29/09: Texas 17 Analysis
Texas 17 pits incumbent Chet Edwards (D) versus Van Taylor (R).
For some background on my take on this race, you might want to read my post from last spring. To briefly summarize: Chet Edwards is a resilient Democratic Congressman in an increasingly Republican district (even more GOP as a result of Tom Delay's celebrated redistricting plan). Edwards stays on top of the tiger with hard work and conservative votes. Van Taylor is the most attractive candidate Edwards has faced in years. He is a young, Harvard-educated, Marine veteran of Iraq and family man. His biggest problem is that his roots in Central Texas are very shallow.
Where are we right now? Congressman Edwards is the overwhelming winner in the "yard signs" race in Waco. Waco is the largest community in the district and part of the old "District 11," which Edwards represented for fourteen years. Waco is incredibly loyal to Edwards (or "Chet," as most folks say) and will go in a big way for the incumbent.
But the key for a Republican candidate in this district (see insert), which stretches from Waco up the I-35W corridor into the outskirts of Fort Worth and then south of Waco slides off the I-35 corridor southeast into "redder" communities, is winning big enough outside of Waco to make up for Chet's huge advantage in his old territory. While the old Texas 11 remains loyal, many of the voters of Texas 17 are much less familiar with Edwards and not especially sympathetic toward the national Democratic party.
In 2004, when the district went 69 percent for President Bush (who is registered to vote in McLennan County) Edwards eked out a victory over a lackluster opponent. It is likely that Republicans will not run nearly as strong anywhere in the area this time around with the President off the ballot. Presumably, if Edwards could hold off a Republican challenge last cycle, he should be in shape to win again in the midterm.
However, the conventional wisdom does not take into account how hard-charging Van Taylor seems to be. To repeat, he is an attractive candidate with national backing and plenty of money. Both campaigns have gone negative (anecdotally, I hear more complaints about Taylor than Edwards).
Taylor must overcome the "outsider" image. He is not from Waco. Mudslinging is one thing--but coming from someplace else to mudsling against "our Congressman" is harder to stomach. There is no good answer on that one. Shake a lot of hands, talk Central Texan as much as possible, tell the folks how much you love the place and cross your fingers.
Taylor must also overcome that Edwards votes with the President more than many Republicans do. It is almost impossible to find a wedge issue on Iraq, terrorism, gun control, support for the military, etc. Edwards has some vulnerability on abortion, but, even there, his position is hard to hit squarely. For voters to unseat Edwards, they will need to decide to send home an eight-term Congressman with a conservative voting record for someone about whom they know nearly nothing.
Why do I think it will be closer than the conventional wisdom suggests?
Van Taylor is trying very hard to "nationalize" this election. He is currently running a campaign ad that features John Kerry. Nationalizing the election may be poor strategy for Republicans around the country, but here, in Central Texas, especially in the more rural counties, anti-Kerry, anti-Ted Kennedy, anti-Democratic party sentiment is very powerful. Associating yourself with the Republican party and President Bush, and reminding your voters that your opponent answers to Nancy Pelosi, plays very well.
Most likely, Congressman Edwards will continue to represent Texas 17, but I am convinced that this is no cake-walk.
For some background on my take on this race, you might want to read my post from last spring. To briefly summarize: Chet Edwards is a resilient Democratic Congressman in an increasingly Republican district (even more GOP as a result of Tom Delay's celebrated redistricting plan). Edwards stays on top of the tiger with hard work and conservative votes. Van Taylor is the most attractive candidate Edwards has faced in years. He is a young, Harvard-educated, Marine veteran of Iraq and family man. His biggest problem is that his roots in Central Texas are very shallow.
Where are we right now? Congressman Edwards is the overwhelming winner in the "yard signs" race in Waco. Waco is the largest community in the district and part of the old "District 11," which Edwards represented for fourteen years. Waco is incredibly loyal to Edwards (or "Chet," as most folks say) and will go in a big way for the incumbent.
But the key for a Republican candidate in this district (see insert), which stretches from Waco up the I-35W corridor into the outskirts of Fort Worth and then south of Waco slides off the I-35 corridor southeast into "redder" communities, is winning big enough outside of Waco to make up for Chet's huge advantage in his old territory. While the old Texas 11 remains loyal, many of the voters of Texas 17 are much less familiar with Edwards and not especially sympathetic toward the national Democratic party.
