As I wrote before, there's no way Time doesn't name Obama "Thing of the Year." But let's suppose they all go coco-nuts and decide to pick somebody else. Who'd make a good choice as runner-up to The One?
Vladimir Putin--Bigger than ever this year, what with that whole invasion of Georgia thing. But he already won last year, and you don't win two years in a row unless you're Jesus Christ himself. (Man of the Year, 32 and 33 AD)
Henry Paulson & Ben Bernanke--Oh, Time would love to do something like this: big, close-up shots of a shifty-looking Bernanke and a sweaty Paulson, with a title along the lines of "The Wrecking Crew." Come to think of it, I should send that in. That might be enough to knock Obama off the cover.
The Economy--Hey, they named "Endangered Earth" Person of the Year in 1988. They can do the same for the economy.
Wen Jiabao--The Chinese premier had a heck of a 2008. On the one hand, there was the enormously succesful Beijing Olympics. But on the other, there was the Szechuan earthquake. Both made the news, though. Our first black president is a bigger story than even China's coming-out party.
David Petraeus--Probably deserved it more than Putin did last year. He's been out of the news for a while, something I would consider a good thing. The less the media reports on Iraq, the better things must be getting over there. Peace never makes headlines.
John McCain--In the interests of bipartisanship? Hampered by the fact that, hey, he lost the election. I wonder: if McCain had won, would they still pick Obama as Person of the Year? I'm going to say yes.
Michael Phelps--Hell, why not?
Monday, November 24, 2008
Outta Here
Looks like Colmes is on his way out the door. I didn't realize how long he and Hannity had been together--the show's been on the air since 1996. I feel a bit sorry for Colmes; as Hannity's gotten bigger and bigger (both figuratively and, I suppose, literally), he's been more and more overshadowed. The enduring public image of him is as a punching bag rather than a sparring partner.
Oh, and here's a very revealing statement from Colmes:
In the interim the production crew called the show ”Hannity and LTBD.” LTBD stood for ”Liberal to Be Determined.” ”It was fill in the blank,” said Mr. Colmes, who grew up in Lynbrook, New York loving all progressive causes. ”I was the blank.”
"I was the blank." Don't we know it, Alan. Don't we know it.
Oh, and here's a very revealing statement from Colmes:
In the interim the production crew called the show ”Hannity and LTBD.” LTBD stood for ”Liberal to Be Determined.” ”It was fill in the blank,” said Mr. Colmes, who grew up in Lynbrook, New York loving all progressive causes. ”I was the blank.”
"I was the blank." Don't we know it, Alan. Don't we know it.
Roller Coaster...of Love
The DOW continues to be absolutely schizophrenic, shooting up 400 points on news that the guv'mint is going to bail out Citigroup to the tune of $300 billion. Hey, remember those days when we thought $700 billion was a lot of money? Well, we're well past the $2 trillion marker and there's still no end in sight.
And while I'm happy that the DOW has gone up, I can't help feeling a little uneasy about how wild the stock market's been. Up 400, down 700, up another 300...even upswings, like the one today, seem to be a bad sign. The economy is just plain unsound. These huge surges are more of a symptom of the disease than a sign of convalescence.
When we have a few days of steady, sustained growth in the stock market, call me. But if you're just going to tell me, "Hey! The DOW skyrocketed 500 points today, wiping out yesterday's slump!" then don't bother.
And while I'm happy that the DOW has gone up, I can't help feeling a little uneasy about how wild the stock market's been. Up 400, down 700, up another 300...even upswings, like the one today, seem to be a bad sign. The economy is just plain unsound. These huge surges are more of a symptom of the disease than a sign of convalescence.
When we have a few days of steady, sustained growth in the stock market, call me. But if you're just going to tell me, "Hey! The DOW skyrocketed 500 points today, wiping out yesterday's slump!" then don't bother.
Fantasy Cabinet
Here's a nifty little thing from Fox News. It lets you pick your own cabinet for Obama, giving you a couple choices for each open spot.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to staff the cabinet with hardcore conservatives like Phil Gramm and Rick Santorum. Too bad--I think the results would've been amusing. It is interesting, though, to read some of the choices offered. I hadn't realized Tom Vilsack was in the running for Secretary of Agriculture.
By the way, does anyone have any idea why there seems to be a law requiring that the Secretary of Agriculture come from a farm state? Does that even matter? It's not like Vilsack is out there hoeing potatoes every day. I guess the idea is that they have experience with "agricultural issues," but seriously now. Somebody from New York could be just as qualified as a guy from Iowa.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to staff the cabinet with hardcore conservatives like Phil Gramm and Rick Santorum. Too bad--I think the results would've been amusing. It is interesting, though, to read some of the choices offered. I hadn't realized Tom Vilsack was in the running for Secretary of Agriculture.
By the way, does anyone have any idea why there seems to be a law requiring that the Secretary of Agriculture come from a farm state? Does that even matter? It's not like Vilsack is out there hoeing potatoes every day. I guess the idea is that they have experience with "agricultural issues," but seriously now. Somebody from New York could be just as qualified as a guy from Iowa.
My Man Mitch
Reihan Salam, co-author of the book "Grand New Party"--one of several on my rapidly-lengthening to-read list--reveals the identity of "Obama's Perfect Foil." Who does he have in mind? Why, none other than Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels.
And reading what Salam has to say about him, I'm starting to agree. Referring to Indianapolis's business-friendly policies, Salam writes:
Daniels, a Lugar protégé, has taken the Indianapolis model statewide. Every state agency has been pushed to offer a higher quality of service to the public at lower cost. Faced with the real possibility of outsourcing, once-slothful bureaucracies like the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles have become as customer-friendly as the best top-performing companies.
Hard to argue with that, I suppose. Politically, a Daniels pick would make sense. Even though Indiana turned blue this year, Daniels comfortably held on to the governor's office. He'd bolster GOP support in the Midwest and would help restore an image of fiscal responsibility to the party.
Only one problem, as far as I can see. As Salam points out:
There will never be a cult of personality around Daniels, who is hardly known for his soaring rhetoric. He's a mild-mannered, unassuming and unpretentious Midwesterner.
In fact, he's a bit dorky looking, thin and bald and (to be quite frank) rodentic. Sorry, but it's true. Could he compete with Mr. Uber Cool himself? It all depends on whether Obama's halo is still shining in 2012.
And reading what Salam has to say about him, I'm starting to agree. Referring to Indianapolis's business-friendly policies, Salam writes:
Daniels, a Lugar protégé, has taken the Indianapolis model statewide. Every state agency has been pushed to offer a higher quality of service to the public at lower cost. Faced with the real possibility of outsourcing, once-slothful bureaucracies like the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles have become as customer-friendly as the best top-performing companies.
Hard to argue with that, I suppose. Politically, a Daniels pick would make sense. Even though Indiana turned blue this year, Daniels comfortably held on to the governor's office. He'd bolster GOP support in the Midwest and would help restore an image of fiscal responsibility to the party.
Only one problem, as far as I can see. As Salam points out:
There will never be a cult of personality around Daniels, who is hardly known for his soaring rhetoric. He's a mild-mannered, unassuming and unpretentious Midwesterner.
In fact, he's a bit dorky looking, thin and bald and (to be quite frank) rodentic. Sorry, but it's true. Could he compete with Mr. Uber Cool himself? It all depends on whether Obama's halo is still shining in 2012.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Tradition vs. Transcendence
Right now, I'm working on E.J. Dionne's excellent book "Why Americans Hate Politics," a thrilling discussion of thermal currents in the Indian Ocean. I mean, a thrilling discussion of why Americans hate politics so much.
And I don't use the word thrilling facetiously--at least, with no more than my usual level of facetiousness. There's actually quite a bit of good stuff. What really caught my eye was Dionne's brief history of the conservative movement.
Set outside Dionne's liberal bias for a moment. Just because he leans left doesn't mean everything he says about conservatives is a lie. In Dionne's telling, the early conservative movement was torn between two competing movements.
First, there were free-marketeers like Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. They attacked government intervention in the free market and extolled "rugged individualism."
On the other side, there were the traditionalists. These were men like Richard Weaver and Russell Kirk, who espoused a higher order and transcendent moral law.
Both sides distrusted one another. The free-marketeers looked on the traditionalists as would-be aristocrats, nostalgic for the good ol' days of monarchy and nobility. The traditionalists, for their part, saw the free-marketeers as grasping, selfish; they thought unchecked capitalism would lead to the destruction of the all-important community.
I'm exaggerating the differences for effect. But that was the state of the conservative movement back in the 40s and 50s. It got me thinking: how does the current division within conservatism compare to those old arguments?
To put it in brief, I think modern conservatism is divided not into traditionalists and free-marketeers, but into traditionalists and transcendentalists. The traditionalists belong to the populist wing of the Republican Party. They're the people who loved Sarah Palin, sympathized with Joe the Plumber, and were never comfortable with that "squish" McCain.
The transcendentalists are the people we usually think of as the moderate conservative intelligentsia--David Brooks, George Will, etc. They were never comfortable with Palin; nor are they comfortable with the traditionalists in general. Witness Kathleen Parker's denunciation of the "oogedy boogedy" wing of the GOP.
Why do I use the terms traditionalist and transcendentalist? This post is getting awfully long, so I'll make it brief.
TRADITIONALISTS value law, order, and continuity. They want to be left alone by the government. They value tradition for its own sake. They don't fear change, but they're a little suspicious of it.
TRANSCENDENTALISTS believe pretty much the same thing. The only difference is that they try to find a deeper meaning to these traditionalist impulses. They don't like tradition for its own sake, so they try to articulate the principle behind it.
This has been 1) awfully complicated and 2) awfully pretentious, so I apologize. I'll try to clarify this division in future posts. For now, just something to think about.
And I don't use the word thrilling facetiously--at least, with no more than my usual level of facetiousness. There's actually quite a bit of good stuff. What really caught my eye was Dionne's brief history of the conservative movement.
Set outside Dionne's liberal bias for a moment. Just because he leans left doesn't mean everything he says about conservatives is a lie. In Dionne's telling, the early conservative movement was torn between two competing movements.
First, there were free-marketeers like Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. They attacked government intervention in the free market and extolled "rugged individualism."
On the other side, there were the traditionalists. These were men like Richard Weaver and Russell Kirk, who espoused a higher order and transcendent moral law.
Both sides distrusted one another. The free-marketeers looked on the traditionalists as would-be aristocrats, nostalgic for the good ol' days of monarchy and nobility. The traditionalists, for their part, saw the free-marketeers as grasping, selfish; they thought unchecked capitalism would lead to the destruction of the all-important community.
I'm exaggerating the differences for effect. But that was the state of the conservative movement back in the 40s and 50s. It got me thinking: how does the current division within conservatism compare to those old arguments?
To put it in brief, I think modern conservatism is divided not into traditionalists and free-marketeers, but into traditionalists and transcendentalists. The traditionalists belong to the populist wing of the Republican Party. They're the people who loved Sarah Palin, sympathized with Joe the Plumber, and were never comfortable with that "squish" McCain.
The transcendentalists are the people we usually think of as the moderate conservative intelligentsia--David Brooks, George Will, etc. They were never comfortable with Palin; nor are they comfortable with the traditionalists in general. Witness Kathleen Parker's denunciation of the "oogedy boogedy" wing of the GOP.
