I am moving all my posting to my other site: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com. I urge you to visit, to bookmark the site, return often, and tell your friends about it. Today's columns there include a discussion about John McCain's strategies for victory. I'll also provide the Senator with a great deal of advice about his vice-presidential choice, whom I hope will be Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska. In the future, I'll also write regularly about the Democratic nominee, which probably will be Senator Clinton. Finally, I'm committed to several congressional candidates, including Melissa Hart of PA's 4th District, and senatorial candidate Heather Wilson of New Mexico.
What can you do for Senator McCain? I'd suggest you go his web site and make a contribution.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
How John McCain Can Win
The way John McCain can win the general election is to emphasize in word and deed that he's a superior human being. In The Almanac of American Politics (2008), conservative guru Michael Barone, who disagrees with McCain on several issues, says the following about him:
"For many Americans, John McCain is the closest thing our politics has to a national hero, a presidential candidate widely admired in 2000 and an independent leader of great force in the years after. His personal story is a dramatic one, told beautifully by Robert Timberg in The Nightingale's Song and by McCain himself in the 1999 bestseller Faith of My Fathers."
"McCain is the son and grandson of Navy admirals, a decorated Navy pilot himself. He volunteered for service in Vietnam and in July, 1967, was injured in a flight deck explosion on the carrier Forrestal. He could have returned home, but refused, and in October, 1967, was shot down over [North] Vietnam. He spent five-and-a-half years, most of it in pain and torture, in Communist prisoner of war camps. He refused to be let out ahead of those who had been in longer when he was offered release because of his father's rank."
"McCain returned to the United States in March, 1973. His final assignment in the Navy was as Senate liason. In 1980, he retired and moved to Arizona, his wife's home state. In 1982, he ran for an open House seat. Attacked as an "outsider," he responded, 'The longest place I ever lived was in Hanoi.' He led 32% to 26% in a four-way primary, and won the 1982 and 1984 general elections and then the 1986 Senate contest easily."
If John McCain runs as that man, which should be fairly easy, because he IS that man, he has a good chance to win. He's a hero, and Hillary Clinton (like Barack Obama) is not. McCain must continue to run as an exceptional human being, someone whose life is a model for all Americans.
McCain will not win on his "positions." Instead, he will win on personality and character. To the end, surrogates -- like Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarenegger, as well as the two Georgia Senators (Saxby Chambliss and Jonny Isakson) -- can play important roles in citing McCain's key qualities.
In short, the best approach is for John McCain is to run as himself. For someone like Hillary Clinton, the best strategy might be to run as someone else. The American people vote largely on likability, courage, and integrity, three areas where she's lacking.
I hope everyone who visits this site will visit the following site for McCain volunteers:
http://mccain08olc.blogspot.com/
"For many Americans, John McCain is the closest thing our politics has to a national hero, a presidential candidate widely admired in 2000 and an independent leader of great force in the years after. His personal story is a dramatic one, told beautifully by Robert Timberg in The Nightingale's Song and by McCain himself in the 1999 bestseller Faith of My Fathers."
"McCain is the son and grandson of Navy admirals, a decorated Navy pilot himself. He volunteered for service in Vietnam and in July, 1967, was injured in a flight deck explosion on the carrier Forrestal. He could have returned home, but refused, and in October, 1967, was shot down over [North] Vietnam. He spent five-and-a-half years, most of it in pain and torture, in Communist prisoner of war camps. He refused to be let out ahead of those who had been in longer when he was offered release because of his father's rank."
"McCain returned to the United States in March, 1973. His final assignment in the Navy was as Senate liason. In 1980, he retired and moved to Arizona, his wife's home state. In 1982, he ran for an open House seat. Attacked as an "outsider," he responded, 'The longest place I ever lived was in Hanoi.' He led 32% to 26% in a four-way primary, and won the 1982 and 1984 general elections and then the 1986 Senate contest easily."
If John McCain runs as that man, which should be fairly easy, because he IS that man, he has a good chance to win. He's a hero, and Hillary Clinton (like Barack Obama) is not. McCain must continue to run as an exceptional human being, someone whose life is a model for all Americans.
McCain will not win on his "positions." Instead, he will win on personality and character. To the end, surrogates -- like Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarenegger, as well as the two Georgia Senators (Saxby Chambliss and Jonny Isakson) -- can play important roles in citing McCain's key qualities.
In short, the best approach is for John McCain is to run as himself. For someone like Hillary Clinton, the best strategy might be to run as someone else. The American people vote largely on likability, courage, and integrity, three areas where she's lacking.
I hope everyone who visits this site will visit the following site for McCain volunteers:
http://mccain08olc.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
McCain, Palin, See Other Blog
On my main blog, I have a new column today (Wednesday) about John Edwards, "The Haircut Man." Here's the link: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/. Please visit and bookmark. Your comments are always welcome. I always enjoy it when people agree with me, which happens occasionally, but I probably learn more from those who disagree.
If your name happens to be Sarah Heath Palin, I'll be continuing to write about you (a lot) on my other blog.
steve maloney
If your name happens to be Sarah Heath Palin, I'll be continuing to write about you (a lot) on my other blog.
steve maloney
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Column on Obama's Weakness
On my main site today, I have a column titled "Obama: Unfit to be President." I urge you to visit the site and, if you wish, to leave your comments. To get there, click on the following: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com. Thanks for visiting.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Welcome to All Visitors
Starting Tuesday, January 29, a big day in Florida, my posts will be on my main blog, which you can reach at http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com. Most people who visit, and the number is growing steadily, are in the habit of doing so at the Camp2008 site. I urge you to visit, bookmark the site, and keep returning. Your comments are always welcome.
On Tuesday, I'll write more about my problems with the candidacy of Barack Obama. After the results from the Florida Primary are in, I'll give my thoughts about the campaign for the presidential nomination.
On Tuesday, I'll write more about my problems with the candidacy of Barack Obama. After the results from the Florida Primary are in, I'll give my thoughts about the campaign for the presidential nomination.
OBAMA: BAD FOR AMERICA
Note: On my main blog site, which you can reach by clicking on http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com, you can read today's (Monday's) column, which is: "Barack Obama: Bad for America." The one accurate thing Bill Clinton said about Obama's "vision" characterized it as "a fairy tale." Bill Clinton saying something accurate? "Even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in awhile." Please visit and bookmark my main site. Thanks!
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The Clintons' Racist Campaign, Payoffs
Bulletin on SC Democratic Primary: Right after the New Hampshire Primary, I sent my friend Adam a note about Hillary Clinton's "strategy" to win the nomination. I said she would build on her identification of herself as the "female candidate.' I predicted there also be an emphasis -- subtle though it might be -- as the "White" candidate. In short, she would try to marginalize Obama as the candidate of Black people. That is exactly what her campaign, mainly through the efforts of her husband, attempted to do in South Carolina. They didn't succeed. Am I claiming the Clintons ran a racialist campaign? Yes.
As John King of CNN noted tonight, the Clintons "paid top dollar" for the support of a leading Black minister in SC. His support (and the money he handed out) was designed to win SC for Mrs. Clinton. They should have saved their money. Bill Clinton was a famous user of "walking around money," payoffs given to individuals who claim to be able to control the Black vote.
Tomorrow (Sunday), I'll tell a true story about Lester Maddox, a notorious racist and former Governor of Georgia. "Walking around money" was not exactly a foreign concept to him (or to most politicians of the day, including Jimmy Carter) in Georgia, where I lived for seven years.
NOTE: After January 30, this blog will contain links to my main blog, which you can find at: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com. Please visit there and bookmark the site. Thanks.
I responded today (Sunday) to a e-mail from one of the "conservative" groups. It was making the point that Senator McCain was "wrong" on immigration and was therefore not a "conservative." Here's my response:
I recently wrote a couple of columns about immigration, relying mainly on articles in The Economist, a very prestigious publication, which disagrees strongly with you on every point you make about immigration. To say that immigrants, legal or illegal, depress the economy is ridiculous, although it's a widely held view among members of the far-right.
The Economist points out that foreign-born immigrants in America have won most of the Nobel Prizes in this decade. It also notes that 40% of the engineering and science PhDs in America are immigrants. It notes that 30% of the high-tech companies in Silicon Valley were started by immigrants. Somehow you "forgot" to mention these points, perhaps because you haven't taken the time to inform yourself on the issue.
As for low-skill immigrants, they pick the lettuce and the oranges, serve as nannies, clean the johns and make the beds at hotels and motels, and put up roofing when the temperature is 110 degrees.
Perhaps Senator McCain might raise these points -- most of which will come as news to people who detest Mexicans -- in the answer to one of your very loaded questions. The notion that immigrants, legal and illegal, don't play a positive role in the American economy is laughable.
It now appears that Republicans and conservatives will play little or no role in resolving the issues related to immigration. Last night, in one of the reddest of Red states, South Carolina, more Democrats voted for Obama than Republicans who voted for both McCain and Huckabee. Eighty thousand more people voted in the Democratic primary than did so in the Republican primary. The implications of that are extremely ominous for the GOP. If the Democratic candidate could be competitive in a state like SC, there's no way we can win the general election.
Somehow people who spend a great deal of time expressing their distaste for Hispanics are living in a parallel universe, one far-removed from the realities of American politics.
As frequent visitors to this site know, my emphasis is on practical politics -- on winning elections. Why? Because if we position ourself in such a way that we're likely to lose, we will have little or no say on important issues.
People who emphasize "ideological purity" on single issues don't understand the way the system works. An idelogical stand that turns off large groups of voters makes no sense.
The arguments made in our time against immigrants, legal or illegal, are the same ones made in the past about OUR ancestors, almost all of whom came here from other countries. There are 40 million legal Hispanic immigrants in our country. If we somehow indicate to them that we don't care about Hispanics, they will never vote for our candidates.
That would mean Republicans probably would lose several crucial states, including Florida, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. Also, it would continue the situation where we are not competitive in huge states like California and New York. In short, it's a recipe for perpetual defeat.
As John King of CNN noted tonight, the Clintons "paid top dollar" for the support of a leading Black minister in SC. His support (and the money he handed out) was designed to win SC for Mrs. Clinton. They should have saved their money. Bill Clinton was a famous user of "walking around money," payoffs given to individuals who claim to be able to control the Black vote.
Tomorrow (Sunday), I'll tell a true story about Lester Maddox, a notorious racist and former Governor of Georgia. "Walking around money" was not exactly a foreign concept to him (or to most politicians of the day, including Jimmy Carter) in Georgia, where I lived for seven years.
NOTE: After January 30, this blog will contain links to my main blog, which you can find at: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com. Please visit there and bookmark the site. Thanks.
I responded today (Sunday) to a e-mail from one of the "conservative" groups. It was making the point that Senator McCain was "wrong" on immigration and was therefore not a "conservative." Here's my response:
I recently wrote a couple of columns about immigration, relying mainly on articles in The Economist, a very prestigious publication, which disagrees strongly with you on every point you make about immigration. To say that immigrants, legal or illegal, depress the economy is ridiculous, although it's a widely held view among members of the far-right.
The Economist points out that foreign-born immigrants in America have won most of the Nobel Prizes in this decade. It also notes that 40% of the engineering and science PhDs in America are immigrants. It notes that 30% of the high-tech companies in Silicon Valley were started by immigrants. Somehow you "forgot" to mention these points, perhaps because you haven't taken the time to inform yourself on the issue.
As for low-skill immigrants, they pick the lettuce and the oranges, serve as nannies, clean the johns and make the beds at hotels and motels, and put up roofing when the temperature is 110 degrees.
Perhaps Senator McCain might raise these points -- most of which will come as news to people who detest Mexicans -- in the answer to one of your very loaded questions. The notion that immigrants, legal and illegal, don't play a positive role in the American economy is laughable.
It now appears that Republicans and conservatives will play little or no role in resolving the issues related to immigration. Last night, in one of the reddest of Red states, South Carolina, more Democrats voted for Obama than Republicans who voted for both McCain and Huckabee. Eighty thousand more people voted in the Democratic primary than did so in the Republican primary. The implications of that are extremely ominous for the GOP. If the Democratic candidate could be competitive in a state like SC, there's no way we can win the general election.
Somehow people who spend a great deal of time expressing their distaste for Hispanics are living in a parallel universe, one far-removed from the realities of American politics.
As frequent visitors to this site know, my emphasis is on practical politics -- on winning elections. Why? Because if we position ourself in such a way that we're likely to lose, we will have little or no say on important issues.
People who emphasize "ideological purity" on single issues don't understand the way the system works. An idelogical stand that turns off large groups of voters makes no sense.
The arguments made in our time against immigrants, legal or illegal, are the same ones made in the past about OUR ancestors, almost all of whom came here from other countries. There are 40 million legal Hispanic immigrants in our country. If we somehow indicate to them that we don't care about Hispanics, they will never vote for our candidates.
That would mean Republicans probably would lose several crucial states, including Florida, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. Also, it would continue the situation where we are not competitive in huge states like California and New York. In short, it's a recipe for perpetual defeat.
MY ROMNEY PROBLEM & YOURS
NOTE: AFTER EXPERIMENTING WITH CROSS-POSTING ON THIS BLOG, I'VE DECIDED TO FOCUS ENTIRELY (FOR THE REST OF 2008) ON MY MAIN BLOG: HTTP://CAMP2008VICTORYA.BLOGSPOT.COM. PLEASE VISIT THAT SITE AND BOOKMARK IT. COMMENTS ARE ALWAYS WELCOME.
NOTE: IF YOU'D LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN, YOU CAN DO SO AT: http://mccain.com/. IF YOU'D LIKE TO JOIN THE FAST-GROWING GROUP THAT SUPPORTS GOV. SARAH PALIN FOR V-P, DO SO AT: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/. THANKS TO ALL OF YOU!
"My problem with Mitt Romney is that he clearly goes to the same hair stylist as John Edwards." (Anonymous)
A friend in Hawaii is a frequent listener to talk radio host Hugh Hewitt, and she finds it an increasingly painful experience. A few years ago, Hewitt wrote a totally uncritical book about Mitt Romney, and since then he has been shilling for the book and the candidate. My friend said the following:
"Thank you...for your continued efforts to gain a victory for the Right. Steve, I am REALLY offended by Hewitt's McCain bashing. I don't think I've been this angry, even when they went after Bush. McCain has spent half a century serving this nation...in the military and then in Congress, he does NOT deserve this. Every week at Mass I say a special prayer for Bush...I am adding McCain to my list and a prayer that McCain does so well in Florida there is NO chance for Romney. Tell me Steve, what is Hewitt going to do if McCain wins the nomination?" (Sanity 102)
Here's my reply: "Hewitt has NEVER made a compelling reason for his backing of Romney. Mitt is much too robotic (and, frankly, much too rich) to appeal to anything like a majority of the American people. His stance on McCain shows he knows nothing about the role of the military or the nature of heroism. Hugh should be ashamed of himself, but he obviously is incapable of shame."
Should we hold it against Romney that he is extremely rich (with an estimated fortune of $300 million)? No. What we should hold against him is his use of tens of millions in an effort to buy the presidential nomination. He spent his career at Bain Capital working in mergers and acquisitions that made him and his clients huge fortunes -- and cost many dedicated workers their jobs. He sells himself to voters as a "manager," but his skills seem to consist mainly of managing his own vast fortune and his political ambitions.
When Romney ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994 he was strongly pro-gay-rights and pro-choice. Now, with a mainly conservative primary electorate, he has reversed his positions.
I have a problem with Romney's wife, Ann, who seems to have no positions that vary even in small ways from her husband's. I also have a problem with the Romney sons, whom I call the "Osmond Quintuplets." They are the quintessence of blandness, human parodies right out of "Father Knows Best." And this is the Romney that supposedly opposes human cloning!
As soon as Romney spots an opponent that the voters like, be it Huckabee or McCain, he immediately "goes negative." Unable to sell his own robotic personality, he goes on the attack against other candidates. He now campaigns without his $3,000 suits and even without a tie -- an experience that appears to be excruciating for him.
