I'm not pro-Life, but I am for Ron Paul. Apparently a few Huckabee supporters in the media are saying the Ron Paul is pro-abortion because, get this, he supports a policy that would make it legal for states to legalize abortion. It is called overturning ''Roe v. Wade'', but I guess the hope is that Huckabee supporters are dumb enough not to understand the implications of overturning ''Roe v. Wade'', which has been part of the conservative agenda for 35 years. This includes both social conservatives and even pro-choice conservatives who believe in the plain meaning of the constitution. Lynn Swann and Fred Thompson never appeared to understand this, so it wouldn't surprise me if most people who consider themselves conservatives fall for this line.
Despite the spin and what essentially amounts to telling a big lie against Ron Paul, there is, I think, a fundamental question at stake here that may split the conservative vote even more than it already has been. For most of the nation's history, issues of health, safety, welfare, and morals were reserved to the states under the plain language of the federal constitution and the 10th Amendment. However, following WWII, a series of cases, of which ''Roe'' was a part, vaulted these issues into the realm of the federal government. This meant that these issues now became federal issues whether or not people were willing to accept this power grab by the Supreme Court and Congress.
And while the issues of safety regulation and others related to commerce have been just as integral to the destruction of the federal Constitution, it is really on moral issues that conservatives may reach a total split. The question is this: (a) do conservatives fight to put these issues back at the state level where they belong in accordance with the plain language of the Constitution; or (b) do conservatives deal with the fact that these are now federal issues by using Congress, the federal courts, and amendments to the federal Constitution to legislate what are primarily moral issues?
I fully believe that now that the GOP has become populist rather than conservative, we will continue to see morality issues such as abortion, gay rights, marriage, divorce, school prayer, church-state separation, and whole host of other issues handled at the federal level rather than by the states. Liberals and activist liberal judges went out of there way to destroy the plain meaning of the constitution when it suited their needs. They may be about to reap the reward of the destruction they have sown by seeing the federal government used to enforce one particular segment of society's morality upon the rest of us. Traditionally this has happened at the state level, but theoretically at the state level, people would have a greater say in what they wanted for their morality-based legislation. This also would theoretically allow for greater diversity among opinions. Diversity is supposed to be unquestionably good, right?
More importantly, however, is that the constitution says these should not be federal issues. We should be very reluctant to change that document without some overwhelming reason besides satisfying the latest controversial issue ''du jour''. Unfortunately, that has already happened without changing a single word in the document.
Showing posts with label 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008. Show all posts
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
1968 for the Democrats
I do not always agree with Rush Limbaugh's conclusions although I do believe that he believes and understands the proper application of conservative principles to issues. I'm a little cynical about a few other things about him, but that's beside the point.
I would rank him in among the first class minds of our age as far as his pure intellectual abilities go, but he has something that even the best and brightest minds do not always seem to possess, which is an uncanny ability to predict the future. He reminds us of it constantly, but I feel that his claim to prescience is well established and justified.
No Matter Who Wins the Voting, Mrs. Clinton Will Be the Nominee
He appears to be utterly convinced, and I'm not sure how anyone could draw the opposite conclusion, that Hillary Clinton will pull out all of the stops to win the nomination including, no doubt, the types of dirty tricks I would frequently see in my YR days. He mentions the Superdelegates, he mentions trying to have Michigan's and Florida's delegate reinstated. He probably also knows a few other things that she will try. As an aside, it's a bit ironic that the superdelegates hold so much sway in the democratic primary: nearly 20% of the delegate total. It turns out that the democrats are less democratic than the republicans in picking their presidential candidate.
This all came from his radio program yesterday, but today Drugde posted the contents of a letter from Al Sharpton (who must have heard Rush yesterday) urging the DNC not to "change the rules" and reinstate MI and FL delegates precisely because this would throw heavy numbers to Hillary. You can claim Al is playing racial politics, but they would be foolish not to listen to him. At this point Obama is the clear favorite of voters and is likely to win the most delegates. To play dirty tricks on national television in front of the public will make Hillary so reviled among Obama supporters and the general public, that she will effectively kill her candidacy. Maybe even a few Hillary supporters will finally wake up like many democrats and realize she is all about herself and not any noble (if ill-conceived) liberal notions about how to solve the world's problems.
Personally, at this point, I would prefer Hillary over Obama or McCain, but I don't see it happening without some dirty tricks being played. They will almost certainly try something, but if they want to see Chicago 1968 all over again, the DNC will get if they allow her even an inch to mess around with. This is now or never for Hillary.
I would rank him in among the first class minds of our age as far as his pure intellectual abilities go, but he has something that even the best and brightest minds do not always seem to possess, which is an uncanny ability to predict the future. He reminds us of it constantly, but I feel that his claim to prescience is well established and justified.
No Matter Who Wins the Voting, Mrs. Clinton Will Be the Nominee
He appears to be utterly convinced, and I'm not sure how anyone could draw the opposite conclusion, that Hillary Clinton will pull out all of the stops to win the nomination including, no doubt, the types of dirty tricks I would frequently see in my YR days. He mentions the Superdelegates, he mentions trying to have Michigan's and Florida's delegate reinstated. He probably also knows a few other things that she will try. As an aside, it's a bit ironic that the superdelegates hold so much sway in the democratic primary: nearly 20% of the delegate total. It turns out that the democrats are less democratic than the republicans in picking their presidential candidate.
This all came from his radio program yesterday, but today Drugde posted the contents of a letter from Al Sharpton (who must have heard Rush yesterday) urging the DNC not to "change the rules" and reinstate MI and FL delegates precisely because this would throw heavy numbers to Hillary. You can claim Al is playing racial politics, but they would be foolish not to listen to him. At this point Obama is the clear favorite of voters and is likely to win the most delegates. To play dirty tricks on national television in front of the public will make Hillary so reviled among Obama supporters and the general public, that she will effectively kill her candidacy. Maybe even a few Hillary supporters will finally wake up like many democrats and realize she is all about herself and not any noble (if ill-conceived) liberal notions about how to solve the world's problems.
