Category: Media and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
In terms of disdain generated from the mainstream media and the liberal establishment, Matt Drudge ranks second only to Rush Limbaugh. The Left hates Drudge; they have parodied him, slandered him and attempted to reduce his readership by brutally disparaging his audience.
None of it has worked.
Why? What is the value of Drudge?
Like most of America, I had never heard of the Drudge Report before January 21, 1998. As we all remember, Drudge entered the American political lexicon by breaking a huge story that Newsweek refused to publish: the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Once I realized that Drudge readers found out on January 17 what I didn't learn until four days later, I decided that Drudge was a necessary supplement to my news diet.
Drudge cuts to the chase with sensational political stories. The recent Al Gore III and John Edwards dust-ups are cases in point. While the establishment outlets wringed their hands and waited for the sensational to become news (because others were reporting it), Drudge reported. Drudge became the one-stop center for Gore news this morning.
Similarly, when George Stephanopoulos mentioned John Edwards's latest hair gaffe this morning on GMA, I clicked around a bit to no avail--and then went to Drudge. Of course, there it was: Top-Right Corner. Easy.
Most times, as in the case of the Edwards story, Drudge is not an investigative reporter; he is not a newshound in the sense of a muckraking journalists, but he is a newshound in terms of highlighting interesting but obscure stories already in play. In the case of Edwards, the story came from an incredibly elite source, the Washington Post. But Drudge made it the story of the day.
Although the field is congested now with imitators on both sides of the divide, Drudge continues to play a vital role in electronic politics. Slap me if I ever get too cultured for the Drudge Report.
None of it has worked.
Why? What is the value of Drudge?
Like most of America, I had never heard of the Drudge Report before January 21, 1998. As we all remember, Drudge entered the American political lexicon by breaking a huge story that Newsweek refused to publish: the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Once I realized that Drudge readers found out on January 17 what I didn't learn until four days later, I decided that Drudge was a necessary supplement to my news diet.
Drudge cuts to the chase with sensational political stories. The recent Al Gore III and John Edwards dust-ups are cases in point. While the establishment outlets wringed their hands and waited for the sensational to become news (because others were reporting it), Drudge reported. Drudge became the one-stop center for Gore news this morning.
Similarly, when George Stephanopoulos mentioned John Edwards's latest hair gaffe this morning on GMA, I clicked around a bit to no avail--and then went to Drudge. Of course, there it was: Top-Right Corner. Easy.
Most times, as in the case of the Edwards story, Drudge is not an investigative reporter; he is not a newshound in the sense of a muckraking journalists, but he is a newshound in terms of highlighting interesting but obscure stories already in play. In the case of Edwards, the story came from an incredibly elite source, the Washington Post. But Drudge made it the story of the day.
Although the field is congested now with imitators on both sides of the divide, Drudge continues to play a vital role in electronic politics. Slap me if I ever get too cultured for the Drudge Report.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I am an admirer of Sean Wilentz as an historian. For months now, it has been my intention to comment on his brilliant synthesis, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln (even more so since I began reading Daniel Walker Howe's brilliant rebuttal, from the Whig point of view, and closer to my way of thinking, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848).
Notwithstanding, Professor Wilentz is a very political historian. And by that I don't mean he is primarily concerned with the history of dead white men; this is also true in part--but that is not my point. Sean Wilentz is an extreme Democratic Party partisan, who does not hesitate to bring his training, reputation, and rhetorical ability to bear in support of his deeply held political beliefs. For example, Professor Wilentz organized the "400 Historians Against Impeachment" back in 1998, which gave scholarly cover to the Clinton campaign to stay in office at all costs.
Almost always I disagree with Professor Wilentz's political crusades, and I have generally criticized his penchant for couching naked politics in scholarly drapery. However, his article published in the New Republic today offers staggeringly insightful analysis (read that to mean he agrees with me). In fact, he even borrows the same title (unknowingly) that I used a few days ago: "Race Man."
An excerpt from the Wilentz piece:
“A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card' were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the 'race-baiter card' before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign.”
Read this long article in full here. It is the most trenchant analysis to date concerning this exceedingly important question.
Notwithstanding, Professor Wilentz is a very political historian. And by that I don't mean he is primarily concerned with the history of dead white men; this is also true in part--but that is not my point. Sean Wilentz is an extreme Democratic Party partisan, who does not hesitate to bring his training, reputation, and rhetorical ability to bear in support of his deeply held political beliefs. For example, Professor Wilentz organized the "400 Historians Against Impeachment" back in 1998, which gave scholarly cover to the Clinton campaign to stay in office at all costs.
Almost always I disagree with Professor Wilentz's political crusades, and I have generally criticized his penchant for couching naked politics in scholarly drapery. However, his article published in the New Republic today offers staggeringly insightful analysis (read that to mean he agrees with me). In fact, he even borrows the same title (unknowingly) that I used a few days ago: "Race Man."
An excerpt from the Wilentz piece:
“A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card' were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the 'race-baiter card' before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign.”
Read this long article in full here. It is the most trenchant analysis to date concerning this exceedingly important question.
Today some moronic conservative called up and accused Brian of left-wing bias and lumped him in with Chris Mathews and the MSM. I always cringe when I hear someone from my side of the political fence say something that stupid. Of course, Brian was unflappable, patiently hearing him out, and then: "Peoria, Illinois; you're next. What do you think about...."
The truth is, of course, Brian Lamb and C-SPAN have provided the most unrestricted forum for conservative intellectualism in the brief history of electronic media. All the while, they have provided a similar forum for liberal ideas, but with much less impact, as liberal thought already had numerous esteemed channels to disseminate messages.
Today the topics on the viewer call-in hour were the detainee deal and Hugo Chavez. I tend to use C-SPAN calls as a barometer of the radically misinformed in America; that is, citizens who are fully engaged (bless their hearts) but dangerously misguided.
Random thought: kudos to Charlie Rangel for not hugging Chavez.
Even so, as a string of African American callers chimed in to praise the Venezuelan president and agree vehemently with his characterization of George Bush, I had to wonder if Bush's numbers with black voters would appreciate noticeably, if he had run against Hugo Chavez. Maybe not. My guess: Chavez could have done better among African American voters than John Kerry (88 percent) but probably not as well as Al Gore (92 percent).