Totally clueless about the changes in American politics and society, Romney is pursuing the old Republican ideal of the politician as businessman. However, as Mike Huckabee put it, voters are much more interested in voting for the guy like the one that works next to them -- rather than the person who laid them off. Romney is the latter.
Pundits sometime talk about Hillary Clinton's "high negatives" in polls. However, Romney's negatives are nearly as high as Mrs. Clinton's. Frankly, that demonstrates the good sense of American voters.
Right now, I'm literally praying that John McCain will prevail in the Florida Primary. The evidence shows that this country neither wants nor needs Mitt Romney. As for what Hugh Hewitt will do if McCain wins the nomination, somehow I don't expect him to fall on his sword. Perhaps he'll get a real job?
To prevail, John McCain needs your help. Please consider making at least a small contribution to his campaign.
NOTE: IF YOU'D LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN, YOU CAN DO SO AT: http://mccain.com/. IF YOU'D LIKE TO JOIN THE FAST-GROWING GROUP THAT SUPPORTS GOV. SARAH PALIN FOR V-P, DO SO AT: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/. THANKS TO ALL OF YOU!
"My problem with Mitt Romney is that he clearly goes to the same hair stylist as John Edwards." (Anonymous)
A friend in Hawaii is a frequent listener to talk radio host Hugh Hewitt, and she finds it an increasingly painful experience. A few years ago, Hewitt wrote a totally uncritical book about Mitt Romney, and since then he has been shilling for the book and the candidate. My friend said the following:
"Thank you...for your continued efforts to gain a victory for the Right. Steve, I am REALLY offended by Hewitt's McCain bashing. I don't think I've been this angry, even when they went after Bush. McCain has spent half a century serving this nation...in the military and then in Congress, he does NOT deserve this. Every week at Mass I say a special prayer for Bush...I am adding McCain to my list and a prayer that McCain does so well in Florida there is NO chance for Romney. Tell me Steve, what is Hewitt going to do if McCain wins the nomination?" (Sanity 102)
Here's my reply: "Hewitt has NEVER made a compelling reason for his backing of Romney. Mitt is much too robotic (and, frankly, much too rich) to appeal to anything like a majority of the American people. His stance on McCain shows he knows nothing about the role of the military or the nature of heroism. Hugh should be ashamed of himself, but he obviously is incapable of shame."
Should we hold it against Romney that he is extremely rich (with an estimated fortune of $300 million)? No. What we should hold against him is his use of tens of millions in an effort to buy the presidential nomination. He spent his career at Bain Capital working in mergers and acquisitions that made him and his clients huge fortunes -- and cost many dedicated workers their jobs. He sells himself to voters as a "manager," but his skills seem to consist mainly of managing his own vast fortune and his political ambitions.
When Romney ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994 he was strongly pro-gay-rights and pro-choice. Now, with a mainly conservative primary electorate, he has reversed his positions.
I have a problem with Romney's wife, Ann, who seems to have no positions that vary even in small ways from her husband's. I also have a problem with the Romney sons, whom I call the "Osmond Quintuplets." They are the quintessence of blandness, human parodies right out of "Father Knows Best." And this is the Romney that supposedly opposes human cloning!
As soon as Romney spots an opponent that the voters like, be it Huckabee or McCain, he immediately "goes negative." Unable to sell his own robotic personality, he goes on the attack against other candidates. He now campaigns without his $3,000 suits and even without a tie -- an experience that appears to be excruciating for him.
Totally clueless about the changes in American politics and society, Romney is pursuing the old Republican ideal of the politician as businessman. However, as Mike Huckabee put it, voters are much more interested in voting for the guy like the one that works next to them -- rather than the person who laid them off. Romney is the latter.
Pundits sometime talk about Hillary Clinton's "high negatives" in polls. However, Romney's negatives are nearly as high as Mrs. Clinton's. Frankly, that demonstrates the good sense of American voters.
Right now, I'm literally praying that John McCain will prevail in the Florida Primary. The evidence shows that this country neither wants nor needs Mitt Romney. As for what Hugh Hewitt will do if McCain wins the nomination, somehow I don't expect him to fall on his sword. Perhaps he'll get a real job?
To prevail, John McCain needs your help. Please consider making at least a small contribution to his campaign.
Friday, January 25, 2008
IMMIGRATION: GOOD FOR WELCOMING COUNTRIES
This weekend (Saturday and Sunday), I've have one of those columns that goes on . . . and on . . . and on about John McCain and immigration. However, I urge you to read the previous column, borrowed from Sanity102. She writes about some thoroughly misguided criticisms of McCain, including those by Hugh Hewitt, a talk-radio shill for Mitt Romney. In previous columns, you'll also see my comments about future President Sarah Heath Palin of Alaska.
Several of the ideas on my immigration columns will come from one of my favorites sources: The (London) Economist. In an opinion piece called "Keep the Borders Open," the magazine's sub-head is: "The backlash against immigrants in the rich world is a threat to prosperity everywhere."
The Economist's general point is this: ". . . Most often migration is about young, motivated, dynamic people seeking to better themselves by hard work. History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity."
In other words, the standard anti-Hispanic rhetoric of the far-right, the nativists, is far removed from reality. More to follow this weekend . . .
Here's more of what The Economist says about immigration, which sounds a lot like what Senators McCain, Kyl, and Graham say about it:
"History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity. Tens of million of Europeans who made it to the New World in the 19th and 20th centuries improved their lot, just as the near 40 million foreign born are doing in America today. Many migrants return home, with new skills, savings, technology, and bright ideas. Remittances to poor countries in 2006 were worth at least $260 billion -- more, in many countries, than aid and foreign investment combined. Letting in migrants does vastly more good for the world's poor than stuffing any number of [checks into appeals from charities]."
The Economist points out that immigrants play a critical, positive role in the American economy. For example:
Several of the ideas on my immigration columns will come from one of my favorites sources: The (London) Economist. In an opinion piece called "Keep the Borders Open," the magazine's sub-head is: "The backlash against immigrants in the rich world is a threat to prosperity everywhere."
The Economist's general point is this: ". . . Most often migration is about young, motivated, dynamic people seeking to better themselves by hard work. History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity."
In other words, the standard anti-Hispanic rhetoric of the far-right, the nativists, is far removed from reality. More to follow this weekend . . .
Here's more of what The Economist says about immigration, which sounds a lot like what Senators McCain, Kyl, and Graham say about it:
"History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity. Tens of million of Europeans who made it to the New World in the 19th and 20th centuries improved their lot, just as the near 40 million foreign born are doing in America today. Many migrants return home, with new skills, savings, technology, and bright ideas. Remittances to poor countries in 2006 were worth at least $260 billion -- more, in many countries, than aid and foreign investment combined. Letting in migrants does vastly more good for the world's poor than stuffing any number of [checks into appeals from charities]."
The Economist points out that immigrants play a critical, positive role in the American economy. For example:
- Roughly one-third of the Americans who won Nobel Prizes in Physics in the past seven years were born abroad;
- About 40% of science and engineering PhDs working in America are immigrants; and,
- Approximately one-third of Silicon Valley companies were started by foreign-born individuals (mainly Indian or Chinese).
However, what about low-skilled workers, many of them from South of the U.S. border? In fact, their skills levels are about the same as those of our immigrant grandparents or great-grandparents. There's a tremendous need in our country for people who will do work that native-born Americans avoid.
What The Economist is saying is what John McCain believes. Oh, and those beliefs happen to be accurate.
More to follow on Saturday . . .
A SANE VIEW OF IMMIGRATION
In The Economist, January 5-11, 2008, the London-based publication has a fascinating 14-page special report on “migration” (called “immigration” in the U.S.).
In our country, immigration has been an extremely contentious issue, and Senator John McCain’s support of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) has hurt his candidacy. He’s been accused – falsely, I believe – of favoring “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, and that kind of accusation can be the kiss of death in Republican politics.
The Economist’s position is that immigration is a good thing – a source of diversity, technological advances, and prosperity. In other words, it thinks people like McCain (which the magazine generally favors) are right, while their critics are wrong.
The publication says, “. . . Most often, migration is about young, motivated, dynamic people seeking to better themselves by hard work.” It adds, “History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity. Tens of millions of Europeans who made it to the New World in the 19th and 20th centuries improved their lot, just as the near 40 million foreign-born are doing in America today.”
Much of the debate over immigration involves sloganeering, such as “the rule of law.” In fact, the U.S. has modified many laws that were irrational or immoral, such as the “law” that Black people counted for three-fifths as much as White people. It also eliminated the law that said women couldn’t vote. In the past generation, the country modified the law for those fleeing Communist Cuba, allowing those who reached our shores to stay.
The real issue will immigration – legal or even illegal – boils down to this: Is it a good thing, or a bad one? That is, do people immigrating to this nation provide more benefits than debits?
The Economist admits there can be negatives associated with immigration. It notes that politicians have a tendency to pander to “xenophobic fears. Also, it admits that large numbers of immigrants can provoke job fears among natives. What’s more, it’s clear that huge disparities of income across borders could result in a stream of incomers turning into a flood.
Yet, the magazine sees immigration mainly as a plus. It notes that “many migrants return home with new skills, savings, technology, and bright ideas. Remittances to poor countries in 2006 were worth at least $260 billion . . . Letting in migrants does vastly more good for the world’s poor than [sending off charitable contributions.”
In addition, “The movement of people also helps the rich world. Prosperous countries with graying workforces [America, Europe, and Japan, among them] rely ever more on young foreigners . . . . Around a third of the Americans who won Nobel Prizes in physics in the past seven years were born abroad. About 40% of science and engineering PhDs working in America are immigrants.”
In short, The Economist disagrees sharply with the nativist wing of the Republican Party. The points the magazine makes are the same kind that motivated John McCain, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham and others to support Comprehensive Immigration Reform. In the face of persuasive arguments, anti-immigrant slogans aren’t enough.
Sanity102: Why McCain's "The Man"
If you want to sign up as a blogger/onliner for Gov. Sarah Heath Palin, a future U.S. President, you can do so by going to Adam's blog. Sarah, I'd recommend that you talk soon to Senator John McCain. It's increasingly likely he will choose you as his running "mate."
I'm borrowing the following column from Sanity 102, who posted it at: http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com
Excuse me? Ok, Hugh Hewitt has gone too far.Did you know that McCain's adopted "black" [actually, she's Asian] daughter was "given" to McCain and his wife to adopt by Mother Theresa? Did you know that the war in Iraq would never have turned around if McCain had not pushed for the Surge?
Did you know that if his "gang of 14" had not agreed to being reasonable, there would be no Alito, no Roberts, No great judicary picks on the Appellate Courts because the Dems would STILL be filibustering. And if the GOP had used the "nuclear option", the now Democratic majority would be able to do the same?
Did you know that the reason McCain fought against the tax cuts was because he wanted what MOST Conservatives complain that Bush and Company DIDN'T do...cut spending at the same time?Did you know that while most civilians think torture is ok, MOST of those serving, especially in combat, do not? That part of the reason for McCain's disapproval of torture for prisoners is because he spent years during the Vietnam War as a POW and experienced first hand torture.
And unlike Hewitt whose connection to the military is a wife's father, McCain served his country for over two decades.Did you know that his father and grandfather served? And that at least one of his sons is serving now in the war zone? Can any of the major candidates claim that type of dedication to our nation?
Did you know that as a border state senator, he has pushed for funding for border security and REASONABLE method of dealing with illegals...and that his border state has returned McCain to Congress 4 times...the last 6 year run in 2004...2 years AFTER 9/11 (the year that the border situation was supposed to have become vital)?
Did you know that McCain was pro-life before Reagan, Fred Thompson, and Romney were pro-life? Yet...today Hewitt pointed out that the next president would appoint 4 maybe 5 judges to the SCOTUS...and asked, "do you TRUST McCain over Romney and Rudy to appoint strict constitutionists?"EXCUSE ME??
I'm borrowing the following column from Sanity 102, who posted it at: http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com
Excuse me? Ok, Hugh Hewitt has gone too far.Did you know that McCain's adopted "black" [actually, she's Asian] daughter was "given" to McCain and his wife to adopt by Mother Theresa? Did you know that the war in Iraq would never have turned around if McCain had not pushed for the Surge?
Did you know that if his "gang of 14" had not agreed to being reasonable, there would be no Alito, no Roberts, No great judicary picks on the Appellate Courts because the Dems would STILL be filibustering. And if the GOP had used the "nuclear option", the now Democratic majority would be able to do the same?
Did you know that the reason McCain fought against the tax cuts was because he wanted what MOST Conservatives complain that Bush and Company DIDN'T do...cut spending at the same time?Did you know that while most civilians think torture is ok, MOST of those serving, especially in combat, do not? That part of the reason for McCain's disapproval of torture for prisoners is because he spent years during the Vietnam War as a POW and experienced first hand torture.
And unlike Hewitt whose connection to the military is a wife's father, McCain served his country for over two decades.Did you know that his father and grandfather served? And that at least one of his sons is serving now in the war zone? Can any of the major candidates claim that type of dedication to our nation?
Did you know that as a border state senator, he has pushed for funding for border security and REASONABLE method of dealing with illegals...and that his border state has returned McCain to Congress 4 times...the last 6 year run in 2004...2 years AFTER 9/11 (the year that the border situation was supposed to have become vital)?
Did you know that McCain was pro-life before Reagan, Fred Thompson, and Romney were pro-life? Yet...today Hewitt pointed out that the next president would appoint 4 maybe 5 judges to the SCOTUS...and asked, "do you TRUST McCain over Romney and Rudy to appoint strict constitutionists?"EXCUSE ME??
Thursday, January 24, 2008
McCain: Urgent Need for Donations
Welcome to the visitor from Gorham, NH, which I visited many times as a child. My father was born in Berlin, NH, and my wife and I spent some nice times at the Balsams, way up north. Come again!
Today, I received the following message from Bard Marston, a Massachusetts-based volunteer for Senator John McCain. Brad's efforts were vital in the Senator's winning the NH and SC primaries.
As Super Tuesday (Feb. 25) approaches, the Senator needs contributions that will enable him to make media "buys" in critical states. I donated $50 today to the Senator, and I hope you'll consider doing likewise. Thanks. (The following is the link to McCain's web site, where you should click on "Contribute": http://johnmccain.com/. I'm asking everyone who visits my site(s) to reprint this posting on their own site, as well as to send e-mails to friends and family members.
Steve,
I hope this is what you had in mind.
Brad
McCain Victory 08
January 24, 2008
Dear Brad,
The Florida Primary is only days away. The McCain Campaign is launching a major media buy and needs your help. It is so important, that Senator McCain has offered to have a private conference call with the top donors from McCainVictory08, when we raise $100,000 for the campaign.
John McCain is connecting with voters and is leading in national polls and in the important state of Florida. Rudy Giuliani has bet his political future on winning Florida. Mitt Romney continues to pour millions of his own money into his campaign. All the candidates know that a win in Florida will catapult them towards Super Tuesday.
We need to make certain that John McCain has the resources he needs to compete in Florida and Super Tuesday. Please make a donation today directly to the campaign by clicking the link below.
Your donation of $100, $250 or $500 will help John McCain get his message out to Florida and answer the increasingly strident attacks of some of his opponents.
I understand that at this point in the campaign, many McCain Suppporters are "maxed out" on donations. Whether you can contribute or not, please help Senator McCain by forwarding this e-mail to five friends or family members.
Make sure to tell them when they make their donation to put YOUR NAME in the "referred by" box at the bottom of the donation page. The top 15 individual donors and the top 15 referrers will be invited to participate in a private conference call with Senator McCain after his victories on Super Tuesday.
I know it is alot to ask but your donation, in ANY amount is much needed and much appreciated by Senator McCain, the hundreds and hundreds of volunteers for the campaign and of course, me.
Warmest regards,
Brad Marston
McCain Victory 08
Today, I received the following message from Bard Marston, a Massachusetts-based volunteer for Senator John McCain. Brad's efforts were vital in the Senator's winning the NH and SC primaries.