Personally, at this point, I would prefer Hillary over Obama or McCain, but I don't see it happening without some dirty tricks being played. They will almost certainly try something, but if they want to see Chicago 1968 all over again, the DNC will get if they allow her even an inch to mess around with. This is now or never for Hillary.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
There is still Ron Paul
Romney supporters and Thompson supporters who switched to Romney are now decrying the current state of the GOP and clamoring that there are now true conservatives left. The have either not heard of Ron Paul or have drunk to deeply of the spin that Ron Paul is not a real conservative because of his opposition to the Iraq War. He is not anti-War, no president has been or ever can be. He is not eve opposed to the war against terrorism or the war in Afghanistan. He is just opposed to the war in Iraq.
And so, despite the misconception of some conservatives, there is still Ron Paul who is 100% conservative on all issues including going after bin Laden and his network in Afghanistan and the rest of the world. He has only refused to adopt the revised notion of interventionism as compatible with conservatism. The one that Bush claimed to support when he was inaugurated. The same notion that told us to oppose Clinton’s war against Serbia, which as a by-product helped foster the growth of radical Islam in the Balkans.
Remember how Reagan responded to the terrorist bombing of our embassy in Lebanon? He withdrew the troops and as a result, attacks against Americans stopped. The next round of terrorist attacks against the U.S. didn’t renew until someone had the bright idea of permanently deploying troops in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War. For some strange reason, all of the troops were withdrawn after the 9/11 attacks from the very country where most of the 9/11 hijackers were from. That is because we know that our military bases there did nothing to stop terrorism.
Terrorism can’t be stopped with conventional military forces. Putting our troops on the ground in Iraq just makes them targets. The next terrorist attack against the U.S. is being plotted inside of safe, stable countries and inside of private houses. The only way to fight them is through intelligence gathering and special forces to identify and destroy them quietly. A permanent military occupation of every country in Asia does nothing but drain the treasury and make our troops targets for anyone with a gun.
Ron Paul has never blamed America and has always supported going after those who have attacked us. He has only questioned the current tactics we are employing and for this he has been smeared as a coward and unpatriotic. If you want to send a message to the GOP that we are sick of watered-down conservatism, vote for Ron Paul in the primary. Otherwise your vote will either be considered support for McCain’s ameliorating moderation or the an affirmation of the “progressive” movement’s desire to control every aspect of our economic and social lives.
And so, despite the misconception of some conservatives, there is still Ron Paul who is 100% conservative on all issues including going after bin Laden and his network in Afghanistan and the rest of the world. He has only refused to adopt the revised notion of interventionism as compatible with conservatism. The one that Bush claimed to support when he was inaugurated. The same notion that told us to oppose Clinton’s war against Serbia, which as a by-product helped foster the growth of radical Islam in the Balkans.
Remember how Reagan responded to the terrorist bombing of our embassy in Lebanon? He withdrew the troops and as a result, attacks against Americans stopped. The next round of terrorist attacks against the U.S. didn’t renew until someone had the bright idea of permanently deploying troops in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War. For some strange reason, all of the troops were withdrawn after the 9/11 attacks from the very country where most of the 9/11 hijackers were from. That is because we know that our military bases there did nothing to stop terrorism.
Terrorism can’t be stopped with conventional military forces. Putting our troops on the ground in Iraq just makes them targets. The next terrorist attack against the U.S. is being plotted inside of safe, stable countries and inside of private houses. The only way to fight them is through intelligence gathering and special forces to identify and destroy them quietly. A permanent military occupation of every country in Asia does nothing but drain the treasury and make our troops targets for anyone with a gun.
Ron Paul has never blamed America and has always supported going after those who have attacked us. He has only questioned the current tactics we are employing and for this he has been smeared as a coward and unpatriotic. If you want to send a message to the GOP that we are sick of watered-down conservatism, vote for Ron Paul in the primary. Otherwise your vote will either be considered support for McCain’s ameliorating moderation or the an affirmation of the “progressive” movement’s desire to control every aspect of our economic and social lives.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Mitt Romney Out
So now that Romney is out, McCain is the presumptive heir. Word is Romney plans to run in 2012. I believe Romney has now realized what many have been predicting regarding the country both politically and economically. Economically, we are headed for a serious recession that is likely to last for a few years. This is the cumulative effect of our monetary policies (the Fed, the tax code, inflation, devaluation, take your pick...). Whoever becomes our next president will preside over an economy worse than he one under Carter's administration. It will, through no fault of their own, make the next president and one termer and confine them to being one of the worst presidents in American history.
I think Romney is also reading the writing on the walls with regard to the voting numbers. A look a Missouri, the supposed bellwether of the country, the Democrats are showing up in numbers by a 3/2 margin over Republican voters. This does not bode will for the eventual nominee since the two leading democrats are virtually identical in the campaign platforms. In the meantime, Republicans have a fairly wide range of choices, but they don't care. They are sick of the establishment and will not likely show up in the fall or, quite possible, may vote for the democrat. The number of voters though is just one indication. The other is the amount of money that is being generated by small donations. That money is going overwhelmingly to Obama, somewhat to Clinton, and, on the GOP side, the media-marginalized Ron Paul candidacy. Small money donations are otherwise not going to the GOP. This is a sign that no one really believes in the GOP in any significant numbers to put their money behind it.
In short, the democrat cannot help but win this fall. I still think it will be Hillary, but Obama has a lot going for him now. Either way, the media will make McCain and his platform look old and tired. I can see a slogan like the "3rd term of the Bush Administration" being used derisively by democrats. GHWB campaigned as Reagan's 3rd term. Many republicans, most independents, and every democrat do not want a 3rd term. The funniest part is that if they use that slogan, McCain will probably adamantly argue against it since he despises Bush. He will have to both align himself with and distance himself from the Bush administration to get elected since the only remaining loyal Republicans are the one's who think that nothing has gone wrong in the last eight years with conservatism in the GOP. The rest of us woke up to reality a long time ago.
I think Romney is also reading the writing on the walls with regard to the voting numbers. A look a Missouri, the supposed bellwether of the country, the Democrats are showing up in numbers by a 3/2 margin over Republican voters. This does not bode will for the eventual nominee since the two leading democrats are virtually identical in the campaign platforms. In the meantime, Republicans have a fairly wide range of choices, but they don't care. They are sick of the establishment and will not likely show up in the fall or, quite possible, may vote for the democrat. The number of voters though is just one indication. The other is the amount of money that is being generated by small donations. That money is going overwhelmingly to Obama, somewhat to Clinton, and, on the GOP side, the media-marginalized Ron Paul candidacy. Small money donations are otherwise not going to the GOP. This is a sign that no one really believes in the GOP in any significant numbers to put their money behind it.