Why do I use the terms traditionalist and transcendentalist? This post is getting awfully long, so I'll make it brief.
TRADITIONALISTS value law, order, and continuity. They want to be left alone by the government. They value tradition for its own sake. They don't fear change, but they're a little suspicious of it.
TRANSCENDENTALISTS believe pretty much the same thing. The only difference is that they try to find a deeper meaning to these traditionalist impulses. They don't like tradition for its own sake, so they try to articulate the principle behind it.
This has been 1) awfully complicated and 2) awfully pretentious, so I apologize. I'll try to clarify this division in future posts. For now, just something to think about.
They Also Ran
Amid all the talk about Obama's cabinet, Politico reminds us of a few who didn't quite make the cut. There's John Kerry, who everybody was talking up as Secretary of State--apparently, he's "crushed" that he was spurned in favor of Hillary. I feel for the guy. After all, he was one of Obama's best surrogates this year. And he gets bounced in favor of the woman who spent half the year savaging Obama as a dangerously starry-eyed dreamer?
And Richard Holbrooke, also locked out of the State Department. Is it just me, or has Holbrooke been mentioned as a potential member of just about every Democratic cabinet since the Cleveland administration? They said he'd be Kerry's pick. They said he'd be Gore's pick. They said he'd be a good choice for Clinton.
Apparently, though, Holbrooke was getting a bit tired of waiting around. According to Politico: "Oy, did he get big-footed. The Clinton administration’s foreign policy Mr. Fix It lobbied for the State Department job with a fury, according to the L.A. Times."
Rule #1 in Washington: You should never be seen as wanting something too much. Rule #2: Try to avoid getting caught with a stripper.
And Richard Holbrooke, also locked out of the State Department. Is it just me, or has Holbrooke been mentioned as a potential member of just about every Democratic cabinet since the Cleveland administration? They said he'd be Kerry's pick. They said he'd be Gore's pick. They said he'd be a good choice for Clinton.
Apparently, though, Holbrooke was getting a bit tired of waiting around. According to Politico: "Oy, did he get big-footed. The Clinton administration’s foreign policy Mr. Fix It lobbied for the State Department job with a fury, according to the L.A. Times."
Rule #1 in Washington: You should never be seen as wanting something too much. Rule #2: Try to avoid getting caught with a stripper.
Dumb Da-Dumb Dumb
For a newspaper that prides itself on being the acme of journalistic quality, the sure has some lousy op-ed writers. Witness this lunatic piece from Gail Collins, in which she recommends that Bush resign right now and make way for Obama. It's jam-packed with some laugh-out-loud lines, but here are a few of my favorites:
Putting Barack Obama in charge immediately isn’t impossible. Dick Cheney, obviously, would have to quit as well as Bush. In fact, just to be on the safe side, the vice president ought to turn in his resignation first. (We’re desperate, but not crazy.) Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become president until Jan. 20. Obviously, she’d defer to her party’s incoming chief executive, and Barack Obama could begin governing.
Yep, no violation of the Constitution there! It's great to know that, if the chief executive doesn't really want the job, they can just "defer" the position to anybody they want.
More:
The person who would like this plan least probably would be Barack Obama. Who would want to be saddled with the auto industry’s problems ahead of schedule?
And so...that means we should give him power right away?
Good God, Gail, there's a reason we have a transition period. You think Bush ought to resign now because he's a lame duck? Hell, he became a lame duck after the 2004 election. Should he have resigned then?
Or, possibly, you think Bush ought to resign right now because he's unpopular? Sure. Why don't we put an amendment in the Constitution that forces presidents to resign whenever their popularity drops below 30% in the Gallup poll?
Giving Obama a one-month headstart will not magically make America a better place. I guess Collins just wants to get in a last bit of Bush-bashing before the man leaves the White House. What on earth is she--and Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman, for that matter--going to write about on January 21?
Putting Barack Obama in charge immediately isn’t impossible. Dick Cheney, obviously, would have to quit as well as Bush. In fact, just to be on the safe side, the vice president ought to turn in his resignation first. (We’re desperate, but not crazy.) Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become president until Jan. 20. Obviously, she’d defer to her party’s incoming chief executive, and Barack Obama could begin governing.
Yep, no violation of the Constitution there! It's great to know that, if the chief executive doesn't really want the job, they can just "defer" the position to anybody they want.
More:
The person who would like this plan least probably would be Barack Obama. Who would want to be saddled with the auto industry’s problems ahead of schedule?
And so...that means we should give him power right away?
Good God, Gail, there's a reason we have a transition period. You think Bush ought to resign now because he's a lame duck? Hell, he became a lame duck after the 2004 election. Should he have resigned then?
Or, possibly, you think Bush ought to resign right now because he's unpopular? Sure. Why don't we put an amendment in the Constitution that forces presidents to resign whenever their popularity drops below 30% in the Gallup poll?
Giving Obama a one-month headstart will not magically make America a better place. I guess Collins just wants to get in a last bit of Bush-bashing before the man leaves the White House. What on earth is she--and Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman, for that matter--going to write about on January 21?
Man of the Year
2008 was a pretty big year, no doubt about that. War, economic crisis, elections, Olympics, Batman...the list goes on and on. Comes now the crucial question: in this big, big year, who was the biggest man (or person, I suppose) of them all?
Yes, it's time to consider who should be picked as Time's "Man of the Year." Please bear in mind, that doesn't mean the best person in the world this year. It always makes me a little mad when people look at last year's choice, Vladimir Putin, and huff, "Well, I always knew those Time editors were nothing but a bunch of commies!"
Well, maybe they are a bunch of commies. But they didn't pick Vlad because they liked the guy. They picked him because he was the most important man of the year. He had the biggest impact. He made the most news. He was the center of conversation.
Who should they pick this year? Who will they pick? For the first time in a while, the answer to both those questions is obvious: President-elect Barack Obama.
"But he hasn't even done anything yet!" I can already hear people wailing (I have very sharp ears). True, he hasn't done anything as president. But his presidential campaign alone was more than enough to earn him a spot. Consider a few arguments in his favor:
1) The history-making moment of an African-American being elected president
2) The new, decentralized campaign style he pioneered, powered by the internet, driven by volunteers and small donors
3) The fact that he came out of almost nowhere to knock off one of the most established figures in the Democratic party
4) The fact that he might just have restored what Arthur Schlesinger called "the vital center" in American politics
5) His creation of a new, powerful alliance of the young, upper-class whites, and minorities; it's the McGovern coalition come to fruition
6) The history-making moment of Joe Biden being elected vice-president.
Of course Time is going to recognize these achievements. Then, of course, there's the fact that they almost always pick the winner of the presidential election to be their Man of the Year. Let's take a look:
2004: George W. Bush
2000: George W. Bush
1996: David Ho (An exception, I suppose)
1992: Bill Clinton
You can debate some of those. In fact, you probably should debate the selection of George W. Bush in 2000. Now there was someone who hadn't done anything that year aside from run a rather conventional presidential campaign.
But love Barack or hate Barack, he's been the biggest newsmaker by far this year. He deserves to be picked as MAN OF THE YEAR. Sorry, PERSON OF THE YEAR. Or, considering that they once picked a computer, CONCEPT OF THE YEAR.
Yes, it's time to consider who should be picked as Time's "Man of the Year." Please bear in mind, that doesn't mean the best person in the world this year. It always makes me a little mad when people look at last year's choice, Vladimir Putin, and huff, "Well, I always knew those Time editors were nothing but a bunch of commies!"
Well, maybe they are a bunch of commies. But they didn't pick Vlad because they liked the guy. They picked him because he was the most important man of the year. He had the biggest impact. He made the most news. He was the center of conversation.
Who should they pick this year? Who will they pick? For the first time in a while, the answer to both those questions is obvious: President-elect Barack Obama.
"But he hasn't even done anything yet!" I can already hear people wailing (I have very sharp ears). True, he hasn't done anything as president. But his presidential campaign alone was more than enough to earn him a spot. Consider a few arguments in his favor:
1) The history-making moment of an African-American being elected president
2) The new, decentralized campaign style he pioneered, powered by the internet, driven by volunteers and small donors
3) The fact that he came out of almost nowhere to knock off one of the most established figures in the Democratic party
4) The fact that he might just have restored what Arthur Schlesinger called "the vital center" in American politics
5) His creation of a new, powerful alliance of the young, upper-class whites, and minorities; it's the McGovern coalition come to fruition
6) The history-making moment of Joe Biden being elected vice-president.
Of course Time is going to recognize these achievements. Then, of course, there's the fact that they almost always pick the winner of the presidential election to be their Man of the Year. Let's take a look:
2004: George W. Bush
2000: George W. Bush
1996: David Ho (An exception, I suppose)
1992: Bill Clinton
You can debate some of those. In fact, you probably should debate the selection of George W. Bush in 2000. Now there was someone who hadn't done anything that year aside from run a rather conventional presidential campaign.
But love Barack or hate Barack, he's been the biggest newsmaker by far this year. He deserves to be picked as MAN OF THE YEAR. Sorry, PERSON OF THE YEAR. Or, considering that they once picked a computer, CONCEPT OF THE YEAR.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Father Abraham
Jonah Goldberg of National Review takes all those claims about Obama being the new Lincoln to the woodshed for a very deserved whuppin'. He makes two very, very important points that most of the media has missed:
1) Obama has not done anything yet. Anything. Before we talk about him restoring faith and hope and love and happiness and good cheer to America, let's see his first couple days in office. His first couple hours, at least.
2) Lincoln governed under pretty...extreme circumstances. In fact, that's something most of our great presidents have had in common. Lincoln had the Civil War. FDR had the Great Depression and World War II. And George Washington had to guide the country through the painful aftereffects of revolution and independence.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have a mediocre-to-good president in good times than a great president in bleak times. Is that a betrayal of everything that makes America great? Not really, I think.
Great presidents are the exception. Decent presidents are the rule. It's time we recognized that sometimes the humdrum presidents can do a little good for the country.
1) Obama has not done anything yet. Anything. Before we talk about him restoring faith and hope and love and happiness and good cheer to America, let's see his first couple days in office. His first couple hours, at least.
2) Lincoln governed under pretty...extreme circumstances. In fact, that's something most of our great presidents have had in common. Lincoln had the Civil War. FDR had the Great Depression and World War II. And George Washington had to guide the country through the painful aftereffects of revolution and independence.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have a mediocre-to-good president in good times than a great president in bleak times. Is that a betrayal of everything that makes America great? Not really, I think.
Great presidents are the exception. Decent presidents are the rule. It's time we recognized that sometimes the humdrum presidents can do a little good for the country.
Happy Thanksgiving
Allow me to spread a little pre-Turkey Day cheer with this gruesome piece from the New York Times. Patrick Martin, president of Slow Foods U.S.A., gives a turkey's-eye view of our national holiday. And it's not a pretty sight:
These turkey are destined to spend their lives not on grass but on wood shavings, laid down to absorb the overwhelming amount of waste that the flock produces. Still, the ammonia fumes rising from the floor are enough to burn the eyes, even at those operations where the top level of the shavings is occasionally scraped away during the flock's time in the barn.