As Super Tuesday (Feb. 25) approaches, the Senator needs contributions that will enable him to make media "buys" in critical states. I donated $50 today to the Senator, and I hope you'll consider doing likewise. Thanks. (The following is the link to McCain's web site, where you should click on "Contribute": http://johnmccain.com/. I'm asking everyone who visits my site(s) to reprint this posting on their own site, as well as to send e-mails to friends and family members.
Steve,
I hope this is what you had in mind.
Brad
McCain Victory 08
January 24, 2008
Dear Brad,
The Florida Primary is only days away. The McCain Campaign is launching a major media buy and needs your help. It is so important, that Senator McCain has offered to have a private conference call with the top donors from McCainVictory08, when we raise $100,000 for the campaign.
John McCain is connecting with voters and is leading in national polls and in the important state of Florida. Rudy Giuliani has bet his political future on winning Florida. Mitt Romney continues to pour millions of his own money into his campaign. All the candidates know that a win in Florida will catapult them towards Super Tuesday.
We need to make certain that John McCain has the resources he needs to compete in Florida and Super Tuesday. Please make a donation today directly to the campaign by clicking the link below.
Your donation of $100, $250 or $500 will help John McCain get his message out to Florida and answer the increasingly strident attacks of some of his opponents.
I understand that at this point in the campaign, many McCain Suppporters are "maxed out" on donations. Whether you can contribute or not, please help Senator McCain by forwarding this e-mail to five friends or family members.
Make sure to tell them when they make their donation to put YOUR NAME in the "referred by" box at the bottom of the donation page. The top 15 individual donors and the top 15 referrers will be invited to participate in a private conference call with Senator McCain after his victories on Super Tuesday.
I know it is alot to ask but your donation, in ANY amount is much needed and much appreciated by Senator McCain, the hundreds and hundreds of volunteers for the campaign and of course, me.
Warmest regards,
Brad Marston
McCain Victory 08
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
McCain: Preserving the GOP
Between Thursday, January 24 and Tuesday, January 29, the day of the Florida Republican Primary, I'll be writing several columns on John McCain. Right now, he's the best -- and most electable -- of the GOP candidates.
In my columns, I'd like to tackle some of the tough issues, including Senator McCain's stance on comprehensive immigration reform and on campaign finance reform. I believe he's generally right on both of them.
Sometimes what appears to be the "conservative" position isn't the sound one -- or the correct one. A classic case is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, strongly supported by Lyndon Johnson and just as strongly opposed by Barry Goldwater. In the election of 1964, Goldwater was swamped by Johnson, and a number of fine conservative legislators "drowned" along with the presidential nominee.
Yes, the Civil Rights Act interfered with the "freedoms" of some owners of hotels, restaurants, and the like. But the freedom to deny service to Black men, women, and children was not a "liberty" anyone should possess. Thus, Goldwater was wrong, and Johnson was right.
The controversy over the Act did great damage to the Republican Party, lasting damage. It meant the GOP lost the Black vote -- and apparently that loss is permanent. In presidential elections, the Republican candidate is lucky to get 6%-8% of the Black vote.
That makes it nearly impossible to win several important states, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, and California. Also, there are 40-plus Black members of Congress (including one Senator, Obama), and none of them is a Republican. That sad, enduring situation traces back more than 40 years to Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
As we examine John McCain's positions on various issues, we find him seeking -- often imperfectly -- to keep the Republican Party from repeating the mistakes of the Goldwater era. Frankly, he doesn't want his Party, however good its intentions, to become a Permanent Minority.
In my columns, I'd like to tackle some of the tough issues, including Senator McCain's stance on comprehensive immigration reform and on campaign finance reform. I believe he's generally right on both of them.
Sometimes what appears to be the "conservative" position isn't the sound one -- or the correct one. A classic case is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, strongly supported by Lyndon Johnson and just as strongly opposed by Barry Goldwater. In the election of 1964, Goldwater was swamped by Johnson, and a number of fine conservative legislators "drowned" along with the presidential nominee.
Yes, the Civil Rights Act interfered with the "freedoms" of some owners of hotels, restaurants, and the like. But the freedom to deny service to Black men, women, and children was not a "liberty" anyone should possess. Thus, Goldwater was wrong, and Johnson was right.
The controversy over the Act did great damage to the Republican Party, lasting damage. It meant the GOP lost the Black vote -- and apparently that loss is permanent. In presidential elections, the Republican candidate is lucky to get 6%-8% of the Black vote.
That makes it nearly impossible to win several important states, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, and California. Also, there are 40-plus Black members of Congress (including one Senator, Obama), and none of them is a Republican. That sad, enduring situation traces back more than 40 years to Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
As we examine John McCain's positions on various issues, we find him seeking -- often imperfectly -- to keep the Republican Party from repeating the mistakes of the Goldwater era. Frankly, he doesn't want his Party, however good its intentions, to become a Permanent Minority.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
PALIN: ALASKA'S WILDLY POPULAR GOVERNOR
Sarah, those of us who love and respect you are willing to do whatever it takes to make sure that someday you will be inaugurated as President of our beloved country. Keep up the great work! (Later today, I'll have some quotes from the article in Alaska.)
In the February issue of Vogue magazine, Sarah Palin is featured (along with Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius). Sarah is the mother of four children, three girls (Piper, Willow, and Bristol) and a boy, Track, 18, who is in the U.S. Army Infantry. Track enlisted on 9/11/2007. It's likely he will see service in Iraq or Afghanistan, or both.
Sarah's husband, Todd, is an oil field production worker on the North Slope oil field and formerly was a commercial fisherman. A hunter and outdoorswoman, Sarah is a life member of the NRA. Because of her extremely high popularity in Alaska, Sarah is known as "the nation's most popular elected official."
Increasingly, she's seen as a likely choice for the vice-presidential slot on the GOP's national ticket. She's an energy on energy, the environment, and climate change as it relates to Alaska.
There's news tonight that the campaign of Mike Huckabee is undergoing severe shortages of money. As I've written recently, the Huckabee Campaign suffers mainly from a chronic case of foot-in-the-mouth disease, both by Huckabee and his campaign supporters, including: Rev. Richard Rude of Iowa, who made anti-Catholic remarks and B-movie star Chuck Norris, who recently made offensive statements about John McCain's age. Huckabee's "waving" of the Confederate Flag in South Carolina was offensive to Black people and to just about anyone who believes in decency on the part of politicians. Also, his anti-Mormon remarks (saying that Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are 'brothers") were gratuitous. There's more, but you get the point.
The time has come for Huckabee to realize that he will win at most one more state: Arkansas. He should withdraw his candidacy. As for Huckabee getting the vice-presidential nod, any nominee who make such a choice should realize he will be running with an anvil around his neck.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Key Issues for Sarah Palin
NOTE: GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN WILL BE ON THE COVER OF VOGUE MAGAZINE IN FEBRUARY. VOGUE MAY HAVE MORE SENSE THAN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
For many months, I've been one of a group on the Internet advocating that the Republican presidential nominee, whomever he turns out to be, choose Gov. Sarah Heath Palin of Alaska as his running mate. When Adam Brickley started the "Draft Palin" Movement, he, I, and another guy were the three known members of the group. Since then, a lot more people -- some of them national figures -- have joined the growing crowd.
A few months ago, I separated myself (slightly) from the Draft Palin for VP effort and started my own one-man band -- one dedicated to getting Sarah the presidential nomination in either 2012 or 2016. I started wondering -- and, among Palinites this is something of a heresy -- whether it would be a good idea for her to seek the vice-presidency.
Behind my (slight) change in views on the best scenario from Sarah was a growing belief that no Republican nominee can win the presidency in 2008. In a previous column I mentioned The Economist's note that registered Democrats now outnumber registered Republicans by 50% to 35%. I also observed that the Democratic nominees have raised an amazing 70% more cash than their Republican counterparts. A similar fundraising imbalance exists with the two congressional committees.
For Sarah Palin, the question is if it would advance her career to run as the vice-presidential nominee on a losing ticket. Yes, it would do wonders for her name recognition, and the world would get a better sense of what an outstanding human being she is.
On the other hand, vice-presidential nominees on tickets that lose big tend to disappear quickly. Consider Barry Goldwater's running mate in 1964 -- Bill Miller of Lockport, New York -- a man who might have been vaporized after his losing effort. Or consider John Edwards (Kerry, 2004), a man who believes he's a serious candidate for President but will be forevermore the guy who got the $400 hair cut. And whatever happened to Joe Lieberman (Gore, 2000)? Or Dan Quayle (Bush, 1988, 1992)? Or Jack Kemp (Dole, 1996)? Running for V-P on the wrong ticket can be a real career-stopper.
Sarah, it may be that the best thing which could ever happen to you is NOT to be on ticket in 2008. However, I'm still predicting that -- eventually -- they will need to reserve a spot for you on Mt. Rushmore.
For many months, I've been one of a group on the Internet advocating that the Republican presidential nominee, whomever he turns out to be, choose Gov. Sarah Heath Palin of Alaska as his running mate. When Adam Brickley started the "Draft Palin" Movement, he, I, and another guy were the three known members of the group. Since then, a lot more people -- some of them national figures -- have joined the growing crowd.
A few months ago, I separated myself (slightly) from the Draft Palin for VP effort and started my own one-man band -- one dedicated to getting Sarah the presidential nomination in either 2012 or 2016. I started wondering -- and, among Palinites this is something of a heresy -- whether it would be a good idea for her to seek the vice-presidency.
Behind my (slight) change in views on the best scenario from Sarah was a growing belief that no Republican nominee can win the presidency in 2008. In a previous column I mentioned The Economist's note that registered Democrats now outnumber registered Republicans by 50% to 35%. I also observed that the Democratic nominees have raised an amazing 70% more cash than their Republican counterparts. A similar fundraising imbalance exists with the two congressional committees.
For Sarah Palin, the question is if it would advance her career to run as the vice-presidential nominee on a losing ticket. Yes, it would do wonders for her name recognition, and the world would get a better sense of what an outstanding human being she is.
On the other hand, vice-presidential nominees on tickets that lose big tend to disappear quickly. Consider Barry Goldwater's running mate in 1964 -- Bill Miller of Lockport, New York -- a man who might have been vaporized after his losing effort. Or consider John Edwards (Kerry, 2004), a man who believes he's a serious candidate for President but will be forevermore the guy who got the $400 hair cut. And whatever happened to Joe Lieberman (Gore, 2000)? Or Dan Quayle (Bush, 1988, 1992)? Or Jack Kemp (Dole, 1996)? Running for V-P on the wrong ticket can be a real career-stopper.
Sarah, it may be that the best thing which could ever happen to you is NOT to be on ticket in 2008. However, I'm still predicting that -- eventually -- they will need to reserve a spot for you on Mt. Rushmore.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
The Economist: GOP Bad News
CONGRATULATIONS TO SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN FOR A GREAT VICTORY IN SOUTH CAROLINA. ON TO FLORIDA! "For Mike Huckabee this means it's over." (Gloria Borger, CNN) Good riddance, Mike.
Later today (Sunday), I'll have some more comments about the candidacy of Pastor Mike Huckabee -- hopefully, my last comments on that unpleasant individual. In the comments section on my previous column, I respond at length (also for the last time) to Larry, who feels I'm treating him and Mike unfairly. I've pointed out how Huckabee has made comments that are anti-Mormon and anti-Black. I've also discussed how he has some virulently anti-American people around him, including Rev. Laurence Kuhn, author of "God and Ceasar," which compares contemporary America (unfavorably) to Nazi Germany. Huckabee has absolutely no chance of ever winning a general election in a free society (ours), but he doesn't seem to have grasped that obvious fact.
I received today The Economist magazine's "The World in 2008" issue today, and it contains a good story on the emerging political situation. In an article titled "The Democrats' Year," its sub-head is: "The Betting is on Another Clinton Presidency."
Here's the heart of the piece: "It looks highly likely that this will be the Democrats' year. The Republican Party is in serious disarray -- unpopular with the electorate, plagued by scandals, tarnished by incompetence, and unsure which way it is heading. Five years ago, America was equally divided by party identification: 43% for each party. By 2007 the arithmetic had evolved to give the Democrats an advantage of 50% to 35%."
The article continues: "By October 2007 Democratic presidential candidates has raised about 70% more money than their Republican rivals. Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado are leaning Democratic--Ohio, which tipped the election for George Bush in 2004, decidedly so. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will most likely end up in the White House."
The Economist's view of reality is much like my own. I believe Barack Obama would be the Democrats' strongest candidate, rather than Hillary Clinton, but right now I have little doubt that one of them will be the next President.
The magazine mentions that the next President will be the one to resolve three key issues: Iraq, Social Security, and immigration. They might also have included health care.
If The Economist's predictions are correct, Republicans (and conservatives) will have no say on those major issues. We can make all the calls we want to the big Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, and they will ignore us.
As I'll point out in future columns, we conservative have brought much of this dismal situation on ourselves. We've turned off most of the American electorate, and we will live to regret doing so.
____________
Juan Carlos Lopez of "CNN Espanol" says of Hispanic voters (nearly 10% of registered voters in the U.S.): "They consider the whole debate on immigration not just to be directed against illegal immigrants but against Hispanics as a whole." Unfortunately, Republicans, with the exceptions of Giuliani and McCain, have done nothing to clarify this situation. That means states like NV, CO, AZ, and NM will be very, very hard for Republicans to win next November.
Later today (Sunday), I'll have some more comments about the candidacy of Pastor Mike Huckabee -- hopefully, my last comments on that unpleasant individual. In the comments section on my previous column, I respond at length (also for the last time) to Larry, who feels I'm treating him and Mike unfairly. I've pointed out how Huckabee has made comments that are anti-Mormon and anti-Black. I've also discussed how he has some virulently anti-American people around him, including Rev. Laurence Kuhn, author of "God and Ceasar," which compares contemporary America (unfavorably) to Nazi Germany. Huckabee has absolutely no chance of ever winning a general election in a free society (ours), but he doesn't seem to have grasped that obvious fact.
I received today The Economist magazine's "The World in 2008" issue today, and it contains a good story on the emerging political situation. In an article titled "The Democrats' Year," its sub-head is: "The Betting is on Another Clinton Presidency."
Here's the heart of the piece: "It looks highly likely that this will be the Democrats' year. The Republican Party is in serious disarray -- unpopular with the electorate, plagued by scandals, tarnished by incompetence, and unsure which way it is heading. Five years ago, America was equally divided by party identification: 43% for each party. By 2007 the arithmetic had evolved to give the Democrats an advantage of 50% to 35%."
The article continues: "By October 2007 Democratic presidential candidates has raised about 70% more money than their Republican rivals. Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado are leaning Democratic--Ohio, which tipped the election for George Bush in 2004, decidedly so. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will most likely end up in the White House."
The Economist's view of reality is much like my own. I believe Barack Obama would be the Democrats' strongest candidate, rather than Hillary Clinton, but right now I have little doubt that one of them will be the next President.
The magazine mentions that the next President will be the one to resolve three key issues: Iraq, Social Security, and immigration. They might also have included health care.
If The Economist's predictions are correct, Republicans (and conservatives) will have no say on those major issues. We can make all the calls we want to the big Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, and they will ignore us.
As I'll point out in future columns, we conservative have brought much of this dismal situation on ourselves. We've turned off most of the American electorate, and we will live to regret doing so.
____________
Juan Carlos Lopez of "CNN Espanol" says of Hispanic voters (nearly 10% of registered voters in the U.S.): "They consider the whole debate on immigration not just to be directed against illegal immigrants but against Hispanics as a whole." Unfortunately, Republicans, with the exceptions of Giuliani and McCain, have done nothing to clarify this situation. That means states like NV, CO, AZ, and NM will be very, very hard for Republicans to win next November.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Mike Huckabee's Flag-Waving Racism
SARAH PALIN: I know you're at Ft. Benning for your son's graduation from infantry training, and that you've visited this site. You and Track are much in our thoughts and prayers. Please keep "tuning in." As young American patriots, your son and his friend John Bates are in exactly the right place.