In short, the democrat cannot help but win this fall. I still think it will be Hillary, but Obama has a lot going for him now. Either way, the media will make McCain and his platform look old and tired. I can see a slogan like the "3rd term of the Bush Administration" being used derisively by democrats. GHWB campaigned as Reagan's 3rd term. Many republicans, most independents, and every democrat do not want a 3rd term. The funniest part is that if they use that slogan, McCain will probably adamantly argue against it since he despises Bush. He will have to both align himself with and distance himself from the Bush administration to get elected since the only remaining loyal Republicans are the one's who think that nothing has gone wrong in the last eight years with conservatism in the GOP. The rest of us woke up to reality a long time ago.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Super Tuesday
Super Tuesday is now over. Despite a considerable showing in several states, Obama did not beat Clinton. She will be our next president and will preside over one of the worst economic periods in our nation's history in at least 30 years. This will not be her fault entirely, but the fault of the system that has produced her and all of the other candidates who would share the same fate if they became president.
On the GOP side, Republicans supposedly fed up with Bush, the War, and the turn of the GOP from conservative principles, have voted in John McCain in overwhelming numbers apparently unaware that "maverick" is the media's euphemism for unprincipled flip-flopper for candidates that they like. It wasn't predominantly democrats lighting up the Capital Hill switchboards to opposed McCain-Kennedy, it was more than likely Republicans and probably a fair share of independents. Now they have overwhelming supported the candidate that will grant that amnesty as soon as he enters office. The same thing with the war. People opposed to Bush's handling of the Iraq War and who want the U.S. to bring its troops back voted overwhelmingly for McCain, the candidate who promised to be in Iraq for 100 years if necessary. Those who are fed up with the Bush administration in general overwhelmingly voted for him even though he is the inheritor of the Bush's election team and finance managers.
This has all been the media building up McCain to look like an outsider, maverick, and someone who can bring the much abused term "change". Someone who has been a Washington insider for over 20 years, is 71 years old, has worked in government essentially all his life, and who is being joined in large numbers by part of the Bush team is not going to be an agent for change. If McCain is elected, we will be entering the 3rd term of the George W. Bush administration. The media which built him up will soon start tearing him down so that Hillary can become our next president.
How conservatives can take by the GOP is beyond me at this point.
On the GOP side, Republicans supposedly fed up with Bush, the War, and the turn of the GOP from conservative principles, have voted in John McCain in overwhelming numbers apparently unaware that "maverick" is the media's euphemism for unprincipled flip-flopper for candidates that they like. It wasn't predominantly democrats lighting up the Capital Hill switchboards to opposed McCain-Kennedy, it was more than likely Republicans and probably a fair share of independents. Now they have overwhelming supported the candidate that will grant that amnesty as soon as he enters office. The same thing with the war. People opposed to Bush's handling of the Iraq War and who want the U.S. to bring its troops back voted overwhelmingly for McCain, the candidate who promised to be in Iraq for 100 years if necessary. Those who are fed up with the Bush administration in general overwhelmingly voted for him even though he is the inheritor of the Bush's election team and finance managers.
This has all been the media building up McCain to look like an outsider, maverick, and someone who can bring the much abused term "change". Someone who has been a Washington insider for over 20 years, is 71 years old, has worked in government essentially all his life, and who is being joined in large numbers by part of the Bush team is not going to be an agent for change. If McCain is elected, we will be entering the 3rd term of the George W. Bush administration. The media which built him up will soon start tearing him down so that Hillary can become our next president.
How conservatives can take by the GOP is beyond me at this point.
Monday, February 4, 2008
McCain and the Media
Most Americans do not really pay attention to politics. They view it like the weather and so avoid doing any critical thinking about the candidates they back. The election does not involve issues. It involves personality and buzzwords like "change" and "leadership". If anyone wonders why politics seems to become so bitter the answer is really two-fold. The first is that politics isn't any more bitter than it has been before. The second is that it only seems more bitter because everything involves more personal attacks than actual policy disputes. This is all a result of both parties have very little distinction in their agendas. When that happens, the only way to distinguish yourself is through personality which means that negative advertising as to go after personality and not policy.
That there is very little distinction between the two major parties is apparent. When the so-called "conservative" GOP front-runner believes in global warming, amnesty for illegal immigrants, limitations on the first amendment, and distances himself from Bush's Supreme Court nominations (the latter being about the only redeemable aspect of his administration) then you realize that most fundamental issues are off the table. This will be no different that a 3rd grade race for class president.
So what will happen tomorrow? The democratic nomination may not be wrapped up as a result of the apportionment rules for the dems, but in all likelihood Hillary will be there nominee. On the GOP side, McCain will walk away with it quite easily on Tuesday.
But if you eat and breath politics don't think these are the results of critical thinking by Americans. In the age of the Internet, information on the candidates and their issues and background are widely available. Few, if any, however, take advantage of this. In fact, it may be that because of the information overload we experience as a result of the Internet and media, people are even less likely now than before to learn anything but the most superficial information about candidates. Because of this, the media has a very strong but subtle effect on presidential races. And, here it comes: The media in this country is overwhelmingly liberal. Because they are liberal and because they know how to manipulate the vote by determining what information about what candidates gets put out in the newspapers and especially TV, they can make one candidate look like the savior of all mankind one day, and the devil the next.
Which brings us to what is happening in this race. I would call it a conspiracy of sorts, but it really doesn't require a whole lot of concerted action. The media, engaging in tokenism of sorts, promotes the first female nominee and the black nominee to be fielded by a mainstream party, at the expense of the usual white male candidates. Even more surprisingly is that the candidates with the most experience both in terms of years in office, years as an executive, and chronological years (Biden, Richardson, Gravel) are marginalized out of existence. Members of the media already had numerous ties to the Clintons from the 90s, but many see a chance to "stick it" to conservatives see a minority nominated to the presidency. True conservatives could care less about someone's gender or race. But that is what is happening on the democratic side.
