John Kerry is apparently surging. The new numbers from a Zogby Poll reported by WHO-TV in Des Moines, show Kerry is now in the lead at 22 percent. Dean and Dick Gephardt are tied at second place with 21 percent. John Edwards is fourth with 17 percent. The margin of error is +/- 4.5%

My assumption all along was that Dean would move back and Gephardt would take the lead. I thought Kerry was dead, done for, toast. If Kerry can win in Iowa, he suddenly turns this contest into a very interesting race.

How Does Dean Aim To Win? Conclusion

My impression of Howard Dean (have you noticed that the N.Y. Times almost ALWAYS refers to him as Dr. Dean?) leads me to suspect that while he is clearly a savvy politician, he falls into an all too familiar trap: He believes his own PR.

I think Dean really believes that he has caught lightening in bottle. That he has found something no one else knows about, and that he is therefore unstoppable. Dean has the ability to come across as "honest", but as with many "honest" people, you quickly realize that honesty in this case is just Howard saying whatever pops into his skull.

Suggesting President Bush knew about 9-11 ahead of time was not honest, it was stupid.

Prattling on about his fight with a church over a bike path was not honest, it was stupid.

Saying the U.S. was not safer because Saddam Hussein was captured was not honest, it was stupid.

Going to some pains to defend Osama Bin Laden's right to a fair trail was STUPID.

Saying it did not matter who tried Bin Laden, was STUPID.

Howard Dean is a walking talking trash can who can't help himself. What should terrify all intelligent Democrats is the prospect of a Dean/Clark pairing. That would rival Mondale/Ferraro and McGovern/Shriver as the worst major party ticket of the last 100 years or so.

Now back to the issue of how Dean might run after sewing up the nomination. My educated guess is that:

1. He will track back toward the center on one or two major issues. Gay marriage is a likely target, along with maybe a pronouncement on race echoing Bill Clinton's Sister Soulja episode during 1992.
2. He will move his few moderate positions such as guns, front and center, and harp on them incessantly.
3. He will continue to hammer President Bush on the Iraq war, the deficit and tax policy.
4. He will maintain a number of very liberal policy positions to keep his base fired up AND because he actually thinks that helps him.

Now the match-up. I think Bush vs Dean is an outstanding match-up for Bush. Beside Dean, Bush will appear very serious and presidential. I think Dean's manner will wear on the American Public after a while. Actually I think his star is starting to dim already, ten months before the election. Chihuahuas can be fun but their constant yapping gets on your nerves after a while.

As has been pointed out by many, if Bush wins the same states as in 2000, he will increase his margin due to reapportionment. At this point in the game, my assumption is that Bush *will* win every state he carried in 2000. By the same token I simply don't see Dean holding every Gore state. Thus I see comfortable victory for Bush if no cataclysmic event intervenes.

Bush will win on LIKEABLE, QUALIFIED, and IDEAS. A clean sweep. Dean has not a prayer except prayer, and I seriously doubt that anyone will be listening to him.

Hell Hath No Fury Like a Pompous Ass Fired

The book by Paul O'Neill, the former Treasury Secretary, is a prime example of how cheap and dirty the political culture has became. Lacking the decency to wait till Bush was out of office to indulge in his temper tantrum, O'Neill is now causing the President a slight amount of discomfort, while making a remarkable fool of himself.

I doubt the damage to GWB will be that extensive or long lasting, but O'Neill has pretty thoroughly destroyed any paltry reputation he had left after his disastrous turn as Treasury Secretary.

I find his pontificating on Iraq and WMD particularly galling, given the fact that he was the Treasury Secretary. I was never aware that war and peace was part of the Treasury Secretary's portfolio. I realize he was a member of the National Security Council, but it still strikes me as a bit like the boy with the Gatorade squirt bottle, dramatically announcing that he had no advance warning that Joe Gibbs was coming back.

Mr. O'Neill is a fly-speck on the roll of former government officials, and it is sad that he had to prove it in such a tacky, trashy way.

Emanations and penumbras

Useful political discourse usually involves hard work. "Live free or die" is pretty simple and probably was not the product of an all night skull session, but such easy nuggets are few and far between.

However much of what is wrong, cockeyed, and out of whack, with political thought in this country, is HARD to explain in short, easy to understand ways.