My next column will appear tonight (Saturday), after the South Carolina Primary. If John McCain wins in SC, he probably will end up as the GOP's nominee. If he doesn't, then things will continue to remain very complicated. The Florida Primary occurs in 10 days and "Super Tuesday" will be in 17 days. Will we have a nominee by Feb. 6? Anyone who knows the answer to that question should let the rest of us in on it. Also, is it just me, or does Obama look like someone who's going to be nearly impossible to beat in the general election? As the saying goes, "we live in interesting times."
One of my biggest problems with "Mike" Huckabee is his embrace of the Confederate Flag, a symbol of the nation's darkest days to many in S.C. and the nation. A little good ole Arkansas racism seems to be the way to get some vote from the Pavlovian "evangelicals," who make up most of his supporters. A little offense against Black folks isn't going to hurt him in in the heart of Dixie.
Of course, the Confederate flag means different strokes to different folks. To African-Americans, a group that doesn't "like Mike," the flag stands for racism, slavery, segregation, and humiliation. To the group that drives dusty pick-ups and drinks throws Blue Ribbon cans out the window, the flag reflects a time when Black people "knew their place."
Mike Huckabee claims to be a Christian -- a claim for which I see no evidence. I don't take him at his word, because I don't see any deeds. I see another Southerner out conning the boobs.
Of course, many politicians in the Republican Party (including Mark Foley and Duke Cunningham) have made the faith claim. But I have no earthly (or heavenly) idea what Mike Huckabee believes -- if anything. He exemplifies the stylistics of a backwater form of what passes for Christianity in rural areas of the Deep South, but I don't see anything more substantial. He seems to love his neighbors, but not the ones two streets away.
As I've tried hard (but failed) to explain to Larry Perrault, a big backer of Pastor Mike, people can claim to believe anything, and of course some of them believe nothing. I increasingly tend to think Mike falls in that category. And I'm beginning to wonder about Larry, who seems to have two issues: abortion and gay marriage, which happen to Huckabee's key issues. For someone like Larry, disagreeing with him constitutes a deviation from "The Word of God."
Huckabee knows (and so does Larry) that the chances for a constitutional amendment on either issue are about the same as polar bears migrating to Miami. (The last effort at an amendment on abortion was in 1983, and it fell 18 votes short of passage in the Senate.) Mike knows there's no chance for such amendments, but if that waves his rhetorical version of the bloody sheet in front of the primitives, some grunt and some drool.
The only way we can determine an individual's beliefs -- be it Larry or Pastor Mike -- is by their acts. "By their fruits ye shall know them." If the fruit is rotten, well . . .
Mike's "fruits" right now seem to be confined to cozying up to the Primitive Baptists and racists crawling out of the S. Carolina swamps. The push-polling on his behalf is Exhibit B of the racism and foulness that afflicts his campaign. There has been an effort in 2000 and another one this year by Huckabee supporters (Christians all, one presumes) to make false statements about John McCain. Pastor Huckabee could stop this, but he chooses not to.
The claim made in the sewers of South Carolina politics is that John McCain "faithered an illegitimate Black child." As I've explained, John McCain and his wife Cindy adopted a dark-skinned orphan in BanglaDesh, and she's been their daughter for many years. As I mentioned, Mike Huckabee could stop the slurs about the McCains, but he chooses not to.
Are there enough good Republicans in S. Carolina to repudiate Mike's tactics? I guess we shall see soon.
The admonitions of Jesus Christ are difficult ones, and the "evangelical favorite" is falling far short of living up to them. He's Goomer Pyle with an attitude -- and not a good attitude.
Regarding another Huckabee supporter, Triva, of Greenville, SC, she and I have had an interesting "relationship." She made many comments on this blog, and I reprinted all of them. I made a few comments on her blog, and she reprinted none of them. I guess that struck her as fair.
Triva is a homeschooler, a group that strongly backs Mike Huckabee. She doesn't send her children to public school in Greenville, SC, because, as she explained, "the schools aren't good enough." In the Deep South, the "not-so-good schools" are code words for having too many people that don't resemble "us."
I told her that her views on the free exchange of information didn't augur well for preparing her children -- many pictures of whom she prints on her blog -- for life in a diverse world. She didn't appreciate the advice, mainly because she hasn't yet grasped the fact that some people disagree with her! There are occasional signs that Triva could actually be a good person, but somehow that doesn't look like a realistic possibility. Self-righteousness and goodness don't go well together.
She doesn't like me, and right about now the feeling has become mutual. As for Mike, he reminds us why so many people continue to view Southern Baptists as symbols of narrowness, sexism, meanness, and intolerance.
In the 2000 SC Primary, John McCain backed off on criticizing having the Confederate Flag fly above the capital. In 2008, McCain called his earlier position "an act of cowardice." Of course, John McCain is a 20th century model of American heroism.
Somehow, I have the strong feeling that terms like cowardism and heroism have little meaning to Mike Huckabee, who is the former but not the latter.
My next column will appear tonight (Saturday), after the South Carolina Primary. If John McCain wins in SC, he probably will end up as the GOP's nominee. If he doesn't, then things will continue to remain very complicated. The Florida Primary occurs in 10 days and "Super Tuesday" will be in 17 days. Will we have a nominee by Feb. 6? Anyone who knows the answer to that question should let the rest of us in on it. Also, is it just me, or does Obama look like someone who's going to be nearly impossible to beat in the general election? As the saying goes, "we live in interesting times."
One of my biggest problems with "Mike" Huckabee is his embrace of the Confederate Flag, a symbol of the nation's darkest days to many in S.C. and the nation. A little good ole Arkansas racism seems to be the way to get some vote from the Pavlovian "evangelicals," who make up most of his supporters. A little offense against Black folks isn't going to hurt him in in the heart of Dixie.
Of course, the Confederate flag means different strokes to different folks. To African-Americans, a group that doesn't "like Mike," the flag stands for racism, slavery, segregation, and humiliation. To the group that drives dusty pick-ups and drinks throws Blue Ribbon cans out the window, the flag reflects a time when Black people "knew their place."
Mike Huckabee claims to be a Christian -- a claim for which I see no evidence. I don't take him at his word, because I don't see any deeds. I see another Southerner out conning the boobs.
Of course, many politicians in the Republican Party (including Mark Foley and Duke Cunningham) have made the faith claim. But I have no earthly (or heavenly) idea what Mike Huckabee believes -- if anything. He exemplifies the stylistics of a backwater form of what passes for Christianity in rural areas of the Deep South, but I don't see anything more substantial. He seems to love his neighbors, but not the ones two streets away.
As I've tried hard (but failed) to explain to Larry Perrault, a big backer of Pastor Mike, people can claim to believe anything, and of course some of them believe nothing. I increasingly tend to think Mike falls in that category. And I'm beginning to wonder about Larry, who seems to have two issues: abortion and gay marriage, which happen to Huckabee's key issues. For someone like Larry, disagreeing with him constitutes a deviation from "The Word of God."
Huckabee knows (and so does Larry) that the chances for a constitutional amendment on either issue are about the same as polar bears migrating to Miami. (The last effort at an amendment on abortion was in 1983, and it fell 18 votes short of passage in the Senate.) Mike knows there's no chance for such amendments, but if that waves his rhetorical version of the bloody sheet in front of the primitives, some grunt and some drool.
The only way we can determine an individual's beliefs -- be it Larry or Pastor Mike -- is by their acts. "By their fruits ye shall know them." If the fruit is rotten, well . . .
Mike's "fruits" right now seem to be confined to cozying up to the Primitive Baptists and racists crawling out of the S. Carolina swamps. The push-polling on his behalf is Exhibit B of the racism and foulness that afflicts his campaign. There has been an effort in 2000 and another one this year by Huckabee supporters (Christians all, one presumes) to make false statements about John McCain. Pastor Huckabee could stop this, but he chooses not to.
The claim made in the sewers of South Carolina politics is that John McCain "faithered an illegitimate Black child." As I've explained, John McCain and his wife Cindy adopted a dark-skinned orphan in BanglaDesh, and she's been their daughter for many years. As I mentioned, Mike Huckabee could stop the slurs about the McCains, but he chooses not to.
Are there enough good Republicans in S. Carolina to repudiate Mike's tactics? I guess we shall see soon.
The admonitions of Jesus Christ are difficult ones, and the "evangelical favorite" is falling far short of living up to them. He's Goomer Pyle with an attitude -- and not a good attitude.
Regarding another Huckabee supporter, Triva, of Greenville, SC, she and I have had an interesting "relationship." She made many comments on this blog, and I reprinted all of them. I made a few comments on her blog, and she reprinted none of them. I guess that struck her as fair.
Triva is a homeschooler, a group that strongly backs Mike Huckabee. She doesn't send her children to public school in Greenville, SC, because, as she explained, "the schools aren't good enough." In the Deep South, the "not-so-good schools" are code words for having too many people that don't resemble "us."
I told her that her views on the free exchange of information didn't augur well for preparing her children -- many pictures of whom she prints on her blog -- for life in a diverse world. She didn't appreciate the advice, mainly because she hasn't yet grasped the fact that some people disagree with her! There are occasional signs that Triva could actually be a good person, but somehow that doesn't look like a realistic possibility. Self-righteousness and goodness don't go well together.
She doesn't like me, and right about now the feeling has become mutual. As for Mike, he reminds us why so many people continue to view Southern Baptists as symbols of narrowness, sexism, meanness, and intolerance.
In the 2000 SC Primary, John McCain backed off on criticizing having the Confederate Flag fly above the capital. In 2008, McCain called his earlier position "an act of cowardice." Of course, John McCain is a 20th century model of American heroism.
Somehow, I have the strong feeling that terms like cowardism and heroism have little meaning to Mike Huckabee, who is the former but not the latter.
CONSERVATIVE BLACK REPUBLICANS: AMAZING GRACE
The National Black Republicans Association (NBRA) released today the following essay by Frances Rice:
Democrats have a 150-year history of using race as a political weapon to keep blacks in virtual slavery and Republicans out of power.
The recent firestorm ignited by Senator Hillary Clinton's racially-tinged attempt to derail Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign shows the perils of Democrats using their race-based weapon against a black Democrat. In the black community, people are outraged about how Democrat demagogues, including Billionaire Bob Johnson of BET, are treating Obama as an "uppity Negro" who dares to defy their white Democratic Party masters.
Prior to the Clinton-Obama hullabaloo over Senator Clinton's disparaging remark about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Clinton campaign was being given a pass for using racial slurs against Senator Obama.
When Democrats called Senator Obama a "Magic Negro," there was hardly a ripple of protest. Just as little concern is expressed when Democrats slander black Republicans, such as former Lt. Governor Michael Steele who Democrats depicted as a "Simple Sambo" and Dr. Condoleezza Rice who was portrayed as an ignorant "Mammy", reminiscent of the racial stereotypes used by Democrats during the days of "Jim Crow."
Any Republican using such slanderous tactics against blacks would be castigated as a racist and destroyed politically.
If the controversy generated by Senator Clinton's remark that diminished the civil rights role of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. signals the beginning of an end to the type of racial divisiveness inflicted on our nation for over a century and a half by Democrats, then the angst created by Senator Clinton will be well worth it.
To fully appreciate the significance of this possible historical turning point, we must pause to examine briefly the Democratic Party's sordid racist history.
Click here to view the full article.
As many of you know, I'm a major advocate of getting more African-Americans to vote for conservative Republican candidates. The NBRA is a major force in making that happen. The following is my response to Frances Rice's piece:
Frances Rice's piece is outstanding, and it demonstrates why conservatives of any color need to fight the effort to keep Blacks in a state of political bondage. Hillary Clinton and her supporters, including Bob Johnston, have determined that now is the time to "go negative." You are seeing subtle efforts to portray Mrs. Clinton as not only the "female candidate," but also as the "white candidate."
But don't liberal Democrats "love Black people?" Not exactly. They love the votes more than they love the individuals who cast ballots. Four years later they show up, brag about a few short-term handouts, and ask (demand) the votes again.
Frances Rice mentions the slurs against Michael Steele, a great candidate and a wonderful man, and Condoleeza Rice. Similar slurs were made against Ken Blackwell in Ohio and Lynn Swann, candidate for governor in PA. In Swann's case, Gov. Ed Rendell (who supposed "loves" Black people) ran campaign ads -- in black-and-white -- that sought to portray Lynn as some sort of unsavory character out of an old Steppin Fetchitt movie. Gee, did anyone (besides me) call Rendell on this? Nope.
Yes, I am Caucasian, but I do understand how difficult it must be at time for Black conservatives to sustain their efforts. But it's absolutely essential to make sure that great candidates like Steele, Blackwell, and Swann ultimately prevail. Your peers might not thank you now, but your children and grandchildren surely will.God bless all of you who are doing the "heavy lifting." It will pay dividends.
I intend to reprint the short of version of Frances Rice's piece on my blog. I also urge people of all races to join conservative Black groups (such as the ones in Yahoo Groups) and do everything possible to support their efforts. If you can, please make financial contributions to Black conservatives. Thanks!
DEMOCRATS AND RACIAL POLITICS: FROM JIM CROW
TO BARACK OBAMA
By Frances RiceDemocrats have a 150-year history of using race as a political weapon to keep blacks in virtual slavery and Republicans out of power.
The recent firestorm ignited by Senator Hillary Clinton's racially-tinged attempt to derail Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign shows the perils of Democrats using their race-based weapon against a black Democrat. In the black community, people are outraged about how Democrat demagogues, including Billionaire Bob Johnson of BET, are treating Obama as an "uppity Negro" who dares to defy their white Democratic Party masters.
Prior to the Clinton-Obama hullabaloo over Senator Clinton's disparaging remark about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Clinton campaign was being given a pass for using racial slurs against Senator Obama.
When Democrats called Senator Obama a "Magic Negro," there was hardly a ripple of protest. Just as little concern is expressed when Democrats slander black Republicans, such as former Lt. Governor Michael Steele who Democrats depicted as a "Simple Sambo" and Dr. Condoleezza Rice who was portrayed as an ignorant "Mammy", reminiscent of the racial stereotypes used by Democrats during the days of "Jim Crow."
Any Republican using such slanderous tactics against blacks would be castigated as a racist and destroyed politically.
If the controversy generated by Senator Clinton's remark that diminished the civil rights role of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. signals the beginning of an end to the type of racial divisiveness inflicted on our nation for over a century and a half by Democrats, then the angst created by Senator Clinton will be well worth it.
To fully appreciate the significance of this possible historical turning point, we must pause to examine briefly the Democratic Party's sordid racist history.
Click here to view the full article.
As many of you know, I'm a major advocate of getting more African-Americans to vote for conservative Republican candidates. The NBRA is a major force in making that happen. The following is my response to Frances Rice's piece:
Frances Rice's piece is outstanding, and it demonstrates why conservatives of any color need to fight the effort to keep Blacks in a state of political bondage. Hillary Clinton and her supporters, including Bob Johnston, have determined that now is the time to "go negative." You are seeing subtle efforts to portray Mrs. Clinton as not only the "female candidate," but also as the "white candidate."
But don't liberal Democrats "love Black people?" Not exactly. They love the votes more than they love the individuals who cast ballots. Four years later they show up, brag about a few short-term handouts, and ask (demand) the votes again.
Frances Rice mentions the slurs against Michael Steele, a great candidate and a wonderful man, and Condoleeza Rice. Similar slurs were made against Ken Blackwell in Ohio and Lynn Swann, candidate for governor in PA. In Swann's case, Gov. Ed Rendell (who supposed "loves" Black people) ran campaign ads -- in black-and-white -- that sought to portray Lynn as some sort of unsavory character out of an old Steppin Fetchitt movie. Gee, did anyone (besides me) call Rendell on this? Nope.