On the Republican side, the media also want someone as liberal as can be. So for a long time, the front-runner was Giuliani. Then Fred Thompson was suddenly the flavor of the month. Then Mike Huckabee. Now it is McCain. Who is the most liberal of this field? Probably McCain. And he has been given almost nothing but a positive portrayal by the media. So were the other liberals, but none seemed to have staying power at the polls. The closest thing that the party has to a conservative that the media is paying attention to is Mitt Romney, however is constantly characterized as a flip-flopper (whereas McCain is a "maverick" for having non-conservative opinions). Romney himself appears to have a pretty liberal streak, so the cause of liberal will be accomplished only slightly less quicker if the GOP wins the White House.
But mark my words. The Press has put McCain at the lead to hedge their bets. They know that Hillary is a divisive candidate and that the country may not be quite ready for a president whose middle name is Hussein and who first and last names are Arab in origin. So they have hedged their bets with McCain and should he win, have also ensured that the conservative movement in the GOP, which has been marginalized by George W. Bush, will be forced completely underground during a McCain administration. If Hillary wins, they will get their agenda accomplished only slightly faster but they still want her to win, so here is what will happen.
Obama will come ever so close to winning the nomination through the numbers he will get on Super Tuesday. This will make him the heir apparent to the party after Hillary is done her race for the office. To put Hillary on top, they will not go after Obama, but marginalize him by devoting all of their coverage to Hillary and reminding everyone about how "evil" middle American simply won't vote for a black man. People who would have voted for him will then be given their excuse to switch for Hillary before the convention.
After McCain comes out ahead for the GOP, the attack machine will start. There is too much to list here, but he will undoubtedly be painted as part of the Bush White House for inheriting his advisers, as a war-monger for his "100 years in Iraq" statement, for abandoning his first wife after she was crippled, the Keating 5 scandal, and just about anything else under the sun. It won't take but a few weekends to make this happen and these stories, many from the distant past, will be rekindled with a vengeance like they are fresh news that no one heard about until a few days before the segments start running. They will be characterized as "shocking revelations" that were somehow overlooked by voters.
The press has been very kind to McCain is an effort to marginalize Romney and especially Ron Paul, but they will turn on him the moment he achieves success as the GOP nominee. I have seen enough elections and read enough of the exit polls to know that the vast majority of people voting for McCain do not really know his positions and are voting from the gut based on his image. The image was created by the media and they can destroy it as well.
Hillary will be our next president and it will all seem so natural and inevitable. It will, however, be the work of the MSM manipulating the vast majority of voters who no longer have any particular ideology, only a commitment to mediocrity.
That there is very little distinction between the two major parties is apparent. When the so-called "conservative" GOP front-runner believes in global warming, amnesty for illegal immigrants, limitations on the first amendment, and distances himself from Bush's Supreme Court nominations (the latter being about the only redeemable aspect of his administration) then you realize that most fundamental issues are off the table. This will be no different that a 3rd grade race for class president.
So what will happen tomorrow? The democratic nomination may not be wrapped up as a result of the apportionment rules for the dems, but in all likelihood Hillary will be there nominee. On the GOP side, McCain will walk away with it quite easily on Tuesday.
But if you eat and breath politics don't think these are the results of critical thinking by Americans. In the age of the Internet, information on the candidates and their issues and background are widely available. Few, if any, however, take advantage of this. In fact, it may be that because of the information overload we experience as a result of the Internet and media, people are even less likely now than before to learn anything but the most superficial information about candidates. Because of this, the media has a very strong but subtle effect on presidential races. And, here it comes: The media in this country is overwhelmingly liberal. Because they are liberal and because they know how to manipulate the vote by determining what information about what candidates gets put out in the newspapers and especially TV, they can make one candidate look like the savior of all mankind one day, and the devil the next.
Which brings us to what is happening in this race. I would call it a conspiracy of sorts, but it really doesn't require a whole lot of concerted action. The media, engaging in tokenism of sorts, promotes the first female nominee and the black nominee to be fielded by a mainstream party, at the expense of the usual white male candidates. Even more surprisingly is that the candidates with the most experience both in terms of years in office, years as an executive, and chronological years (Biden, Richardson, Gravel) are marginalized out of existence. Members of the media already had numerous ties to the Clintons from the 90s, but many see a chance to "stick it" to conservatives see a minority nominated to the presidency. True conservatives could care less about someone's gender or race. But that is what is happening on the democratic side.
On the Republican side, the media also want someone as liberal as can be. So for a long time, the front-runner was Giuliani. Then Fred Thompson was suddenly the flavor of the month. Then Mike Huckabee. Now it is McCain. Who is the most liberal of this field? Probably McCain. And he has been given almost nothing but a positive portrayal by the media. So were the other liberals, but none seemed to have staying power at the polls. The closest thing that the party has to a conservative that the media is paying attention to is Mitt Romney, however is constantly characterized as a flip-flopper (whereas McCain is a "maverick" for having non-conservative opinions). Romney himself appears to have a pretty liberal streak, so the cause of liberal will be accomplished only slightly less quicker if the GOP wins the White House.
But mark my words. The Press has put McCain at the lead to hedge their bets. They know that Hillary is a divisive candidate and that the country may not be quite ready for a president whose middle name is Hussein and who first and last names are Arab in origin. So they have hedged their bets with McCain and should he win, have also ensured that the conservative movement in the GOP, which has been marginalized by George W. Bush, will be forced completely underground during a McCain administration. If Hillary wins, they will get their agenda accomplished only slightly faster but they still want her to win, so here is what will happen.
Obama will come ever so close to winning the nomination through the numbers he will get on Super Tuesday. This will make him the heir apparent to the party after Hillary is done her race for the office. To put Hillary on top, they will not go after Obama, but marginalize him by devoting all of their coverage to Hillary and reminding everyone about how "evil" middle American simply won't vote for a black man. People who would have voted for him will then be given their excuse to switch for Hillary before the convention.