And that's the best thing they have to look forward to. There are much, much worse things in that editorial, but I don't have the giblets to excerpt them. Needless to say, you'll never think about Ol' Tom the Turkey the same way again.
So now I can feel a smug sense of moral superiority from my family's decision to get a free-range turkey this year. Ah, I can already feel that unmistakable tingle. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go turn up my nose at all those suckers buying factory-raised turkeys.
These turkey are destined to spend their lives not on grass but on wood shavings, laid down to absorb the overwhelming amount of waste that the flock produces. Still, the ammonia fumes rising from the floor are enough to burn the eyes, even at those operations where the top level of the shavings is occasionally scraped away during the flock's time in the barn.
And that's the best thing they have to look forward to. There are much, much worse things in that editorial, but I don't have the giblets to excerpt them. Needless to say, you'll never think about Ol' Tom the Turkey the same way again.
So now I can feel a smug sense of moral superiority from my family's decision to get a free-range turkey this year. Ah, I can already feel that unmistakable tingle. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go turn up my nose at all those suckers buying factory-raised turkeys.
The Vetter You Get...
Now this is just silly. CNN asks if potential Obama cabinet members are being scared off by the administration's strict new vetting process.
Of course they are! That's why they're vetting so sharply in the first place. Better to lose a few people then to incur some nasty surprise sure to wind up on front-pages all across the country. That's what Obama's philosophy is and always has been. That's why he's called--according to the story, at least--"No Drama Obama."
Side note: is Chris Berman working for CNN now? Because that sounds like a bona-fide Bermanism.
The real question is, is this a good thing? Or is Obama running too tight a ship? After all, everybody and their mother and grandmother beat up on Bush for being too secretive, too close-mouthed, too message-focused. Will they apply the same standard to Obama?
Don't bet on it, even if somebody gives you 500000-to-1 odds. That's one bet you'd never be collecting on.
Of course they are! That's why they're vetting so sharply in the first place. Better to lose a few people then to incur some nasty surprise sure to wind up on front-pages all across the country. That's what Obama's philosophy is and always has been. That's why he's called--according to the story, at least--"No Drama Obama."
Side note: is Chris Berman working for CNN now? Because that sounds like a bona-fide Bermanism.
The real question is, is this a good thing? Or is Obama running too tight a ship? After all, everybody and their mother and grandmother beat up on Bush for being too secretive, too close-mouthed, too message-focused. Will they apply the same standard to Obama?
Don't bet on it, even if somebody gives you 500000-to-1 odds. That's one bet you'd never be collecting on.
Nutroots
Should Obama be quaking in his bed out of fear of the netroots? Not at all, writes James Kirchik:
Barack Obama isn't even President yet, and he's already angering some of his most devoted followers on the party's left wing. This is the mark of what could be a very successful presidency.
It all hangs on what you think Obama's real ideology is. Is he actually a post-partisan centrist moderate middle-of-the-roader bridge-builder he claimed to be? If so, then Kirchik is absolutely right.
A moderate Obama would have almost nothing to lose by breaking with the blogging heads of his party. They're already on the furthest left fringes, so any defections to the GOP are supremely unlikely. And by playing the part of the moderate standing up to the bizarro-left, he can burnish his indie credentials.
But if you think Obama's a far-left quasi-socialist? He probably can't afford to brush off the bloggers so easily. They, after all, are the most dedicated members of the Democratic party. If Obama crosses them, they won't hesitate to bombard their congressmen with angry calls, letters, and e-mails.
Obama's interactions with the netroots will show us where his priorities lie. Will he reject them and really attempt to build a new, centrist coalition? Or, when he's in trouble, will he fall back on his old allies at Kos, Firedoglake, the Huffington Post, etc, etc?
Barack Obama isn't even President yet, and he's already angering some of his most devoted followers on the party's left wing. This is the mark of what could be a very successful presidency.
"With its congressional majority, the Democratic Party has refused to seriously try to end the war, to stop the bailout and to stop the trampling of civil liberties, just to name a few off the top of my head," wrote David Sirota on the popular liberal blog OpenLeft, decrying the serial betrayals of Obama and the congressional Democratic majority..."We better understand why this happened," he fumed.
Allow me to provide an answer. You don't matter.
Ouch. But can Obama really dismiss the left-wing blogosphere so easily? More importantly, does he want to?It all hangs on what you think Obama's real ideology is. Is he actually a post-partisan centrist moderate middle-of-the-roader bridge-builder he claimed to be? If so, then Kirchik is absolutely right.
A moderate Obama would have almost nothing to lose by breaking with the blogging heads of his party. They're already on the furthest left fringes, so any defections to the GOP are supremely unlikely. And by playing the part of the moderate standing up to the bizarro-left, he can burnish his indie credentials.
But if you think Obama's a far-left quasi-socialist? He probably can't afford to brush off the bloggers so easily. They, after all, are the most dedicated members of the Democratic party. If Obama crosses them, they won't hesitate to bombard their congressmen with angry calls, letters, and e-mails.
Obama's interactions with the netroots will show us where his priorities lie. Will he reject them and really attempt to build a new, centrist coalition? Or, when he's in trouble, will he fall back on his old allies at Kos, Firedoglake, the Huffington Post, etc, etc?
A Brief Football-Related Explosion
41-10? 41-10!!! What on earth's going on here! State's supposed to be the one that suck this year, not us! State's the one who started approximately 537 quarterbacks this year! State's the one with an offense that averages 2 yards a game! State's supposed to be the worst of the worst of the worst of the ACC! Arggghhh!
Well, I've got that off my chest now. But I'm not looking forward to spending Thanksgiving at home with my State-attending brother. Boy, I thought it was bad when they beat us in basketball two years back. This is going to be worse--my brother actually cares about football.
Maybe that's why I prefer basketball to football. In football, you only get one chance a year to face down your bitterest rival. In basketball, you might get as many as three shots, so there's less chance that a fluke defeat will define your season.
Basically, what I'm saying is, our basketball team had better kick State's...buns...up and down the court this year. Don't let me down, Roy.
Well, I've got that off my chest now. But I'm not looking forward to spending Thanksgiving at home with my State-attending brother. Boy, I thought it was bad when they beat us in basketball two years back. This is going to be worse--my brother actually cares about football.
Maybe that's why I prefer basketball to football. In football, you only get one chance a year to face down your bitterest rival. In basketball, you might get as many as three shots, so there's less chance that a fluke defeat will define your season.
Basically, what I'm saying is, our basketball team had better kick State's...buns...up and down the court this year. Don't let me down, Roy.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Ponnuru, Punditizing
Over at Time, Ramesh Ponnuru takes a look at the future of the GOP and foresees much bloodshed.
Republicans are feuding in the wake of the November election. But they are not descending into civil war. That would be too tidy. What is unfolding instead is an overlapping series of Republican civil wars, each with its own theme.
I agree, though nobody cares what I think. The GOP is becoming increasingly factional, and defeat's only going to speed up that process. The Republican Party's problem is that, ever since the end of the Cold War, there's been no unifying force. There's no glue. There's not even any Scotch tape holding the thing together.
Victory was enough to keep all the different groups in line, if for no other reason than that they relied on one another to push their agenda. But that's gone now. And Ponnuru thinks we'll see the GOP pulled apart on every dimension: foreign policy, economics, immigration, how to deal with Barack Obama, etc., etc., etc.
Before you go suck on a gas pipe, though, listen to what else Ponnuru has to say:
Republicans are counting on the natural tides of politics to lift their numbers in Congress in 2010. The Democrats may overreach, or their supporters may get complacent. But to get back in the driver's seat, to become relevant again, Republicans will have to devise an agenda that speaks to a country where more people feel the bite of payroll taxes than income taxes, where health-care costs eat up raises even in good times, where the length of the daily commute is a bigger irritant than are earmarks and where whites are a declining proportion of the electorate.
I agree...sort of. My fear is that cost-of-living issues can only take you so far. Succesful political parties are always built on a BIG IDEA. The GOP of the Reagan Era was founded on the principle of self-reliance. The Democrats' New Deal coalition depended on the people trusting the government to lend them a hand.
Can we really scrape together a winning coalition based on commuting and charter schools? It'd be nice to think so, but those seem like just stopgap measures. The GOP needs its BIG IDEA if it wants to return to relevance.
Republicans are feuding in the wake of the November election. But they are not descending into civil war. That would be too tidy. What is unfolding instead is an overlapping series of Republican civil wars, each with its own theme.
I agree, though nobody cares what I think. The GOP is becoming increasingly factional, and defeat's only going to speed up that process. The Republican Party's problem is that, ever since the end of the Cold War, there's been no unifying force. There's no glue. There's not even any Scotch tape holding the thing together.
Victory was enough to keep all the different groups in line, if for no other reason than that they relied on one another to push their agenda. But that's gone now. And Ponnuru thinks we'll see the GOP pulled apart on every dimension: foreign policy, economics, immigration, how to deal with Barack Obama, etc., etc., etc.
Before you go suck on a gas pipe, though, listen to what else Ponnuru has to say:
Republicans are counting on the natural tides of politics to lift their numbers in Congress in 2010. The Democrats may overreach, or their supporters may get complacent. But to get back in the driver's seat, to become relevant again, Republicans will have to devise an agenda that speaks to a country where more people feel the bite of payroll taxes than income taxes, where health-care costs eat up raises even in good times, where the length of the daily commute is a bigger irritant than are earmarks and where whites are a declining proportion of the electorate.
I agree...sort of. My fear is that cost-of-living issues can only take you so far. Succesful political parties are always built on a BIG IDEA. The GOP of the Reagan Era was founded on the principle of self-reliance. The Democrats' New Deal coalition depended on the people trusting the government to lend them a hand.
Can we really scrape together a winning coalition based on commuting and charter schools? It'd be nice to think so, but those seem like just stopgap measures. The GOP needs its BIG IDEA if it wants to return to relevance.
Obligatory Football Post
Tomorrow, my alma mater-to-be--the UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA--will be facing off against our hated rivals, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY.
Things have been getting hot over the past few days. Carolina Fever--a group of students so dedicated that they actually attend UNC swim meets--struck first. Under the cover of night, they snuck over the NC State's campus and painted State's "Free Expression Tunnel" Carolina blue.
Needless to say, State isn't the kind of school to take something like that lying down. They're more the kind of school to take that by lashing out angrily, crudely, and drunkenly. And they didn't disappoint! Last night, Carolina's campus was visited by a few brick-red State pixies leaving messages of goodwill "Heels Suck!"
Tomorrow is the day of judgment. For me, it's the biggest day since November 4. I can only hope things turn out a little better for me this Saturday than they did that Tuesday.
Things have been getting hot over the past few days. Carolina Fever--a group of students so dedicated that they actually attend UNC swim meets--struck first. Under the cover of night, they snuck over the NC State's campus and painted State's "Free Expression Tunnel" Carolina blue.
Needless to say, State isn't the kind of school to take something like that lying down. They're more the kind of school to take that by lashing out angrily, crudely, and drunkenly. And they didn't disappoint! Last night, Carolina's campus was visited by a few brick-red State pixies leaving messages of goodwill "Heels Suck!"
Tomorrow is the day of judgment. For me, it's the biggest day since November 4. I can only hope things turn out a little better for me this Saturday than they did that Tuesday.