Yes, I am Caucasian, but I do understand how difficult it must be at time for Black conservatives to sustain their efforts. But it's absolutely essential to make sure that great candidates like Steele, Blackwell, and Swann ultimately prevail. Your peers might not thank you now, but your children and grandchildren surely will.God bless all of you who are doing the "heavy lifting." It will pay dividends.
I intend to reprint the short of version of Frances Rice's piece on my blog. I also urge people of all races to join conservative Black groups (such as the ones in Yahoo Groups) and do everything possible to support their efforts. If you can, please make financial contributions to Black conservatives. Thanks!
IS JOHN MCCAIN A (SHUDDER!) LIBERAL?
In response to Senator Tom Coburn (R, OK) endorsing John McCain, some of the dear folks on the "Conservative Americans" Group at Yahoo are proclaiming their latest mantra: that, in their "opinion," McCain is a liberal. As you'll see below, I begged to differ. (Note: Tom Coburn is in many ways the most conservative member of the U.S. Senate.)
The problem is that whether one is a conservative or not doesn't depend on some half-baked emotional response. There are rating systems, including the one from the American Conservative Union (and liberal counterparts such as the ADA and the ACLU) that indicate a person's conservatism. In the latest ACU ratings, Coburn got 100%, which is an "A" in conservatism. McCain's rating in a recent year was 80%, which is a good solid "B." Obama's ranking was zero, an "F," and Hillary Clinton's was also zero, again an "F." Yes, McCain who has always opposed abortion and opposes earmarks and opposes tax cuts without decreases in spending and supports a strong national defense is a staunch conservative. The good folks on conservative Americans can believe McCain is a liberal, just as they can believe two plus two equals five or that the moon consists of bagels and cream cheese. There are a fine old saying: "You have a right to your own opinions, but you don't have a right to your own facts." When people ignore the facts, we should smile -- and dismiss their silly "opinions."
Thursday, January 17, 2008
"Gamecock's" Despicable Comments on McCain
Recently, I strongly recommended John Hawkins' fine column on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, available at: http://www.theforgottenstreet.com/. I'd also like to recommend Christopher Wensley's excellent piece on Hillary Clinton ("Losing It") at: http://youngrepublican.townhall.com/. Obama-Clinton remarks end of column.
The following is a line about John McCain in Michael Barone's superb The Almanac of American Politics, 2008: "It appears to be his view that members of Congress, like members of the military, should serve the national interest honorably and without reference to political considerations. Linked to that is his opposition to what he considers pork barrel spending, which provides him plenty of material for his self-deprecating jokes about how unpopular he is with many colleagues." (p. 95)
"Gamecock" on Red State, a Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney supporter, sent me the following yesterday: "704-779-9080 . . . give me your best shot to switch to McCain." (I had told him that it looked as if Thompson would finish fourth in the SC Primary.)
I called "Gamecock" this morning (Thursday), and it was one of the more unsatisfactory "conversations" I've ever had. He wouldn't let me get a word in edgewise. He sang the praises of Fred Thompson (or, alternatively, Mr. Mega-Bucks, Mitt Romney). He denounced McCain at every turn. He said that we should give no credit to McCain's being tortured for five-plus years in a Vietnamese prison.
After all, as he put it, "Some of the men in those prisons might have come back and murdered somebody." I couldn't tell if he was serious, or even might be darkly implying that McCain had "offed" someone. He condemned McCain for comments made in 2000 in the SC Primary.
In that primary, McCain haters sent out many mailing saying, "McCain has a Black illegitimate daughter." McCain does have a dark-skinned daughter. She's not African-American, but is rather an adopted child from Bangla Desh. She appeared this year at a McCain rally, at least in part to dispel the lies told about him Gamecock's beloved SC.
This year, McCain opponents are engaging in "push polling," which refers to people calling voters pretend to be pollsters. Among other things, they're saying that McCain is "pro-abortion."
In fact, McCain has been staunchly pro-life for all his 24 years in public life. He has been the most consistent of all Republican candidates on this issue.
What Gamecock thinks about the lies and innuendos isn't clear. He appears to have the traditional Southern view -- and I lived in the Deep South for many years -- that all's fair in love, war, and politics.
He gave me no reasons for his supporting Thompson and Romney.I asked him what "Fred" and "Mitt" were doing while McCain, an authentic American hero to most of our fellow citizens, was rotting away in a Vietnamese torture chamber. He didn't seem to regard that question as relevant.
He admitted that McCain was "right" on the need for the Iraq Surge. However, he said that McCain had been wrong "five times" on Iraq issues. He didn't note what those five instances had been.
In my view, Gamecock is a classic supporter of Fred Thompson, known far-and-wide as the laziest man in politics. Why he wanted me to waste my time calling him is a question I'll never get answered. My assumption is that Gamecock is deeply embedded in the racialist politics that has dogged South Carolina for generations. He sees McCain's failure to pander to the bigots at Bob Jones University and other fever swamps in the state, and he regards that as a deficit.
He should be ashamed of himself, but shame isn't his strong suit. He condemned McCain for "changing" his position on the Confederate Flag that used to fly above the SC Capital. In fact, McCain has said not opposing the Flag was his worst political decision. On CBS News, he said it was an "act of cowardice" on his part. Somehow, that kind of candor doesn't impress the flag-loving Gamecock.
Anyway, I explained to "Gamecock" that McCain neither wants nor needs the support of people like him. I asked him whether he had any "character." In response, he chuckled. He's all ideology and no sense or decency.
The following is a line about John McCain in Michael Barone's superb The Almanac of American Politics, 2008: "It appears to be his view that members of Congress, like members of the military, should serve the national interest honorably and without reference to political considerations. Linked to that is his opposition to what he considers pork barrel spending, which provides him plenty of material for his self-deprecating jokes about how unpopular he is with many colleagues." (p. 95)
"Gamecock" on Red State, a Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney supporter, sent me the following yesterday: "704-779-9080 . . . give me your best shot to switch to McCain." (I had told him that it looked as if Thompson would finish fourth in the SC Primary.)
I called "Gamecock" this morning (Thursday), and it was one of the more unsatisfactory "conversations" I've ever had. He wouldn't let me get a word in edgewise. He sang the praises of Fred Thompson (or, alternatively, Mr. Mega-Bucks, Mitt Romney). He denounced McCain at every turn. He said that we should give no credit to McCain's being tortured for five-plus years in a Vietnamese prison.
After all, as he put it, "Some of the men in those prisons might have come back and murdered somebody." I couldn't tell if he was serious, or even might be darkly implying that McCain had "offed" someone. He condemned McCain for comments made in 2000 in the SC Primary.
In that primary, McCain haters sent out many mailing saying, "McCain has a Black illegitimate daughter." McCain does have a dark-skinned daughter. She's not African-American, but is rather an adopted child from Bangla Desh. She appeared this year at a McCain rally, at least in part to dispel the lies told about him Gamecock's beloved SC.
This year, McCain opponents are engaging in "push polling," which refers to people calling voters pretend to be pollsters. Among other things, they're saying that McCain is "pro-abortion."
In fact, McCain has been staunchly pro-life for all his 24 years in public life. He has been the most consistent of all Republican candidates on this issue.
What Gamecock thinks about the lies and innuendos isn't clear. He appears to have the traditional Southern view -- and I lived in the Deep South for many years -- that all's fair in love, war, and politics.
He gave me no reasons for his supporting Thompson and Romney.I asked him what "Fred" and "Mitt" were doing while McCain, an authentic American hero to most of our fellow citizens, was rotting away in a Vietnamese torture chamber. He didn't seem to regard that question as relevant.
He admitted that McCain was "right" on the need for the Iraq Surge. However, he said that McCain had been wrong "five times" on Iraq issues. He didn't note what those five instances had been.
In my view, Gamecock is a classic supporter of Fred Thompson, known far-and-wide as the laziest man in politics. Why he wanted me to waste my time calling him is a question I'll never get answered. My assumption is that Gamecock is deeply embedded in the racialist politics that has dogged South Carolina for generations. He sees McCain's failure to pander to the bigots at Bob Jones University and other fever swamps in the state, and he regards that as a deficit.
He should be ashamed of himself, but shame isn't his strong suit. He condemned McCain for "changing" his position on the Confederate Flag that used to fly above the SC Capital. In fact, McCain has said not opposing the Flag was his worst political decision. On CBS News, he said it was an "act of cowardice" on his part. Somehow, that kind of candor doesn't impress the flag-loving Gamecock.
Anyway, I explained to "Gamecock" that McCain neither wants nor needs the support of people like him. I asked him whether he had any "character." In response, he chuckled. He's all ideology and no sense or decency.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
CONSERVATIVES DEFAULTING ON CITIZENSHIP OBLIGATIONS?
If you'd like to read an excellent column on Barack Obama, go to John Hawkins' The Forgotten Street.
The following is part of a discussion I've been having with Cindy at The Pink Flamingo about SOME people who call themselves "conservatives." Being racist, sexist, or homophobic does NOT qualify one as a conservative. As a Christian, my obligation is not to bash people who are different from me, but rather to love them.
Cindy, at some point I'll start writing again about what's going on with "conservatives." I do not support "conservatives" who are anti-Mexican, anti-Black, anti-professional women, or anti-gay.
On the critical issue of dealing with crime: I have been making the point lately that Rudy-Bratton-Kerik (and also Bloomberg) have been central in reducing NYC's murder rate from 2500 pre-Giuliani (2494, actually) to fewer than 500. This is a major "pro-life" achievement. It is a major libertarian accomplishment, because liberty has no meaning if people are afraid to open their front doors.
There are too many murders, especially gun murders, in America. If the American people ask what we're going to do about it, we need to provide a coherent answer. We already have 5-10 times as many people in jail as other developed countries, so building more and more jails is NOT the answer. Murder and crime generally are problems, and our political obligation is to SOLVE problems, not to pretend they don't exist. Many people who call themselves conservatives have defaulted on their obligations as citizens.
There are major, major problems with campaign finance, and it does need to be reformed. Right now, campaign finance as it is will lead to a permanent Democratic majority. Thus, the condemnations of McCain are absurd. Go to opensecrets.org and see how your least-favorite candidates (Pelosi, Murtha, and Obey) are doing in getting "donations." They're getting so much money that there is no earthly way a Republican candidate could defeat them. The Democrats' national congressional committee has raised TWICE as much money as its Republican counterpart. So, good luck to us on regaining control of Congress.
As for the "Gang of 14," it consisted of some of the best people in the Senate, patriotic Americans who were trying to turn the Senate into something other than an ideological hate machine. They should be commended, not condemned. An imperfect solution to a real problem trumps no solution at all.
Additional Part of Dialogue with Cindy is below:
Cindy, the situation with self-styled "conservatives" (some of them racists and various haters) is bad -- very bad. However, there's a healthy re-sorting going on in American politics, and that's probably necessary.
I cite one episode where Hillary Clinton was asked if English should be the "official language" in America. She replied, "It should be the national language but not the official language." Right now, she's better on that issue than Republicans. She handled it without ticking off a single Hispanic. All the Republicans, except McCain, reply that English should be the "official" language. Does that win them any votes?
The point of running for office is to take positions acceptable to a majority of voters. Writing off the Hispanic vote will be a disaster, and right now conservatives seem unable to avoid disasters. Appealing only to the "base," about 20% of American voters, is a great way to lose 45-plus states.
This is a government "of, by, and for the people," which includes people who disagree with us. If a majority disagrees with us, it's our problem, not theirs.
More on gays and lesbians:
Little-Known Political Fact: Without votes from gays and lesbians in the 2000 election, George W. Bush would have lost Florida -- and thus the election. The "inconvenient truth" is that Al Gore would have won that election and probably would still be President. Bush got tens of thousands of gay and lesbian votes in FL, an essential element in his tiny margin of victory (fewer than 600 votes). Exit polls showed that Bush got about one-quarter of the ballots cast by FL homosexuals.
In most surveys, about one-third of gays and lesbians describe their political philosophy as conservative. About the same number define their religious belief as Christian. Those who hate G/L are generally defined as non-Christians, because they violate completely The Second Great Commandment.
In the case of sin, it's critical that we concentrate on our own. We do not know others well enough -- their beliefs, intentions, and actions -- to stand in any sort of judgment of them. If we do otherwise, we are in complete violation of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
An individual's sins are between him or her and God.
More of my endless exchange with Cindy is below:
One of the major issues out there is how to bring conservatives down from their perch in the trees, scratching their pits, back into humanity. I just got a note from one far-right type telling me how awful Barack Obama's church was (same type of article that appeared six months ago in the NY Times). I sent a long reply.
That particular church does not seem particulary "Christian," but it does a great deal of good work in the community, trying to bring people up into the middle class (while berating the elements of middle-class life that most of us worry about, including the bigotry).
My problem with Obama is not his church. It's his politics, which is the same old "redistribute the wealth!" "Get re-elected." "Pay off AFSCME and the NEA!" When people go around condemning his silly minister, they avoid confronting the real issues.
Too many far-right people have one major gripe with Obama: the color of his skin.
Obama's wife Michelle not only has "rhythm," but also is a tremendously effective political operative. His two girls are beautiful and appealing. His message strikes the right chord with many people.
Meanwhile, my right-wing correspondent is telling me who his minister is friendly with and that he doesn't particularly cotton to white folks. Historically, of course white folks haven't exactly been the best friends of black folks, what with slavery, segregation, and the like. My wife likes Obama a lot, and she is not in any sense a stupid person.
Anyway, when people become serious candidates for President, Democrat or Republican, I start treating them with basic courtesy. We only get one President, and he or she turns out to be OUR President.
If we go through another national hate-fest, such as the one we've had with the libs and Bush, the nation will be diminished. We need to talk about what conservatism is, and what it's not. It's not most of the stuff now parading around the Internet.
The following is part of a discussion I've been having with Cindy at The Pink Flamingo about SOME people who call themselves "conservatives." Being racist, sexist, or homophobic does NOT qualify one as a conservative. As a Christian, my obligation is not to bash people who are different from me, but rather to love them.
Cindy, at some point I'll start writing again about what's going on with "conservatives." I do not support "conservatives" who are anti-Mexican, anti-Black, anti-professional women, or anti-gay.
On the critical issue of dealing with crime: I have been making the point lately that Rudy-Bratton-Kerik (and also Bloomberg) have been central in reducing NYC's murder rate from 2500 pre-Giuliani (2494, actually) to fewer than 500. This is a major "pro-life" achievement. It is a major libertarian accomplishment, because liberty has no meaning if people are afraid to open their front doors.
There are too many murders, especially gun murders, in America. If the American people ask what we're going to do about it, we need to provide a coherent answer. We already have 5-10 times as many people in jail as other developed countries, so building more and more jails is NOT the answer. Murder and crime generally are problems, and our political obligation is to SOLVE problems, not to pretend they don't exist. Many people who call themselves conservatives have defaulted on their obligations as citizens.
There are major, major problems with campaign finance, and it does need to be reformed. Right now, campaign finance as it is will lead to a permanent Democratic majority. Thus, the condemnations of McCain are absurd. Go to opensecrets.org and see how your least-favorite candidates (Pelosi, Murtha, and Obey) are doing in getting "donations." They're getting so much money that there is no earthly way a Republican candidate could defeat them. The Democrats' national congressional committee has raised TWICE as much money as its Republican counterpart. So, good luck to us on regaining control of Congress.
As for the "Gang of 14," it consisted of some of the best people in the Senate, patriotic Americans who were trying to turn the Senate into something other than an ideological hate machine. They should be commended, not condemned. An imperfect solution to a real problem trumps no solution at all.
Additional Part of Dialogue with Cindy is below:
Cindy, the situation with self-styled "conservatives" (some of them racists and various haters) is bad -- very bad. However, there's a healthy re-sorting going on in American politics, and that's probably necessary.
I cite one episode where Hillary Clinton was asked if English should be the "official language" in America. She replied, "It should be the national language but not the official language." Right now, she's better on that issue than Republicans. She handled it without ticking off a single Hispanic. All the Republicans, except McCain, reply that English should be the "official" language. Does that win them any votes?