The boys over at Powerline have done the hard work and produced a brilliant essay on Hugh Hefner's influence on American thought. "Hugh Hefner" in this case serves mainly as a metaphor for the broader problems present in today's America.

They very carefully draw the picture dot by dot, and show that much of what passes as serious thought in this country is devoid of...well...seriousness.

Texas Redistricting

When assessing redistricting efforts I attempt to retain my objectivity. Whether I support the map for partisan reasons or not, I want to be honest about whether it is a map drawn up within reasonable bounds.

The fight that has stood Texas on its ear the past couple of years seems to finally have been resolved in favor of the Republicans. The Dems will undoubtedly appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court but that likely will not lead to a reversal of the present ruling.

I realized today that I have never seen any of the maps, old, new, proposed. None. So I went hunting. Here is the "old" map and here is the "new" map.

My guiding principle is that gerrymandering is fine, but it should not extend to ridiculous shapes that wind back and forth like pretzels, and that as far as possible localities should not be split up.

Looking at the old and new together I would rate the new Republican plan as slightly more ugly than the old plan. Both of them however leave a lot to be desired, and neither party has any room to call the kettle black.

The good news? The GOP will likely pick up 6 seats in this November's election.

How Does Dean Aim To Win? Part 2:

In 1988, you had a terrible personality match up. George H.W. Bush and Mike Dukakis were both lacking in the charisma and warmth departments. LIKEABLE thus was not the main factor. I think this was a clear case of people deciding that Bush was simply the safer choice. Dukakis had some fairly nutty ideas and came across like a snotty math teacher. Bush merely pledged to continue Reagan's policies, and thus IDEAS (Reagan's in this case) carried the day. Bush clearly had better QUALIFIED credentials, but Dukakis also met the minimum requirements. Chalk Bush's win up to the enormous popularity of Ronald Reagan and his eight years in the White House. Along with 1976, keep this race in mind when considering 2004.

1992. Do we HAVE to discuss this one? Actually I already have in the first post of my dissertation on George Soros. Boiling the campaign down to its essentials, Bill Clinton clobbered GHWB in the LIKEABLE column. Bill Clinton is a likeable guy! Think what you will of his policies and his personal life, BC would be a fun person to hang with. Enough people decided that was important enough to earn their vote. Clinton was easily on top in IDEAS (GHWB never had many to begin with), and with Ross Perot swinging from the rafters, Clinton also appeared QUALIFIED.

1996 was more of the same as Bob Dole was simply crushed in the LIKEABLE line item, while failing to bring any IDEAS to the table. QUALIFIED was pretty much a wash, since few people are going to question a sitting presidents ability to do the job at at least a minimal level.

Then there was 2000! This was the first election since 1960 where someone who probably lost tight contests in QUALIFIED and IDEAS was able to pull out the win due to LIKEABLE. What I am really saying is that Al Gore lost because hordes of people could not stand him. Gore was the better speaker, he had more experience, and he had more ideas (liberal yes, but not off the scale) that he could discuss in great depth. What Gore lacked was a scintilla of humanity.

LIKEABLE only takes you so far and this is why Bush barely won, while losing the popular vote. He appeared at times to have a very shallow grasp of foreign affairs. His habit of mangling the English language was embarrassing. And finally, let's admit something else, GWB has a certain kind of goofiness about his physical movements sometimes. Some guys LOOK like THE PRESIDENT, while others don't. Frankly GWB too often looks like a freshman congressman more than the President. However, George W. Bush has humanity. He is able to touch people and relate to people in a way Al Gore can only dream of. So in 2000 LIKEABLE brought GWB the presidency.

Next, how does Howard Dean expect to win?

How Does Dean Aim To Win?

It is widely assumed that after Howard Dean wraps up the Democratic Nomination, he will veer sharply right for the General Election. But some folks maintain that Dean has become a "true believer" in the liberal causes he is now supporting, and will hew to that path all the way to November 2.

I believe Dean desperately wants to win and will tack in which ever direction he thinks he needs to, in order to succeed.

Presidential politics is a wondrous world where managing PERCEPTION is more important than anything else.

While the political game is multifaceted, the three most important PERCEPTIONS that a presidential candidate MUST score well in are A) Is the candidate QUALIFIED to be president? and B) Are the candidate's IDEAS in line with the majority of voters? and C) Is the candidate LIKEABLE? Remember that we are discussing PERCEPTION, not reality.