And, of course, there were the usual number of shaky-voiced zealots calling in to endorse websites offering "the truth" about the Bush conspiracy that organized the attacks of 9-11. "What about Tower #7? Coincidence? I think not..."
Yesterday on C-SPAN, I heard an interesting twist on the usual tale of 9-11 intrigue, which involved the President building a mansion in Jerusalem in which he would await Armageddon. The coverage of "Christian Dominionism" and "Christian Nationalism" and "Christian Zionism" seems to be increasing (at least on NPR's "Fresh Air"). Perhaps we can look forward to a whole new strain of paranoia.
The truth is, of course, Brian Lamb and C-SPAN have provided the most unrestricted forum for conservative intellectualism in the brief history of electronic media. All the while, they have provided a similar forum for liberal ideas, but with much less impact, as liberal thought already had numerous esteemed channels to disseminate messages.
Today the topics on the viewer call-in hour were the detainee deal and Hugo Chavez. I tend to use C-SPAN calls as a barometer of the radically misinformed in America; that is, citizens who are fully engaged (bless their hearts) but dangerously misguided.
Random thought: kudos to Charlie Rangel for not hugging Chavez.
Even so, as a string of African American callers chimed in to praise the Venezuelan president and agree vehemently with his characterization of George Bush, I had to wonder if Bush's numbers with black voters would appreciate noticeably, if he had run against Hugo Chavez. Maybe not. My guess: Chavez could have done better among African American voters than John Kerry (88 percent) but probably not as well as Al Gore (92 percent).
And, of course, there were the usual number of shaky-voiced zealots calling in to endorse websites offering "the truth" about the Bush conspiracy that organized the attacks of 9-11. "What about Tower #7? Coincidence? I think not..."
Yesterday on C-SPAN, I heard an interesting twist on the usual tale of 9-11 intrigue, which involved the President building a mansion in Jerusalem in which he would await Armageddon. The coverage of "Christian Dominionism" and "Christian Nationalism" and "Christian Zionism" seems to be increasing (at least on NPR's "Fresh Air"). Perhaps we can look forward to a whole new strain of paranoia.
I appreciate the Okie Gardener's recent thoughts on Global Warming (and his prior musings), which always reflect a true respect for the scientific method and classic conservatism, rather than the all too common blow-hard varieties of both.
As was noted earlier this week by a friend who knows me well, my knowledge of science is fairly elementary. Perhaps as a result, the Global Warming jokes are hard to pass up. A few months ago, I noted wryly that I spent the night at Gate C-29 at DFW, snowed-in during early March. I confess that I cannot help but get a chuckle every time an Al Gore conference on Global Warming is canceled on account of a 100-year blizzard. And every morning in May that I wake up in Central Texas with the temperature in the high-40s (and then told Global Warming is actually making things cooler before they get unbearably Hellish), I tend to become more skeptical of the UN, NASA, Brad Pitt, and the Hollywood intelligentsia.
Notwithstanding, I agree wholeheartedly with the Gardener's call for better stewardship of Creation and his exhortation to thoughtfully consider genuinely alarming potentialities despite the asinine alarmists.
Minus my intro concering some Texas football history, I am reissuing this concurring opinion based on what I consider a non-scientific, common-sense approach:
The predicament: Finite resources and exponential population growth equals a problem at some point in human history. Thus far, dramatic advances in technology and an amazingly dynamic and productive economic system have outpaced the inherent difficulty --and made the Malthusian predictions of scarcity during the nineteenth century the butt of modern derision.
However, do we really think that this planet will sustain 10 billion people? Twenty billion? Thirty billion? Do we think the United States will sustain a billion? Two billion? Do we think the American Southwest can continue to meet its water needs in perpetuity?
Does it alarm anyone other than me that we have become accustomed to a luxuriously abundant lifestyle that is predicated on an expanding economy, which is dependent on a growing, building, and expanding civilization, which requires the creation and infusion of more and more inhabitants into an environment with finite resources. There are limits. Where those limits actually exist--perhaps no one can say with certainty. However, undoubtedly, there must be a point at which our demand for potable water, breathable air, and fossil fuels to run our modern world exceeds the planet's capacity to offer them up.
Note: back when I first posted this, Tocqueville directed us to a timeless and provocative piece by Fred Ikle: Growth Without End, Amen. It is a must-read, if you missed it.
As was noted earlier this week by a friend who knows me well, my knowledge of science is fairly elementary. Perhaps as a result, the Global Warming jokes are hard to pass up. A few months ago, I noted wryly that I spent the night at Gate C-29 at DFW, snowed-in during early March. I confess that I cannot help but get a chuckle every time an Al Gore conference on Global Warming is canceled on account of a 100-year blizzard. And every morning in May that I wake up in Central Texas with the temperature in the high-40s (and then told Global Warming is actually making things cooler before they get unbearably Hellish), I tend to become more skeptical of the UN, NASA, Brad Pitt, and the Hollywood intelligentsia.
Notwithstanding, I agree wholeheartedly with the Gardener's call for better stewardship of Creation and his exhortation to thoughtfully consider genuinely alarming potentialities despite the asinine alarmists.
Minus my intro concering some Texas football history, I am reissuing this concurring opinion based on what I consider a non-scientific, common-sense approach:
The predicament: Finite resources and exponential population growth equals a problem at some point in human history. Thus far, dramatic advances in technology and an amazingly dynamic and productive economic system have outpaced the inherent difficulty --and made the Malthusian predictions of scarcity during the nineteenth century the butt of modern derision.
However, do we really think that this planet will sustain 10 billion people? Twenty billion? Thirty billion? Do we think the United States will sustain a billion? Two billion? Do we think the American Southwest can continue to meet its water needs in perpetuity?
Does it alarm anyone other than me that we have become accustomed to a luxuriously abundant lifestyle that is predicated on an expanding economy, which is dependent on a growing, building, and expanding civilization, which requires the creation and infusion of more and more inhabitants into an environment with finite resources. There are limits. Where those limits actually exist--perhaps no one can say with certainty. However, undoubtedly, there must be a point at which our demand for potable water, breathable air, and fossil fuels to run our modern world exceeds the planet's capacity to offer them up.
Note: back when I first posted this, Tocqueville directed us to a timeless and provocative piece by Fred Ikle: Growth Without End, Amen. It is a must-read, if you missed it.
03/04: A Tale of Two Houses
Category: Frivolity
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
This is making the rounds on email and the blogs. After just a touch of superficial checking, it looks like it might even be true.