The point of running for office is to take positions acceptable to a majority of voters. Writing off the Hispanic vote will be a disaster, and right now conservatives seem unable to avoid disasters. Appealing only to the "base," about 20% of American voters, is a great way to lose 45-plus states.
This is a government "of, by, and for the people," which includes people who disagree with us. If a majority disagrees with us, it's our problem, not theirs.
More on gays and lesbians:
Little-Known Political Fact: Without votes from gays and lesbians in the 2000 election, George W. Bush would have lost Florida -- and thus the election. The "inconvenient truth" is that Al Gore would have won that election and probably would still be President. Bush got tens of thousands of gay and lesbian votes in FL, an essential element in his tiny margin of victory (fewer than 600 votes). Exit polls showed that Bush got about one-quarter of the ballots cast by FL homosexuals.
In most surveys, about one-third of gays and lesbians describe their political philosophy as conservative. About the same number define their religious belief as Christian. Those who hate G/L are generally defined as non-Christians, because they violate completely The Second Great Commandment.
In the case of sin, it's critical that we concentrate on our own. We do not know others well enough -- their beliefs, intentions, and actions -- to stand in any sort of judgment of them. If we do otherwise, we are in complete violation of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
An individual's sins are between him or her and God.
More of my endless exchange with Cindy is below:
One of the major issues out there is how to bring conservatives down from their perch in the trees, scratching their pits, back into humanity. I just got a note from one far-right type telling me how awful Barack Obama's church was (same type of article that appeared six months ago in the NY Times). I sent a long reply.
That particular church does not seem particulary "Christian," but it does a great deal of good work in the community, trying to bring people up into the middle class (while berating the elements of middle-class life that most of us worry about, including the bigotry).
My problem with Obama is not his church. It's his politics, which is the same old "redistribute the wealth!" "Get re-elected." "Pay off AFSCME and the NEA!" When people go around condemning his silly minister, they avoid confronting the real issues.
Too many far-right people have one major gripe with Obama: the color of his skin.
Obama's wife Michelle not only has "rhythm," but also is a tremendously effective political operative. His two girls are beautiful and appealing. His message strikes the right chord with many people.
Meanwhile, my right-wing correspondent is telling me who his minister is friendly with and that he doesn't particularly cotton to white folks. Historically, of course white folks haven't exactly been the best friends of black folks, what with slavery, segregation, and the like. My wife likes Obama a lot, and she is not in any sense a stupid person.
Anyway, when people become serious candidates for President, Democrat or Republican, I start treating them with basic courtesy. We only get one President, and he or she turns out to be OUR President.
If we go through another national hate-fest, such as the one we've had with the libs and Bush, the nation will be diminished. We need to talk about what conservatism is, and what it's not. It's not most of the stuff now parading around the Internet.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
WHY PEOPLE LOVE ALASKA
Trish Houser's picture of the sun rising at 9:31 a.m. near her home in Alaska. Sarah, even though it's beautiful there, we're asking you to come to DC to serve your country.
Why Pollsters Miss the Boat
In my previous column, I talked about the limitations (and they are many) of the polls. In the Iowa primary, pollsters dramatically underestimated the number of young voters (those under 30), who voted heavily for Barack Obama. In New Hampshire, the pollsters over-compensated and overestimated the number of young voters.
If you watched CNN (and other networks) last Tuesday, you saw that they kept waiting for the Obama votes to come in from Hanover (Dartmouth College), Durham (the University of New Hampshire), and other college locations (including tiny Franklin Pierce College). Presumably, they're still waiting. Mrs. Clinton held a good lead throughout the night, college students voted in disappointing (for Obama) numbers, and female students who did vote often went for the female candidate.
One reason the polls messed up lies with the concept of "likely voters," a concept invented by Gallup many years ago. Generally, likely voters are those who've voted with some regularity in past elections. If you've voted before, you're "likely" to vote this time -- right? Well, not exactly.
The pollsters have had a terrible time this year with young voters, especially those who may -- or may not -- vote for the first time. If a pollster has no evidence of past voting practices, it's impossible to tell if a voter is actually going to show up at the polling place. In New Hampshire, the pollsters apparently guessed what might happen, and they guessed wrong.
The media, which has significant influence on pollsters, assumed Obama's victory in Iowa would give him a big "bounce" in New Hampshire. It didn't. Poll evidence (?) suggests Mrs. Clinton generated some votes, not a whole lot, from her tearing up episode. Overall, there was a very high turnout in the Democratic Primary (280,000 voters various 220,000 for Republicans), and that apparently helped Mrs. Clinton, something the pollsters should have picked up before the vote.
In a typical election, voters identified as "likely" tend to vote at a percentage between 70% and 75%. In other words, as many as 30% of likely voters end up not voting. They're sick, or they're out of town, or it snows heavily -- or perhaps they're just not turned on by the current election.
Registered Democrats are more likely to vote than the much-heralded "Independents." Registered Republicans are more likely to vote than either Indies or Democrats. Many of the much-discussed "Independents" are not the dispassionate, reflective souls we sometimes visualize. In fact, many of them have little interest in voting. If they see a snowflake, they're likely to stay home.
Gallup is the gold-standard of polls. It skews its likely voter’s concept slightly toward the Republicans. It does so for reasons stated above -- that Republicans are more likely to vote. Apparently, the Harris Poll does something similar. Traditionally, that approach has made Gallup and Harris the most accurate polls.
However, in 2004 Gallup's Polls through the autumn consistently showed George W. Bush doing well, perhaps winning nationally by millions of votes. Many Democrats and many in the media (generally Democrats) didn't like that and suggested Gallup was shilling for the GOP.
Gallup got nervous. It changed its likely-voter template to include more Democrats. Soon, it showed Bush running neck-and-neck with John Kerry. Also, Gallup indicated Kerry probably would win key states like Ohio and Florida. On the other hand, it also suggested Bush had a good chance of winning Pennsylvania.
On Election Night, Gallup (and many in the media) had a huge quantity of egg on their face. Bush won Ohio and Florida by fairly substantial margins. He lost in Pennsylvania, as most Pennsylvanians -- including this one -- had predicted he would.
What about the pollsters' legendary margin-of-error? As both Iowa and New Hampshire exist, the term is largely mythical. If pollsters really knew with precision what inaccuracy there may be in their polls, they'd presumably correct it. The margin-of-error is mainly a way for them to explain why their polls failed to predict an election accurately. They can always say, "Well, I was within the margin of error." I presume Fortune Tellers could make a similar claim.
Actually, I like pollsters, much as I like, say, polar bears. But I don't want to get overly close to either.
May the best man -- or best woman -- win.
_______________
A Taste of Tomorrow . . .
This is a big chunk of tomorrow's column. I'll add to it early tomorrow (Wednesday)
In future weeks, I'll be writing some about three controversial topics: (1) Immigration Reform and the need for a comprehensive version of it; (2) Campaign Finance Reform; (3) gun laws, particularly as they apply to urban areas.
On immigration, the key for Republicans is to secure our borders without losing for generations the critical Hispanic vote. Hispanics are the largest minority group (and I'm not talking about "illegals") in the U.S., larger than the number of African-Americans in the U.S. If we lose the Hispanic vote, as earlier we lost the Black vote in the 1960s, we can make all the idological points we want -- and nobody will be listening. Recently, Democrats in Congress undercut the financing for the "double-wide" security fence. Are they going to pay a penalty for that in future elections? Right now, it doesn't look as if they will.
On Campaign Finance Reform: Republicans face a big problem here. The Democrats are raising money at a much more rapid pace than Republicans. The Democratic Campaign Congressional Committee (DCCC) have raised TWICE as much money as the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). What that means is that it's going to be impossible (and I don't mean "nearly impossible") to regain control of Congress. In the presidential race, Obama and Clinton have been raising much more money than their Republican counterparts.
On gun laws: I was recently on Eric Dondero's MainstreamLibertarian program on BlogTalkRadio. Debating against three libertarians (including Eric), I made the point that there are too many murders in our cities, including Philadelphia. I pointed out that Giuliani's (and Police Chief Bratton's) approach to crime has produced dramatic results. Pre-Giuliani, New York was America's murder capital, with nearly 2,500 murders. Giuliani cut the murder rate in half, and Mayor Bloomberg has done the same. The 2007 murder rate in New York was below 500, about the same number as occurred in the much-smaller city of Philadelphia. My point was that when people are rightly fearful to go outside their homes, they essentially have no liberty. In that sense, Rudy, an advocate of gun control laws, is one of America's greatest libertarians.
___________________
I'm a member of several Yahoo Groups, which is one of those cases of "sin in haste, repent at leisure. Too many members of at least one group seem to be driven mainly by hatred of others, usually starting with Senator Clinton and including perhaps 150 million other Americans.One of the Yahoos sent out several e-mails blaming homosexuals for most (all?) of the world's ills. I sent him (and others) the following:'
Anti-gay screeds are un-American, un-Christian, and politically unwise. Other than that, I guess it's fine. As we Republicans decide which people we don't want supporting us, starting of course with gays and lesbians (who don't get MRSA), Blacks, Hispanics, young people, and professional women (journalists, teachers, doctors, nurses, and lawyers), we soon find ourselves consisting of one group: angry white males who spend most of their time denouncing people who aren't like us.
There are some conservatives, thankfully small in number, who want to turn us into The Stupid Party. I pray that they don't succeed.
Any group, on Yahoo or elsewhere, should not be mainly a vehicle for people to demonstrate their mental disorders.
If you watched CNN (and other networks) last Tuesday, you saw that they kept waiting for the Obama votes to come in from Hanover (Dartmouth College), Durham (the University of New Hampshire), and other college locations (including tiny Franklin Pierce College). Presumably, they're still waiting. Mrs. Clinton held a good lead throughout the night, college students voted in disappointing (for Obama) numbers, and female students who did vote often went for the female candidate.
One reason the polls messed up lies with the concept of "likely voters," a concept invented by Gallup many years ago. Generally, likely voters are those who've voted with some regularity in past elections. If you've voted before, you're "likely" to vote this time -- right? Well, not exactly.
The pollsters have had a terrible time this year with young voters, especially those who may -- or may not -- vote for the first time. If a pollster has no evidence of past voting practices, it's impossible to tell if a voter is actually going to show up at the polling place. In New Hampshire, the pollsters apparently guessed what might happen, and they guessed wrong.
The media, which has significant influence on pollsters, assumed Obama's victory in Iowa would give him a big "bounce" in New Hampshire. It didn't. Poll evidence (?) suggests Mrs. Clinton generated some votes, not a whole lot, from her tearing up episode. Overall, there was a very high turnout in the Democratic Primary (280,000 voters various 220,000 for Republicans), and that apparently helped Mrs. Clinton, something the pollsters should have picked up before the vote.
In a typical election, voters identified as "likely" tend to vote at a percentage between 70% and 75%. In other words, as many as 30% of likely voters end up not voting. They're sick, or they're out of town, or it snows heavily -- or perhaps they're just not turned on by the current election.
Registered Democrats are more likely to vote than the much-heralded "Independents." Registered Republicans are more likely to vote than either Indies or Democrats. Many of the much-discussed "Independents" are not the dispassionate, reflective souls we sometimes visualize. In fact, many of them have little interest in voting. If they see a snowflake, they're likely to stay home.
Gallup is the gold-standard of polls. It skews its likely voter’s concept slightly toward the Republicans. It does so for reasons stated above -- that Republicans are more likely to vote. Apparently, the Harris Poll does something similar. Traditionally, that approach has made Gallup and Harris the most accurate polls.
However, in 2004 Gallup's Polls through the autumn consistently showed George W. Bush doing well, perhaps winning nationally by millions of votes. Many Democrats and many in the media (generally Democrats) didn't like that and suggested Gallup was shilling for the GOP.
Gallup got nervous. It changed its likely-voter template to include more Democrats. Soon, it showed Bush running neck-and-neck with John Kerry. Also, Gallup indicated Kerry probably would win key states like Ohio and Florida. On the other hand, it also suggested Bush had a good chance of winning Pennsylvania.
On Election Night, Gallup (and many in the media) had a huge quantity of egg on their face. Bush won Ohio and Florida by fairly substantial margins. He lost in Pennsylvania, as most Pennsylvanians -- including this one -- had predicted he would.
What about the pollsters' legendary margin-of-error? As both Iowa and New Hampshire exist, the term is largely mythical. If pollsters really knew with precision what inaccuracy there may be in their polls, they'd presumably correct it. The margin-of-error is mainly a way for them to explain why their polls failed to predict an election accurately. They can always say, "Well, I was within the margin of error." I presume Fortune Tellers could make a similar claim.
Actually, I like pollsters, much as I like, say, polar bears. But I don't want to get overly close to either.
May the best man -- or best woman -- win.
_______________
A Taste of Tomorrow . . .
This is a big chunk of tomorrow's column. I'll add to it early tomorrow (Wednesday)
In future weeks, I'll be writing some about three controversial topics: (1) Immigration Reform and the need for a comprehensive version of it; (2) Campaign Finance Reform; (3) gun laws, particularly as they apply to urban areas.
On immigration, the key for Republicans is to secure our borders without losing for generations the critical Hispanic vote. Hispanics are the largest minority group (and I'm not talking about "illegals") in the U.S., larger than the number of African-Americans in the U.S. If we lose the Hispanic vote, as earlier we lost the Black vote in the 1960s, we can make all the idological points we want -- and nobody will be listening. Recently, Democrats in Congress undercut the financing for the "double-wide" security fence. Are they going to pay a penalty for that in future elections? Right now, it doesn't look as if they will.
On Campaign Finance Reform: Republicans face a big problem here. The Democrats are raising money at a much more rapid pace than Republicans. The Democratic Campaign Congressional Committee (DCCC) have raised TWICE as much money as the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). What that means is that it's going to be impossible (and I don't mean "nearly impossible") to regain control of Congress. In the presidential race, Obama and Clinton have been raising much more money than their Republican counterparts.
On gun laws: I was recently on Eric Dondero's MainstreamLibertarian program on BlogTalkRadio. Debating against three libertarians (including Eric), I made the point that there are too many murders in our cities, including Philadelphia. I pointed out that Giuliani's (and Police Chief Bratton's) approach to crime has produced dramatic results. Pre-Giuliani, New York was America's murder capital, with nearly 2,500 murders. Giuliani cut the murder rate in half, and Mayor Bloomberg has done the same. The 2007 murder rate in New York was below 500, about the same number as occurred in the much-smaller city of Philadelphia. My point was that when people are rightly fearful to go outside their homes, they essentially have no liberty. In that sense, Rudy, an advocate of gun control laws, is one of America's greatest libertarians.
___________________
I'm a member of several Yahoo Groups, which is one of those cases of "sin in haste, repent at leisure. Too many members of at least one group seem to be driven mainly by hatred of others, usually starting with Senator Clinton and including perhaps 150 million other Americans.One of the Yahoos sent out several e-mails blaming homosexuals for most (all?) of the world's ills. I sent him (and others) the following:'
Anti-gay screeds are un-American, un-Christian, and politically unwise. Other than that, I guess it's fine. As we Republicans decide which people we don't want supporting us, starting of course with gays and lesbians (who don't get MRSA), Blacks, Hispanics, young people, and professional women (journalists, teachers, doctors, nurses, and lawyers), we soon find ourselves consisting of one group: angry white males who spend most of their time denouncing people who aren't like us.
There are some conservatives, thankfully small in number, who want to turn us into The Stupid Party. I pray that they don't succeed.
Any group, on Yahoo or elsewhere, should not be mainly a vehicle for people to demonstrate their mental disorders.
Why Pollsters Screw Up
In my previous column, I talked about the limitations (and they are many) of the polls. In the Iowa primary, pollsters dramatically underestimated the number of young voters (those under 30), who voted heavily for Barack Obama. In New Hampshire, the pollsters over-compensated and overestimated the potential number of young voters.