10 in '10--I Mean, in '12
Never has a blog been more accurately named than Chris Cillizza's "The Fix." I just can't get enough. If I go more than a few days without reading it, I start to go into political withdrawal and start babbling random elections statistics.
But on to my point. Cillizza does us a favor and ranks "Ten Republicans to Watch." Some of them are familiar names: Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford, John Thune. Myself, I'm particularly high on Thune as a GOP presidential prospect. More on that later.
There's also a few out-of-left (or right) field picks that caught my eye. Steve Poizner for President, anybody? If he can lead a GOP resurgence in the Golden State, there's no reason why not. The key, though, is "if." I've got strong doubts that any Republican not named "Schwarzenegger" can win a major statewide office in California nowadays.
Another interesting pick is Eric Cantor. For the past few years, he's been one of the many darlings of the conservative commetariat. But some are saying his role in the recent bailout bill might have taken off a bit of his shine.
My opinion? Cantor really needs to move up a bit if he wants to be seriously considered as White House material. We haven't elected a sitting congressman to the presidency since James Garfield. And you, Eric Cantor, are no James Garfield.
But on to my point. Cillizza does us a favor and ranks "Ten Republicans to Watch." Some of them are familiar names: Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford, John Thune. Myself, I'm particularly high on Thune as a GOP presidential prospect. More on that later.
There's also a few out-of-left (or right) field picks that caught my eye. Steve Poizner for President, anybody? If he can lead a GOP resurgence in the Golden State, there's no reason why not. The key, though, is "if." I've got strong doubts that any Republican not named "Schwarzenegger" can win a major statewide office in California nowadays.
Another interesting pick is Eric Cantor. For the past few years, he's been one of the many darlings of the conservative commetariat. But some are saying his role in the recent bailout bill might have taken off a bit of his shine.
My opinion? Cantor really needs to move up a bit if he wants to be seriously considered as White House material. We haven't elected a sitting congressman to the presidency since James Garfield. And you, Eric Cantor, are no James Garfield.
Madam Secretary
It looks official: we can start saying "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton." I can't help thinking this is a rather bizarre move on Obama's part. Yes, yes, we all know that he loves "Team of Rivals" and he wants to be just like Lincoln.
But consider this point made by somebody (forget who--my apologies) at The Corner. Obama rebutted Clinton's experience by claiming he showed "good judgment" by opposing the Iraq War from the very beginning. And now he's picking as his Secretary of State...the very same person he lambasted for having bad judgment?
I know people say a lot of things in primary races. Heck, Obama picked as his VP somebody who spent most of the primary race savaging him as a complete chump. But I think this goes a bit beyond that. The Iraq War was what fired Obama's candidacy. His opposition was what gave him credibility among the left-wing set. Now he's saying, well, it wasn't that important.
Maybe I'm just being nitpicky. After all, I'm not exactly an unbiased observer. We'll see how this thing works out.
But consider this point made by somebody (forget who--my apologies) at The Corner. Obama rebutted Clinton's experience by claiming he showed "good judgment" by opposing the Iraq War from the very beginning. And now he's picking as his Secretary of State...the very same person he lambasted for having bad judgment?
I know people say a lot of things in primary races. Heck, Obama picked as his VP somebody who spent most of the primary race savaging him as a complete chump. But I think this goes a bit beyond that. The Iraq War was what fired Obama's candidacy. His opposition was what gave him credibility among the left-wing set. Now he's saying, well, it wasn't that important.
Maybe I'm just being nitpicky. After all, I'm not exactly an unbiased observer. We'll see how this thing works out.
Minnesota, Eh?
The Minnesota recount is the kind of election that people will be writing books about for years to come.* With half of the vote recounted, there's just 136 votes standing between American and Senator Al Franken.
And if you're looking for a good laugh--or possibly a good cry--check out this NPR story about some of the "challenged ballots" in this race. Let me say this: I am in favor of automatically disqualifying the ballot of whoever wrote in "Lizard People" for president. In fact, I am in favor of automatically disqualifying them from voting ever again.
*Possible Title: "To Be Perfectly Franken," assuming, of course, that Franken wins. I'm afraid I can't think of an equivalent pun for Coleman.
And if you're looking for a good laugh--or possibly a good cry--check out this NPR story about some of the "challenged ballots" in this race. Let me say this: I am in favor of automatically disqualifying the ballot of whoever wrote in "Lizard People" for president. In fact, I am in favor of automatically disqualifying them from voting ever again.
*Possible Title: "To Be Perfectly Franken," assuming, of course, that Franken wins. I'm afraid I can't think of an equivalent pun for Coleman.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Outstanding
According to the ever-reliable Real Clear Politics, there's still 7 major races left to be decided. The big enchiladas, of course, are the Alaska and Minnesota Senate races. Then there's the Georgia Senate race, which looks to be heading towards a runoff. The runoff was automatic if a candidate gets less than 50%; at the last count, Republican Saxby Chambliss had 49.9% of the vote. I kid you not.
Then there's a handful of House races around the country. The one that should disturb Republicans most--boy, I've been saying that a lot recently, haven't I?--would have to be Virginia's 5th district. Democrat-turned-Independent-turned-Republican Virgil Goode is trailing his challenger by a couple hundred votes. It looks like he might be looking for work come next January.
If Goode loses, it might be a sign that the blue-ing of Virginia is happening on the local, as well as national, level. It's bad enough for the GOP to lose VA in a presidential race; what happens if it starts shedding Republican congressmen as well?
The same thing's happening in my home state of good ol' North Carolina. The GOP has lost two congressmen in the past two election cycles. Sure, both of them--Charles Taylor and Robin Hayes--were really brought down by their own mistakes. But if we can't win their seats back, that's a bad, bad sign.
Then there's a handful of House races around the country. The one that should disturb Republicans most--boy, I've been saying that a lot recently, haven't I?--would have to be Virginia's 5th district. Democrat-turned-Independent-turned-Republican Virgil Goode is trailing his challenger by a couple hundred votes. It looks like he might be looking for work come next January.
If Goode loses, it might be a sign that the blue-ing of Virginia is happening on the local, as well as national, level. It's bad enough for the GOP to lose VA in a presidential race; what happens if it starts shedding Republican congressmen as well?
The same thing's happening in my home state of good ol' North Carolina. The GOP has lost two congressmen in the past two election cycles. Sure, both of them--Charles Taylor and Robin Hayes--were really brought down by their own mistakes. But if we can't win their seats back, that's a bad, bad sign.
Don't Look Behind You...
This headline explains an awful lot about the current state of politics: "Paranoia On the Rise, Experts Say."
Who was it who talked about the left's "paranoid style of thinking?" I forget the name, but I remember the concept. I don't know if you can chalk it up as as just a leftist thing, though.
After all, for eight years the left has been living with a president who they think is Hitler without the 'stache. Then you get down to the chicken-and-egg thing: Are leftists paranoid because they hate Bush, or do they hate Bush because they're paranoid?
It'll be interesting to see if the right develops the same attitude towards Obama. Right now, the general feeling seems to be one of "sullen dislike." Most--note I say most--on the right hate Obama more for his perceived extremism than out of any paranoid fantasies.
There are exceptions, of course, like all those people who whispered about Obama's birth certificate or religion. You can bet that those kind of people are only going to become more common over the next four years.
Which is a shame--there are plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike Obama. If the right gives in to the sort of paranoid fantasizing that so much of the left has indulged in for the past eight years, they're going to be marginalized, and they would deserve it.
One final note from the story itself. I love this anecdote:
Van Os recalled a delusional patient who was convinced that the French singer Charles Aznavour was in love with her, and had been whispering to her before she went to sleep every night for more than two decades.
What I'm wondering: did this come about gradually? Like, did she start out thinking Aznavour was in love with her, and only eventually move on to thinking he was whispering in her ear? Or did she wake up all of a sudden thinking this guy was talking to her? Inquiring minds want to know.
Who was it who talked about the left's "paranoid style of thinking?" I forget the name, but I remember the concept. I don't know if you can chalk it up as as just a leftist thing, though.
After all, for eight years the left has been living with a president who they think is Hitler without the 'stache. Then you get down to the chicken-and-egg thing: Are leftists paranoid because they hate Bush, or do they hate Bush because they're paranoid?
It'll be interesting to see if the right develops the same attitude towards Obama. Right now, the general feeling seems to be one of "sullen dislike." Most--note I say most--on the right hate Obama more for his perceived extremism than out of any paranoid fantasies.
There are exceptions, of course, like all those people who whispered about Obama's birth certificate or religion. You can bet that those kind of people are only going to become more common over the next four years.
Which is a shame--there are plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike Obama. If the right gives in to the sort of paranoid fantasizing that so much of the left has indulged in for the past eight years, they're going to be marginalized, and they would deserve it.
One final note from the story itself. I love this anecdote:
Van Os recalled a delusional patient who was convinced that the French singer Charles Aznavour was in love with her, and had been whispering to her before she went to sleep every night for more than two decades.
What I'm wondering: did this come about gradually? Like, did she start out thinking Aznavour was in love with her, and only eventually move on to thinking he was whispering in her ear? Or did she wake up all of a sudden thinking this guy was talking to her? Inquiring minds want to know.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Every Speech a Filibuster
Arlen Specter doesn't need to sweat about a potential challenge from Chris Matthews--at least, not yet. The euphoniously-named Public Policy Polling has just released a new poll, which shows Matthews trailing Specter by a not-at-all-insignificant 40%-27% margin.
It's not exactly good news for Specter, though. Pundits always say that an incumbent's in danger if their numbers drop below 50%. I'd peg the danger zone a bit lower, maybe around 45%, but 40% is a definite warning light.
Matthews probably wouldn't beat Specter. I mean, the man makes Joe Biden look like Calvin Coolidge. Forget gaffe-a-minute; he'd be a gaffe machine, cranking 'em out one after another. He simply cannot shut up.
That doesn't mean Specter's invincible, though. The Pennsylvania Democrats have a lot more weapons than just Chris Matthews. What if, for instance, Ed Rendell decides he wants to go to Washington? He could make it a real race. In fact, I'd even say Rendell would be favored in that matchup.
Pennsylvania also has a ton of Democratic House members, many of them newly-minted products of the '06 and '08 elections. Guys like Chris Carney or Joe Sestak could prove a real challenge to Specter, assuming they have the nerve to take him on.
Which leads me to a larger point. For the GOP, the consequences of two consecutive electoral wipeouts are going to be felt for the next couple years. Everywhere except the South, the GOP benches are dangerously thin. We just don't have the manpower to compete in many gubernatorial and senatorial races.
If the GOP wants to become competitive again, we need to step up candidate recruitment now. Right. Now.
It's not exactly good news for Specter, though. Pundits always say that an incumbent's in danger if their numbers drop below 50%. I'd peg the danger zone a bit lower, maybe around 45%, but 40% is a definite warning light.
Matthews probably wouldn't beat Specter. I mean, the man makes Joe Biden look like Calvin Coolidge. Forget gaffe-a-minute; he'd be a gaffe machine, cranking 'em out one after another. He simply cannot shut up.