In 2004, when the district went 69 percent for President Bush (who is registered to vote in McLennan County) Edwards eked out a victory over a lackluster opponent. It is likely that Republicans will not run nearly as strong anywhere in the area this time around with the President off the ballot. Presumably, if Edwards could hold off a Republican challenge last cycle, he should be in shape to win again in the midterm.
However, the conventional wisdom does not take into account how hard-charging Van Taylor seems to be. To repeat, he is an attractive candidate with national backing and plenty of money. Both campaigns have gone negative (anecdotally, I hear more complaints about Taylor than Edwards).
Taylor must overcome the "outsider" image. He is not from Waco. Mudslinging is one thing--but coming from someplace else to mudsling against "our Congressman" is harder to stomach. There is no good answer on that one. Shake a lot of hands, talk Central Texan as much as possible, tell the folks how much you love the place and cross your fingers.
Taylor must also overcome that Edwards votes with the President more than many Republicans do. It is almost impossible to find a wedge issue on Iraq, terrorism, gun control, support for the military, etc. Edwards has some vulnerability on abortion, but, even there, his position is hard to hit squarely. For voters to unseat Edwards, they will need to decide to send home an eight-term Congressman with a conservative voting record for someone about whom they know nearly nothing.
Why do I think it will be closer than the conventional wisdom suggests?
Van Taylor is trying very hard to "nationalize" this election. He is currently running a campaign ad that features John Kerry. Nationalizing the election may be poor strategy for Republicans around the country, but here, in Central Texas, especially in the more rural counties, anti-Kerry, anti-Ted Kennedy, anti-Democratic party sentiment is very powerful. Associating yourself with the Republican party and President Bush, and reminding your voters that your opponent answers to Nancy Pelosi, plays very well.
Most likely, Congressman Edwards will continue to represent Texas 17, but I am convinced that this is no cake-walk.
Category: Texas 17
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The Waco Tribune-Herald, my home-town newspaper, has called Chet Edwards "one of Texas' most resilient Democrats." Edwards was the only one of six targeted Democratic incumbents in Texas to survive the much celebrated Tom Delay-orchestrated redistricting of 2003. He held off his Republican challenger in the tight race that followed in 2004, while the district went for President Bush with 69 percent of the vote. In 2006, Edwards whipped the GOP candidate by 18 points.
FYI: Edwards represents Texas 17, which includes the President's ranch in Crawford. This is Bush country (even now); and Representative Edwards is literally the President's congressman. He is also my congressman and the first Democrat for whom I can remember voting. And, like many of my fellow Republicans in Central Texas, I have voted for him consistently over the years.
How has a Democrat succeeded consistently in an increasingly, overwhelmingly Republican district?
1. He has a good (and justly earned) reputation in the community for working hard to service constituents, and he has skillfully distanced himself from the mainstream of his party on the issues that alienate many Central Texans. Back during the last campaign, when a Democratic House looked likely, Congressman Edwards wouldn't even admit that he was going to vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker.
2. More importantly, Edwards has stayed on top of the tiger with conservative votes. Up until a few months ago, the President could hardly have asked for a more loyal congressman.
But that has changed. In January, he voted for the non-binding resolution "disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq." And, recently, he cast his vote to support the Democratic timetable to withdraw American troops by August of 2008.
Change of heart? If so, it has been a swift one. He gave no indication that he would break with his history of voting in support of the President on the war during the last election. These two votes are not at all in keeping with how I understood his position last November.
Change of heart? If so, it has been a peculiar one. Representative Edwards has not issued a full-throated explanation. His March 23 public statement emphasized his vote for "full funding" for the troops, the added "flexibility for the Commander-in-Chief," and his support for the plan put forward by "former President Bush’s Secretary of State Jim Baker." His statement did not mention the current President Bush by name, and it criticized Speaker Pelosi and anti-war hero John Murtha.
From the statement his office released on March 23 (in full here):
In February, Edwards spoke out publicly and led the opposition to proposals put forward by Congressman John Murtha and Speaker Nancy Pelosi that would have limited the president’s constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief. As a result of Edwards’ efforts, a waiver was included in the bill to allow the president the flexibility to manage the war and troop rotations.