If you watched CNN (and other networks) last Tuesday, you saw that they kept waiting for the Obama votes to come in from Hanover (Dartmouth College), Durham (the University of New Hampshire), and other college locations (including tiny Franklin Pierce College). Presumably, they're still waiting. Mrs. Clinton held a good lead throughout the night, college students voted in disappointing (for Obama) numbers, and female students who did vote often went for the female candidate.
One reason the polls messed up lies with the concept of "likely voters," a concept invented by Gallup many years ago. Generally, likely voters are those who've voted with some regularity in past elections. If you've voted before, you're "likely" to vote this time -- right? Well, not exactly.
The pollsters have had a terrible time this year with young voters, especially those who may -- or may not -- vote for the first time. If a pollster has no evidence of past voting practices, it's impossible to tell if a voter is actually going to show up at the polling place. In New Hampshire, the pollsters apparently guessed what might happen, and they guessed wrong.
The media, which has significant influence on pollsters, assumed Obama's victory in Iowa would give him a big "bounce" in New Hampshire. It didn't. Poll evidence (?) suggests Mrs. Clinton generated some votes, not a whole lot, from her tearing up episode. Overall, there was a very high turnout in the Democratic Primary (280,000 voters various 220,000 for Republicans), and that apparently helped Mrs. Clinton, something the pollsters should have picked up before the vote.
In a typical election, voters identified as "likely" tend to vote at a percentage between 70% and 75%. In other words, as many as 30% of likely voters end up not voting. They're sick, or they're out of town, or it snows heavily -- or perhaps they're just not turned on by the current election.
Registered Democrats are more likely to vote than the much-heralded "Independents." Registered Republicans are more likely to vote than either Indies or Democrats. Many of the much-discussed "Independents" are not the dispassionate, reflective souls we sometimes visualize. In fact, many of them have little interest in voting. If they see a snowflake, they're likely to stay home.
Gallup is the gold-standard of polls. It skews its likely voter’s concept slightly toward the Republicans. It does so for reasons stated above -- that Republicans are more likely to vote. Apparently, the Harris Poll does something similar. Traditionally, that approach has made Gallup and Harris the most accurate polls.
However, in 2004 Gallup's Polls through the autumn consistently showed George W. Bush doing well, perhaps winning nationally by millions of votes. Many Democrats and many in the media (generally Democrats) didn't like that and suggested Gallup was shilling for the GOP.
Gallup got nervous. It changed its likely-voter template to include more Democrats. Soon, it showed Bush running neck-and-neck with John Kerry. Also, Gallup indicated Kerry probably would win key states like Ohio and Florida. On the other hand, it also suggested Bush had a good chance of winning Pennsylvania.
On Election Night, Gallup (and many in the media) had a huge quantity of egg on their face. Bush won Ohio and Florida by fairly substantial margins. He lost in Pennsylvania, as most Pennsylvanians -- including this one -- had predicted he would.
What about the pollsters' legendary margin-of-error? As both Iowa and New Hampshire exist, the term is largely mythical. If pollsters really knew with precision what inaccuracy there may be in their polls, they'd presumably correct it. The margin-of-error is mainly a way for them to explain why their polls failed to predict an election accurately. They can always say, "Well, I was within the margin of error." I presume Fortune Tellers could make a similar claim.
Actually, I like pollsters, much as I like, say, polar bears. But I don't want to get overly close to either.
May the best man -- or best woman -- win.
If you watched CNN (and other networks) last Tuesday, you saw that they kept waiting for the Obama votes to come in from Hanover (Dartmouth College), Durham (the University of New Hampshire), and other college locations (including tiny Franklin Pierce College). Presumably, they're still waiting. Mrs. Clinton held a good lead throughout the night, college students voted in disappointing (for Obama) numbers, and female students who did vote often went for the female candidate.
One reason the polls messed up lies with the concept of "likely voters," a concept invented by Gallup many years ago. Generally, likely voters are those who've voted with some regularity in past elections. If you've voted before, you're "likely" to vote this time -- right? Well, not exactly.
The pollsters have had a terrible time this year with young voters, especially those who may -- or may not -- vote for the first time. If a pollster has no evidence of past voting practices, it's impossible to tell if a voter is actually going to show up at the polling place. In New Hampshire, the pollsters apparently guessed what might happen, and they guessed wrong.
The media, which has significant influence on pollsters, assumed Obama's victory in Iowa would give him a big "bounce" in New Hampshire. It didn't. Poll evidence (?) suggests Mrs. Clinton generated some votes, not a whole lot, from her tearing up episode. Overall, there was a very high turnout in the Democratic Primary (280,000 voters various 220,000 for Republicans), and that apparently helped Mrs. Clinton, something the pollsters should have picked up before the vote.
In a typical election, voters identified as "likely" tend to vote at a percentage between 70% and 75%. In other words, as many as 30% of likely voters end up not voting. They're sick, or they're out of town, or it snows heavily -- or perhaps they're just not turned on by the current election.
Registered Democrats are more likely to vote than the much-heralded "Independents." Registered Republicans are more likely to vote than either Indies or Democrats. Many of the much-discussed "Independents" are not the dispassionate, reflective souls we sometimes visualize. In fact, many of them have little interest in voting. If they see a snowflake, they're likely to stay home.
Gallup is the gold-standard of polls. It skews its likely voter’s concept slightly toward the Republicans. It does so for reasons stated above -- that Republicans are more likely to vote. Apparently, the Harris Poll does something similar. Traditionally, that approach has made Gallup and Harris the most accurate polls.
However, in 2004 Gallup's Polls through the autumn consistently showed George W. Bush doing well, perhaps winning nationally by millions of votes. Many Democrats and many in the media (generally Democrats) didn't like that and suggested Gallup was shilling for the GOP.
Gallup got nervous. It changed its likely-voter template to include more Democrats. Soon, it showed Bush running neck-and-neck with John Kerry. Also, Gallup indicated Kerry probably would win key states like Ohio and Florida. On the other hand, it also suggested Bush had a good chance of winning Pennsylvania.
On Election Night, Gallup (and many in the media) had a huge quantity of egg on their face. Bush won Ohio and Florida by fairly substantial margins. He lost in Pennsylvania, as most Pennsylvanians -- including this one -- had predicted he would.
What about the pollsters' legendary margin-of-error? As both Iowa and New Hampshire exist, the term is largely mythical. If pollsters really knew with precision what inaccuracy there may be in their polls, they'd presumably correct it. The margin-of-error is mainly a way for them to explain why their polls failed to predict an election accurately. They can always say, "Well, I was within the margin of error." I presume Fortune Tellers could make a similar claim.
Actually, I like pollsters, much as I like, say, polar bears. But I don't want to get overly close to either.
May the best man -- or best woman -- win.
THE PRIMARIES: MYSTERIES & ENIGMAS
Winston Churchill famously said about the old Soviet Union that it was "a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma." Winston should have seen the Republican primaries.
I'LL BE WRITING A LOT IN THE COMING DAYS ABOUT THE TRENDS IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES. If McCain can win both Michigan and South Carolina, he presumably win end up winning the nomination. However, if Romney wins, it will make a confusing situation even more perplexing. If the race continues to be uncertain, then Florida should be critical. Stay tuned. I'll add more as the day (Tuesday) goes on and will have a new column tonight, after the MI results are clear.
If you have no idea who the Republican nominee will be, you're not alone.
I'LL BE WRITING A LOT IN THE COMING DAYS ABOUT THE TRENDS IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES. If McCain can win both Michigan and South Carolina, he presumably win end up winning the nomination. However, if Romney wins, it will make a confusing situation even more perplexing. If the race continues to be uncertain, then Florida should be critical. Stay tuned. I'll add more as the day (Tuesday) goes on and will have a new column tonight, after the MI results are clear.
If you have no idea who the Republican nominee will be, you're not alone.
Monday, January 14, 2008
WHY THE POLLSTERS BLEW IT
WHY THE POLLSTERS BLEW IT
As you may have noticed, the political polls change with about the same regularity as the weather. However, let's admit it: you believe they tell you something of value, and so do I. For the most part, we should discard that belief.
Right now (Monday night), I'm hearing "from Michigan" that the polls (which ones?) are telling us that John McCain and Mitt Romney are running "neck-and-neck" (is there any other way for politicians to run?).
Does that mean we'll have to stay up late tomorrow (Tuesday) to see if Mitt Romney elects to take "early retirement" from the race? Maybe.I think McCain will finish first, perhaps well ahead of Romney. Mike Huckabee will finish third.
But the Michigan primary, like the previous one in New Hampshire, is impossible to predict. For one thing, Independents can vote in the primary -- Democratic or Republican. No one knows how the "Independents" (a much smaller percentage in MI than NH) will vote -- or even if they'll vote.
Also, Michigan is a fully open primary, and Democrats apparently can vote in the Republican primary. The Daily Kos, an extreme leftist blog, is telling Michigan Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney -- the better to screw up the Republican results.
What about the Democratic candidates? Well, for arcane reasons the national Democrat Party has told the candidates not to campaign in Michigan. So, there are only three candidates on the ballot. One is Hillary Clinton, and the other two are the ever-popular Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. What about Barack and John? They're not on the ballot.
What is on the Democratic ballot is an heretofore unknown candidate known as "Uncommitted." In other words, if you don't feel like voting for Hillary, Dennis, and Mike, you don't have to vote for anyone. If Mr. (or Ms.?) Uncommitted gets a lot of support, I'm sure the pundits will tell us what that means.
Given all these factors, don't ask me exactly what's going to happen in Michigan. Anyone who claims to know -- even if their name is Gallup, Zogby, or Rassmussen -- qualifies as an idiot.In yesterday's (Sunday's) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, there was an article about failures of the pollsters in New Hampshire. Writer Daniel Malloy says, "Pollsters argued that the polls weren't wrong [perish the thought!] -- there was just a change in the thinking of voters, especially women, who suddenly became eager to support an underdog, emotional Mrs. Clinton."
Of course, that's all bulldoodoo. When someone presents us with a poll that has a certain "margin of error" and the results far exceed the margin, then we need a new pollster. After all, polls aren't supposed to be a crap shoot, are they?
I'll let you in on a secret. I know precisely -- right down to the percentage points -- what's going to happen in Michigan. But since you don't believe me, I'm not going to tell you now. I will tell you tomorrow night.
Tomorrow, I'll write some more about the polls -- including Gallup's classic blunders in 2004, when they had Bush winning PA (he lost) and losing Ohio (he won).
As you may have noticed, the political polls change with about the same regularity as the weather. However, let's admit it: you believe they tell you something of value, and so do I. For the most part, we should discard that belief.
Right now (Monday night), I'm hearing "from Michigan" that the polls (which ones?) are telling us that John McCain and Mitt Romney are running "neck-and-neck" (is there any other way for politicians to run?).
Does that mean we'll have to stay up late tomorrow (Tuesday) to see if Mitt Romney elects to take "early retirement" from the race? Maybe.I think McCain will finish first, perhaps well ahead of Romney. Mike Huckabee will finish third.
But the Michigan primary, like the previous one in New Hampshire, is impossible to predict. For one thing, Independents can vote in the primary -- Democratic or Republican. No one knows how the "Independents" (a much smaller percentage in MI than NH) will vote -- or even if they'll vote.
Also, Michigan is a fully open primary, and Democrats apparently can vote in the Republican primary. The Daily Kos, an extreme leftist blog, is telling Michigan Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney -- the better to screw up the Republican results.
What about the Democratic candidates? Well, for arcane reasons the national Democrat Party has told the candidates not to campaign in Michigan. So, there are only three candidates on the ballot. One is Hillary Clinton, and the other two are the ever-popular Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. What about Barack and John? They're not on the ballot.
What is on the Democratic ballot is an heretofore unknown candidate known as "Uncommitted." In other words, if you don't feel like voting for Hillary, Dennis, and Mike, you don't have to vote for anyone. If Mr. (or Ms.?) Uncommitted gets a lot of support, I'm sure the pundits will tell us what that means.
Given all these factors, don't ask me exactly what's going to happen in Michigan. Anyone who claims to know -- even if their name is Gallup, Zogby, or Rassmussen -- qualifies as an idiot.In yesterday's (Sunday's) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, there was an article about failures of the pollsters in New Hampshire. Writer Daniel Malloy says, "Pollsters argued that the polls weren't wrong [perish the thought!] -- there was just a change in the thinking of voters, especially women, who suddenly became eager to support an underdog, emotional Mrs. Clinton."
Of course, that's all bulldoodoo. When someone presents us with a poll that has a certain "margin of error" and the results far exceed the margin, then we need a new pollster. After all, polls aren't supposed to be a crap shoot, are they?
I'll let you in on a secret. I know precisely -- right down to the percentage points -- what's going to happen in Michigan. But since you don't believe me, I'm not going to tell you now. I will tell you tomorrow night.
Tomorrow, I'll write some more about the polls -- including Gallup's classic blunders in 2004, when they had Bush winning PA (he lost) and losing Ohio (he won).
Sunday, January 13, 2008
FRED THOMPSON: GOP'S "GREAT PUMPKIN"
By popular demand (well, my wife and stepdaughter), I'm reprinting my notorious column about former Senator (and apparent (?) presidential candidate) Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson: The Republicans' "Great Pumpkin"
Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:04 AM
Because of the terrible loss suffered by Republicans in 2006 and the current "massacre of the conservatives" (people like John Kyl, Lindsay Graham, Trent Lott, and many others), I've had to do a lot of rethinking about politics. I find the present situation as distressing as anything I've ever encountered. It appears to me that the Party is hell-bent on becoming a permanent minority. The scary thing is that people who differ greatly with me on certain issues (especially immigration) don't dissent from my assessment of the Party's bleak future.
I've been resisting the temptation to write a column critical of Fred Thompson and his "Townhall Essay Campaign." That's where he writes one pedestrian piece after another to delight the easily amused "base." Some people for whom I have genuine affection support Fred -- or at least they support some mirage they assume must be him.
Honestly, I'm not really in the business of intentionally offending people, so I've stayed away from Fred. However . . . I've asked people to read the Wikipedia article (go to http://wikipedia.com and then fill in the name "Fred Thompson"). I realize "Wik" is not the last word on anything. Also, some readers have challenged the objectivity of the piece (as "Wik" notes).
However, the basic facts of the piece are not in dispute. They suggest that Thompson has more political baggage than the U.S. Airways warehouse containing "lost luggage."
Someone recently asked Thompson what he regarded as his major accomplishments during his eight years in the Senate. His response was what journalists call "a long, pregnant pause." He didn't mention the Campaign Finance Reform Bill, which he strongly supported and which has been used in attempts to derail the campaign of John McCain.
When I look at the Thompson campaign, I don't see him as the Republicans' "White Knight." I certainly don't see him as the Second Coming of the Gipper.Instead, I see someone more akin to the Great Pumpkin in "Charlie Brown." As you'll recall, each Halloween Charlie and his friends would wait with great anticipation the arrival of said Pumpkin. However, each year they waited in vain. Fred is the Republican version of the Great Pumpkin. I see Fred Thompson as an old guy who looks and acts his age. He's John McCain without the history of heroism, the commitment to principle, and the feistiness.
Is Thompson truly ready to be the frontrunner in the campaign for the Republican nomination? Townhall.com, citing the dubious Rasmussen Poll, says Thompson is now [remember, this was last June] the leader in a national survey (27% to 23% over Giuliani). Of course, frequent visitors to Townhall recognize the site chooses its polls carefuly so as to reflect its own prejudices.
Townhall used to be a full-time shill for the semi-pathetic Romney campaign, but some people there appear to be switching to Fred.However, as I'm preparing this column, which may have something to offend nearly everyone, I'm listening to the latest Opinion Research Poll.
Since you won't hear anything about it on Townhall, I'll fill you in.Opinion Research shows Giuliani with roughly 29% of the national support from Republicans. Thompson has about 19%, followed by McCain at 18%. Romney is in fourth place at about 14%.