After McCain comes out ahead for the GOP, the attack machine will start. There is too much to list here, but he will undoubtedly be painted as part of the Bush White House for inheriting his advisers, as a war-monger for his "100 years in Iraq" statement, for abandoning his first wife after she was crippled, the Keating 5 scandal, and just about anything else under the sun. It won't take but a few weekends to make this happen and these stories, many from the distant past, will be rekindled with a vengeance like they are fresh news that no one heard about until a few days before the segments start running. They will be characterized as "shocking revelations" that were somehow overlooked by voters.
The press has been very kind to McCain is an effort to marginalize Romney and especially Ron Paul, but they will turn on him the moment he achieves success as the GOP nominee. I have seen enough elections and read enough of the exit polls to know that the vast majority of people voting for McCain do not really know his positions and are voting from the gut based on his image. The image was created by the media and they can destroy it as well.
Hillary will be our next president and it will all seem so natural and inevitable. It will, however, be the work of the MSM manipulating the vast majority of voters who no longer have any particular ideology, only a commitment to mediocrity.
Friday, February 1, 2008
CNN and media bias
"With former First Lady Nancy Reagan looking on, Paul disagreed with President Reagan's choice of Sandra Day O'Connor as a Supreme Court justice, while Huckabee and McCain declined to say whether they would have tapped her for a spot on the high court.
Romney said he "would rather have" a different kind of justice on the bench."
CNN article
Notice how they couldn't just say Ron Paul said her appointment was a bad decision, but that he had the insensitivity to say it in front of Nancy Reagan. For all we know she would agree with that opinion, but the point is to make him look heartless in giving an honest opinion. McCain and Huckabee of course don't answer the question because people don't want answers to questions. That's not the point of a debate.
However, Romney, who also gave something close to same answer is quoted as basically saying it was a bad idea. Apparently Nancy Reagan wasn't in the room though when he gave his answer.
Also, if you look at the article, their are links to the CNN web site for each presidential candidate from the body of the article as they are named. One is missing however. Can you guess which one?
Romney said he "would rather have" a different kind of justice on the bench."
CNN article
Notice how they couldn't just say Ron Paul said her appointment was a bad decision, but that he had the insensitivity to say it in front of Nancy Reagan. For all we know she would agree with that opinion, but the point is to make him look heartless in giving an honest opinion. McCain and Huckabee of course don't answer the question because people don't want answers to questions. That's not the point of a debate.
However, Romney, who also gave something close to same answer is quoted as basically saying it was a bad idea. Apparently Nancy Reagan wasn't in the room though when he gave his answer.
Also, if you look at the article, their are links to the CNN web site for each presidential candidate from the body of the article as they are named. One is missing however. Can you guess which one?
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The End of Fiscal Conservatism
The only party that has represented economic conservatism in the U.S. in the 20th century has been the GOP. At least they've always talked about it. Quite often, they have done something different.
With McCain's win in Florida, the fate of the party has now been sealed so that fiscal conservatism and conservatism in general are now the outcast extremist views of the party. This could have been predicted based on the original field of candidates and how they were being received in polls, but now the remainder of the primary season has been spelled out.
Rudy will leave and almost all of his votes will go to McCain. Huckabee has no money, but he will do well is several states on Super Tuesday. When he drops, his supporters will also go to McCain. That will leave Romney and Ron Paul. Paul is in for the long haul since he has the money and enthusiastic supporters like me. He will not get more than 15% nationally when all is said and done though. Romney, on the other hand, is doomed now.
A Florida win would have been enough to convince the three minutes before you enter the poll booth crowd to vote for Romney and given him a serious boost for Super Tuesday. The problem now though is that with the 2nd place finish, he is facing races in Super Tuesday where he is mostly 2nd or 3rd behind the McCain and either Huchabee or Giuliani. The Giuliani votes will now go to McCain in significant numbers which will likely mean overwhelming victories for McCain in nearly all of the Super Tuesday states. At that point, Romney will have to drop out.
I would not vote for Romney now under any circumstances based on the closer look that I've taken at him this past week, but he was the closest thing to sounding like a conservative of the four remaining candidates who had the big numbers. When the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and George will are essentially screaming from the hills that McCain and Huckabee are not conservatives and no one is listening, then we know that the conservative movement in the GOP is now officially dead. Politics has always been a personality contest. Genuine conservatives got to be in the limelight from 1981 to 2001 because the personalities in charge at least paid lip service to conservatism. Now we still have the lip service, but the platforms being called conservative are the exact opposite of what they stood for 20 years ago.
With McCain's win in Florida, the fate of the party has now been sealed so that fiscal conservatism and conservatism in general are now the outcast extremist views of the party. This could have been predicted based on the original field of candidates and how they were being received in polls, but now the remainder of the primary season has been spelled out.
Rudy will leave and almost all of his votes will go to McCain. Huckabee has no money, but he will do well is several states on Super Tuesday. When he drops, his supporters will also go to McCain. That will leave Romney and Ron Paul. Paul is in for the long haul since he has the money and enthusiastic supporters like me. He will not get more than 15% nationally when all is said and done though. Romney, on the other hand, is doomed now.
A Florida win would have been enough to convince the three minutes before you enter the poll booth crowd to vote for Romney and given him a serious boost for Super Tuesday. The problem now though is that with the 2nd place finish, he is facing races in Super Tuesday where he is mostly 2nd or 3rd behind the McCain and either Huchabee or Giuliani. The Giuliani votes will now go to McCain in significant numbers which will likely mean overwhelming victories for McCain in nearly all of the Super Tuesday states. At that point, Romney will have to drop out.
I would not vote for Romney now under any circumstances based on the closer look that I've taken at him this past week, but he was the closest thing to sounding like a conservative of the four remaining candidates who had the big numbers. When the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and George will are essentially screaming from the hills that McCain and Huckabee are not conservatives and no one is listening, then we know that the conservative movement in the GOP is now officially dead. Politics has always been a personality contest. Genuine conservatives got to be in the limelight from 1981 to 2001 because the personalities in charge at least paid lip service to conservatism. Now we still have the lip service, but the platforms being called conservative are the exact opposite of what they stood for 20 years ago.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Hail to the Populists
The GOP is now finished as a party. Rather it is now an animated corpse dancing to the tune of the populists. Fiscal conservatives are now an extinct species. It used to be that when money got tight, true fiscal conservatives would get angry and ask government to cut spending and lower taxes so that people would have more control over their lives. Now they turn to whoever says they will save us with more spending. McCain and Huckabee have won a combined total of over 60% of the vote in South Carolina. They will both continue to pick up steam and one will eventually get the nomination. In November we will get to choose which flavor of socialism we prefer. One that says it is favor of small government and lies about it (the GOP) or one that will increase government control a little bit more than that but will be honest about it (the dems).
