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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
