From: http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/1/10/3458404.html
McCain Hatred, Conservative Amnesia & the Cult of Reagan
by SJ Reidhead at 01:18PM (MST) on January 10, 2008 Permanent Link Cosmos
''It is unlikely that the Reagan era
will prove to be the historic change
in the direction of America that we have sought.''
Edwin J. Feulner Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation,1985.
THE TRUTH HURTS!
This harping back and forth, declaring John McCain and Mike Huckabee impure, is nothing new for conservatives. I know it appears as though they are looking for something special, a 2nd coming of Reagan, but the problem was, when they had Reagan, they wanted to get rid of him. The problem is the fact that the same people absolutely detested Reagan when he was POTUS, but are now lying about it. I was going to wax poetic about the way the usual sources of Limbaugh, Malkin, Ingraham, Hewett, Hannity, etc. were slamming McCain, Huckabee, and to a lesser extent Giuliani, but then I realized they are doing nothing new. When Reagan was President, the same hard line mindset hated him. He wasn’t conservative enough for them, pure enough for them, and pandering enough for them. A few of the names have changed, but the vitriol remains the same. Only now, these people have turned a great man into a false god, creating a cult around him, one where they can sacrifice any one who doesn’t live up to their tainted and fantastical idea of what Ronald Reagan was.
And so, our dear media darling multi-millionaire conservative talk show far out conservatives with their endearing little PMS (President McCain Syndrome) are getting their silk undies in a wad over the prospect of a McCain Presidency. As it looks more and more like McCain’s time has finally come, they are doing everything possible to destroy him. Like I wrote last night, Rush Limbaugh has an irrational hatred of John McCain that will end up destroying Rush Limbaugh and his vaunted credibility.
I've done a cut and paste of past Pink Flamingo articles on the subject. I think they prove my point. Today's bunch of petty, sore-headed conservatives are acting no different than they did when Ronald Reagan was President. The ones who made trouble for Reagan now lie about their support. The ones who are now making problems for John McCain and worship Reagan are lying to themselves about the false legacy they have created. They are demeaning Ronald Reagan as a man. They are also turning this election over to the Democrats. Sometimes I think that's exactly what they want to do. They would rather see us lose in November than they would lose some of their power.
REAGAN AND THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
About six months ago I did an article about Reagan and conservatives.
“On Oct 14, 1983, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that …
‘…President Reagan isn't doing particularly well among evangelical and born- again Christian voters, according to a new poll that one "new right" leader said yesterday should set off "an alarm bell" at the White House. The poll said Reagan was running only roughly even with Sen. John Glenn of Ohio in a potential 1984 presidential matchup. While Reagan held a substantial lead over former Vice President Walter F. Mondale in the poll…”
And, like George W. Bush, conservatives like Richard Viguerie threatened Reagan in the Miami Herald, on Jan 21, 1984.
“…Conservatives may not back President Reagan for reelection in 1984 unless he reverses what they consider "almost a stampede to the left" in the White House, New Right leaders said Tuesday. "Quick and comprehensive changes" in Reagan's staff and policies are needed to win back longtime supporters in the conservative wing of the Republican Party, they indicated. Howard Phillips, who heads the Conservative Caucus, and Richard Viguerie…’
And like their criticism of Bush, the Heritage Foundation found that Reagan was not conservative enough for them. One wonders what Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh would have said of Reagan had they been in power during his presidency. See if you recognize any of these names, all of whom now vocally criticize GWB. NY Times, Nov 25, 1983.
“….To some, he has sounded an uncertain trumpet, missed golden opportunities, compromised too often and drifted from his conservative moorings. To others, he has changed the direction of Government in a way that Democrats will be hard-pressed to reverse. To still others, he has had a mixed bag of successes and failures.
Such are the findings of the Heritage Foundation, a Washington policy group that has been both an occasional critic of and an intellectual resource for the Reagan Administration. In an effort to explore the depth of conservative discontent as well as satisfaction with the President, it recently asked a number of prominent conservative activists, intellectuals, politicians and writers to rate how he was doing.
The foundation, which periodically runs such surveys, plans to publish its findings shortly. But foundation sources have provided a preview of what is to come.
What they were unable to provide was what effect, if any, the division in conservative ranks might have on Mr. Reagan's re-election chances. For a number of the doubters, provided the dissatisfaction is not too deep, Mr. Reagan could still be the only acceptable candidate. Not Enough 'Reaganauts'…John T. Dolan, chairman of the National Conservative Political Action Committee, contended that the tax cut would be the only real historic achievement of Mr. Reagan's Presidency. ''I expected more to happen,'' said this disappointed conservative activist. ''There has been no major defense buildup beyond what Carter would have done. There has been no spending cut. There has been no turnover of control to the states. There has been no effort to dismantle the Washing bureaucratic elitist establishment.''
M. Stanton Evans, a newspaper columnist, is no less disappointed. ''This has been essentially another Ford Administration,'' he said in his critique. ''It has been business as usual, not much different from any other Republican administration of our lifetime. It has been an Administration populated by corporate executive types.'' Everyone knows, he added, that ''people used to the decorum of the boardroom back off from controversy.''