Monday, January 7, 2008
Ron Paul excluded
Fox News: "We decide what you decide."
The excuse for excluding Ron Paul is that there wasn't enough room at the table. Give me a break. The good thing for Ron Paul is that the five of them looked like kids who were being punished for making to much racket by running all around the house. Sit down and keep your hands to yourselves! It may even be what shot up his polling numbers to 14% (3rd in that poll) although that may just be an anomaly. He is still landing somewhere around 8%. Ahead of Fred Thompson in all polls, ahead of Giuliani about 60% of the time, and behind Huckabee about 80% of the time, but still close.
So here is what grinds my gears. Bob Novak's predictions for the race are as follows:
1st Place: McCain, but vulnerable.
2nd Place: Romney, but rallying.
3rd Place: Huckabee.
4th Place: Giuliani.
5th Place: Former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.).
Where is Ron Paul? Just because Fox News has banished him, he is still going to be ahead of Fred Thompson tomorrow. He has a good chance of beating Giuliani. He may even beat Huckabee since most pundits think he had a poor showing during Sunday's debate.
The interesting thing to see is if the lack of coverage by Fox actually helped him or hurt him. Drudge is reporting that the ABC debates, which did include Ron Paul, had 2 million more viewers than Fox (on a Saturday night no less). New Hampshire is not the bastion of conservatism it used to be and there probably a lot of registered Republicans and independents who don't like Fox for one reason or another. It is quite possible that based on a purely emotional reaction, they will vote for Ron Paul, just to stick it to Fox.
The other question is what independents that are more interested in the Dems will do. It was imagined that a lot would want to get involved either for Obama or Clinton. But now that the bandwagon has started rolling for Obama among democrats, will independents prefer to jump on the bandwagon or stick it to Fox by voting for Ron Paul? That may be an important factor not so much because Ron Paul will run away with a third place finish, but it may be just enough to put him over Huckabee. Fox will look a bit ridiculous then, but who knows what will happen.
We may even see Ron Paul carrying his exclusion as a badge of pride. He has a lot (A LOT) of young supporters, many of whom seem to be a bit on the liberal side and perhaps even hostile to a lot of conservative ideas. Losing Fox may even help them to convince more young people to get on board. Back in the day, I was excited at the idea of a conservative based new network. Nowadays though, they are anything but conservative in ideology. They are conservative only in the preserving the status quo sense.
One other thought. If anyone is the voice of the conservative movement in the U.S. right now (and for quite some time) it is Rush Limbaugh. The only disparaging thing I have heard him say about Ron Paul is that he can't win. He rarely mentions him on the show otherwise, which is fine. So hear is the question. The dems and media LOVE Huckabee, but Rush, Ann Coulter, and others are pulling out all of the stops to derail Huckabee. Rush has said that McCain is not a conservative and has indicated that Romney and Giuliani have some shortcomings in their credentials as well. He seems to think Fred Thompson is a conservative, but not perhaps a shining star.
So what if Huckabee keeps winning as appears likely? Fred Thompson drops out. Where do his votes go? Maybe to Romney or McCain. Giuliani drops out. Where do his votes go? Probably McCain or Romney, but almost certainly not Huckabee. So now the Huckabee juggernaut is riding strong and McCain and Romney are still attacking each other non-stop. One eventually drops out. Where do those votes go? Well, if there is enough animosity, they may go to Huckabee, but what if they went to Paul instead. McCain supporters may not like Ron Paul, but if he has kept himself out of the fray, not attacked anyone, and stayed away from the bible-thumping populism of Huckabee, they may go to Paul. What about if Romney drops out? His supporters are not likely to go to Huckabee either for various reasons. He is not a social conservative; neither is McCain, neither is Giuliani. Would they give Ron Paul a second look to avoid Huckabee? Would they be turned off enough by Huckabee's use of religion to vote for Paul? It's quite possible. What about genuine conservatives? Would they start to have second thoughts after Huckamania dies down? Especially if Rush, Coulter, Will, and anyone else with conservative followings is crying from the high hills: this is no conservative!? Would they go with Ron Paul who is otherwise a social conservative but also has the fiscal conservative arguments in his favor?
Who knows. Just some thoughts to toss around.
The excuse for excluding Ron Paul is that there wasn't enough room at the table. Give me a break. The good thing for Ron Paul is that the five of them looked like kids who were being punished for making to much racket by running all around the house. Sit down and keep your hands to yourselves! It may even be what shot up his polling numbers to 14% (3rd in that poll) although that may just be an anomaly. He is still landing somewhere around 8%. Ahead of Fred Thompson in all polls, ahead of Giuliani about 60% of the time, and behind Huckabee about 80% of the time, but still close.
So here is what grinds my gears. Bob Novak's predictions for the race are as follows:
1st Place: McCain, but vulnerable.
2nd Place: Romney, but rallying.
3rd Place: Huckabee.
4th Place: Giuliani.
5th Place: Former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.).
Where is Ron Paul? Just because Fox News has banished him, he is still going to be ahead of Fred Thompson tomorrow. He has a good chance of beating Giuliani. He may even beat Huckabee since most pundits think he had a poor showing during Sunday's debate.
The interesting thing to see is if the lack of coverage by Fox actually helped him or hurt him. Drudge is reporting that the ABC debates, which did include Ron Paul, had 2 million more viewers than Fox (on a Saturday night no less). New Hampshire is not the bastion of conservatism it used to be and there probably a lot of registered Republicans and independents who don't like Fox for one reason or another. It is quite possible that based on a purely emotional reaction, they will vote for Ron Paul, just to stick it to Fox.
The other question is what independents that are more interested in the Dems will do. It was imagined that a lot would want to get involved either for Obama or Clinton. But now that the bandwagon has started rolling for Obama among democrats, will independents prefer to jump on the bandwagon or stick it to Fox by voting for Ron Paul? That may be an important factor not so much because Ron Paul will run away with a third place finish, but it may be just enough to put him over Huckabee. Fox will look a bit ridiculous then, but who knows what will happen.