That doesn't mean Specter's invincible, though. The Pennsylvania Democrats have a lot more weapons than just Chris Matthews. What if, for instance, Ed Rendell decides he wants to go to Washington? He could make it a real race. In fact, I'd even say Rendell would be favored in that matchup.
Pennsylvania also has a ton of Democratic House members, many of them newly-minted products of the '06 and '08 elections. Guys like Chris Carney or Joe Sestak could prove a real challenge to Specter, assuming they have the nerve to take him on.
Which leads me to a larger point. For the GOP, the consequences of two consecutive electoral wipeouts are going to be felt for the next couple years. Everywhere except the South, the GOP benches are dangerously thin. We just don't have the manpower to compete in many gubernatorial and senatorial races.
If the GOP wants to become competitive again, we need to step up candidate recruitment now. Right. Now.
Yoink!
Are the Democrats trying to steal themselves a Senate seat in Minnesota? "Yes, yes, a thousand times yes," says John Lott.
Now, the conservative Lott might not be the most disinterested observer of politics. But here's an intriguing nugget from his piece:
Indeed, the 504 total new votes for Franken from all the precincts is greater than adding together all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the presidential, congressional, and state house races combined (a sum of 482).
Wow, that's...really convenient for Franken, isn't it?
Maybe I should withhold judgment. After all, my only experience with elections is producing a lot of hot air about them. I've never counted a vote; I don't know how those things work. But after the Washington gubernatorial race in 2004--and after the ACORN shenanigans this year, I have my suspicions.
Now, the conservative Lott might not be the most disinterested observer of politics. But here's an intriguing nugget from his piece:
Indeed, the 504 total new votes for Franken from all the precincts is greater than adding together all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the presidential, congressional, and state house races combined (a sum of 482).
Wow, that's...really convenient for Franken, isn't it?
Maybe I should withhold judgment. After all, my only experience with elections is producing a lot of hot air about them. I've never counted a vote; I don't know how those things work. But after the Washington gubernatorial race in 2004--and after the ACORN shenanigans this year, I have my suspicions.
Can the Titanic Ever Sail Again?
Can the Hindenburg ever make another flight? Can Muhammad Ali regain his heavyweight title? Can John Lennon producing a chart-topping hit next year?
In a similar vein, CNN asks: Can John Edwards make a comeback? Johnny Boy is up to his old "Two Americas" shtick again (I originally misspelled "shtick" as something cruder but much more accurate, by the way). He's slowly, slowly creeping back into the spotlight, starting with a discussion of the 2008 election at Indiana University.
CNN quotes a political scientist on Edwards' future: "He needs to figure out what the Democratic Party needs post-Obama election and step back and think, 'Well, what can I bring to the table?' "
Well, let's see. What does he bring to the table?
-A wealth of inexperience
-A reputation as a deceitful flip-flopper who changed from "sunny, smiling centrist" in 2004 to "hard-edged class warrior" in 2008
-A long history of demagoguery
-A series of failed presidential bids
And that's not even mentioning that whole "had an affair while his wife was dying of cancer thing." Oops, I guess I mentioned that just now. Well, might as well throw that on the table.
Edwards hasn't held a real job since 2004. He hasn't won an election since 1998--which, funnily enough, was the only time he ever won an election. In 2004, he failed to carry his home state for the Democratic ticket. A real shooting star, that John Edwards.
Let this Onion piece serve as a fitting epitaph for Edwards' political career.
In a similar vein, CNN asks: Can John Edwards make a comeback? Johnny Boy is up to his old "Two Americas" shtick again (I originally misspelled "shtick" as something cruder but much more accurate, by the way). He's slowly, slowly creeping back into the spotlight, starting with a discussion of the 2008 election at Indiana University.
CNN quotes a political scientist on Edwards' future: "He needs to figure out what the Democratic Party needs post-Obama election and step back and think, 'Well, what can I bring to the table?' "
Well, let's see. What does he bring to the table?
-A wealth of inexperience
-A reputation as a deceitful flip-flopper who changed from "sunny, smiling centrist" in 2004 to "hard-edged class warrior" in 2008
-A long history of demagoguery
-A series of failed presidential bids
And that's not even mentioning that whole "had an affair while his wife was dying of cancer thing." Oops, I guess I mentioned that just now. Well, might as well throw that on the table.
Edwards hasn't held a real job since 2004. He hasn't won an election since 1998--which, funnily enough, was the only time he ever won an election. In 2004, he failed to carry his home state for the Democratic ticket. A real shooting star, that John Edwards.
Let this Onion piece serve as a fitting epitaph for Edwards' political career.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Four More Years! Four More Years!
If I'm a political junkie, then I guess that makes Politico my dealer. Just when I think I've kicked the habit, they come along and whisper in my ear "Just one more hit..."
OK, you fiends, I give in. Here's Jonathan Martin's take on the GOP field for 2012. Among the names he tosses out: Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, and Newt Gingrich. And a few from out of left field: Govs. Rick Perry of Texas and Jon Huntsman of Utah.
An interesting quote from anti-tax bigwig bigfoot poobah Grover Norquist: “Jindal will be president. I don’t know the year.”
Well, the man's only 37, which should free him up for any election from 2012 to 2040. If you assume we discover the secrets of eternal life sometime soon, then that window opens even wider.
I confess to having already drawn up a list of the 25 most likely candidates--in my opinion, of course. I think I'll save that for a future post, maybe some sort of countdown from least likely (Duncan Hunter, anyone?) to most likely.
For now, though, here's my "Top 5 in 2012":
1. Sarah Palin
2. Mike Huckabee
3. Bobby Jindal
4. John Thune
5. Charlie Crist
Talk amongst yourselves.
OK, you fiends, I give in. Here's Jonathan Martin's take on the GOP field for 2012. Among the names he tosses out: Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, and Newt Gingrich. And a few from out of left field: Govs. Rick Perry of Texas and Jon Huntsman of Utah.
An interesting quote from anti-tax bigwig bigfoot poobah Grover Norquist: “Jindal will be president. I don’t know the year.”
Well, the man's only 37, which should free him up for any election from 2012 to 2040. If you assume we discover the secrets of eternal life sometime soon, then that window opens even wider.
I confess to having already drawn up a list of the 25 most likely candidates--in my opinion, of course. I think I'll save that for a future post, maybe some sort of countdown from least likely (Duncan Hunter, anyone?) to most likely.
For now, though, here's my "Top 5 in 2012":
1. Sarah Palin
2. Mike Huckabee
3. Bobby Jindal
4. John Thune
5. Charlie Crist
Talk amongst yourselves.
Dean Done
At the DNC, that is. He won't be pursuing a second term, and will instead retire to spend more time screaming at his family.
I'm sure most Democrats would hail his "50 State Strategy" as a stroke of genius. The results are pretty impressive, I have to admit. The Democrats put the GOP on the defensive just about everywhere in 2006 and again in 2008. They went into GOP strongholds--and, more importantly, they won.
They won in Kansas. They won in Idaho. They won in Mississippi. They won in districts that gave Bush more than 60% of the vote. They won in districts that hadn't elected a Democrat in decades. That seems a pretty strong vindication of a 50 state strategy.
But I'm still not sold on it. Maybe it's just partisan bias. But I can't help thinking that the Republicans were done in by the national mood and not by any Democratic master plan. Yes, the Democrats did win in some pretty unusual places. But how much of that was thanks to Dean, and how much of that was just from Republicans being really, really unpopular?
After all, the 1994 elections seemed to "prove" the GOP was competitive everywhere. They won in Massachusetts! They won in New York! They won in Chicago, for God's sake! It was a whole new paradigm! Move over, Whig Party--the Democrats are about to join you in the Major Party Grave!
Then came 1996, and most of those new congressman turned out to be duds. Almost without exception, they got swept out of office by humiliating margins. The guy who beat Dan Rostenkowski? Hell, he lost 64% to 36%.
What am I getting at? Fine, fine, I'll tell you. 2010 will tell us just how successful the 50 state strategy really is. If the Democrats manage to hold on to their seats in the Deep South and the Great Plains, then I'll doff my cap in a salute to Dean. And I don't even have a cap.
But if the Democrats slip back and lose most of those seats, let me be the first to say "I told you so!" God, I love being able to say that. It's like heroin to a political prognosticator. We can't enough of it.
I'm sure most Democrats would hail his "50 State Strategy" as a stroke of genius. The results are pretty impressive, I have to admit. The Democrats put the GOP on the defensive just about everywhere in 2006 and again in 2008. They went into GOP strongholds--and, more importantly, they won.
They won in Kansas. They won in Idaho. They won in Mississippi. They won in districts that gave Bush more than 60% of the vote. They won in districts that hadn't elected a Democrat in decades. That seems a pretty strong vindication of a 50 state strategy.
But I'm still not sold on it. Maybe it's just partisan bias. But I can't help thinking that the Republicans were done in by the national mood and not by any Democratic master plan. Yes, the Democrats did win in some pretty unusual places. But how much of that was thanks to Dean, and how much of that was just from Republicans being really, really unpopular?
After all, the 1994 elections seemed to "prove" the GOP was competitive everywhere. They won in Massachusetts! They won in New York! They won in Chicago, for God's sake! It was a whole new paradigm! Move over, Whig Party--the Democrats are about to join you in the Major Party Grave!
Then came 1996, and most of those new congressman turned out to be duds. Almost without exception, they got swept out of office by humiliating margins. The guy who beat Dan Rostenkowski? Hell, he lost 64% to 36%.
What am I getting at? Fine, fine, I'll tell you. 2010 will tell us just how successful the 50 state strategy really is. If the Democrats manage to hold on to their seats in the Deep South and the Great Plains, then I'll doff my cap in a salute to Dean. And I don't even have a cap.
But if the Democrats slip back and lose most of those seats, let me be the first to say "I told you so!" God, I love being able to say that. It's like heroin to a political prognosticator. We can't enough of it.
Urggghhh...
All I can say to this news is that the Virginia GOP had better start getting its act together soon. And by soon, I mean "now." I can take President Obama. I can take Speaker Pelosi. I can take Senate Majority Leader Reid.
I can't and won't stomach Governor Terry McAuliffe. I won't. Do you hear me? I WON'T ALLOW IT!
PS. God, if you're reading this blog, I would also add this to a list of things I won't accept. Preserve us, O Lord, from the fury of the Minnesotans.
I can't and won't stomach Governor Terry McAuliffe. I won't. Do you hear me? I WON'T ALLOW IT!
PS. God, if you're reading this blog, I would also add this to a list of things I won't accept. Preserve us, O Lord, from the fury of the Minnesotans.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Heaven Forfend, This Time for Real
Via Robert Novak: Newt Gingrich as the GOP nominee in 2012? My initial reaction: no. My secondary reaction: no. My tertiary reaction: NOOOOOOOO!
The man has undeniable energy, and he's been one of the best "idea guys" for the GOP. Having good ideas does not make you a good candidate, though. If it did, we'd all be enjoying the fifth consecutive term of President Steve Forbes.
I'm willing to be won over, though. I confess to not knowing a whole lot about Newt. What I do know is just what the rest of the American public knows: he was a controversial figure who was forced out of office by a seamy sex scandal.
So if he can conquer that memory, more power to him. Me, I'll just get started on printing up my Jindal 2012 bumper stickers.