Of course, Townhall will be singing a different story. It will be telling you (less frequently than in the past, perhaps) that "Team Romney" is vigorously enhancing its leadership in the meaningless "Ames Straw Poll." It will be telling you that Romney is doing well -- although not all that well -- in his neighboring state of New Hampshire. On the other hand, it will not be telling you that the New Hampshire primary is looking less and less important to serious candidates [oops, I was wrong there]. It will not be letting you in on the fact that Mitt Romney has spent $21 million on his campaign -- and has almost nothing to show for it.
Also, Townhall will be telling you -- wrongly -- that the McCain campaign is cratering, that he's essentially through as a presidential candidate. What Townhall won't be telling you about its corporate views is that they reflect the triumph of hope over reality. McCain continues, against all odds, to do well in national polls, which show him running neck-and-neck with Thompson -- and far ahead of Th's beloved "Romney."
Apparently, tens of thousands of people visit Townhall on an average day. What I'm suggesting here -- modestly, of course -- that they'd be much better informed if they visited Campaign2008VictoryA.
TH will seek to propagandize you. I won't. It's just that simple.
Fred Thompson: The Republicans' "Great Pumpkin"
Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:04 AM
Because of the terrible loss suffered by Republicans in 2006 and the current "massacre of the conservatives" (people like John Kyl, Lindsay Graham, Trent Lott, and many others), I've had to do a lot of rethinking about politics. I find the present situation as distressing as anything I've ever encountered. It appears to me that the Party is hell-bent on becoming a permanent minority. The scary thing is that people who differ greatly with me on certain issues (especially immigration) don't dissent from my assessment of the Party's bleak future.
I've been resisting the temptation to write a column critical of Fred Thompson and his "Townhall Essay Campaign." That's where he writes one pedestrian piece after another to delight the easily amused "base." Some people for whom I have genuine affection support Fred -- or at least they support some mirage they assume must be him.
Honestly, I'm not really in the business of intentionally offending people, so I've stayed away from Fred. However . . . I've asked people to read the Wikipedia article (go to http://wikipedia.com and then fill in the name "Fred Thompson"). I realize "Wik" is not the last word on anything. Also, some readers have challenged the objectivity of the piece (as "Wik" notes).
However, the basic facts of the piece are not in dispute. They suggest that Thompson has more political baggage than the U.S. Airways warehouse containing "lost luggage."
Someone recently asked Thompson what he regarded as his major accomplishments during his eight years in the Senate. His response was what journalists call "a long, pregnant pause." He didn't mention the Campaign Finance Reform Bill, which he strongly supported and which has been used in attempts to derail the campaign of John McCain.
When I look at the Thompson campaign, I don't see him as the Republicans' "White Knight." I certainly don't see him as the Second Coming of the Gipper.Instead, I see someone more akin to the Great Pumpkin in "Charlie Brown." As you'll recall, each Halloween Charlie and his friends would wait with great anticipation the arrival of said Pumpkin. However, each year they waited in vain. Fred is the Republican version of the Great Pumpkin. I see Fred Thompson as an old guy who looks and acts his age. He's John McCain without the history of heroism, the commitment to principle, and the feistiness.
Is Thompson truly ready to be the frontrunner in the campaign for the Republican nomination? Townhall.com, citing the dubious Rasmussen Poll, says Thompson is now [remember, this was last June] the leader in a national survey (27% to 23% over Giuliani). Of course, frequent visitors to Townhall recognize the site chooses its polls carefuly so as to reflect its own prejudices.
Townhall used to be a full-time shill for the semi-pathetic Romney campaign, but some people there appear to be switching to Fred.However, as I'm preparing this column, which may have something to offend nearly everyone, I'm listening to the latest Opinion Research Poll.
Since you won't hear anything about it on Townhall, I'll fill you in.Opinion Research shows Giuliani with roughly 29% of the national support from Republicans. Thompson has about 19%, followed by McCain at 18%. Romney is in fourth place at about 14%.
Of course, Townhall will be singing a different story. It will be telling you (less frequently than in the past, perhaps) that "Team Romney" is vigorously enhancing its leadership in the meaningless "Ames Straw Poll." It will be telling you that Romney is doing well -- although not all that well -- in his neighboring state of New Hampshire. On the other hand, it will not be telling you that the New Hampshire primary is looking less and less important to serious candidates [oops, I was wrong there]. It will not be letting you in on the fact that Mitt Romney has spent $21 million on his campaign -- and has almost nothing to show for it.
Also, Townhall will be telling you -- wrongly -- that the McCain campaign is cratering, that he's essentially through as a presidential candidate. What Townhall won't be telling you about its corporate views is that they reflect the triumph of hope over reality. McCain continues, against all odds, to do well in national polls, which show him running neck-and-neck with Thompson -- and far ahead of Th's beloved "Romney."
Apparently, tens of thousands of people visit Townhall on an average day. What I'm suggesting here -- modestly, of course -- that they'd be much better informed if they visited Campaign2008VictoryA.
TH will seek to propagandize you. I won't. It's just that simple.
FRED THOMPSON; HISTORY'S WORST CAMPAIGN
I wrote the following in response to a Yahoo "conservative" group where one member was asking where Fred Thompson's headquarters were in states like MI, MN, SD, and ND. You'll note that I'm not a big fan of Fred Thompson.
When the book is written on this campaign, there will be a fascinating chapter on Fred Thompson and his Incredible Disappearing Act. Asking where Fred's "headquarters" are in MI & MN is like asking where Ron Paul's HQ is in Harlem.
Apparently, Fred's "trophy wife," Jeri, is the head of his campaign. One step he should make immediately is to fire her. If his campaign isn't the worst in recorded history, I shudder to think which one was more inept (Dennis Kucinich? Mike Gravel?).
When Fred was in on the Senate on 9/11, he said of his own situation, "Now is not the time [for me] to leave . . ." Shortly thereafter, he left to go to an important position in Hollywood on a TV show that was regularly anti-military and anti-conservative.
In Thompson's career, he often had to choose between serving the nation and making a lot of money. In every cash, the appeal of the big bucks won. I can't imagine what the appeal is that Fred holds for some conservatives.
What on earth has the man ever done in his career as an elected official? Exactly what did he accomplish as a Senator? In his lucrative role as a lobbyist, he had as clients one unsavory individual or group after another, including the dictator of Haiti.
Fred is now 67 -- and looks and acts his age. At the same time, he's been building on his reputation as the laziest man in Washington. He has an active campaign in only one state, South Carolina, and when he loses there I'm sure he will return to Hollywood and live happily ever afterwards.
As a candidate, Fred is not in the same league as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney. Those conservative individuals have been running full-speed for a year. In contrast, Fred has been meandering along, giving one pedestrian speech after another.
Good riddance, Fred.
When the book is written on this campaign, there will be a fascinating chapter on Fred Thompson and his Incredible Disappearing Act. Asking where Fred's "headquarters" are in MI & MN is like asking where Ron Paul's HQ is in Harlem.
Apparently, Fred's "trophy wife," Jeri, is the head of his campaign. One step he should make immediately is to fire her. If his campaign isn't the worst in recorded history, I shudder to think which one was more inept (Dennis Kucinich? Mike Gravel?).
When Fred was in on the Senate on 9/11, he said of his own situation, "Now is not the time [for me] to leave . . ." Shortly thereafter, he left to go to an important position in Hollywood on a TV show that was regularly anti-military and anti-conservative.
In Thompson's career, he often had to choose between serving the nation and making a lot of money. In every cash, the appeal of the big bucks won. I can't imagine what the appeal is that Fred holds for some conservatives.
What on earth has the man ever done in his career as an elected official? Exactly what did he accomplish as a Senator? In his lucrative role as a lobbyist, he had as clients one unsavory individual or group after another, including the dictator of Haiti.
Fred is now 67 -- and looks and acts his age. At the same time, he's been building on his reputation as the laziest man in Washington. He has an active campaign in only one state, South Carolina, and when he loses there I'm sure he will return to Hollywood and live happily ever afterwards.
As a candidate, Fred is not in the same league as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney. Those conservative individuals have been running full-speed for a year. In contrast, Fred has been meandering along, giving one pedestrian speech after another.
Good riddance, Fred.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
John McCain: Call Sarah Palin
I haven't written a lot in recent times about Alaska Gov. Sarah Heath Palin, but that doesn't mean I'm not thinking about her. Since she visits this site from time to time, I want to reassure her that I continue to support her for the vice-presidential nod on the Republican ticket. She's exactly the kind of young, dynamic, highly electable individual that the GOP desperately needs.
I've said before that Sarah reminds me of two Pennsylvania politicos: Diana Lynn Irey, who ran so heroically against John Murtha in 2006 and Melissa Hart, who lost her congressional narrowly in 2006 -- and is determined to regain it this year. I've contributed $200 to Melissa's campaign, and I intend to donate more. She and Diana are highly intelligent people who truly care about the people they represent, and we need individuals like them in high office. They're Christians not only in faith but also in actions. They love their neighbors. And I love them.
I feel the same way about Sarah. She didn't grow up with any silver spoons around. Her parents were teachers in Alaska, and they taught their daughter well. She's the most popular governor in the country, mainly because the Alaskan people can see that she truly cares about them and their future.
The Alaska Constitution, which Sarah reveres, says that the resources of the state exist for the benefit of the people, and she is perhaps the first governor there to take that fact into account.The oil services firms that historically have bribed (sometimes in the form of "contributions," sometime just handing over envelopes full of cash) know that Sarah is untouchable. She's not for sale.
I was one of the first people to join the "Draft Palin for VP" movement, one started by a 20-year-old political genius from Colorado, Adam Brickley. You can find him here. A staunch Sarah-supporter in Alaska is Trish Houser, who worked on Sarah's campaign for governor.
It now appears probable -- although by no means certain -- that the Republican nominee for President will be John McCain. I urge John to give serious consider to Sarah as his vice-presidential running mate. She's the kind of charismatic young person who would add real strength to the ticket. The mother of an American solider, the wife of a working man, Sarah is someone with whom the people of this country can identify.
McCain-Palin: it sounds like a winning combination to me!
I've said before that Sarah reminds me of two Pennsylvania politicos: Diana Lynn Irey, who ran so heroically against John Murtha in 2006 and Melissa Hart, who lost her congressional narrowly in 2006 -- and is determined to regain it this year. I've contributed $200 to Melissa's campaign, and I intend to donate more. She and Diana are highly intelligent people who truly care about the people they represent, and we need individuals like them in high office. They're Christians not only in faith but also in actions. They love their neighbors. And I love them.
I feel the same way about Sarah. She didn't grow up with any silver spoons around. Her parents were teachers in Alaska, and they taught their daughter well. She's the most popular governor in the country, mainly because the Alaskan people can see that she truly cares about them and their future.
The Alaska Constitution, which Sarah reveres, says that the resources of the state exist for the benefit of the people, and she is perhaps the first governor there to take that fact into account.The oil services firms that historically have bribed (sometimes in the form of "contributions," sometime just handing over envelopes full of cash) know that Sarah is untouchable. She's not for sale.
I was one of the first people to join the "Draft Palin for VP" movement, one started by a 20-year-old political genius from Colorado, Adam Brickley. You can find him here. A staunch Sarah-supporter in Alaska is Trish Houser, who worked on Sarah's campaign for governor.
It now appears probable -- although by no means certain -- that the Republican nominee for President will be John McCain. I urge John to give serious consider to Sarah as his vice-presidential running mate. She's the kind of charismatic young person who would add real strength to the ticket. The mother of an American solider, the wife of a working man, Sarah is someone with whom the people of this country can identify.
McCain-Palin: it sounds like a winning combination to me!
Friday, January 11, 2008
THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES WILL BE . . .
This weekend I'll have a column on Saturday and one on Sunday. I'd love to hear from readers on their "guesses" -- and that's all they can be at this point -- on which candidates they (i.e., you) think the eventual nominees will be.
There don't appear to be any clear frontrunners right now. Super Tuesday (February 5) is looming as the definitive moment, but we may not know for certain even then who the winners will be. It could be that close a race.What are my guesses? So far, I'm said on different occasions that I believe the Democratic nominee will be Barack Obama (rather than Hillary Clinton), but I can't make that claim with certainty.
Unlike many of my fellow conservatives, I never understimate the political skills of anyone named "Clinton." On Eric Dondero's radio show the day before the New Hampshire primary, I said that Mrs. Clinton's "tearing-up" episode would help hur rather than hurt, and I turned out to be one of the few conservatives that got that right.
On the Republican side, I don't believe the nominee will be either Fred Thompson (the most disappointing of the candidates) or Mitt Romney. I started out many months ago by endorsing Rudy Giuliani, whom I still think would be a fine nominee. But for various reasons, I switched last week to John McCain. In other words, I've been all over the lot on my predictions.
What are your own thoughts?
If I had to bet the farm today, my guesses would be: Barack Obama and John McCain.
The following are my additional comments to "GenXDad" on his praise for Cindy's piece on McCain-haters and Reagan-haters being one and the same:
I give Cindy at The Pink Flamingo (http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com/blog) a lot of credit for doing some great research on this subject. It's hard to remember, but Reagan got criticized all the time for being "too liberal," which was ridiculous. He did what he believed had to be done, including the grant of "amnesty" to many immigrants, mostly Mexicans. Reagan was not a militant pro-lifer, because he believed (correctly) it was impossible to pass any sort of constitutiononal amendment on the subject. Go to wikipedia and read about "The Human Life Amendment," and you'll see why he thought as he did. He ended up as one of the few truly GREAT Presidents. There have not been any perfect Presidents.
It's fine for people to disagree with John McCain on immigration, campaign reform, or other issues. But they have an obligation to show that they understand his arguments and then they have to duty to show why they disagree. Mere sloganeering is not enough by any means. An issue like immigration is really a tough one. How does one take a sound position without sounding anti-Mexican and thereby losing (forever) most of the critical Hispanic vote? McCain wrestles with such issues -- but most of his opponents have done little thinking on the subjects.
There don't appear to be any clear frontrunners right now. Super Tuesday (February 5) is looming as the definitive moment, but we may not know for certain even then who the winners will be. It could be that close a race.What are my guesses? So far, I'm said on different occasions that I believe the Democratic nominee will be Barack Obama (rather than Hillary Clinton), but I can't make that claim with certainty.
Unlike many of my fellow conservatives, I never understimate the political skills of anyone named "Clinton." On Eric Dondero's radio show the day before the New Hampshire primary, I said that Mrs. Clinton's "tearing-up" episode would help hur rather than hurt, and I turned out to be one of the few conservatives that got that right.
On the Republican side, I don't believe the nominee will be either Fred Thompson (the most disappointing of the candidates) or Mitt Romney. I started out many months ago by endorsing Rudy Giuliani, whom I still think would be a fine nominee. But for various reasons, I switched last week to John McCain. In other words, I've been all over the lot on my predictions.
What are your own thoughts?
If I had to bet the farm today, my guesses would be: Barack Obama and John McCain.
The following are my additional comments to "GenXDad" on his praise for Cindy's piece on McCain-haters and Reagan-haters being one and the same:
I give Cindy at The Pink Flamingo (http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com/blog) a lot of credit for doing some great research on this subject. It's hard to remember, but Reagan got criticized all the time for being "too liberal," which was ridiculous. He did what he believed had to be done, including the grant of "amnesty" to many immigrants, mostly Mexicans. Reagan was not a militant pro-lifer, because he believed (correctly) it was impossible to pass any sort of constitutiononal amendment on the subject. Go to wikipedia and read about "The Human Life Amendment," and you'll see why he thought as he did. He ended up as one of the few truly GREAT Presidents. There have not been any perfect Presidents.
It's fine for people to disagree with John McCain on immigration, campaign reform, or other issues. But they have an obligation to show that they understand his arguments and then they have to duty to show why they disagree. Mere sloganeering is not enough by any means. An issue like immigration is really a tough one. How does one take a sound position without sounding anti-Mexican and thereby losing (forever) most of the critical Hispanic vote? McCain wrestles with such issues -- but most of his opponents have done little thinking on the subjects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