“I was one of the first to speak out publicly on proposals I thought would overly restrict the Commander-in-Chief’s ability to manage troop rotations. The bill now fully funds the president’s troop surge in Iraq while refocusing our mission there to fighting terrorists, training Iraqi security forces and increasing efforts to fight the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.”
This is confusing at best. Maybe even outright disingenuous.
What happened?
I doubt Congressman Edwards is jumping off this cliff willingly. I would like to know how much pressure the Speaker and Democratic Leadership exerted on these votes.
The Congressman's rhetoric (which obfuscates the meaning of his vote) leads me to believe that he sees himself on very shaky ground with the Texas 17 voters.
It is possible that he was ill-served by his big margin of victory in the last election. He won by nearly 20 points in the last election. I can imagine that he is hard-pressed to make the case with Speaker Pelosi that he must buck leadership out of self-preservation.
My guess is that the next election in this district will be much more partisan than the last few. Edwards will not be able to run away from mainstream Democrats next time, as he is currently towing the party line in a big way.
Legendary UT football coach, Darrell Royal, famously advised: "You've got to dance with who brung you." I regret that Congressman Edwards is changing partners at this crucial juncture.
FYI: Edwards represents Texas 17, which includes the President's ranch in Crawford. This is Bush country (even now); and Representative Edwards is literally the President's congressman. He is also my congressman and the first Democrat for whom I can remember voting. And, like many of my fellow Republicans in Central Texas, I have voted for him consistently over the years.
How has a Democrat succeeded consistently in an increasingly, overwhelmingly Republican district?
1. He has a good (and justly earned) reputation in the community for working hard to service constituents, and he has skillfully distanced himself from the mainstream of his party on the issues that alienate many Central Texans. Back during the last campaign, when a Democratic House looked likely, Congressman Edwards wouldn't even admit that he was going to vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker.
2. More importantly, Edwards has stayed on top of the tiger with conservative votes. Up until a few months ago, the President could hardly have asked for a more loyal congressman.
But that has changed. In January, he voted for the non-binding resolution "disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq." And, recently, he cast his vote to support the Democratic timetable to withdraw American troops by August of 2008.
Change of heart? If so, it has been a swift one. He gave no indication that he would break with his history of voting in support of the President on the war during the last election. These two votes are not at all in keeping with how I understood his position last November.
Change of heart? If so, it has been a peculiar one. Representative Edwards has not issued a full-throated explanation. His March 23 public statement emphasized his vote for "full funding" for the troops, the added "flexibility for the Commander-in-Chief," and his support for the plan put forward by "former President Bush’s Secretary of State Jim Baker." His statement did not mention the current President Bush by name, and it criticized Speaker Pelosi and anti-war hero John Murtha.
From the statement his office released on March 23 (in full here):
In February, Edwards spoke out publicly and led the opposition to proposals put forward by Congressman John Murtha and Speaker Nancy Pelosi that would have limited the president’s constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief. As a result of Edwards’ efforts, a waiver was included in the bill to allow the president the flexibility to manage the war and troop rotations.
“I was one of the first to speak out publicly on proposals I thought would overly restrict the Commander-in-Chief’s ability to manage troop rotations. The bill now fully funds the president’s troop surge in Iraq while refocusing our mission there to fighting terrorists, training Iraqi security forces and increasing efforts to fight the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.”
This is confusing at best. Maybe even outright disingenuous.
What happened?
I doubt Congressman Edwards is jumping off this cliff willingly. I would like to know how much pressure the Speaker and Democratic Leadership exerted on these votes.
The Congressman's rhetoric (which obfuscates the meaning of his vote) leads me to believe that he sees himself on very shaky ground with the Texas 17 voters.
It is possible that he was ill-served by his big margin of victory in the last election. He won by nearly 20 points in the last election. I can imagine that he is hard-pressed to make the case with Speaker Pelosi that he must buck leadership out of self-preservation.
My guess is that the next election in this district will be much more partisan than the last few. Edwards will not be able to run away from mainstream Democrats next time, as he is currently towing the party line in a big way.
Legendary UT football coach, Darrell Royal, famously advised: "You've got to dance with who brung you." I regret that Congressman Edwards is changing partners at this crucial juncture.