Representative Newt Gingrich, Republican of Georgia, saw Mr. Reagan as ''the only coherent revolutionary in an Administration of accommodationist advisers.'' His chief criticism: ''The Administration has had no capacity to launch strategic offenses on behalf of Reagan's vision.'' After Mr. Reagan won his tax and budget cuts in the spring of 1981, Mr. Gingrich added, someone in the White House should have been asking, ''What do we do to keep up momentum?'' Instead, he said, Mr. Reagan returned from California in August to a ''vacuum of activity'' and a new political agenda that had been set by Democrats. ''Political debate was once again totally enmeshed in the rhetoric and values of the liberal welfare state,'' Mr. Gingrich said. Waste in Spending Cited Howard Phillips, national director of the Conservative Caucus and one of Mr. Reagan's earliest and sharpest critics, asserted: ''Reagan is just the sort of nice fellow I'd like to have as a neighbor, but he defers too quickly to anyone in a three-piece suit.''…Cal Thomas, vice president of communications for Moral Majority, credited the President for transforming public thinking on Government spending, but faulted him for his leadership on the abortion issue. ''If we balance the budget and we still keep murdering a million and a half babies every year, there's no way we can say we're better off than we were four years ago,'' said Mr. Thomas. Paul M. Weyrich, executive director of the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, said Mr. Reagan's eagerness to avoid political confrontations with Congress robbed him of victories that he might have had. Sadly, Mr. Weyrich wrote, ''The radical surgery that was required in Washington was not performed. Ronald Reagan made a pledge not to touch entitlement programs, and that's one of the few pledges he has kept absolutely.''…”
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
McCain: American Hero, Patriot, Christian
Mike Devine, who posts under the name "Gamecock" sent me an article that's critical of Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and just about everybody other than Fred Thompson. It centers on the South Carolina primary, and you can see it by clicking on: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080109d.html
The article may tell you more about SC politics than you want to know, but you won't find anything better between now and the Palmetto State primary. I expect Larry Perrault and SJ Reidhead can't wait to respond it -- especially SJ (Cindy), who hails from SC.
I think all the article's criticisms, including those of Mike Huckabee, are somewhere between petty and totally unfair. For Huck fans, the accusations are mostly "inside baseball" stuff about the conservative wing of the So. Baptist Church and the VERY conservative wing. In the mind of some Baptists, Mike chose the "wrong" side in a denominational struggle. Talk about arcana.
I like Mike Devine (Gamecock) a lot, but his support of Thompson, like the Fred Campaign itself, is embarrassing. Fred is the laziest of candidates, and he's the worst when it comes to raising money.
After 9/11, Fred said, "Now is not the time to leave [the Senate]." Shortly thereafter, he left -- to join the cast of a television show (Richard Wolf's "Law and Order") that missed few opportunities to bash the military and the GWB segment of the country. Frankly, Fred should be ashamed of himself.
"Yes, we have no bananas," when bananas is an analogue to perfect candidates.
I criticize Mike Huckabee myself, but anyone with sense will see that he, like several other candidates, is a good one and a man with some remarkable political achievements.
As for John McCain, yes, he is a "maverick," that is, someone who thinks for himself -- wow, how exotic. He has been pro-life and pro-military for his entire life. He is a Christian, which is a term that does not and should not have a narrow meaning. Of great significance, he's an American hero who underwent torture for many years.
Of great note, he has tackled issues (including immigration and campaign finance) where others have relied on pandering to an increasingly clueless "base." That's a group which believes the answer to real, pressinging problems is to "just say NO."
On campaign finance: it has turned into a vehicle for re-electing incumbents (Pelosi, Murtha, Obey, Waxman, Rangel) unto perpetuity. McCain's approach may have had its flaws, but anybody who doesn't see that the current system is a nightmare for representative democracy has not been paying attention.
For Huck supporters, they need to see that -- in many ways -- McCain is a lot like Mike Huckabee, although without the Southern accent. Mike and John both get criticized at least as much for their virtues as their faults. At times it appears the only people who like them are voters (and not just in states like Iowa and New Hampshire).
My point is that we need to recognize that candidates who disagree with us on one or more issues are not therefore beyond the pale. Heck, even in my case, I'm not always right.
May the best man win.
The article may tell you more about SC politics than you want to know, but you won't find anything better between now and the Palmetto State primary. I expect Larry Perrault and SJ Reidhead can't wait to respond it -- especially SJ (Cindy), who hails from SC.
I think all the article's criticisms, including those of Mike Huckabee, are somewhere between petty and totally unfair. For Huck fans, the accusations are mostly "inside baseball" stuff about the conservative wing of the So. Baptist Church and the VERY conservative wing. In the mind of some Baptists, Mike chose the "wrong" side in a denominational struggle. Talk about arcana.
I like Mike Devine (Gamecock) a lot, but his support of Thompson, like the Fred Campaign itself, is embarrassing. Fred is the laziest of candidates, and he's the worst when it comes to raising money.
After 9/11, Fred said, "Now is not the time to leave [the Senate]." Shortly thereafter, he left -- to join the cast of a television show (Richard Wolf's "Law and Order") that missed few opportunities to bash the military and the GWB segment of the country. Frankly, Fred should be ashamed of himself.
"Yes, we have no bananas," when bananas is an analogue to perfect candidates.
I criticize Mike Huckabee myself, but anyone with sense will see that he, like several other candidates, is a good one and a man with some remarkable political achievements.