House 1:
The four-bedroom home was planned so that "every room has a relationship with something in the landscape that's different from the room next door. Each of the rooms feels like a slightly different place. The resulting single-story house is a paragon of environmental planning.
The passive-solar house is built of honey-colored native limestone and positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior walkways and walls of the 4,000-square-foot residence. Geothermal heat pumps circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground. These waters pass through a heat exchange system that keeps the home warm in winter and cool in summer.
A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof urns; Wastewater from sinks, toilets, and showers cascades into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is then used to irrigate the landscaping around the four-bedroom home, (which) uses indigenous grasses, shrubs, and flowers to complete the exterior treatment of the home. In addition to its minimal environmental impact, the look and layout of the house reflect one of the paramount priorities: relaxation.
A spacious 10-foot porch wraps completely around the residence and beckons the family outdoors. With few hallways to speak of, family and guests make their way from room to room either directly or by way of the porch. "The house doesn't hold you in. Where the porch ends there is grass. There is no step-up at all." This house consumes 25% of the energy of an average American home.
(Source: Cowboys and Indians Magazine, Oct. 2002 and Chicago Tribune April 2001. Here)
House 2:
This 20-room, 8-bathroom house consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, this house devours nearly 221,000 kWh, more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, the house burned through 22,619 kWh, guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of this energy consumption, the average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Also, natural gas bills for this house and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. In total, this house had nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for 2006.
(Source: just about anywhere in the news last month online and on talk radio, but barely on TV.)
How about the Tennessee Center for Policy Research? I have never heard of them--but it is a start--here.
The PayOff? You guessed it: House 1 belongs to George and Laura Bush, and is in Crawford, Texas. House 2 belongs to Al and Tipper Gore, and is in Nashville, Tennessee.
Thanks to MB from Westlake Village, CA.
House 1:
The four-bedroom home was planned so that "every room has a relationship with something in the landscape that's different from the room next door. Each of the rooms feels like a slightly different place. The resulting single-story house is a paragon of environmental planning.
The passive-solar house is built of honey-colored native limestone and positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior walkways and walls of the 4,000-square-foot residence. Geothermal heat pumps circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground. These waters pass through a heat exchange system that keeps the home warm in winter and cool in summer.
A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof urns; Wastewater from sinks, toilets, and showers cascades into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is then used to irrigate the landscaping around the four-bedroom home, (which) uses indigenous grasses, shrubs, and flowers to complete the exterior treatment of the home. In addition to its minimal environmental impact, the look and layout of the house reflect one of the paramount priorities: relaxation.
A spacious 10-foot porch wraps completely around the residence and beckons the family outdoors. With few hallways to speak of, family and guests make their way from room to room either directly or by way of the porch. "The house doesn't hold you in. Where the porch ends there is grass. There is no step-up at all." This house consumes 25% of the energy of an average American home.
(Source: Cowboys and Indians Magazine, Oct. 2002 and Chicago Tribune April 2001. Here)
House 2:
This 20-room, 8-bathroom house consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, this house devours nearly 221,000 kWh, more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, the house burned through 22,619 kWh, guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of this energy consumption, the average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Also, natural gas bills for this house and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. In total, this house had nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for 2006.
(Source: just about anywhere in the news last month online and on talk radio, but barely on TV.)
How about the Tennessee Center for Policy Research? I have never heard of them--but it is a start--here.
The PayOff? You guessed it: House 1 belongs to George and Laura Bush, and is in Crawford, Texas. House 2 belongs to Al and Tipper Gore, and is in Nashville, Tennessee.
Thanks to MB from Westlake Village, CA.
17/01: Can Obama Win?
Category: Campaign 2008.1
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The question of the day on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning (January 17, 2007):
Is Barack Obama experienced enough to be President of the United States?
Not surprisingly, Democrats assured us that he is. Republicans hooted at his brief career in national politics.
The truth is that winning the presidency is a combination of timing and likeability. That is, the timing must be right for your brand of change. If you are running against a popular incumbent, the record indicates that a challenger, no matter how smart, no matter how articulate, no matter how handsome, does not fare well. Think Dwight Eisenhower is 1956; Ronald Reagan in 1984; Bill Clinton in 1996. Was there a challenger anywhere in America capable of diverting those landslide reelection victories?
On the other hand, if you are running against a failed incumbent, and the collective sense of the American people is that change is necessary, almost any candidate, no matter how formerly unknown or inexperienced, can win on the first Tuesday in November. After twelve years of Democratic Party rule, any candidate could have beaten Martin Van Buren in the aftermath of the Panic of 1837. Similarly, any candidate could have bested Herbert Hoover, broken on the wheel of economic depression, in 1932.
Much more fluid are elections in which there is no incumbent or heir apparent to an administration in power. We are approaching just such a rare election in 2008.
In these elections (this election), timing will be an important factor; that is, what is the zeitgeist of the American electorate? Does the economy drive the decision? National security? The national debt? Taxes? Integrity? These are all important factors.
But in this election in which there is no incumbent and no heir apparent, all things being equal, likeability will be an extremely strong determinant in the contest.
Do Americans care about experience? Not especially. Al Gore was much more experienced than George Bush, but Bush won the likeability contest by a wide margin (and, of course, John Kerry was incredibly unappealing). Jerry Ford was eminently more experienced and qualified to be president than Jimmy Carter--but Americans were ready for a change.
Henry Clay was the most qualified American statesman to never be president--but his accomplishments did not matter to Americans in 1844 when they elected virtually unknown James K. Polk over the Great Compromiser. J.Q. Adams boasted perhaps the finest record of public service in all our history--but he lost the popular vote in 1824 to the charismatic war hero, Andrew Jackson. JFK and LBJ in the Democratic contest for the nomination in 1960. JFK and Nixon in the general in 1960.
Moreover, add into the 2008 equation friendly media coverage of an Obama campaign, and you can easily envision how his inexperience could be an advantage. Voters tend to project their own views on fresh faces. In fact, during the modern era, extensive voting records have proved debilitating handicaps in media-driven elections.
I make no definite prediction here, but in answer to the question of whether Americans will elect an inexperienced person whom they like and to whom they can attach their optimism and desire for a change? Or can Barack Obama be elected? Bet the farm on it.
Note: Thanks to Citlalli for her consultation in the development of this post.