Texas 17 Representative Chet Edwards is a resilient Democrat in an increasingly overwhelmingly Republican district. The district, which includes the President's ranch in Crawford, went for Bush in 2004 with 69 percent of the vote. Edwards has stayed on top of the tiger with hard work and conservative votes.
To repeat what I said last Friday, Edwards is a center-right Democrat I admire, and one for whom I have consistently voted. Disappointingly, he voted for the House timetable last week. The next congressional election in Central Texas should be interesting.
Painfully aware of how precarious his position in Texas 17 with votes such as these, here is how he explained his actions in a recent press release. By the way, much of the release made it into the Waco Tribune (here), not merely as quotes, but also as content. It helps to have a friendly local paper.
The Title of the Press Release:
Edwards: Iraq Bill Supports U.S. Combat Troops & Veterans, and Tells Iraqi Politicians to Take More Responsibility for Nation’s Future
How his office characterized his vote:
"U.S. Representative Chet Edwards today supported House passage of the $124 billion emergency war funding bill that gives the president and military commanders the flexibility and funds they need to carry out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Huh?
"This bill fully funds our U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan..."
Correct, but...
"...and sends a message to Iraqi political leaders that it is time for them to take responsibility for their own nation’s future."
Is that the message?
"This bill does not authorize an immediate withdrawal."
Thank God for small favors.
"I voted against immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops and led the effort to give the Commander-in-Chief critical flexibility in managing troop rotations. I believe this is a reasonable, balanced approach that improves the chances for victory in Iraq.”
So, the President must be for this then, right?
"As recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group headed by former President Bush’s Secretary of State Jim Baker, Edwards supported provisions in the bill to refocus the U.S. military mission in Iraq and Afghanistan to prioritize fighting terrorism and the training of Iraqi security forces, and redeploy U.S. combat forces in Iraq by August 2008 to accomplish this goal."
So, again, the Bushes must be all for this then, right?
"In February, Edwards spoke out publicly and led the opposition to proposals put forward by Congressman John Murtha and Speaker Nancy Pelosi that would have limited the president’s constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief."
Wow, Murtha and Pelosi must be really mad at him right now. But why all the high-fives?
Analysis: As I say, I like Chet Edwards. But this vote (and his vote for the non-binding resolution "disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq") comes as a shock to me.
Back during the last campaign, Congressman Edwards wouldn't even admit that he was going to vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker. He gave no indication that he would break with his history of voting in support of the President on the war. These two votes, notwithstanding his lame attempt to cast them as something they are not, are not at all in keeping with how I understood his position last November.
I am anxious to see how this plays out during the next election cycle.
To repeat what I said last Friday, Edwards is a center-right Democrat I admire, and one for whom I have consistently voted. Disappointingly, he voted for the House timetable last week. The next congressional election in Central Texas should be interesting.
Painfully aware of how precarious his position in Texas 17 with votes such as these, here is how he explained his actions in a recent press release. By the way, much of the release made it into the Waco Tribune (here), not merely as quotes, but also as content. It helps to have a friendly local paper.
The Title of the Press Release:
Edwards: Iraq Bill Supports U.S. Combat Troops & Veterans, and Tells Iraqi Politicians to Take More Responsibility for Nation’s Future
How his office characterized his vote:
"U.S. Representative Chet Edwards today supported House passage of the $124 billion emergency war funding bill that gives the president and military commanders the flexibility and funds they need to carry out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Huh?
"This bill fully funds our U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan..."
Correct, but...
"...and sends a message to Iraqi political leaders that it is time for them to take responsibility for their own nation’s future."
Is that the message?
"This bill does not authorize an immediate withdrawal."
Thank God for small favors.
"I voted against immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops and led the effort to give the Commander-in-Chief critical flexibility in managing troop rotations. I believe this is a reasonable, balanced approach that improves the chances for victory in Iraq.”
So, the President must be for this then, right?
"As recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group headed by former President Bush’s Secretary of State Jim Baker, Edwards supported provisions in the bill to refocus the U.S. military mission in Iraq and Afghanistan to prioritize fighting terrorism and the training of Iraqi security forces, and redeploy U.S. combat forces in Iraq by August 2008 to accomplish this goal."
So, again, the Bushes must be all for this then, right?
"In February, Edwards spoke out publicly and led the opposition to proposals put forward by Congressman John Murtha and Speaker Nancy Pelosi that would have limited the president’s constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief."