As for John McCain, yes, he is a "maverick," that is, someone who thinks for himself -- wow, how exotic. He has been pro-life and pro-military for his entire life. He is a Christian, which is a term that does not and should not have a narrow meaning. Of great significance, he's an American hero who underwent torture for many years.
Of great note, he has tackled issues (including immigration and campaign finance) where others have relied on pandering to an increasingly clueless "base." That's a group which believes the answer to real, pressinging problems is to "just say NO."
On campaign finance: it has turned into a vehicle for re-electing incumbents (Pelosi, Murtha, Obey, Waxman, Rangel) unto perpetuity. McCain's approach may have had its flaws, but anybody who doesn't see that the current system is a nightmare for representative democracy has not been paying attention.
For Huck supporters, they need to see that -- in many ways -- McCain is a lot like Mike Huckabee, although without the Southern accent. Mike and John both get criticized at least as much for their virtues as their faults. At times it appears the only people who like them are voters (and not just in states like Iowa and New Hampshire).
My point is that we need to recognize that candidates who disagree with us on one or more issues are not therefore beyond the pale. Heck, even in my case, I'm not always right.
May the best man win.
HUGH HEWITT'S MITT ROMNEY PROBLEM
"Hugh Hewitt, a reputation is a terrible thing to waste."
Hugh Hewitt of Townhall.com is a person with a well-earned reputation as a talk how host and blogger. However, he is spending his reputational capital in much the manner of McCain's overly indulgent sailor.
When it comes to candidate Mitt Romney, Hugh quite literally "wrote the book." That is, he has a financial interest in Romney's doing well -- and perhaps even winning the presidency.
As a responsible political analyst, Hugh has an obligation to look at any candidate -- including his beloved "Mitt" -- in at least a mildly objective way. That means examining the canidate's pros and his CONS. It means outlining where a candidate is weak -- and where he's strong.
In fact, Mitt Romney is not a strong candidate. In some polls, his "negatives" come close to equalling those of Hillary Clinton. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney squandered big early leads in the polls and ended up finishing a distant second. In national polls, he's been stuck in the low teens. There's no evidence he could come close to winning in a national election against Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.
American voters generally look at Mitt Romney as too rich (and pouring big chunks of his vast fortune into the campaign), too slick, too liberal (in liberal states), too disingenuous (in conservative states), and much too quick to "go negative," hurting his own campaign and that of others'.
Hugh, I appeal to you: stop the cheerleading, and stop the gushing about "Team Romney," which is a losing "team." Hugh, you're looking like a political "Johnny-One-Note." Your readers are now making fun of you, and that's not a good situation.
On this blog, I note the candidate(s) I favor and don't fail point out their warts. Romney is spending a lot more money than his opponents, and his performance is not good. It would strengthen Hugh's credibility if he showed some basic signs of balance, which he doesn't when it comes to Mitt Romney.
So, Hugh Hewitt, stop compromising your reputation -- and invest your time instead on giving a clear-eyed analysis of the many fascinating political developments. I've done that on my own blog, and in this case the teacher (you) needs to learn from the student (me).
steve maloney
FAIR-TAX A NON-STARTER?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JerryBowyer/2008/01/09/questions_for_the_fair_tax_crowd
Questions for the Fair Tax Crowd
by Jerry Bowyer
Why do you think that a sales tax is less prone to corruption and complexity than an income tax?
When the income tax was originally promoted by William Jennings Bryan and other populists it was labeled as being fairer, since it would not hit the poor. When initially implemented it was very simple. However, over time special interest groups were able to lobby for exemptions, deductions, and other special treatment. Why would a sales tax not undergo the same process? Does the fair tax somehow magically abolish selfishness?
Are sales taxes, where they are currently in operation, simple and free from special interest lobbying?
The Europeans have a sales tax, called the VAT, which is extremely complex. Why wouldn’t that happen here? States have sales taxes, which, even despite their low rates still have long lists of items which are exempt or not exempt, and they still have people who cheat on them. If this happens at low rates, why wouldn’t it happen at much higher rates? Does moving the concept from Europe to the U.S., or from the State level to the national level, somehow render the legislative process more pure? If so, why is our income tax so riddled with complexity and special pleading to begin with?
Does it apply to non-profits? [And if not, why not?]
If so, then they’ve become taxable and it would discourage charity. Also, wouldn’t churches become taxable? Aren’t there constitutional issues here? If not, then the tax advantage of non-profits disappears. If they’d be taxed the same way as businesses, wouldn’t this remove a great deal of tax encouragement for non-profit enterprise and shift talent and treasure away from that sector?
Are used goods, non-taxable?
If so, this means less goods production, more yard sales, eBay stuff, etc. Won’t this hurt traditional retailers and goods producers? Why wouldn’t this encourage evasion through rehabilitation? After all what exactly constitutes New vs. Used? If I repair a car, it’s used, but what if I upgrade it? New engine, but old chassis, is that new or used? Computers, too. New hard-drive, but old CPU; is that new or used? How does this not get complicated?
What about the transition period?
Before the sales tax takes effect, won’t there be a buying binge? Afterwards, won’t there be a buying drought? If so, doesn’t that cause a debt spike to finance purchases before the ‘sale’ ends? The implications for banking and currency policy are way too complicated for me to foresee.
[Other big questions follow]
Isn’t it true that the rate is not really 23% but 30% at least, because it’s tax-inclusive?