Is Barack Obama experienced enough to be President of the United States?
Not surprisingly, Democrats assured us that he is. Republicans hooted at his brief career in national politics.
The truth is that winning the presidency is a combination of timing and likeability. That is, the timing must be right for your brand of change. If you are running against a popular incumbent, the record indicates that a challenger, no matter how smart, no matter how articulate, no matter how handsome, does not fare well. Think Dwight Eisenhower is 1956; Ronald Reagan in 1984; Bill Clinton in 1996. Was there a challenger anywhere in America capable of diverting those landslide reelection victories?
On the other hand, if you are running against a failed incumbent, and the collective sense of the American people is that change is necessary, almost any candidate, no matter how formerly unknown or inexperienced, can win on the first Tuesday in November. After twelve years of Democratic Party rule, any candidate could have beaten Martin Van Buren in the aftermath of the Panic of 1837. Similarly, any candidate could have bested Herbert Hoover, broken on the wheel of economic depression, in 1932.
Much more fluid are elections in which there is no incumbent or heir apparent to an administration in power. We are approaching just such a rare election in 2008.
In these elections (this election), timing will be an important factor; that is, what is the zeitgeist of the American electorate? Does the economy drive the decision? National security? The national debt? Taxes? Integrity? These are all important factors.
But in this election in which there is no incumbent and no heir apparent, all things being equal, likeability will be an extremely strong determinant in the contest.
Do Americans care about experience? Not especially. Al Gore was much more experienced than George Bush, but Bush won the likeability contest by a wide margin (and, of course, John Kerry was incredibly unappealing). Jerry Ford was eminently more experienced and qualified to be president than Jimmy Carter--but Americans were ready for a change.
Henry Clay was the most qualified American statesman to never be president--but his accomplishments did not matter to Americans in 1844 when they elected virtually unknown James K. Polk over the Great Compromiser. J.Q. Adams boasted perhaps the finest record of public service in all our history--but he lost the popular vote in 1824 to the charismatic war hero, Andrew Jackson. JFK and LBJ in the Democratic contest for the nomination in 1960. JFK and Nixon in the general in 1960.
Moreover, add into the 2008 equation friendly media coverage of an Obama campaign, and you can easily envision how his inexperience could be an advantage. Voters tend to project their own views on fresh faces. In fact, during the modern era, extensive voting records have proved debilitating handicaps in media-driven elections.
I make no definite prediction here, but in answer to the question of whether Americans will elect an inexperienced person whom they like and to whom they can attach their optimism and desire for a change? Or can Barack Obama be elected? Bet the farm on it.
Note: Thanks to Citlalli for her consultation in the development of this post.
26/04: Conservative Bush Bashing
Friday morning Tocqueville pointed us to the most recent Peggy Noonan column, which asserted "confusion . . . followed by frustration . . . has turned into resentment" for President Bush, and not just among Beltway sharpies, but among the plain folks in the heart of Texas as well.
Today (Saturday) the Okie Gardener directed us to Scott Johnson of Powerline and his excellent retort: "Season of the Witch."
In light of this conversation, I am exercising my right to revise and extend my original comments from Friday on this topic:
Dateline: Waco, Texas
I stand by my love for Peggy Noonan. Many years ago the Gardener called her a national treasure. I agree wholeheartedly.
And I like the first two sections of her column: 1) frustrating procedures at the airports; and 2) Obama's problems with Middle America,
but the assertion in re Texans and Bush is balderdash.
Noonan: the people of Lubbock, Texas, "the heart of Texas conservatism...dislike President Bush. He has lost them. I was there and saw it."
Translation: "Peggy Noonan dislikes George Bush. He has lost her."
Ms. Noonan (God bless her) has been writing this same essay for two years now.
Here is what I see on the ground in the Waco, Texas (the true HOT):
Texans who are predisposed to like Bush and Republicans continue to admire Bush (albeit more discreetly, perhaps, than they once did).
Texans who are predisposed to hate Bush and all Republicans are much more empowered by the polls and the media to trash Bush in a louder more public way.
Pure Speculation: if Texans had another opportunity to vote for Bush in 2008 for president against Hillary, Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Al Gore, or even Bill Clinton, George Bush would garner 60-plus percent of the vote once again.
As for what Ms. Noonan (God bless her) purportedly sees, sometimes "a woman sees what she wants to see and disregards the rest."
You can't just fly in someplace, stay the night, give a speech, and purport to tell me what the folks of that particular hamlet "really think."
Also, as evidence buttressing her point, Noonan relates that her audiences don't challenge her on her Bush-bashing. I have the same experience when I say negative things about the President: a sheepish silence. However, if you look out and say, "but, you know, I still like the guy," you will see a lot (A LOT) of relieved faces and knowing smiles from people who want to tell you that they still like him too.
Is George W. Bush a classic conservative? No. Has he made a ten-gallon hat full of bonehead errors? Yes. Having said that, who was the conservative option in 2000? It is a stumper. Answer: the same candidate who was the conservative option in 2008. Nobody. Do any of us seriously believe that we are not infinitely better off with our current president than with the actual alternatives to George Bush in 2000 and 2004: Al Gore and John Kerry?
You want a real conservative? Go get one elected (you will need to find one first). But until then, show some backbone and be part of the solution. Everybody loves a winner. But sometimes you need to back a flawed but well-intentioned man doing his level best in a damned-near impossible situation--even if it is unpopular.
Today (Saturday) the Okie Gardener directed us to Scott Johnson of Powerline and his excellent retort: "Season of the Witch."
In light of this conversation, I am exercising my right to revise and extend my original comments from Friday on this topic:
Dateline: Waco, Texas
I stand by my love for Peggy Noonan. Many years ago the Gardener called her a national treasure. I agree wholeheartedly.
And I like the first two sections of her column: 1) frustrating procedures at the airports; and 2) Obama's problems with Middle America,
but the assertion in re Texans and Bush is balderdash.
Noonan: the people of Lubbock, Texas, "the heart of Texas conservatism...dislike President Bush. He has lost them. I was there and saw it."
Translation: "Peggy Noonan dislikes George Bush. He has lost her."
Ms. Noonan (God bless her) has been writing this same essay for two years now.
Here is what I see on the ground in the Waco, Texas (the true HOT):
Texans who are predisposed to like Bush and Republicans continue to admire Bush (albeit more discreetly, perhaps, than they once did).