Wow, Murtha and Pelosi must be really mad at him right now. But why all the high-fives?
Analysis: As I say, I like Chet Edwards. But this vote (and his vote for the non-binding resolution "disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq") comes as a shock to me.
Back during the last campaign, Congressman Edwards wouldn't even admit that he was going to vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker. He gave no indication that he would break with his history of voting in support of the President on the war. These two votes, notwithstanding his lame attempt to cast them as something they are not, are not at all in keeping with how I understood his position last November.
I am anxious to see how this plays out during the next election cycle.
This headline in the Washington Post today:
"Three Top Democrats Share Lead In Iowa Poll;
Clinton, Obama, Edwards Are Tied"
Jon Cohen and Dan Balz report:
"Less than six months before Iowa voters open the 2008 presidential nomination battles, the Democratic contest in the Hawkeye State is a deadlock, with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards in a virtual tie for first place, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll."
The full story here.
My Analysis in brief:
1. It is still very early--but this race (especially in Iowa) seems to be taking shape. These polls are starting to count.
2. Bad news for Edwards. This is the state in which he is best-positioned for success. He is well-known, popular, and a proven vote getter in Iowa. More importantly, this is the state on which he has placed all his chips.
I have already recorded my skepticism on this strategy, but Edwards is hoping to win in Iowa, generate a groundswell of momentum, and ride the wave of victory in the caucus to victory in the other state primaries that closely follow.
To review: this is a long shot at best, as the caucus in Iowa will probably have much less positive influence on underdogs as in times past. Why? The primaries are configured in a completely different way this time around. They are frontloaded and compressed, which requires a massive and powerful organization to compete everywhere simultaneously. This is not good for insurgent campaigns.
Having said that, Edwards is now losing momentum in Iowa--where he must emerge as surprisingly strong to have any chance. You may ask if this is the chicken or the egg, but, ironically, this new three-way poll affirms the recently emergent storyline of a two-horse race.
3. Good news for Hillary. A few weeks ago she was squelching rumors that she would not contest Iowa. As the Post story contends, and as the Okie Gardener's onsite reporting asserted, Iowa is not a good fit for the Clinton candidacy. She does not play well in Peoria. That is, Iowans seem unimpressed, suspicious, and unfriendly to her personally.
However, she is grinding this one out: four yards and a cloud of dust. There was much discussion a while back regarding Bill's coming to Iowa. The punditry wondered: Was this too soon? Probably not. Switching sports analogies: start your ace in game one, and you can possibly start him again in four and seven. Bring the heat early and often. All that to say, the Clinton team realizes Iowa is big. Bill Clinton might make the difference in a close race; it would be foolish to leave him on the bench.
The bottom line: Candidate Clinton can overcome a loss in Iowa, because she has the best organization. She is prepared to compete in every state primary over the following three weeks. However, a win in Iowa would be huge for her. She can overcome a loss in Iowa--but a win might clinch the aura of inevitability.
With Certainty: If John Edwards does not win Iowa, he is finished.
Less Certain: Barack Obama. If the Illinois senator, a favorite son from a neighboring state does not win in Iowa, he will be damaged. However, he will have plenty of money with which to dust himself off, get back in the race, and go on to New Hampshire et al with vigor.
One other note of interest: Bill Richardson broke through to double digits in this poll. Insiders see Richardson as a serious person. Perhaps this gives him hope in the VP derby or for a top cabinet slot.
UPDATE: A big Texas welcome to Instapundit readers. Browse around and make yourself at home. For other stories of possible interest, click above on "Campaign 2008" or here and scroll down.
Also, for a view of the FISA vote in the Senate last night, see here.
"Three Top Democrats Share Lead In Iowa Poll;
Clinton, Obama, Edwards Are Tied"
Jon Cohen and Dan Balz report:
"Less than six months before Iowa voters open the 2008 presidential nomination battles, the Democratic contest in the Hawkeye State is a deadlock, with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards in a virtual tie for first place, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll."
The full story here.
My Analysis in brief:
1. It is still very early--but this race (especially in Iowa) seems to be taking shape. These polls are starting to count.
2. Bad news for Edwards. This is the state in which he is best-positioned for success. He is well-known, popular, and a proven vote getter in Iowa. More importantly, this is the state on which he has placed all his chips.