And even this does not count dynamic effects in which changed behavior and evasion narrow the base and raise the rate.
How do we determine the interest portion of mortgage payment?
If non-specified, business will simply give big discounts on price and then make up for it in the interest calculation, as interest is deemed non-taxable. These calculations are highly malleable and can become very complex. Homes will be financed with low-ball prices and high interest rates, and sup-prime mortgages will skyrocket.
If a cap is put on excludable interest, then at what rate? Federal rates?
That makes the Fed a tax-setting agency and hyper-politicizes monetary policy.
______________________________
Mr. Bowyer [of Allegheny County, PA] is chief economist of BenchMark Financial Network and a [frequent] CNBC contributor.
Hugh Hewitt of Townhall.com is a person with a well-earned reputation as a talk how host and blogger. However, he is spending his reputational capital in much the manner of McCain's overly indulgent sailor.
When it comes to candidate Mitt Romney, Hugh quite literally "wrote the book." That is, he has a financial interest in Romney's doing well -- and perhaps even winning the presidency.
As a responsible political analyst, Hugh has an obligation to look at any candidate -- including his beloved "Mitt" -- in at least a mildly objective way. That means examining the canidate's pros and his CONS. It means outlining where a candidate is weak -- and where he's strong.
In fact, Mitt Romney is not a strong candidate. In some polls, his "negatives" come close to equalling those of Hillary Clinton. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney squandered big early leads in the polls and ended up finishing a distant second. In national polls, he's been stuck in the low teens. There's no evidence he could come close to winning in a national election against Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.
American voters generally look at Mitt Romney as too rich (and pouring big chunks of his vast fortune into the campaign), too slick, too liberal (in liberal states), too disingenuous (in conservative states), and much too quick to "go negative," hurting his own campaign and that of others'.
Hugh, I appeal to you: stop the cheerleading, and stop the gushing about "Team Romney," which is a losing "team." Hugh, you're looking like a political "Johnny-One-Note." Your readers are now making fun of you, and that's not a good situation.
On this blog, I note the candidate(s) I favor and don't fail point out their warts. Romney is spending a lot more money than his opponents, and his performance is not good. It would strengthen Hugh's credibility if he showed some basic signs of balance, which he doesn't when it comes to Mitt Romney.
So, Hugh Hewitt, stop compromising your reputation -- and invest your time instead on giving a clear-eyed analysis of the many fascinating political developments. I've done that on my own blog, and in this case the teacher (you) needs to learn from the student (me).
steve maloney
FAIR-TAX A NON-STARTER?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JerryBowyer/2008/01/09/questions_for_the_fair_tax_crowd
Questions for the Fair Tax Crowd
by Jerry Bowyer
Why do you think that a sales tax is less prone to corruption and complexity than an income tax?
When the income tax was originally promoted by William Jennings Bryan and other populists it was labeled as being fairer, since it would not hit the poor. When initially implemented it was very simple. However, over time special interest groups were able to lobby for exemptions, deductions, and other special treatment. Why would a sales tax not undergo the same process? Does the fair tax somehow magically abolish selfishness?
Are sales taxes, where they are currently in operation, simple and free from special interest lobbying?
The Europeans have a sales tax, called the VAT, which is extremely complex. Why wouldn’t that happen here? States have sales taxes, which, even despite their low rates still have long lists of items which are exempt or not exempt, and they still have people who cheat on them. If this happens at low rates, why wouldn’t it happen at much higher rates? Does moving the concept from Europe to the U.S., or from the State level to the national level, somehow render the legislative process more pure? If so, why is our income tax so riddled with complexity and special pleading to begin with?
Does it apply to non-profits? [And if not, why not?]
If so, then they’ve become taxable and it would discourage charity. Also, wouldn’t churches become taxable? Aren’t there constitutional issues here? If not, then the tax advantage of non-profits disappears. If they’d be taxed the same way as businesses, wouldn’t this remove a great deal of tax encouragement for non-profit enterprise and shift talent and treasure away from that sector?
Are used goods, non-taxable?
If so, this means less goods production, more yard sales, eBay stuff, etc. Won’t this hurt traditional retailers and goods producers? Why wouldn’t this encourage evasion through rehabilitation? After all what exactly constitutes New vs. Used? If I repair a car, it’s used, but what if I upgrade it? New engine, but old chassis, is that new or used? Computers, too. New hard-drive, but old CPU; is that new or used? How does this not get complicated?
What about the transition period?
Before the sales tax takes effect, won’t there be a buying binge? Afterwards, won’t there be a buying drought? If so, doesn’t that cause a debt spike to finance purchases before the ‘sale’ ends? The implications for banking and currency policy are way too complicated for me to foresee.
[Other big questions follow]
Isn’t it true that the rate is not really 23% but 30% at least, because it’s tax-inclusive?
And even this does not count dynamic effects in which changed behavior and evasion narrow the base and raise the rate.
How do we determine the interest portion of mortgage payment?
If non-specified, business will simply give big discounts on price and then make up for it in the interest calculation, as interest is deemed non-taxable. These calculations are highly malleable and can become very complex. Homes will be financed with low-ball prices and high interest rates, and sup-prime mortgages will skyrocket.
If a cap is put on excludable interest, then at what rate? Federal rates?
That makes the Fed a tax-setting agency and hyper-politicizes monetary policy.