The man has undeniable energy, and he's been one of the best "idea guys" for the GOP. Having good ideas does not make you a good candidate, though. If it did, we'd all be enjoying the fifth consecutive term of President Steve Forbes.
I'm willing to be won over, though. I confess to not knowing a whole lot about Newt. What I do know is just what the rest of the American public knows: he was a controversial figure who was forced out of office by a seamy sex scandal.
So if he can conquer that memory, more power to him. Me, I'll just get started on printing up my Jindal 2012 bumper stickers.
A Brief Basketball Related Update
Hey, I'm not all about politics. Though I suddenly realize that I'm blogging about politics on a Saturday night, but, whatever. Anyway, I just got back from North Carolina's first basketball game of the season. Woo! Go Heels!
Now that I've gotten the school spirit out of my system, let me continue. It wasn't a basketball game as much as it was a "basketball game." It was one of the "exhibition games" where we play a creampuff school a quarter of million dollars to come to the DeanDome and receive a good, hearty thrashing. Masochistic schools are a must.
On the receiving end of tonight's thrashing: the UNC-Pembroke Braves, ladies and gentlemen! At first it looked like an upset was brewing. They jumped out to a big, big lead, and after four minutes of play they led 8-0. Then our guys remembered they actually had to go out there and play. After that, we outscored them 1,000,000-6.
I exaggerate, but only a little. The final score was 102-62. Which isn't too shabby for the Braves, considering Vegas had them as quadrillion point underdogs. Regarding our team: they looked pretty good. They can run up the floor with the basketball, throw it, and make it go through the little metal thing. Hey, I'm no judge of sports.
And we seemed OK even without our Great White Monster. I didn't even see Hansbrough, though I'm sure he was there in street clothes. Either that, or he was lurking in his cage, gnawing on a mannequin in a Greg Paulus jersey.
Now that I've gotten the school spirit out of my system, let me continue. It wasn't a basketball game as much as it was a "basketball game." It was one of the "exhibition games" where we play a creampuff school a quarter of million dollars to come to the DeanDome and receive a good, hearty thrashing. Masochistic schools are a must.
On the receiving end of tonight's thrashing: the UNC-Pembroke Braves, ladies and gentlemen! At first it looked like an upset was brewing. They jumped out to a big, big lead, and after four minutes of play they led 8-0. Then our guys remembered they actually had to go out there and play. After that, we outscored them 1,000,000-6.
I exaggerate, but only a little. The final score was 102-62. Which isn't too shabby for the Braves, considering Vegas had them as quadrillion point underdogs. Regarding our team: they looked pretty good. They can run up the floor with the basketball, throw it, and make it go through the little metal thing. Hey, I'm no judge of sports.
And we seemed OK even without our Great White Monster. I didn't even see Hansbrough, though I'm sure he was there in street clothes. Either that, or he was lurking in his cage, gnawing on a mannequin in a Greg Paulus jersey.
The Bigot Inside You...
Was he the reason you voted for John McCain?* John Tierney of the NYT makes a pretty convincing case that "unconscious racism" is rapidly going extinct in America.
In a sentence that would make Malcolm Gladwell tear his hair out--and anyone who's seen Malcolm Gladwell knows that that's no easy thing to do--Tierney writes:
They’ve done this using tools like the Implicit Association Test, which has shown that whites more quickly associate whites with “good” attributes and and blacks with “bad” attributes.” But do these split-second reaction times really tell us anything useful about how people think and behave? As my colleague Ben Carey points out today, there’s also evidence that people’s prejudices can be reduced quite quickly when they spend time with someone from another race.
Heaven forfend! You mean people make judgments on things besides their initial gut reactions? Tierney also points out that Obama got a larger percentage of the white vote than Kerry did in 2004. Kerry! The whitest of the white! The Ivory Soap candidate!
Yeah, there are definitely racist voters out there. Yes, people are still going to make instinctive judgments based on race. But I think most people manage to keep those sort of things outside the voting booth.
Then again, maybe that's just the bigot in me talking.
Link via Instapundit, by the way.
*First, I'm assuming you voted for McCain. Second, I'm assuming you're reading this blog, which is a pretty big jump to make.
In a sentence that would make Malcolm Gladwell tear his hair out--and anyone who's seen Malcolm Gladwell knows that that's no easy thing to do--Tierney writes:
They’ve done this using tools like the Implicit Association Test, which has shown that whites more quickly associate whites with “good” attributes and and blacks with “bad” attributes.” But do these split-second reaction times really tell us anything useful about how people think and behave? As my colleague Ben Carey points out today, there’s also evidence that people’s prejudices can be reduced quite quickly when they spend time with someone from another race.
Heaven forfend! You mean people make judgments on things besides their initial gut reactions? Tierney also points out that Obama got a larger percentage of the white vote than Kerry did in 2004. Kerry! The whitest of the white! The Ivory Soap candidate!
Yeah, there are definitely racist voters out there. Yes, people are still going to make instinctive judgments based on race. But I think most people manage to keep those sort of things outside the voting booth.
Then again, maybe that's just the bigot in me talking.
Link via Instapundit, by the way.
*First, I'm assuming you voted for McCain. Second, I'm assuming you're reading this blog, which is a pretty big jump to make.
Wise Words
There's no pundit I trust more than Michael Barone. When the Baronester speaks, I listen. You should too: take a look at his latest column, concerning (what else?) Obama's victory. First, he pours a little cold water on the whole "landslide" idea:
Huge majorities believe the country is on the wrong track and disapprove of George W. Bush; voters prefer generic Democrats over Republicans by 10 percent or more. But Obama beat John McCain by (at this writing) just 52 to 46 percent, running 2 points ahead of Bush in 2004 and 1 point behind George H.W. Bush in 1988.
Indeed. Obama's win was more akin to G.H.W.B than L.B.J. And while I don't want this to sound too much like sour grapes, the fact is that Obama did underperform. A little. He won, but if there was a year when the Democrats could've nominated a block of moldy cheese and won, this was it.
What else can you tell us, Mr. Barone?
The decisive shift of public opinion came when the financial crisis hit. McCain approached it like a fighter pilot, denouncing Wall Street, suspending his campaign, threatening to skip the first debate. Obama approached it like a law professor, cool and detached. Voters preferred law professor to fighter pilot. This was a triumph of temperament, not policy.
The conventional wisdom is gelling hard and fast. Years from now, when they write tick-tocking books about the 2008 election, there'll always be a chapter set aside for "the financial crisis." Myself, I'm not sure how big a role McCain's reaction played. The collapsing stock market helped do him in, certainly, but his aborted "campaign suspension" seemed more like a passing thing than a real game-changer.
Huge majorities believe the country is on the wrong track and disapprove of George W. Bush; voters prefer generic Democrats over Republicans by 10 percent or more. But Obama beat John McCain by (at this writing) just 52 to 46 percent, running 2 points ahead of Bush in 2004 and 1 point behind George H.W. Bush in 1988.
Indeed. Obama's win was more akin to G.H.W.B than L.B.J. And while I don't want this to sound too much like sour grapes, the fact is that Obama did underperform. A little. He won, but if there was a year when the Democrats could've nominated a block of moldy cheese and won, this was it.
What else can you tell us, Mr. Barone?
The decisive shift of public opinion came when the financial crisis hit. McCain approached it like a fighter pilot, denouncing Wall Street, suspending his campaign, threatening to skip the first debate. Obama approached it like a law professor, cool and detached. Voters preferred law professor to fighter pilot. This was a triumph of temperament, not policy.
The conventional wisdom is gelling hard and fast. Years from now, when they write tick-tocking books about the 2008 election, there'll always be a chapter set aside for "the financial crisis." Myself, I'm not sure how big a role McCain's reaction played. The collapsing stock market helped do him in, certainly, but his aborted "campaign suspension" seemed more like a passing thing than a real game-changer.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Woo, Cornhuskers!
Here's something I never would've expected: it looks like Obama might pick up one of Nebraska's electoral votes. Now, I know some pundits were talking about that possibility. But I always thought it ranked somewhere behind "Obama turns out to be an extraterrestrial" in terms of plausibility.
So score one for my pretensions at being a master predictor! I don't know if you can take too much from this. It was a really bad year for the GOP, after all. Yet we can't write it off, either. The Mountain West states--Nevada, Colorado, Montana--have all taken a sharp turn towards the Democrats in recent years.
Are the Great Plains states going to be next? Will we see Oklahoma and Kansas turning blue in 2012? It's not quite the same situation as the Mountain West, granted. The GOP's dominance of the Great Plains is built more on social than economic conservatism. Still, if I was the GOP master planner, I'd be more than a little worried.
PS. Wait, does this mean Obama is an extraterrestrial? All those people who complained about his birth certificate being phony were right after all!
So score one for my pretensions at being a master predictor! I don't know if you can take too much from this. It was a really bad year for the GOP, after all. Yet we can't write it off, either. The Mountain West states--Nevada, Colorado, Montana--have all taken a sharp turn towards the Democrats in recent years.
Are the Great Plains states going to be next? Will we see Oklahoma and Kansas turning blue in 2012? It's not quite the same situation as the Mountain West, granted. The GOP's dominance of the Great Plains is built more on social than economic conservatism. Still, if I was the GOP master planner, I'd be more than a little worried.
PS. Wait, does this mean Obama is an extraterrestrial? All those people who complained about his birth certificate being phony were right after all!
...And on the Other Hand
For a more optimistic view of a possible Obama presidency, read David Brooks' latest piece in the NYT. Yes, it does contain some of the usual Brooksisms--more community involvement! we need to be more competitive! bobos! Also yes, parts of it stray from the realm of "wishful thinking" into "outright fantasy." I don't think Jim Talent is going to be landing a job in the Obama administration anytime soon.
But if you're still down in the dumps from Tuesday (and I know I still am), read this article, close your eyes, and imagine all his predictions coming true. It'll give you a warm, fuzzy feeling guaranteed to last until you remember Obama just appointed. Rahm Emmanuel as his chief of staff.
Rahm Emmanuel.
The guy best known for flipping people off with his severed middle finger.
It's going to be a long four years.
But if you're still down in the dumps from Tuesday (and I know I still am), read this article, close your eyes, and imagine all his predictions coming true. It'll give you a warm, fuzzy feeling guaranteed to last until you remember Obama just appointed. Rahm Emmanuel as his chief of staff.
Rahm Emmanuel.
The guy best known for flipping people off with his severed middle finger.
It's going to be a long four years.
Chill Pill, Take as Required
And if you look to your left, you will see Quin Hilyer going absolutely apocalyptic. Here, according to Quin, are some of the things we can look forward to for the next four years:
Watch what Michael Barone called the Obama "thugocracy" use the Justice Department to stifle dissent. Anybody who complains about vote fraud will be charged with "vote suppression." Anybody who complains about DoJ's actions will be charged with interfering with an investigation. Anybody who denies having interfered will be charged with perjury. Likewise, anybody who peacefully protests abortion clinics or the use of state-sponsored racial quotas will be charged with a civil rights violation.
Other ways the Obama axis will tilt the playing field: "card check" legislation to eliminate secret ballots in unionizing and to force union victories in contract negotiations. Provision after provision giving favors to the trial bar so it can sue enemies into submission. Copious new regulations, especially environmental, to be used selectively to ensnare other conservative malcontents.