Texans who are predisposed to hate Bush and all Republicans are much more empowered by the polls and the media to trash Bush in a louder more public way.
Pure Speculation: if Texans had another opportunity to vote for Bush in 2008 for president against Hillary, Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Al Gore, or even Bill Clinton, George Bush would garner 60-plus percent of the vote once again.
As for what Ms. Noonan (God bless her) purportedly sees, sometimes "a woman sees what she wants to see and disregards the rest."
You can't just fly in someplace, stay the night, give a speech, and purport to tell me what the folks of that particular hamlet "really think."
Also, as evidence buttressing her point, Noonan relates that her audiences don't challenge her on her Bush-bashing. I have the same experience when I say negative things about the President: a sheepish silence. However, if you look out and say, "but, you know, I still like the guy," you will see a lot (A LOT) of relieved faces and knowing smiles from people who want to tell you that they still like him too.
Is George W. Bush a classic conservative? No. Has he made a ten-gallon hat full of bonehead errors? Yes. Having said that, who was the conservative option in 2000? It is a stumper. Answer: the same candidate who was the conservative option in 2008. Nobody. Do any of us seriously believe that we are not infinitely better off with our current president than with the actual alternatives to George Bush in 2000 and 2004: Al Gore and John Kerry?
You want a real conservative? Go get one elected (you will need to find one first). But until then, show some backbone and be part of the solution. Everybody loves a winner. But sometimes you need to back a flawed but well-intentioned man doing his level best in a damned-near impossible situation--even if it is unpopular.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
1. Next year, unless I'm on really good meds, I may destroy store speakers playing Christmas music in October. Market Capitalism has won. Christmas, one of the old and important Christian festivals, in honor of the birth of the Messiah, fully human and fully divine, has been taken over by his archenemy Mammon.
2. I am noticing more and more people celebrating Christmas away from "home" in any sense: resorts, cruises, etc. Christmas started off being a festival of the churches and streets, then in 19th century America was moved into the homes, and now is being moved into entertainment venues. I guess since we now produce so little in the home--at Christmas buying all our candy and cookies and fruitcake and gifts--it is no surprise if we choose to purchase a holiday experience.
3. The weather this year gave more Americans a White Christmas. (Bring on the Al Gore jokes.) One cold winter does not disprove Global Warming. Watch the averages over the years, especially the average lows. Of course the earth's temperature has fluctuated throughout the history of the planet. That is not the issue. The issue is: is human activity affecting planetary temperatures along with natural factors? I am not aware of any scientist who questions the model--Carbon Dioxide helps to retain heat in the atmosphere. And, I do not know anyone who credibly doubts that humans have poured increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since industrialization started. So, have we put enough CO2 into the air to affect temperatures? That is the question. And since this is our only planet, let's be careful with it and err on the side of caution. In a century or so, saying "oops" could be a very bad thing.
4. I watched several Christmas specials this year, including some I had not seen before such as the movies The Polar Express and Elf. "You've got to believe!" In what? The "spirit of Christmas"? What is that? When Christmas is separated from the Christian Holy Day of Christ's birth, then what is there to be merry about?
2. I am noticing more and more people celebrating Christmas away from "home" in any sense: resorts, cruises, etc. Christmas started off being a festival of the churches and streets, then in 19th century America was moved into the homes, and now is being moved into entertainment venues. I guess since we now produce so little in the home--at Christmas buying all our candy and cookies and fruitcake and gifts--it is no surprise if we choose to purchase a holiday experience.
3. The weather this year gave more Americans a White Christmas. (Bring on the Al Gore jokes.) One cold winter does not disprove Global Warming. Watch the averages over the years, especially the average lows. Of course the earth's temperature has fluctuated throughout the history of the planet. That is not the issue. The issue is: is human activity affecting planetary temperatures along with natural factors? I am not aware of any scientist who questions the model--Carbon Dioxide helps to retain heat in the atmosphere. And, I do not know anyone who credibly doubts that humans have poured increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since industrialization started. So, have we put enough CO2 into the air to affect temperatures? That is the question. And since this is our only planet, let's be careful with it and err on the side of caution. In a century or so, saying "oops" could be a very bad thing.
4. I watched several Christmas specials this year, including some I had not seen before such as the movies The Polar Express and Elf. "You've got to believe!" In what? The "spirit of Christmas"? What is that? When Christmas is separated from the Christian Holy Day of Christ's birth, then what is there to be merry about?
25/10: Did You Know?
Has anybody noticed that many of the most reputable public opinion polls indicate that Barack Obama is set to garner the biggest white male vote for any Democratic Party candidate since Lyndon Johnson in 1964?
According to the Zogby-Reuters-C-SPAN poll, white and male voters are fairly evenly split between John McCain and Obama (both in the forties among "decideds")--with McCain holding a modest edge within both groups.
According to the same poll, 95 percent of African Americans report that they are likely to vote for Barack Obama. A staggering number—but not surprising in that this near monolithic statement of support would signal only a slight uptick from the past two elections: African Americans voted 92 percent and 88 percent for Al Gore and John Kerry, respectively, in 2000 and 2004.
More disappointing--but perhaps not surprising--huge numbers of Hispanics seem likely to vote for Obama as well. Many polls predict a twenty-to-thirty point drop off for McCain in 2008 from the Bush heights of 2000 and 2004. Some of that turnaround must be attributed to Obama's charisma and appeal as a minority candidate, but some of it, undoubtedly, is the mendacious Spanish-language ads depicting John McCain in league with the Talk Radio anti-immigration populist revolution of 2007. If voters had any sense of recent history, they would find these blatant lies so preposterous as to be hilarious. But, unfortunately, that particular "if" is a luxury we don't enjoy this election.
As many of you know, I tend to view George W. Bush as much more astute than the hapless buffoon he plays on TV. He certainly understood better than most that chasing off Hispanic voters was a bad idea for the GOP in the long term. It seems that those chickens are coming home to roost this time around.
But, back to the real point of this post, what does it mean for our "racist nation," if Barack Obama wins more white males than any other Democratic candidate of the post-New Deal era?
As I have said before, the liberal establishment in this country has a huge stake in the accepted notion that I am a racist. Why else would a middle-class American continue to vote Republican? Because I am a simpleton who does not understand my own interests. The GOP waves the bloody shirt of race hatred, homophobia, and evangelical sophistry in front of my face, and I revert to conditioned behavior.