We may even see Ron Paul carrying his exclusion as a badge of pride. He has a lot (A LOT) of young supporters, many of whom seem to be a bit on the liberal side and perhaps even hostile to a lot of conservative ideas. Losing Fox may even help them to convince more young people to get on board. Back in the day, I was excited at the idea of a conservative based new network. Nowadays though, they are anything but conservative in ideology. They are conservative only in the preserving the status quo sense.
One other thought. If anyone is the voice of the conservative movement in the U.S. right now (and for quite some time) it is Rush Limbaugh. The only disparaging thing I have heard him say about Ron Paul is that he can't win. He rarely mentions him on the show otherwise, which is fine. So hear is the question. The dems and media LOVE Huckabee, but Rush, Ann Coulter, and others are pulling out all of the stops to derail Huckabee. Rush has said that McCain is not a conservative and has indicated that Romney and Giuliani have some shortcomings in their credentials as well. He seems to think Fred Thompson is a conservative, but not perhaps a shining star.
So what if Huckabee keeps winning as appears likely? Fred Thompson drops out. Where do his votes go? Maybe to Romney or McCain. Giuliani drops out. Where do his votes go? Probably McCain or Romney, but almost certainly not Huckabee. So now the Huckabee juggernaut is riding strong and McCain and Romney are still attacking each other non-stop. One eventually drops out. Where do those votes go? Well, if there is enough animosity, they may go to Huckabee, but what if they went to Paul instead. McCain supporters may not like Ron Paul, but if he has kept himself out of the fray, not attacked anyone, and stayed away from the bible-thumping populism of Huckabee, they may go to Paul. What about if Romney drops out? His supporters are not likely to go to Huckabee either for various reasons. He is not a social conservative; neither is McCain, neither is Giuliani. Would they give Ron Paul a second look to avoid Huckabee? Would they be turned off enough by Huckabee's use of religion to vote for Paul? It's quite possible. What about genuine conservatives? Would they start to have second thoughts after Huckamania dies down? Especially if Rush, Coulter, Will, and anyone else with conservative followings is crying from the high hills: this is no conservative!? Would they go with Ron Paul who is otherwise a social conservative but also has the fiscal conservative arguments in his favor?
Who knows. Just some thoughts to toss around.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Iowa
Noonan on Iowa
A lot of pundits are gushing on and on about Obama and how Clinton is done. Having spent the 16 years reviling Clinton and everything she stands for, I can tell you that I would much rather have her as President than Obama or Edwards. I may even vote for Clinton if one of the scarier candidates becomes the GOP nominee. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
Here is the scarier part. This is how Obama is winning. The quote is from the article and the italics sounds like the BS I heard on TV last night coming out of several camps not just Obama's
"He did it with a classy campaign, an unruffled manner, and an appeal on the stump that said every day, through the lines: Look at who I am and see me, the change that you desire is right here, move on with me and we will bring it forward together."
What the hell does that mean? Bring the country together, solve the nations problems, move forward? That God the term "proactive" has finally left the quiver of BS terms.
One can only conclude that this is nothing more than a personality contest. Leader, proven, experience, etc. Then they ask us to look at their record by very selectively choosing facts. Then when the opponents bring out the parts of the record they don't want us to know about it is called "negative" advertising. Except in Huckabee's case.
He not attacking anyone's record, he is going straight for attacking their religion. And it's working. Or at least it worked in Iowa. And that is what makes this whole process truly frightening. It is nothing more than a High School presidential campaign. Even the empty rhetoric about the issues is gone. Now it's: Jesus and the Devil were brothers under his religion. "We're going to move the country forward, not backward, sideways, not forward, and always twirling...twirling...twirling."
The Simpsons seem to have the best understanding of American politics. It's too bad the average voter doesn't. The episode with the Bear and the Bear Tax comes to mind as well. "Are these morons getting dumber or just louder?"
A lot of pundits are gushing on and on about Obama and how Clinton is done. Having spent the 16 years reviling Clinton and everything she stands for, I can tell you that I would much rather have her as President than Obama or Edwards. I may even vote for Clinton if one of the scarier candidates becomes the GOP nominee. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
Here is the scarier part. This is how Obama is winning. The quote is from the article and the italics sounds like the BS I heard on TV last night coming out of several camps not just Obama's
"He did it with a classy campaign, an unruffled manner, and an appeal on the stump that said every day, through the lines: Look at who I am and see me, the change that you desire is right here, move on with me and we will bring it forward together."
What the hell does that mean? Bring the country together, solve the nations problems, move forward? That God the term "proactive" has finally left the quiver of BS terms.
One can only conclude that this is nothing more than a personality contest. Leader, proven, experience, etc. Then they ask us to look at their record by very selectively choosing facts. Then when the opponents bring out the parts of the record they don't want us to know about it is called "negative" advertising. Except in Huckabee's case.
He not attacking anyone's record, he is going straight for attacking their religion. And it's working. Or at least it worked in Iowa. And that is what makes this whole process truly frightening. It is nothing more than a High School presidential campaign. Even the empty rhetoric about the issues is gone. Now it's: Jesus and the Devil were brothers under his religion. "We're going to move the country forward, not backward, sideways, not forward, and always twirling...twirling...twirling."
The Simpsons seem to have the best understanding of American politics. It's too bad the average voter doesn't. The episode with the Bear and the Bear Tax comes to mind as well. "Are these morons getting dumber or just louder?"
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Iraq? What Iraq?
Dem voters no longer fight battle of Iraq
As predicted, the dems are no longer worried about Iraq. We should hardly be surprised since the front-runner, Clinton, is just a culpable as any neo-con for this tragedy that has no end in sight. However, since it will be more of a burden to Clinton than to any of her Republican challengers, the issue has gone away. Or at least it has gone away from the Iowa campaign and among top democratic insiders. They know the issue will bite them in the fall of 2008 if Hillary is their candidate.