All that's missing is the return of the bubonic plague. Now, I don't like Obama a whole lot. I think his philosophy is radical, his policies are simplistic, and many of his supporters are nuts.
But I'm not going to go quite so far as Mr. Hilyer. I have confidence that there are enough sane politicians out there--both Republicans and Democrats--to keep everything from going to hell. And for the moment, I still have a bit of trust in Obama too.
Yes, I know very well that makes me a traitor to the movement. But Obama seems like a sharp enough guy. I can put at least a little faith in his judgment, can't I? I can hope that he won't unleash a "thugocracy" on us.
Of course, if Quin is right and I'm wrong, then God help us all. Or Obama help us all. In Quin's future, I'm sure the two will be interchangeable.
Watch what Michael Barone called the Obama "thugocracy" use the Justice Department to stifle dissent. Anybody who complains about vote fraud will be charged with "vote suppression." Anybody who complains about DoJ's actions will be charged with interfering with an investigation. Anybody who denies having interfered will be charged with perjury. Likewise, anybody who peacefully protests abortion clinics or the use of state-sponsored racial quotas will be charged with a civil rights violation.
Other ways the Obama axis will tilt the playing field: "card check" legislation to eliminate secret ballots in unionizing and to force union victories in contract negotiations. Provision after provision giving favors to the trial bar so it can sue enemies into submission. Copious new regulations, especially environmental, to be used selectively to ensnare other conservative malcontents.
All that's missing is the return of the bubonic plague. Now, I don't like Obama a whole lot. I think his philosophy is radical, his policies are simplistic, and many of his supporters are nuts.
But I'm not going to go quite so far as Mr. Hilyer. I have confidence that there are enough sane politicians out there--both Republicans and Democrats--to keep everything from going to hell. And for the moment, I still have a bit of trust in Obama too.
Yes, I know very well that makes me a traitor to the movement. But Obama seems like a sharp enough guy. I can put at least a little faith in his judgment, can't I? I can hope that he won't unleash a "thugocracy" on us.
Of course, if Quin is right and I'm wrong, then God help us all. Or Obama help us all. In Quin's future, I'm sure the two will be interchangeable.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Now Tell Me About Your Mother
Via Slate comes five different opinions on the future of the GOP--from Jim Manzi, Tucker Carlson, Douglas Kmiec, Christine Todd Whitman, and Ross Douthat. Kmiec--surprise!--thinks the GOP should be more like Obama, and that we should stop being so hung up on this whole abortion thing.
Christine Todd Whitman thinks...sorry, I fell asleep reading hers. It was a bit dull. Something about how compelling Obama is.
Tucker Carlson says the GOP needs to find a leader "who can speak English." And sadly, after eight years of GWB, I see his point.
Jim Manzi wants the party to return to its middle class roots. He's worried that the American people are growing more and more alienated from the party faithful. Republicans have free market cheerleaders for a while now, but a lot of "real Amuricans" think the whole system needs fixing.
Ross Douthat gives the best advice of all: stop bickering. And I agree. For the love of God! Enough talk about squishes and squashes and hardliners and screwballs and wingnuts and nefarious neocons. Every faction of the GOP has been acting like a twelve-year-old wannabe street tough itching for a fight.
"C'mon! Who wants a piece of me? Oh, you wanna go, fiscal conservatives? Right here, right now! Let's throw down!"
Christine Todd Whitman thinks...sorry, I fell asleep reading hers. It was a bit dull. Something about how compelling Obama is.
Tucker Carlson says the GOP needs to find a leader "who can speak English." And sadly, after eight years of GWB, I see his point.
Jim Manzi wants the party to return to its middle class roots. He's worried that the American people are growing more and more alienated from the party faithful. Republicans have free market cheerleaders for a while now, but a lot of "real Amuricans" think the whole system needs fixing.
Ross Douthat gives the best advice of all: stop bickering. And I agree. For the love of God! Enough talk about squishes and squashes and hardliners and screwballs and wingnuts and nefarious neocons. Every faction of the GOP has been acting like a twelve-year-old wannabe street tough itching for a fight.
"C'mon! Who wants a piece of me? Oh, you wanna go, fiscal conservatives? Right here, right now! Let's throw down!"
Something to Chew On
If you've got a few hours to spare, why not waste it digesting CNN's exit polls? Lots of interesting stuff in there, and I haven't even gotten past page 1 of 7. Here's a few stats that jumped out at me and hit me smack in the face:
OBAMA CARRIED WOMEN, 56%-43%
In my National Elections class, we learned that the gender gap is a result of the fact that men skew towards the GOP, not because women favor Democrats. So much for my education.
THE ONLY AGE GROUP MCCAIN CARRIED WAS 65+
Think that's a bad sign for the GOP's future? Even worse, Obama carried the 18-29 demographic by a staggering 66%-32%. Hint to the GOP: those voters are going to be around a long while.
OBAMA CARRIED VOTERS MAKING LESS THAN $30,000, 60-38%
Normally, lower income voters skew just a tad towards the Democrats. I'd say this is well beyond a tad. And we can't blame the whole thing on the economy.
OBAMA CARRIED EVERY EDUCATION GROUP
Those with a high school education and those without. The people who graduated from college and the ones who didn't. And even those pointy-heads with their PhDs. No word as to how he did among people with only a grade school education, but I'm guessing he won them too.
24% OF VOTERS SAID THEY WERE "SCARED" BY THE THOUGHT OF AN OBAMA VICTORY
...And 4% voted for him anyway! And 28% of people said a McCain victory would scare them--and 2% voted for him anyway! Who are these people?
OBAMA CARRIED EVERY RELIGIOUS GROUP EXCEPT PROTESTANTS
Jesus said, "On this rock I will build my church." But the GOP can't expect to build a political party on just one rock. Bush won in large part because he narrowly carried the Catholic vote; Obama won Catholics 54%-45%. That's a lot of swing voters.
I'm getting depressed just typing this. So go ahead: read for yourself, and get depressed for yourself!
OBAMA CARRIED WOMEN, 56%-43%
In my National Elections class, we learned that the gender gap is a result of the fact that men skew towards the GOP, not because women favor Democrats. So much for my education.
THE ONLY AGE GROUP MCCAIN CARRIED WAS 65+
Think that's a bad sign for the GOP's future? Even worse, Obama carried the 18-29 demographic by a staggering 66%-32%. Hint to the GOP: those voters are going to be around a long while.
OBAMA CARRIED VOTERS MAKING LESS THAN $30,000, 60-38%
Normally, lower income voters skew just a tad towards the Democrats. I'd say this is well beyond a tad. And we can't blame the whole thing on the economy.
OBAMA CARRIED EVERY EDUCATION GROUP
Those with a high school education and those without. The people who graduated from college and the ones who didn't. And even those pointy-heads with their PhDs. No word as to how he did among people with only a grade school education, but I'm guessing he won them too.
24% OF VOTERS SAID THEY WERE "SCARED" BY THE THOUGHT OF AN OBAMA VICTORY
...And 4% voted for him anyway! And 28% of people said a McCain victory would scare them--and 2% voted for him anyway! Who are these people?
OBAMA CARRIED EVERY RELIGIOUS GROUP EXCEPT PROTESTANTS
Jesus said, "On this rock I will build my church." But the GOP can't expect to build a political party on just one rock. Bush won in large part because he narrowly carried the Catholic vote; Obama won Catholics 54%-45%. That's a lot of swing voters.
I'm getting depressed just typing this. So go ahead: read for yourself, and get depressed for yourself!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Ore-gone
There goes Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon. I had high hopes when I woke up this morning and saw that he was still ahead by a few thousand votes. Oregon is a weird state, though. All their voting is done by mail, don'tcha know. And it seems like the letters from Portland were running a little late.
Oh, well. That pretty much solidifies the Democratic stranglehold on the West Coast. And just think! Twenty years ago, California had a Republican governor and senator; Oregon had two Republican senators; and Washington had a Republican senator.
If the GOP ever wants to return to viability, I think it needs to start out west. Look at what the Democrats did in Colorado. If the Republicans could pull of something similar in Oregon or Washington, we'd be well on our way back to being a national party.
Oh, well. That pretty much solidifies the Democratic stranglehold on the West Coast. And just think! Twenty years ago, California had a Republican governor and senator; Oregon had two Republican senators; and Washington had a Republican senator.
If the GOP ever wants to return to viability, I think it needs to start out west. Look at what the Democrats did in Colorado. If the Republicans could pull of something similar in Oregon or Washington, we'd be well on our way back to being a national party.
Digging in the Dirt
David Greenberg--no McCain apologist--debunks the notion that McCain ran the sleaziest campaign in history. As an aspiring historian, I've always found it silly when people say "Politics is worse than ever! We're scraping new lows in political discourse!"
Thankfully, we're not. Greenberg points out some of the finest examples of past mud-slinging, including Abigail Adams' charge that Thomas Jefferson would "ruin and corrupt the minds and morals of the best people in the world." Ouch! Try working that one into a bumper sticker.
Let me add an example of my own, because if I didn't, I wouldn't be doing my job as a big-mouthed blogger. During the election of 1896, one minister described Democratic nominee William Jennings Bryan as being "a mouthing, slobbering demagogue" and "a wretched addle-pated boy leading a league of Hell."
So we've left that sort of hyperbole behind. Then again, though, over the past two decades we've seen an increasing vulgarization of political discourse. True, nobody accuses their opponent of being a "slobbering demagogue" anymore. But plenty of bloggers don't have the slightest qualm about calling some politician a "f***head," a "f***tard," or even a "f************."
Thankfully, we're not. Greenberg points out some of the finest examples of past mud-slinging, including Abigail Adams' charge that Thomas Jefferson would "ruin and corrupt the minds and morals of the best people in the world." Ouch! Try working that one into a bumper sticker.
Let me add an example of my own, because if I didn't, I wouldn't be doing my job as a big-mouthed blogger. During the election of 1896, one minister described Democratic nominee William Jennings Bryan as being "a mouthing, slobbering demagogue" and "a wretched addle-pated boy leading a league of Hell."
So we've left that sort of hyperbole behind. Then again, though, over the past two decades we've seen an increasing vulgarization of political discourse. True, nobody accuses their opponent of being a "slobbering demagogue" anymore. But plenty of bloggers don't have the slightest qualm about calling some politician a "f***head," a "f***tard," or even a "f************."
From the Life is Unfair Files, Part 3672
Explain this one to me, please. Last night we lost Senator John Sununu, who just about everyone acknowledges has been an effective, bipartisan legislator. He was young, he was from a swing state, he was a rising star in the party. And he goes down to Jeanne Shaheen, the woman he beat just six years back.
So consider all that. And now think of this: we lose Sununu's seat, but somehow Ted Stevens hangs on? Ted Stevens, convicted felon? Is there no justice?*
*No, there is not.
So consider all that. And now think of this: we lose Sununu's seat, but somehow Ted Stevens hangs on? Ted Stevens, convicted felon? Is there no justice?*
*No, there is not.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Science and Technology
I'm still in awe of John King's amazing board on CNN. Tell me, who needs Bill Schneider when you've got that wonderful map? It tells you everything. I'm sure that if you asked it how individual people voted, it could tell you.