I have already recorded my skepticism on this strategy, but Edwards is hoping to win in Iowa, generate a groundswell of momentum, and ride the wave of victory in the caucus to victory in the other state primaries that closely follow.
To review: this is a long shot at best, as the caucus in Iowa will probably have much less positive influence on underdogs as in times past. Why? The primaries are configured in a completely different way this time around. They are frontloaded and compressed, which requires a massive and powerful organization to compete everywhere simultaneously. This is not good for insurgent campaigns.
Having said that, Edwards is now losing momentum in Iowa--where he must emerge as surprisingly strong to have any chance. You may ask if this is the chicken or the egg, but, ironically, this new three-way poll affirms the recently emergent storyline of a two-horse race.
3. Good news for Hillary. A few weeks ago she was squelching rumors that she would not contest Iowa. As the Post story contends, and as the Okie Gardener's onsite reporting asserted, Iowa is not a good fit for the Clinton candidacy. She does not play well in Peoria. That is, Iowans seem unimpressed, suspicious, and unfriendly to her personally.
However, she is grinding this one out: four yards and a cloud of dust. There was much discussion a while back regarding Bill's coming to Iowa. The punditry wondered: Was this too soon? Probably not. Switching sports analogies: start your ace in game one, and you can possibly start him again in four and seven. Bring the heat early and often. All that to say, the Clinton team realizes Iowa is big. Bill Clinton might make the difference in a close race; it would be foolish to leave him on the bench.
The bottom line: Candidate Clinton can overcome a loss in Iowa, because she has the best organization. She is prepared to compete in every state primary over the following three weeks. However, a win in Iowa would be huge for her. She can overcome a loss in Iowa--but a win might clinch the aura of inevitability.
With Certainty: If John Edwards does not win Iowa, he is finished.
Less Certain: Barack Obama. If the Illinois senator, a favorite son from a neighboring state does not win in Iowa, he will be damaged. However, he will have plenty of money with which to dust himself off, get back in the race, and go on to New Hampshire et al with vigor.
One other note of interest: Bill Richardson broke through to double digits in this poll. Insiders see Richardson as a serious person. Perhaps this gives him hope in the VP derby or for a top cabinet slot.
UPDATE: A big Texas welcome to Instapundit readers. Browse around and make yourself at home. For other stories of possible interest, click above on "Campaign 2008" or here and scroll down.
Also, for a view of the FISA vote in the Senate last night, see here.
The day before all Hell broke lose regarding The Speech, Ron Fournier filed a story for the AP in which he claimed, Obama "bordered on arrogance."
Fournier:
"If arrogance is a display of self-importance and superiority, Obama earns the pejorative every time he calls his pre-invasion opposition to the war in Iraq an act of courage.
"While he deserves credit for forecasting the complications of war in 2002, Obama's opposition carried scant political risk because he was a little-known state lawmaker courting liberal voters in Illinois. In 2004, when denouncing the war and war-enabling Democrats would have jeopardized his prized speaking role at the Democratic National Convention, Obama ducked the issue.
"It may be that he has just the right mix of confidence and humility to lead the nation (Obama likes to say, 'I'm reminded every day that I'm not a perfect man'). But if the young senator wins the nomination, even the smallest trace of arrogance will be an issue with voters who still consider him a blank slate."
The Speech swept this trenchant observation piece away on a tidal wave of immediate analysis specific to the unfolding crisis--but Fournier, as always, was spot-on when it comes to character study.
An Aside: Fournier is an equal-opportunity iconoclast, unrelentingly fair and impartial as he is blistering in his critiques. You may remember these earlier pieces critical to the Clintons, which were devastatingly perceptive: here and here.
Now we learn somewhat inadvertently from John Heilemann, writing a "will she or won't she for the good of the party" piece for New York Magazine, that Obama clumsily squandered a logical John Edwards endorsement back in February.
How did he boot the fairly routine play?
According to Heilemann, "Obama came across as glib and aloof" with the vanquished but still very proud couple:
"His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate."
One more piece of anecdotal evidence. Several of my female colleagues (not all of them Hillary supporters) have been telling me for months now that Obama is too arrogant and patronizing.