______________________________
Mr. Bowyer [of Allegheny County, PA] is chief economist of BenchMark Financial Network and a [frequent] CNBC contributor.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
McCain-Palin Ticket the Best
BULLETIN: McCAIN PUNCTUATES REMARKABLE COMEBACK WITH MASSIVE VICTORY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE. CLINTON-OBAMA LOCKED IN VERY CLOSE RACE.
Long ago, this blog endorsed the presidential candidacy of a wonderful man, Rudy Giuliani. At this point, I'd like to offer my best wishes and my support to another American hero, Senator John McCain. God bless, John, and good luck in what will be a long, hard race. (Note: It is starting to look as if the political demise of Mrs. Clinton has been much exaggerated.)
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
My friend Cindy at www.ThePinkFlamingo.blogharbor.com/blog sent me the following note:
If McCain gets the nomination, he is going to need to counter Hillary with a woman - and someone young.There is only one logical choice for VP.Let's start playing with a McCain-Palin ticket. I think it could happen.
Steve says: I am totally in favor of a McCain-Palin ticket. There is no stronger, better, more electable candidate than Sarah Heath Palin. A wife, a mother, a devout Christian, the mother of an infantry soldier, a life member of the NRA, an expert on energy and the environment, Sarah stands for everything that is great about America.
Long ago, this blog endorsed the presidential candidacy of a wonderful man, Rudy Giuliani. At this point, I'd like to offer my best wishes and my support to another American hero, Senator John McCain. God bless, John, and good luck in what will be a long, hard race. (Note: It is starting to look as if the political demise of Mrs. Clinton has been much exaggerated.)
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
My friend Cindy at www.ThePinkFlamingo.blogharbor.com/blog sent me the following note:
If McCain gets the nomination, he is going to need to counter Hillary with a woman - and someone young.There is only one logical choice for VP.Let's start playing with a McCain-Palin ticket. I think it could happen.
Steve says: I am totally in favor of a McCain-Palin ticket. There is no stronger, better, more electable candidate than Sarah Heath Palin. A wife, a mother, a devout Christian, the mother of an infantry soldier, a life member of the NRA, an expert on energy and the environment, Sarah stands for everything that is great about America.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN NH?
NOTE: TONIGHT ABOUT 9:30 EASTERN TIME I'LL BE WRITING ABOUT THE NH RESULTS -- AND GIVING MY PREDICTION ABOUT WHO THE EVENTUAL NOMINEES WILL BE. YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME.
This is a big week for America -- and for me. Last night I had the honor of interviewing New York Congressman Peter King on Eric Dondero's www.blogtalkradio.com/libertarian. Also, this week I've ended my active participation in the campaign of William Russell (http://www.williamrussellforcongress.com/). I don't believe John Murtha is beatable this year, although I commend Lt. Col. Russell for trying.
I'll continue my day-in, day-out efforts on behalf of Melissa Hart (PA 4th CD), Jean Schmidt (Ohio, 2d CD), and Heather Wilson (NM candidate for U.S. Senate). I'll be writing more about all these fine candidates.http://www.jeanschmidt.com/
New Hampshire: My father was born in Berlin, NH, up in the "North Country." I've been to the state many times, and each visit was a pleasure. I've even been to "Dixville Notch," near the beautiful Balsams Resort.
The state has always been friendly to libertarians and conservatives. The state's motto is: "Live Free or Die."
I remember 15 years ago there was a state sign reading, "Seat Belts Required for Those Under Age 12." In other words, the state was not inclined to tell adults how to conduct their lives. Also, New Hampshire (unlike Vermont, where I lived) sold alcohol on Sundays! How daring! How un-New Englandish!
Politics in the Granite State are unique. The state has some 850,000 registered voters, and it allows people to register up through Election Day (called "same-day-registration").
New Hampshire has about 220,000 Democrats and 256,000 registered Republicans. However, the number of Independents (and "others") is a whopping 375,000. In other words, about 44% of those registered are neither Democrat nor Republican.
Why so many "Indies?" Because it allows voters to pick and choose between Democrats or Republicans. If Obama gets a huge win tonight that will be bad news for Republicans. It will mean he got the lion's share of the Independent vote.
Like Iowa, NH is a swing state, one that could go either way in November. In Iowa, nearly twice as many Democrats as Republicans participated in the Caucuses -- an ominous sign for the GOP.
In 2004, John Kerry (from neighboring Massachusetts) beat George W. Bush by a mere 9,000 votes (out of 672,000 cast). In 2000, Bush prevailed over Al Gore by 7,000 votes.
So, check out the vote totals tonight. They probably will give a good indication of how the state will go in November.
My predictions for the primary today: Obama by a wide margin (perhaps 10%) over Hillary Clinton, with John Edwards a distant third. McCain by 6%-7% over Romney, with Giuiliani and Huckabee fighting it out for third place. Fred Thompson will finish well behind Ron Paul. 'Nough said.
_________
Are we now the Party merely of aging, angry white guys?
I wrote the following to one of Yahoo's conservative groups in response to someone who suggests that Barack Obama will not be hard to beat, etc., etc.
I frankly fear you're "wishing upon a star." Obama is obviously a brilliant campaigner, and he looks like a sure thing to win the Democratic nomination. In 1960, Richard Nixon had a ton of foreign policy experience, and his Democratic opponent, JFK (the Obama of his era), had very little. Guess who won?