Not too long ago America was "too racist" to elect Obama. But as his election grows more probable, we are now forced to endure the new explanation: white America is so desperate for a competent leader that there is no choice but to accept Obama. Economic fear trumps race prejudice. This assumption, by the way, rests on the well-known fact that Barack Obama is an expert on the economy.
All that noise aside, "whitey" turning out in record numbers to vote for the first serious African American candidate for president in our nation's 220 year history will speak loudly and clearly. Of course, the axis of disingenuousness, so invested in the image of virulent racism lurking in heart of Red-State America, will use every weapon in its vast arsenal to combat the notion of the United States as a place that actually hungers for racial justice and fairness.
At this point, who can bet against them?
According to the Zogby-Reuters-C-SPAN poll, white and male voters are fairly evenly split between John McCain and Obama (both in the forties among "decideds")--with McCain holding a modest edge within both groups.
According to the same poll, 95 percent of African Americans report that they are likely to vote for Barack Obama. A staggering number—but not surprising in that this near monolithic statement of support would signal only a slight uptick from the past two elections: African Americans voted 92 percent and 88 percent for Al Gore and John Kerry, respectively, in 2000 and 2004.
More disappointing--but perhaps not surprising--huge numbers of Hispanics seem likely to vote for Obama as well. Many polls predict a twenty-to-thirty point drop off for McCain in 2008 from the Bush heights of 2000 and 2004. Some of that turnaround must be attributed to Obama's charisma and appeal as a minority candidate, but some of it, undoubtedly, is the mendacious Spanish-language ads depicting John McCain in league with the Talk Radio anti-immigration populist revolution of 2007. If voters had any sense of recent history, they would find these blatant lies so preposterous as to be hilarious. But, unfortunately, that particular "if" is a luxury we don't enjoy this election.
As many of you know, I tend to view George W. Bush as much more astute than the hapless buffoon he plays on TV. He certainly understood better than most that chasing off Hispanic voters was a bad idea for the GOP in the long term. It seems that those chickens are coming home to roost this time around.
But, back to the real point of this post, what does it mean for our "racist nation," if Barack Obama wins more white males than any other Democratic candidate of the post-New Deal era?
As I have said before, the liberal establishment in this country has a huge stake in the accepted notion that I am a racist. Why else would a middle-class American continue to vote Republican? Because I am a simpleton who does not understand my own interests. The GOP waves the bloody shirt of race hatred, homophobia, and evangelical sophistry in front of my face, and I revert to conditioned behavior.
Not too long ago America was "too racist" to elect Obama. But as his election grows more probable, we are now forced to endure the new explanation: white America is so desperate for a competent leader that there is no choice but to accept Obama. Economic fear trumps race prejudice. This assumption, by the way, rests on the well-known fact that Barack Obama is an expert on the economy.
All that noise aside, "whitey" turning out in record numbers to vote for the first serious African American candidate for president in our nation's 220 year history will speak loudly and clearly. Of course, the axis of disingenuousness, so invested in the image of virulent racism lurking in heart of Red-State America, will use every weapon in its vast arsenal to combat the notion of the United States as a place that actually hungers for racial justice and fairness.
At this point, who can bet against them?
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Guest Blog: Tocqueville
These two comments appeared under posts over the last twenty-four hours from regular reader and contributor, Tocqueville--but I am convinced we will all benefit from a wider consideration of these two observations.
Hillary and Obama
Obama has proceeded under a golden aura of unquestioned veracity, and I guess it's true that no one in the MSM wants to be the first to point out a few things e.g. the dissonance between his let's-all-get-along sloganeering and his hard-left positions, between the bring-people-together rhetoric and a record empty of actually bringing people together.
Hillary has gotten kind treatment too. Her gaffe on the Pakistani election -- mistakenly assuming that Musharraf was running -- would have had the media screaming for a scalp if Bush or any of this year's R[epublican] candidates had done it. They swept it under the rug. Steinem's piece the other day was absurd -- a woman never is the front-runner, indeed -- the day before Hillary became the front-runner again, as she has been since before she announced! NB: Steinem's preferred candidate is a woman whose husband serially abuses powerless women, and her most important job to know, her qualifying experience if you will, has been the further abuse and if necessary the destruction of those same women. Steinem and Hillary are moral idiots.
John F. Kerry's endorsement of Obama
OK, so John Francois Kerry has endorsed B. Hussein Obama, an announcement for
which we have waited impatiently. Now the suspense mounts unbearably
and the larger and most momentous question becomes: "Whom will Dukakis
endorse?" The Free World awaits breathlessly. Stay tuned for McGovern and Mondale's endorsements.
One additional thought from a Waco Farmer: perhaps Kerry's endorsement of Obama will carry as much weight as Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean during the last cycle.
These two comments appeared under posts over the last twenty-four hours from regular reader and contributor, Tocqueville--but I am convinced we will all benefit from a wider consideration of these two observations.
Hillary and Obama
Obama has proceeded under a golden aura of unquestioned veracity, and I guess it's true that no one in the MSM wants to be the first to point out a few things e.g. the dissonance between his let's-all-get-along sloganeering and his hard-left positions, between the bring-people-together rhetoric and a record empty of actually bringing people together.
Hillary has gotten kind treatment too. Her gaffe on the Pakistani election -- mistakenly assuming that Musharraf was running -- would have had the media screaming for a scalp if Bush or any of this year's R[epublican] candidates had done it. They swept it under the rug. Steinem's piece the other day was absurd -- a woman never is the front-runner, indeed -- the day before Hillary became the front-runner again, as she has been since before she announced! NB: Steinem's preferred candidate is a woman whose husband serially abuses powerless women, and her most important job to know, her qualifying experience if you will, has been the further abuse and if necessary the destruction of those same women. Steinem and Hillary are moral idiots.
John F. Kerry's endorsement of Obama
OK, so John Francois Kerry has endorsed B. Hussein Obama, an announcement for
which we have waited impatiently. Now the suspense mounts unbearably
and the larger and most momentous question becomes: "Whom will Dukakis
endorse?" The Free World awaits breathlessly. Stay tuned for McGovern and Mondale's endorsements.
Tocqueville
One additional thought from a Waco Farmer: perhaps Kerry's endorsement of Obama will carry as much weight as Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean during the last cycle.