Let us begin with 1952. Ike vs Adlai . Dwight D. Eisenhower clearly passed on all counts. Adlai Stevenson passed on the first count, but failed badly on the second count. He also got less than high marks on the last count. While he was not a candidate that we think of as being disliked in particular, he WAS viewed as being rather much of an egghead, and against Eisenhower that was the kiss of death. 1956 was naturally the same PERCEPTION match-up except now Eisenhower had shown beyond doubt that he was QUALIFIED for the job.

In 1960 John F. Kennedy suffered from two things. First he was Catholic, and second he was thought to be inexperienced, a light weight. Nixon on the other hand was neither. But Nixon was hurt in the LIKEABLE category, an area where Kennedy scored high. The election was very close because of this mixed bag. What saved JFK (besides Mayor Daley and LBJ) was that by election day he had convinced enough people that he was at least marginally QUALIFIED to be president, his IDEAS were not greatly different than Nixon's and he scored well above Nixon in the LIKEABLE contest.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson probably would have won against any Republican, but he lucked into Barry Goldwater. Goldwater managed to fail in all three categories. People questioned his stability, they were scared of his position on issues, and he came across as stern and forbidding. LBJ just smiled his way to an electoral and popular landslide.

1968 is a bit of an oddity. Nixon was back in a more mature and less threatening form. Hubert Humphrey was generally liked but viewed as very liberal, and George Wallace was the wild-card/spoiler. Superimposing my template on the race, I would conclude that Nixon slightly outscored Humphrey on QUALIFIED and IDEAS, while managing to appear acceptably LIKEABLE, especially with Wallace providing contrast.

In 1972 (and this is where I think we enter the truly MODERN age) McGovern ended up being looked at as a clown. He completely failed on the QUALIFIED and IDEAS requirements, and under those circumstances nobody cares if you are LIKEABLE or not.

Due to Watergate, 1976 was a year when any Democrat should have had a major advantage, but Jimmy Carter almost managed to blow it. I suspect the two candidates scored a near tie in all three areas, with perhaps a slight edge to Carter in IDEAS. Keep this race in mind when evaluating 2004.

1980 saw the fruition of a long slow drift toward the Republicans. Ronald Reagan was easily the most LIKEABLE and his IDEAS were more in tune with the country than Carter's. The area where he was weakest was QUALIFIED, but he had the great fortune to be running against Jimmy Carter who had spent four years proving beyond a doubt that he (Carter) was not QUALIFIED.

In 1984 Reagan was still LIKEABLE, his IDEAS were more popular than Walter Mondale's, and Reagan had shown that he was also QUALIFIED. Mondale's stupid insistence on staking out far-left positions, only solidified his inferior position in all three categories.

To be continued.....

A post this morning on one of my favorite blogs, Powerline, led me to this site .

I first took the 9 Question quickie and like Hindrocket I came up as a Saddam Hussien knock-off. Finding this less than acceptable, I went back and took the 18 Question version. This time I saw this:

What Famous Leader Are You?

I decided to quit while I was not a murderous has-been.

Soros Part 5

Speaking slowly so even the dullest among us can understand, Soros explains the history of terrorism and allows that while it is annoying, it certainly is nothing to get overly excited about. He calmly assures us that "The most powerful country on earth cannot afford to be consumed by fear. Moreover, by allowing terrorism to become our principal preoccupation, we are playing into the terrorists' hands. They are setting our priorities."

Somehow I never would have supposed that the REAL objective behind 9/11 was to undermine the Talaban and Saddam Hussein. Osama Bin Laden must indeed be pleased to see his plans play out so brilliantly on the world stage.

Finally, Soros lays out his support for a "cooperative effort to improve the world by engaging in preventive actions of a constructive character. The United States is uniquely positioned to lead the effort. We cannot just do anything we want, as the Iraqi situation demonstrates, but nothing much can be done in the way of international cooperation without the leadership-or at least the participation-of the United States."

So the United States is "uniquely positioned" to "lead the effort" to rid the world of evil, but we need the permission of everyone else in order to act. In other words, the United Nations.

Of particuler interest is that here Soros endorses "preventive actions", meaning that he agrees with George W. Bush that pre-emptive measures must be taken.