If Mike Huckabee had been counting votes as a Democrat in Iowa, he would have finished a distant fourth -- well behind not only Obama, but also Clinton and Edwards. That is terrible news for Republicans. We've spent so much time attacking our own candidates, many of them excellent ones, that we've opened things up for a huge Democratic victory in November. If we don't return to our senses soon, it will be a disaster.
A lot of Democrats have gone broke underestimating Obama (who would be a terrible President), and I fear a lot of Republicans are doing the same thing. Tonight, in a swing state, several Democrats are going to out-poll the leading Republican candidate. It will be very hard to put a "good spin" on that.
Someone on the conservativeamericans Yahoo Group was assuring us recently that young people would not show up for Obama. He was dead wrong. Today, the lines of students registering to vote in Hanover, NH (Dartmouth) were blocks long.
We need to stop pretending that people who don't generally vote our way -- young people, Blacks, Hispanics, female professionals -- don't exist. We can't afford to become the Party merely of angry, aging white guys.
This is a big week for America -- and for me. Last night I had the honor of interviewing New York Congressman Peter King on Eric Dondero's www.blogtalkradio.com/libertarian. Also, this week I've ended my active participation in the campaign of William Russell (http://www.williamrussellforcongress.com/). I don't believe John Murtha is beatable this year, although I commend Lt. Col. Russell for trying.
I'll continue my day-in, day-out efforts on behalf of Melissa Hart (PA 4th CD), Jean Schmidt (Ohio, 2d CD), and Heather Wilson (NM candidate for U.S. Senate). I'll be writing more about all these fine candidates.http://www.jeanschmidt.com/
New Hampshire: My father was born in Berlin, NH, up in the "North Country." I've been to the state many times, and each visit was a pleasure. I've even been to "Dixville Notch," near the beautiful Balsams Resort.
The state has always been friendly to libertarians and conservatives. The state's motto is: "Live Free or Die."
I remember 15 years ago there was a state sign reading, "Seat Belts Required for Those Under Age 12." In other words, the state was not inclined to tell adults how to conduct their lives. Also, New Hampshire (unlike Vermont, where I lived) sold alcohol on Sundays! How daring! How un-New Englandish!
Politics in the Granite State are unique. The state has some 850,000 registered voters, and it allows people to register up through Election Day (called "same-day-registration").
New Hampshire has about 220,000 Democrats and 256,000 registered Republicans. However, the number of Independents (and "others") is a whopping 375,000. In other words, about 44% of those registered are neither Democrat nor Republican.
Why so many "Indies?" Because it allows voters to pick and choose between Democrats or Republicans. If Obama gets a huge win tonight that will be bad news for Republicans. It will mean he got the lion's share of the Independent vote.
Like Iowa, NH is a swing state, one that could go either way in November. In Iowa, nearly twice as many Democrats as Republicans participated in the Caucuses -- an ominous sign for the GOP.
In 2004, John Kerry (from neighboring Massachusetts) beat George W. Bush by a mere 9,000 votes (out of 672,000 cast). In 2000, Bush prevailed over Al Gore by 7,000 votes.
So, check out the vote totals tonight. They probably will give a good indication of how the state will go in November.
My predictions for the primary today: Obama by a wide margin (perhaps 10%) over Hillary Clinton, with John Edwards a distant third. McCain by 6%-7% over Romney, with Giuiliani and Huckabee fighting it out for third place. Fred Thompson will finish well behind Ron Paul. 'Nough said.
_________
Are we now the Party merely of aging, angry white guys?
I wrote the following to one of Yahoo's conservative groups in response to someone who suggests that Barack Obama will not be hard to beat, etc., etc.
I frankly fear you're "wishing upon a star." Obama is obviously a brilliant campaigner, and he looks like a sure thing to win the Democratic nomination. In 1960, Richard Nixon had a ton of foreign policy experience, and his Democratic opponent, JFK (the Obama of his era), had very little. Guess who won?
If Mike Huckabee had been counting votes as a Democrat in Iowa, he would have finished a distant fourth -- well behind not only Obama, but also Clinton and Edwards. That is terrible news for Republicans. We've spent so much time attacking our own candidates, many of them excellent ones, that we've opened things up for a huge Democratic victory in November. If we don't return to our senses soon, it will be a disaster.
A lot of Democrats have gone broke underestimating Obama (who would be a terrible President), and I fear a lot of Republicans are doing the same thing. Tonight, in a swing state, several Democrats are going to out-poll the leading Republican candidate. It will be very hard to put a "good spin" on that.
Someone on the conservativeamericans Yahoo Group was assuring us recently that young people would not show up for Obama. He was dead wrong. Today, the lines of students registering to vote in Hanover, NH (Dartmouth) were blocks long.
We need to stop pretending that people who don't generally vote our way -- young people, Blacks, Hispanics, female professionals -- don't exist. We can't afford to become the Party merely of angry, aging white guys.
Monday, January 7, 2008
POLITICAL REALITIES: PENNSYLVANIA'S 12TH CD
www.blogtalkradio.com/libertarian -- If you'd like to go the archive, you'll hear Eric Dondero and Steve Maloney (yep, me) interviewing New York state congressman Peter King and others about the candidacies of Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romeny, John McCain, and others. I say something nice about Hillary Clinton, which may be an historic first.