Anyone for an outlandishly premature prediction?
Hillary vs. Fred in a national campaign that comes down to the wire, with Clinton clipping Thompson by a nose.
The nominees:
Why Hillary? You have heard me on all this before: she has the organization, she is surrounded by the best and brightest brain trust, she is partnered with the ultimate Democratic Party rock star, and she has grit. That is, Mrs. Clinton is more manly (in the nineteenth century, Harvey Mansfield sense) than any of her opponents.
Clinton is NOT the most electable general election candidate in the Democratic primary race. Barack Obama would be virtually unstoppable next November. He is a nearly perfect general election candidate: handsome, fresh, charismatic, and the most credible agent of change. Edwards, too, would have a good chance at winning, as he is appealing, approachable, and telegenic. Under the protection of a mainstream media desperate for a Democratic victory, both of those men would be incredibly difficult to defeat.
But the Democrats don't see things that way. They are awfully hung up on Obama's race, wondering if America can elect a black man as the "Great White Father." As for Edwards, he has not been able to penetrate the two-person duel. At this point, it seems more and more a two-horse race, and Hillary is still the odds-on favorite.
Why Fred? Thompson is not the most conservative of the GOP hopefuls--but he is plenty conservative. He is not the most articulate of the candidates--but he is certainly affable and persuasive. He is not the most handsome man in the race--but his is a stately and sturdy countenance. He is not the most red-state Republican of the nomination contestants--but he speaks fluently the language of the heartland. No dramatic knockout here, but once primary voters add up their scorecards, Thompson wins easily on points. My guess is that Thompson emerges with the nomination as the realization spreads over the Republican faithful that he is the candidate with whom they are the most comfortable.
One cautionary note: no Southern candidate ever won banking solely on the South. The South always comes through for its favorite sons, but the victories down South have often come too little and too late. Think Al Gore in 1988 and John Edwards in 2004. Successful Southerners must necessarily score dramatic wins early in the contest outside the South (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George Bush). Bottom line: Fred cannot wait for Super-Duper Tuesday to make his move. He must have momentum (more than merely South Carolina) before February 5.
November 4, 2008? After a plodding race, with Hillary playing conservatively trying not to blow her advantages, and Fred inching up consistently over the course of a methodical and laconic campaign, the final weeks turn frantic. So much on the line. So close.
In the end, like Jerry Ford in 1976, Fred Thompson falls just short: 49.9 to 49.1. Hillary wins Ohio and a comfortable electoral margin of victory.
No guarantees here. But today that's my vision. We'll see what tomorrow looks like.
Hillary vs. Fred in a national campaign that comes down to the wire, with Clinton clipping Thompson by a nose.
The nominees:
Why Hillary? You have heard me on all this before: she has the organization, she is surrounded by the best and brightest brain trust, she is partnered with the ultimate Democratic Party rock star, and she has grit. That is, Mrs. Clinton is more manly (in the nineteenth century, Harvey Mansfield sense) than any of her opponents.
Clinton is NOT the most electable general election candidate in the Democratic primary race. Barack Obama would be virtually unstoppable next November. He is a nearly perfect general election candidate: handsome, fresh, charismatic, and the most credible agent of change. Edwards, too, would have a good chance at winning, as he is appealing, approachable, and telegenic. Under the protection of a mainstream media desperate for a Democratic victory, both of those men would be incredibly difficult to defeat.
But the Democrats don't see things that way. They are awfully hung up on Obama's race, wondering if America can elect a black man as the "Great White Father." As for Edwards, he has not been able to penetrate the two-person duel. At this point, it seems more and more a two-horse race, and Hillary is still the odds-on favorite.
Why Fred? Thompson is not the most conservative of the GOP hopefuls--but he is plenty conservative. He is not the most articulate of the candidates--but he is certainly affable and persuasive. He is not the most handsome man in the race--but his is a stately and sturdy countenance. He is not the most red-state Republican of the nomination contestants--but he speaks fluently the language of the heartland. No dramatic knockout here, but once primary voters add up their scorecards, Thompson wins easily on points. My guess is that Thompson emerges with the nomination as the realization spreads over the Republican faithful that he is the candidate with whom they are the most comfortable.
One cautionary note: no Southern candidate ever won banking solely on the South. The South always comes through for its favorite sons, but the victories down South have often come too little and too late. Think Al Gore in 1988 and John Edwards in 2004. Successful Southerners must necessarily score dramatic wins early in the contest outside the South (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George Bush). Bottom line: Fred cannot wait for Super-Duper Tuesday to make his move. He must have momentum (more than merely South Carolina) before February 5.
November 4, 2008? After a plodding race, with Hillary playing conservatively trying not to blow her advantages, and Fred inching up consistently over the course of a methodical and laconic campaign, the final weeks turn frantic. So much on the line. So close.
In the end, like Jerry Ford in 1976, Fred Thompson falls just short: 49.9 to 49.1. Hillary wins Ohio and a comfortable electoral margin of victory.
No guarantees here. But today that's my vision. We'll see what tomorrow looks like.
Amid all the noise in Washington, the President just hit the shot heard 'round the world.
As I noted last Friday, the President has out-maneuvered the Speaker and the Majority Leader and the anti-war, anti-Bush industrial complex. Nevertheless, I did not see any of the end-of-the-week rap-up shows even mention the Iraq funding impasse. The mainstream media are at a loss on how to cover this huge story, as it is so dramatically at variance with the prevailing template of a discredited President in free fall.
Of course, if the standoff had gone the other way, the MSM would have known exactly how to play it (in big, bold type): BUSH CAVES. Troops to Come Home.
As it is, for most of the day, the MSM have been reluctant to cover the impending announcements (hoping for a miracle, I suppose).
The news this morning: No Confidence Vote on Attorney General, THE IMMIGRATION BILL, the immigration bill-inspired conservative insurgency, Michael Moore Is Back, Jimmy Carter Pronounces Bush Worst Ever, AL GORE (and perhaps the Iraq funding bill may be approved without timelines).
Finally, after the formal announcement this afternoon, the NYT and the Washington Post ran front page articles and NPR led with this Harry Reid quote: "For heaven's sake, look where we've come. It's a lot more than the president ever expected he'd have to agree to."