It is fascinating to realize that even a liberal flack like Soros apparently knows that the UN is for all intents and purposes, dead. Otherwise why dress it up in new clothes and pretend it is a "third way" to approach international disagreements?

Lastly I must point out that Soros to the end is detached from reality. "We cannot just do anything we want, as the Iraqi situation demonstrates". While it is true that "we cannot just do anything we want" this is in no way demonstrated by the "Iraqi situation".

This piece was a disappointment to me. I had hoped that Soros would have something new to add to the opposition discourse. Instead I found a well written (I wonder which liberal wordmeister ghosted it for him?) but intellectually bankrupt rehashing of standard Democratic Party bromides.

If this is Soros' best shot, George W. Bush can rest easy. George Soros is no Ross Perot.

The (Weak) Liberal Mind

I remember back in the late '70's how the Democrats tried to paint Ronald Reagan as some gunslinging cowboy who would engulf us in war on his second day in office.

Happily, the American people saw through the foolishness and twice elected Reagan as President. I thought of RR when I read this piece by Richard Reeves.

Reeves is drenched in his own drool as he hyper-ventilates about George W. Bush. To Reeves, GWB is an awful person and worse President, who has done nothing but chase off our allies and further entrench our enemies.

What is remarkable about Reeves' words are the utter lack of ANY and ALL context. Reeves just makes up this and that and then bashes President Bush for it. For instance Reeves says "The president is a bold, decisive and overconfident crusader, a self-righteous leader, a dangerous man. He changed the rules, ignoring the post-World War II history of alliances, multilateral institutions and containment." What facts does Reeves use here? If you answered "None" you would be close. He got "bold, decisive" right and nothing else.

How has Bush ignored "post-World War II history of alliances, multilateral institutions and containment" ?

We have the help of numerous allies in Iraq. Japan, Britain, Spain, Poland, and Australia to name five off the top of my head. So that is Reeves' Lie #1.

We repeatedly tried to utilize the ultimate "multilateral institution", the United Nations, going through the laborious process for twelve years and umpteen "resolutions". So that is Reeves' Lie #2.

We appealed to Saddam Hussein over and over to do the right thing. We put him under a decade long embargo, chased him back inside his own borders, used no-fly zones etc, to "contain" him. None of it worked. That is Reeves' Lie #3.

One paragraph, three lies.

Liberals like Reeves have no respect for truth. Their only concern is attacking those with whom they have political differences. Reeves dislikes the use of the American Military, therefore he lies and obfuscates, pretending that George W. Bush is some satanic combination of Nero and Napoleon.

Soros Part 4

Next Soros frets about our Iraqi operations because, "there are more places than ever before where we might have legitimate need to project that power. North Korea is openly building nuclear weapons, and Iran is clandestinely doing so" .

So the real problem is that Bush should have invaded North Korea and Iran? But how much support could we expect from the UN on THOSE invasions? Along about here, Soros essentially leaves behind all attempts to be coherent and reveals himself to be (SURPRISE!) a common everyday Liberal Democrat. Therefore, anything Bush does is wrong, and anything he doesn't do is right.

Soros tells the reader that the war on terrorism is going badly and that in fact war is no way to end terrorism. "Police work" is what is needed. 9/11 should have been treated as a criminal act and implores us to "Imagine for a moment that September 11 had been treated as a crime. We would not have invaded Iraq, and we would not have our military struggling to perform police work and getting shot at."

He fails to mention some other likely results of sending Joe Friday chasing after Bin Laden and friends. Things like ever increasing terror attacks on U.S. soil and militant Islam busting a collective gut laughing at the stupid Americans and their "police work".

"Military action requires an identifiable target, preferably a state. As a result the war on terrorism has been directed primarily against states harboring terrorists. Yet terrorists are by definition non-state actors, even if they are often sponsored by states."

This is of course absurd. Terrorists by definition seek to create terror. States can do this just as well, and often better, than "non-state actors"

Trying to follow Soros' reasoning is an exercise in futility that leads to general frustration and frequent outbreaks of the heebeejeebees. Basically the Soros tenet is as follows:

We shouldn't wage war against terrorists, because a war requires an opposing state, and terrorists CAN'T be opposing states, and even though they can be SPONSORED by opposing states who presumably you COULD wage war against, you still shouldn't wage war to fight terrorists because war requires an opposing state and terrorists and so forth.

Tomorrow the conclusion......