Later this week I'll write one of my last pieces on the Russell-Murtha race. After analyzing the race carefully, I believe -- sadly -- that the election will not be winnable by Bill Russell; however, any Republican candidate that can chalk up (nearly) 100,000 votes would be in a good position to win the seat when Murtha retires or passes away. (Note: Based on past experience, it appears that Murtha will get approximately 145,000 votes in November, give or take a few thousand.)
Diana Irey has been the strongest challenger Murtha has faced, and she got nearly 79,000 votes (39% of the total) -- and they came in an off-year election. In off years, many people -- tens of thousands -- in the 12th CD don't bother to vote. A viable candidate needs to get a lot of them registered and then to the polling places.
There are ways, over time (perhaps four years), for a strong Republican candidate to win in the 12th. If a candidate shakes 100,000 hands and builds an extremely strong, volunteer-based organization, he (or she) can ESTABLISH A FOUNDATION FOR WINNING.
Right now, I don't see that happening. That means a majority of voters in the 12th will engage in their "Pavlov's Dog Syndrome," salivating every time they see Murtha's name on the ballot.
In the 12th, a truly strong candidate must disabuse voters of the notion that "John Murtha brings home the bacon." In fact, the median household income (MHI) in the 12th is an anemic $30,600 annually. That's one of the lowest totals in the state, about the same MHI as in inner-city Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. So, where's the bacon?
The MHI in the 12th is below the statewide average in either Mississippi and Alabama. The 12th CD is a depressed area. No major companies are interested in establishing facilities in the district. A major reason is that they don't want to deal with a corrupt bully like Murtha.
If a candidate explains such "inconvenient truths" to voters, it may not do a great deal of good. Old illusions, especially ones about Murtha, die hard. If the electorate wants to reward Murtha for bringing his district almost to the economic levels of Alabama and Mississippi, then there's little in the short-term that can be done.
I was getting ready to spend much of my next year working on the Russell-Murtha race. However, I've come to the view that, if 12th District voters want Murtha, then let them have him.
I'd rather spend the time working with candidates, such as Melissa Hart in PA's 4th District, who have a decent chance of winning. I believe she's willing to shake her "100,000 hands," and to build a huge volunteer base. She's committed to doing whatever it takes to win back her seat in Congress.
I wish William Russell all the best in his campaign against Murtha. If he goes door-to-door each day between now and next November, then he has a chance of doing well -- although not of winning outright. I urge voters in the 12th to support him. I also urge him to begin listening to people like yours truly, who have good ideas about how he can sharply increase Republican votes in his district.
Later this week I'll write one of my last pieces on the Russell-Murtha race. After analyzing the race carefully, I believe -- sadly -- that the election will not be winnable by Bill Russell; however, any Republican candidate that can chalk up (nearly) 100,000 votes would be in a good position to win the seat when Murtha retires or passes away. (Note: Based on past experience, it appears that Murtha will get approximately 145,000 votes in November, give or take a few thousand.)
Diana Irey has been the strongest challenger Murtha has faced, and she got nearly 79,000 votes (39% of the total) -- and they came in an off-year election. In off years, many people -- tens of thousands -- in the 12th CD don't bother to vote. A viable candidate needs to get a lot of them registered and then to the polling places.
There are ways, over time (perhaps four years), for a strong Republican candidate to win in the 12th. If a candidate shakes 100,000 hands and builds an extremely strong, volunteer-based organization, he (or she) can ESTABLISH A FOUNDATION FOR WINNING.
Right now, I don't see that happening. That means a majority of voters in the 12th will engage in their "Pavlov's Dog Syndrome," salivating every time they see Murtha's name on the ballot.
In the 12th, a truly strong candidate must disabuse voters of the notion that "John Murtha brings home the bacon." In fact, the median household income (MHI) in the 12th is an anemic $30,600 annually. That's one of the lowest totals in the state, about the same MHI as in inner-city Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. So, where's the bacon?
The MHI in the 12th is below the statewide average in either Mississippi and Alabama. The 12th CD is a depressed area. No major companies are interested in establishing facilities in the district. A major reason is that they don't want to deal with a corrupt bully like Murtha.
If a candidate explains such "inconvenient truths" to voters, it may not do a great deal of good. Old illusions, especially ones about Murtha, die hard. If the electorate wants to reward Murtha for bringing his district almost to the economic levels of Alabama and Mississippi, then there's little in the short-term that can be done.
I was getting ready to spend much of my next year working on the Russell-Murtha race. However, I've come to the view that, if 12th District voters want Murtha, then let them have him.
I'd rather spend the time working with candidates, such as Melissa Hart in PA's 4th District, who have a decent chance of winning. I believe she's willing to shake her "100,000 hands," and to build a huge volunteer base. She's committed to doing whatever it takes to win back her seat in Congress.
I wish William Russell all the best in his campaign against Murtha. If he goes door-to-door each day between now and next November, then he has a chance of doing well -- although not of winning outright. I urge voters in the 12th to support him. I also urge him to begin listening to people like yours truly, who have good ideas about how he can sharply increase Republican votes in his district.
I'm going to write more tonight and tomorrow about the New Hampshire primary. My father was born in Berlin (stress first syllable), New Hampshire, and I visited the state frequently when I lived in New England (VT & CT). The registration patterns in NH are unlike those in any other state -- with a tremendous number of "Independents."