Map, how did my mom vote in today's election?
She voted the straight-party Libertarian ticket.
Oh, and CNN just called Ohio for Obama. Pretty much finishes McCain's chances, unless he can miraculously turn California red. Which is impossible. Which means Obama wins. Time to buy that ticket to Australia!
Naw, just joking.
Map, how did my mom vote in today's election?
She voted the straight-party Libertarian ticket.
Oh, and CNN just called Ohio for Obama. Pretty much finishes McCain's chances, unless he can miraculously turn California red. Which is impossible. Which means Obama wins. Time to buy that ticket to Australia!
Naw, just joking.
Late in the Evening
Obvious Point #1: It's not the best of nights for the GOP. Now, it's not going to be the absolute worst case scenario. McConnell won, it looks like Chambliss is going to win, and McCain's holding most of the red states.
Most, but not all. Fox has called Ohio for Obama, and while CNN's being a little more cautious, Wolf just announced they had "a major call coming up." I'm guessing it's the Buckeye State. Indiana, Virginia, Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida are all still outstanding. That's "outstanding" as it "not in yet," by the way. All are red states. None look too good for McCain.
McCain apparently leads in the popular vote, but wait til the votes come in from the Pacific coast and from the Northeast. When they're all counted, I'm guessing Obama'll have a pretty healthy lead in the PV--5-6%, maybe more.
Any bright points for the GOP? Well, so far McConnell's survival is about it. I'm racking my brain to think of another, but...I got nothing. No big House seats are gone so far, but I'm afraid it's only a matter of time.
Ah, here's one good thing to come out of this election: I got a free peanut-butter-and-chocolate ice cream cone at Ben & Jerry's. Not quite as nice as a GOP victory, but it was very tasty. So that's a start.
Most, but not all. Fox has called Ohio for Obama, and while CNN's being a little more cautious, Wolf just announced they had "a major call coming up." I'm guessing it's the Buckeye State. Indiana, Virginia, Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida are all still outstanding. That's "outstanding" as it "not in yet," by the way. All are red states. None look too good for McCain.
McCain apparently leads in the popular vote, but wait til the votes come in from the Pacific coast and from the Northeast. When they're all counted, I'm guessing Obama'll have a pretty healthy lead in the PV--5-6%, maybe more.
Any bright points for the GOP? Well, so far McConnell's survival is about it. I'm racking my brain to think of another, but...I got nothing. No big House seats are gone so far, but I'm afraid it's only a matter of time.
Ah, here's one good thing to come out of this election: I got a free peanut-butter-and-chocolate ice cream cone at Ben & Jerry's. Not quite as nice as a GOP victory, but it was very tasty. So that's a start.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Stiff Upper Lip
If you don't buy into the whole doom-and-gloom thing, I recommend you check out the Campaign Spot over at National Review, where the incomparable Jim Geraghty has posted an update from a mysterious GOP operative known only as "Obi-Wan Kenobi."
Says Obi:
So, if the polling community is basically right in their turnout models, this is looking like '64 — a nightmare scenario for the GOP. But if they are off to any significant degree, the state polls seen today (even though some of them favor a high Dem turnout model) make this a very different race. And what about the outlier polls in Pennsylvania and even one in Minnesota showing a close race?
I'm not sold on Minnesota being in play. But if the polls really are overestimating the Democratic advantage, then I guess everything really does go right out the window. A lot of those polls are giving the Dems a +8%, +10% advantage in turnout. If that doesn't happen--well, we'll see.
I don't think the Democratic advantage will be that large. There'll still be some college students too lazy or too hungover to make the trip down to their polling place. I say this as a college student myself. But, still speaking as a college students...those Obama people really are fired up. I think we're going to see record numbers of the 18-29ers turning out.
Says Obi:
So, if the polling community is basically right in their turnout models, this is looking like '64 — a nightmare scenario for the GOP. But if they are off to any significant degree, the state polls seen today (even though some of them favor a high Dem turnout model) make this a very different race. And what about the outlier polls in Pennsylvania and even one in Minnesota showing a close race?
I'm not sold on Minnesota being in play. But if the polls really are overestimating the Democratic advantage, then I guess everything really does go right out the window. A lot of those polls are giving the Dems a +8%, +10% advantage in turnout. If that doesn't happen--well, we'll see.
I don't think the Democratic advantage will be that large. There'll still be some college students too lazy or too hungover to make the trip down to their polling place. I say this as a college student myself. But, still speaking as a college students...those Obama people really are fired up. I think we're going to see record numbers of the 18-29ers turning out.
Election Predictions
First, before I do anything else, let me make a couple predictions. This will be to prove to future readers--assuming I get any--that I made these calls before the election. Thus, they won't doubt my incredible accuracy.*
PRESIDENCY
ELECTORAL VOTE:
OBAMA: 311
MCCAIN: 227
POPULAR VOTE:
OBAMA: 52%
MCCAIN: 46%
SWING STATES:
OBAMA wins NV, NM, IA, OH, VA, CO, PA, NH
MCCAIN wins MO, FL, NC, GA, IN
Rough state of affairs, isn't it, when North Carolina, Georgia, and Indiana are swing states?
SENATE
ALASKA: Mark Begich (D) defeats Ted Stevens (R); Dem pickup
COLORADO: Mark Udall (D) defeats Bob Schaffer (R): Dem pickup
GEORGIA: Saxby Chambliss (R) defeats Jim Martin (D): Rep retention
KENTUCKY: Mitch McConnell (R) defeats Bruce Lunsford (D); Rep retention
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Jeanne Shaheen (D) defeats John Sununu (R); Dem pickup
NEW MEXICO: Tom Udall (D) defeats Steve Pearce (R); Dem pickup
NORTH CAROLINA: Kay Hagan (D) defeats Elizabeth Dole (R); Dem pickup
MINNESOTA: Norm Coleman (R) defeats Al Franken (D); Rep retention
MISSISSIPPI: Roger Wicker (R) defeats Ronnie Musgrove (D); Rep retention
OREGON: Jeff Merkley (D) defeats Gordon Smith (R); Dem pickup
VIRGINIA: Mark Warner (D) defeats Jim Gilmore (R); Dem pickup
FINAL: Dems +7, for a Senate majority of 58-42, give or take a Joe Lieberman
Those races in Oregon and North Carolina really are amazing. Hagan especially was thought to be running for the position of Official Sacrificial Lamb. She was supposed to get mauled by Dole. Creamed. Annihilated. McGovernated. And now, she's on the verge of becoming a US Senator. Did I mention it's a really bad time to be a Republican.
All I can say is, if the GOP can't take back a few of this seats six years down the road, maybe it's time to bring back the Whig Party.
HOUSE
Hoo boy. I've always considered myself a political junkie, but I don't have the willpower to pick EVERY House race. So I'll limit myself to a vague guess.
DEMS pick up 35 seats
REPS pick up 3 seats
FINAL: Dems +32, for a Democratic majority of 268-167
GOVERNORSHIPS
Not too much going on here--only North Carolina and Washington are competitive, though both of those are barnburners.
NORTH CAROLINA: Bev Perdue (D) defeats Pat McCrory (R); Dem retention
WASHINGTON: Christine Gregoire (D) defeats Dino Rossi (R); Dem retention
BEST PICTURE
Sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself.
As you can tell, I'm not too sanguine on the GOP's chances right now. Even under the very, very best case scenario, we're going to lose at least 5 Senate seats and two dozen House seats. It's going to be a long, hard rebuilding process. The GOP is going to be a regional party--Southerners only!--for at least the next two years.
And while I want to believe, I just don't think McCain can pull it off. If he were within 3-4% in the polls--maybe. But he's down 7-10% in just about every poll, from Rasmussen to Fox to PPP to Gallup to Pew. I refuse to believe that every single pollster in America could be so criminally incompetent as to miss a last-minute McCain surge.
*Note: Accuracy might not actually be that accurate.
PRESIDENCY
ELECTORAL VOTE:
OBAMA: 311
MCCAIN: 227
POPULAR VOTE:
OBAMA: 52%
MCCAIN: 46%
SWING STATES:
OBAMA wins NV, NM, IA, OH, VA, CO, PA, NH
MCCAIN wins MO, FL, NC, GA, IN
Rough state of affairs, isn't it, when North Carolina, Georgia, and Indiana are swing states?
SENATE
ALASKA: Mark Begich (D) defeats Ted Stevens (R); Dem pickup
COLORADO: Mark Udall (D) defeats Bob Schaffer (R): Dem pickup
GEORGIA: Saxby Chambliss (R) defeats Jim Martin (D): Rep retention
KENTUCKY: Mitch McConnell (R) defeats Bruce Lunsford (D); Rep retention
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Jeanne Shaheen (D) defeats John Sununu (R); Dem pickup
NEW MEXICO: Tom Udall (D) defeats Steve Pearce (R); Dem pickup
NORTH CAROLINA: Kay Hagan (D) defeats Elizabeth Dole (R); Dem pickup
MINNESOTA: Norm Coleman (R) defeats Al Franken (D); Rep retention
MISSISSIPPI: Roger Wicker (R) defeats Ronnie Musgrove (D); Rep retention
OREGON: Jeff Merkley (D) defeats Gordon Smith (R); Dem pickup
VIRGINIA: Mark Warner (D) defeats Jim Gilmore (R); Dem pickup
FINAL: Dems +7, for a Senate majority of 58-42, give or take a Joe Lieberman
Those races in Oregon and North Carolina really are amazing. Hagan especially was thought to be running for the position of Official Sacrificial Lamb. She was supposed to get mauled by Dole. Creamed. Annihilated. McGovernated. And now, she's on the verge of becoming a US Senator. Did I mention it's a really bad time to be a Republican.
All I can say is, if the GOP can't take back a few of this seats six years down the road, maybe it's time to bring back the Whig Party.
HOUSE
Hoo boy. I've always considered myself a political junkie, but I don't have the willpower to pick EVERY House race. So I'll limit myself to a vague guess.
DEMS pick up 35 seats
REPS pick up 3 seats
FINAL: Dems +32, for a Democratic majority of 268-167
GOVERNORSHIPS
Not too much going on here--only North Carolina and Washington are competitive, though both of those are barnburners.
NORTH CAROLINA: Bev Perdue (D) defeats Pat McCrory (R); Dem retention
WASHINGTON: Christine Gregoire (D) defeats Dino Rossi (R); Dem retention
BEST PICTURE
Sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself.
As you can tell, I'm not too sanguine on the GOP's chances right now. Even under the very, very best case scenario, we're going to lose at least 5 Senate seats and two dozen House seats. It's going to be a long, hard rebuilding process. The GOP is going to be a regional party--Southerners only!--for at least the next two years.
And while I want to believe, I just don't think McCain can pull it off. If he were within 3-4% in the polls--maybe. But he's down 7-10% in just about every poll, from Rasmussen to Fox to PPP to Gallup to Pew. I refuse to believe that every single pollster in America could be so criminally incompetent as to miss a last-minute McCain surge.
*Note: Accuracy might not actually be that accurate.
First Post
Oh boy, the first post on my new blog! I...uh...um...urgh...ABPVOIJXCOJI
Sorry, performance anxiety. Scratch this one and start over.
Sorry, performance anxiety. Scratch this one and start over.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)