Bottom Line: this is the most important moment of the year in politics thus far. Kudos to the President for standing firm. He is still in the cellar in terms of popularity. He is still opposed by two houses of Congress who want his scalp. He still has miles to go in the Middle East. But, having said that, he could have given up the ghost and lost everything on this showdown. He didn’t. Perhaps we only forestalled disaster, but, thankfully, today we did not lose everything.
As I noted last Friday, the President has out-maneuvered the Speaker and the Majority Leader and the anti-war, anti-Bush industrial complex. Nevertheless, I did not see any of the end-of-the-week rap-up shows even mention the Iraq funding impasse. The mainstream media are at a loss on how to cover this huge story, as it is so dramatically at variance with the prevailing template of a discredited President in free fall.
Of course, if the standoff had gone the other way, the MSM would have known exactly how to play it (in big, bold type): BUSH CAVES. Troops to Come Home.
As it is, for most of the day, the MSM have been reluctant to cover the impending announcements (hoping for a miracle, I suppose).
The news this morning: No Confidence Vote on Attorney General, THE IMMIGRATION BILL, the immigration bill-inspired conservative insurgency, Michael Moore Is Back, Jimmy Carter Pronounces Bush Worst Ever, AL GORE (and perhaps the Iraq funding bill may be approved without timelines).
Finally, after the formal announcement this afternoon, the NYT and the Washington Post ran front page articles and NPR led with this Harry Reid quote: "For heaven's sake, look where we've come. It's a lot more than the president ever expected he'd have to agree to."
Bottom Line: this is the most important moment of the year in politics thus far. Kudos to the President for standing firm. He is still in the cellar in terms of popularity. He is still opposed by two houses of Congress who want his scalp. He still has miles to go in the Middle East. But, having said that, he could have given up the ghost and lost everything on this showdown. He didn’t. Perhaps we only forestalled disaster, but, thankfully, today we did not lose everything.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Much has been made recently about "not counting the votes" in the 2004 Election. A few weeks ago, we were subjected to the crazy college kid who berated John Kerry for not contesting the re-election of George Bush.
Now Elizabeth Edwards reveals that she too was:
"very disappointed, not just because we did not count the votes, but because we promised people that if they stood in line and fought for the right to vote, that we would fight with them. And I was very disappointed that the decision was made by the campaign, over John’s [presumedly Edwards] objection, not to fight."
Source: the quote comes from an interview on Air America via a post on Politico here.
Reality Check: George Bush beat John Kerry by over 3,000,000 votes.
Granted, the rub is Ohio, where George Bush out-polled John Kerry by a mere 118,599 votes--but come on folks. If the Dems could have somehow gotten that 118, 599 vote advantage thrown out and won Ohio, which would have given John Kerry an electoral college victory, Kerry would have still lost the popular vote by 2,893,897.
Angry Democrats continue to call the Election of 2000--in which Al Gore out-polled Bush by 539,947 ballots but lost by 3 electoral votes--the "stolen" election. It escapes me how Mrs. Edwards and other nutcases can honestly posit that an election they lost by THREE MILLION VOTES was somehow given away in the hectic moments following the tally.
Give it a rest.
Now Elizabeth Edwards reveals that she too was:
"very disappointed, not just because we did not count the votes, but because we promised people that if they stood in line and fought for the right to vote, that we would fight with them. And I was very disappointed that the decision was made by the campaign, over John’s [presumedly Edwards] objection, not to fight."
Source: the quote comes from an interview on Air America via a post on Politico here.
Reality Check: George Bush beat John Kerry by over 3,000,000 votes.
Granted, the rub is Ohio, where George Bush out-polled John Kerry by a mere 118,599 votes--but come on folks. If the Dems could have somehow gotten that 118, 599 vote advantage thrown out and won Ohio, which would have given John Kerry an electoral college victory, Kerry would have still lost the popular vote by 2,893,897.
Angry Democrats continue to call the Election of 2000--in which Al Gore out-polled Bush by 539,947 ballots but lost by 3 electoral votes--the "stolen" election. It escapes me how Mrs. Edwards and other nutcases can honestly posit that an election they lost by THREE MILLION VOTES was somehow given away in the hectic moments following the tally.
Give it a rest.
21/08: Silly and Embarrassing
From MoveOn.org:
How many houses do you own? Most Americans could answer that question quite easily.
But John McCain couldn't remember yesterday when asked by reporters. It's actually kind of ridiculous. He paused and said, "I think—I'll have my staff get to you." (The correct answer? At least seven.)
This could be an election-defining moment—it's a reminder of just how out of touch John McCain is with the lives of regular Americans. We need to make sure every voter hears about it.
All the networks are gleefully reporting this new line of attack. Is it a "defining" moment? Maybe. Elections are funny things. This thrust is undoubtedly going to enjoy the full support of the prObama mainstream media.
But what's the point, really? Are we now not allowing rich guys to be president?
How many houses does John Kerry have? How many houses does the Kennedy family own? How many houses does Al Gore own? How many houses did FDR own?
Less than seven? More than seven?
Nearly thirty years ago, John McCain married a beautiful young woman from a rich family. Does Barack "I'll take the high road" Obama really think that fact is an election-defining moment?
You never know how these things are going to play--but my guess is that most people will see this desperation shot as embarrassing (to Obama). My second prediction: no one in the mainstream media will see the attack as anything less than legitimate. And that's the way it is.
How many houses do you own? Most Americans could answer that question quite easily.
But John McCain couldn't remember yesterday when asked by reporters. It's actually kind of ridiculous. He paused and said, "I think—I'll have my staff get to you." (The correct answer? At least seven.)
This could be an election-defining moment—it's a reminder of just how out of touch John McCain is with the lives of regular Americans. We need to make sure every voter hears about it.
All the networks are gleefully reporting this new line of attack. Is it a "defining" moment? Maybe. Elections are funny things. This thrust is undoubtedly going to enjoy the full support of the prObama mainstream media.
But what's the point, really? Are we now not allowing rich guys to be president?
How many houses does John Kerry have? How many houses does the Kennedy family own? How many houses does Al Gore own? How many houses did FDR own?
Less than seven? More than seven?
Nearly thirty years ago, John McCain married a beautiful young woman from a rich family. Does Barack "I'll take the high road" Obama really think that fact is an election-defining moment?
You never know how these things are going to play--but my guess is that most people will see this desperation shot as embarrassing (to Obama). My second prediction: no one in the mainstream media will see the attack as anything less than legitimate. And that's the way it is.
Sidebar