Regarding Hillary Clinton, whom I regard as the best (by far) of the Democratic candidates. My friend Cindy at http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com/blog wrote me that Hillary is at her best when she's apparently "down" and behind.
My response to Cindy: Monday, January 7, 2008: Hillary's another person who should hire you and me -- we wouldn't accept, but she needs some political realists around her. Also, she has a few conservative instincts and she should start letting them blossom. Obama is terrible on the WOT and other key issues, and Hillary should start pointing that out -- not be always trying to win the far Leftists whom she needs to avoid. Twenty percent of the registered Dems in the U.S. want us to lose in Iraq. She needs to wash her hands of those people. She must emphasize that the U.S. wins the WOT or else nothing that patriotic people (Dem. and Repub.) want for themselves and their children will come true. If she goes down, she should go down with guns blazing. Hillary should demonstrate her understanding that America's problems will be solved by the American people -- not by any particular President. Her husband understands that key point, and she should also.Sunday, January 6, 2008
IOWA CAUCUS: BAD GOP OMENS
Single issue voters are destroying the GOP's chances of winning crucial elections -- including the presidency. That's true whether the single issue is abortion, gay marriage, or immigration. Ironically (sadly?), the single-issue voters are also undermining their chances to win on their issue of choice.
In fact, abortion, gay marriage, and immigration are NOT big issues with most American voters, as we found out once again in almost all-white, politically moderate Iowa. All three of the Democratic candidates hold views the opposite of GOP single-issue voters, including the evangelicals who cast their votes for Mike Huckabee.
Look at it this way: the number of Iowans who participate in the Democratic caucuses totaled an amazing 239,000. That was nearly twice the number in the Republican caucuses. In terms of registration, Iowans are roughly one-third Republican, one-third Democratic, and one-third "0ther" (most Independent).
Iowa is a "light Blue" or "light pink" state, with Bush losing narrowly in 2000 and winning narrowly in 2004. It's one where Republicans should at least be competitive on a statewide basis. Right now, Republicans are nowhere near being competitive in Iowa.
Look at the Caucus this way: ONE Republican, Mike Huckabee, won by a fairly comfortable margin.
However, THREE Democrats -- Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary -- all got MORE Caucus votes than Huckabee. If he'd been running for Democratic votes, he would have finished a fairly distant FOURTH.
Of course, many Huckabee supporters -- Larry Perrault being a prominent one -- have announced that if Mike doesn't get the nomination, they will sit out the election. That should make it much easier for either Obama or Hillary Clinton to win the general election.
Generally, Democrats generally like their choice of (extremely liberal) candidates. Republicans don't like their choice of (mainly conservative) candidates.
If what happens in New Hampshire and South Carolina resembles in any way what occurred in Iowa, Republican candidates -- many of them superb human beings -- are in for a drubbing. Democrats are united, while Republicans are fractured.
Whoever the Democratic candidate for President turns out to be, bet your money on him -- or her.
Tomorrow's column (on Tuesday) will be about the candidacy of Melissa Hart trying to regain her seat in PA's 4th Congressional District.
Later this week I'll write one of my last pieces on the Russell-Murtha race. After analyzing the race carefully, I believe -- sadly -- that the race is not currently winnable by a challenger; however, any Republican candidate that can chalk up 100,000 votes would be in a good position to win the seat when Murtha retires/passes away.
In fact, abortion, gay marriage, and immigration are NOT big issues with most American voters, as we found out once again in almost all-white, politically moderate Iowa. All three of the Democratic candidates hold views the opposite of GOP single-issue voters, including the evangelicals who cast their votes for Mike Huckabee.
Look at it this way: the number of Iowans who participate in the Democratic caucuses totaled an amazing 239,000. That was nearly twice the number in the Republican caucuses. In terms of registration, Iowans are roughly one-third Republican, one-third Democratic, and one-third "0ther" (most Independent).
Iowa is a "light Blue" or "light pink" state, with Bush losing narrowly in 2000 and winning narrowly in 2004. It's one where Republicans should at least be competitive on a statewide basis. Right now, Republicans are nowhere near being competitive in Iowa.
Look at the Caucus this way: ONE Republican, Mike Huckabee, won by a fairly comfortable margin.
However, THREE Democrats -- Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary -- all got MORE Caucus votes than Huckabee. If he'd been running for Democratic votes, he would have finished a fairly distant FOURTH.
Of course, many Huckabee supporters -- Larry Perrault being a prominent one -- have announced that if Mike doesn't get the nomination, they will sit out the election. That should make it much easier for either Obama or Hillary Clinton to win the general election.
Generally, Democrats generally like their choice of (extremely liberal) candidates. Republicans don't like their choice of (mainly conservative) candidates.
If what happens in New Hampshire and South Carolina resembles in any way what occurred in Iowa, Republican candidates -- many of them superb human beings -- are in for a drubbing. Democrats are united, while Republicans are fractured.
Whoever the Democratic candidate for President turns out to be, bet your money on him -- or her.
Tomorrow's column (on Tuesday) will be about the candidacy of Melissa Hart trying to regain her seat in PA's 4th Congressional District.
Later this week I'll write one of my last pieces on the Russell-Murtha race. After analyzing the race carefully, I believe -- sadly -- that the race is not currently winnable by a challenger; however, any Republican candidate that can chalk up 100,000 votes would be in a good position to win the seat when Murtha retires/passes away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