The question though is why Obama is pursuing the strategy he is pursuing. His advocating an invasion of Pakistan to show that he is tough on...well tough enough to declare war for no reason...seems to be for the sake of looking like he is not afraid to declare war or use force...however poorly formulated the policy or tragic the results. It shows he is looking toward the fall of 2008 and that this is not just a test run. That may be why he is not exploiting the one issue that would allow him to trounce Hillary among the anti-war left. But perhaps he already has these votes and doesn't need to remind voters of the fact.
Hillary has been suffering in the polls lately, but her numbers are still strong. If the majority of democratic voters had any integrity (you remember, the ones opposed to the war and who wanted to impeach Bush 15 minutes after he took office) they would be savaging Hillary for her vote and abandoning her in droves. But just like politics in the GOP, personality trumps issues and principles. Granted, every candidate makes sure to massage the voter bases soft spots on the way to making the kill, but few, if any, have actually results to show. Most do the exact opposite of what they say because it has helped to ensure their re-election. Democrats move the right, Republicans to the left. The side that wins usually gets the opposite of what they were promised.
This is why I am almost tempted to vote for Hillary. I have agreed with almost nothing she has said on the campaign trail. On the other hand, I know in my heart that her sole goal in life is power through becoming president. That means that she will say anything to get elected and by saying anything we mean no-holes-barred "lying". So if someone says the opposite of what you agree with constantly and you know they are in all likelihood either lying about their beliefs or lying about what they are going to do, then chances are they will be almost exactly what you want.
In my own opinion, Hillary's personal goal for power trumps whatever her beliefs may be and she will sell out her party's base just as quickly as the democratic Congress has done in this past session. The same mentality existed with Nixon. This is probably why lawyers should be banned from the presidency.
As predicted, the dems are no longer worried about Iraq. We should hardly be surprised since the front-runner, Clinton, is just a culpable as any neo-con for this tragedy that has no end in sight. However, since it will be more of a burden to Clinton than to any of her Republican challengers, the issue has gone away. Or at least it has gone away from the Iowa campaign and among top democratic insiders. They know the issue will bite them in the fall of 2008 if Hillary is their candidate.
The question though is why Obama is pursuing the strategy he is pursuing. His advocating an invasion of Pakistan to show that he is tough on...well tough enough to declare war for no reason...seems to be for the sake of looking like he is not afraid to declare war or use force...however poorly formulated the policy or tragic the results. It shows he is looking toward the fall of 2008 and that this is not just a test run. That may be why he is not exploiting the one issue that would allow him to trounce Hillary among the anti-war left. But perhaps he already has these votes and doesn't need to remind voters of the fact.
Hillary has been suffering in the polls lately, but her numbers are still strong. If the majority of democratic voters had any integrity (you remember, the ones opposed to the war and who wanted to impeach Bush 15 minutes after he took office) they would be savaging Hillary for her vote and abandoning her in droves. But just like politics in the GOP, personality trumps issues and principles. Granted, every candidate makes sure to massage the voter bases soft spots on the way to making the kill, but few, if any, have actually results to show. Most do the exact opposite of what they say because it has helped to ensure their re-election. Democrats move the right, Republicans to the left. The side that wins usually gets the opposite of what they were promised.
This is why I am almost tempted to vote for Hillary. I have agreed with almost nothing she has said on the campaign trail. On the other hand, I know in my heart that her sole goal in life is power through becoming president. That means that she will say anything to get elected and by saying anything we mean no-holes-barred "lying". So if someone says the opposite of what you agree with constantly and you know they are in all likelihood either lying about their beliefs or lying about what they are going to do, then chances are they will be almost exactly what you want.
In my own opinion, Hillary's personal goal for power trumps whatever her beliefs may be and she will sell out her party's base just as quickly as the democratic Congress has done in this past session. The same mentality existed with Nixon. This is probably why lawyers should be banned from the presidency.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Cal Thomas, kool-aid drinker
Cal Thomas on the Presidential Debates
The Republicans, who rarely mention the president, agree that Hillary Clinton would be a bad president and each could fight terrorists better than any Democrat, except for Ron Paul who doesn't want to fight anyone.
OK, I'll admit it. I'm a Ron Paul supporter. This article really isn't about Ron Paul, but it should be. The quoted statement above should be "Ron Paul who doesn't want to fight anyone without a declaration of war". So apparently people like Cal Thomas who like to give a pretense of loving the Constitution at every turn and use it whenever they need a handy tool to decry someone else's opinion, pretty much ignore it if they are in favor of any policy that clearly violates the Constitution. Policies, for example, of invading foreign countries without a declaration of war from Congress. Remember that Ron Paul introduced a bill calling for a letter of marque to be issued against bin Laden shortly after 9/11. Here is one blog calling this "wacky" - apparently they haven't read the Constitution either.
So Cal Thomas in this article has the same complaint as a lot of people watching the presidential debate. This is a collection of meaningless sound-bites from polished C+ students seeing who can promise the most government handouts. The point he is misses is that Ron Paul is the only candidate in either forum whose platform is taking away benefits and abolishing segments of the government that both take away and hand out taxpayer money. How Cal Thomas missed this is anyone's guess.
The Republicans, who rarely mention the president, agree that Hillary Clinton would be a bad president and each could fight terrorists better than any Democrat, except for Ron Paul who doesn't want to fight anyone.
OK, I'll admit it. I'm a Ron Paul supporter. This article really isn't about Ron Paul, but it should be. The quoted statement above should be "Ron Paul who doesn't want to fight anyone without a declaration of war". So apparently people like Cal Thomas who like to give a pretense of loving the Constitution at every turn and use it whenever they need a handy tool to decry someone else's opinion, pretty much ignore it if they are in favor of any policy that clearly violates the Constitution. Policies, for example, of invading foreign countries without a declaration of war from Congress. Remember that Ron Paul introduced a bill calling for a letter of marque to be issued against bin Laden shortly after 9/11. Here is one blog calling this "wacky" - apparently they haven't read the Constitution either.
So Cal Thomas in this article has the same complaint as a lot of people watching the presidential debate. This is a collection of meaningless sound-bites from polished C+ students seeing who can promise the most government handouts. The point he is misses is that Ron Paul is the only candidate in either forum whose platform is taking away benefits and abolishing segments of the government that both take away and hand out taxpayer money. How Cal Thomas missed this is anyone's guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)