In terms of arrogance, ironically, Obama is reminiscent of George Bush in 2000 in that both men emerged inexperienced and relatively unknown--but likable and supremely confident. Like Senator Obama, Governor Bush marshaled his light resume as an asset: he would set a "new tone" in Washington and be a "uniter not a divider." Of course, a suspicious press corps raised the specter of "gravitas" in 2000, and Mr. Bush faced nagging questions back then regarding his "smirk" and his "swagger." Thus far, for the most part, Candidate Obama has fairly skirted similar pejorative personality assessments.
But perhaps the honeymoon is coming to an end. Perhaps "arrogance" is the next nettlesome hurdle for the junior senator from Illinois.
Fournier:
"If arrogance is a display of self-importance and superiority, Obama earns the pejorative every time he calls his pre-invasion opposition to the war in Iraq an act of courage.
"While he deserves credit for forecasting the complications of war in 2002, Obama's opposition carried scant political risk because he was a little-known state lawmaker courting liberal voters in Illinois. In 2004, when denouncing the war and war-enabling Democrats would have jeopardized his prized speaking role at the Democratic National Convention, Obama ducked the issue.
"It may be that he has just the right mix of confidence and humility to lead the nation (Obama likes to say, 'I'm reminded every day that I'm not a perfect man'). But if the young senator wins the nomination, even the smallest trace of arrogance will be an issue with voters who still consider him a blank slate."
The Speech swept this trenchant observation piece away on a tidal wave of immediate analysis specific to the unfolding crisis--but Fournier, as always, was spot-on when it comes to character study.
An Aside: Fournier is an equal-opportunity iconoclast, unrelentingly fair and impartial as he is blistering in his critiques. You may remember these earlier pieces critical to the Clintons, which were devastatingly perceptive: here and here.
Now we learn somewhat inadvertently from John Heilemann, writing a "will she or won't she for the good of the party" piece for New York Magazine, that Obama clumsily squandered a logical John Edwards endorsement back in February.
How did he boot the fairly routine play?
According to Heilemann, "Obama came across as glib and aloof" with the vanquished but still very proud couple:
"His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate."
One more piece of anecdotal evidence. Several of my female colleagues (not all of them Hillary supporters) have been telling me for months now that Obama is too arrogant and patronizing.
In terms of arrogance, ironically, Obama is reminiscent of George Bush in 2000 in that both men emerged inexperienced and relatively unknown--but likable and supremely confident. Like Senator Obama, Governor Bush marshaled his light resume as an asset: he would set a "new tone" in Washington and be a "uniter not a divider." Of course, a suspicious press corps raised the specter of "gravitas" in 2000, and Mr. Bush faced nagging questions back then regarding his "smirk" and his "swagger." Thus far, for the most part, Candidate Obama has fairly skirted similar pejorative personality assessments.
But perhaps the honeymoon is coming to an end. Perhaps "arrogance" is the next nettlesome hurdle for the junior senator from Illinois.
16/11: The CNN Debate
Category: Campaign 2008.6
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Some quick notes on the Democratic debate in Las Vegas (the rebroadcast of which I watched beginning at 5:35 this morning on C-SPAN2):
1. When Barack Obama finally had to answer the "driver's license for illegals" question, his position proved even more confusing and seemingly half-baked (even with two weeks to think about it) than Mrs. Clinton's now famous hiccup.
2. All candidates seem to agree that if we just get the federal government MORE involved in education, everything will be coming up roses. Most of them don't like "no child left behind," which up until now has been the most extensive federal intervention in education ever. Why? The current program is tainted by Bush fingerprints. No surprise there. One thing on which they all agree: the President has never done anything right. But they all promise to get a centrally managed national education infrastructure off the ground and correctly supervised, which will solve all current problems. By the way, they also agree that the teachers unions are doing a heckuva job.
3. Bill Richardson said (in essence, twice) "democracy and human rights" in foreign lands trumped vital national interests. Obama and a few others said we could do both. The adults (Hillary Clinton being one of them) explained that our hallowed American principles should drive foreign policy, and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive with national interest--but, sometimes, they diverge. When this happens, a president takes an oath to protect national interests (not promote democracy and human rights abroad). It was a telling exchange.
4. Richardson, Kucinich, and Obama all called the "surge" a failed strategy and called for an immediate withdrawal of US troops in Iraq. Mercifully, Clinton was not asked to comment on the obvious success of the surge. I would have liked to hear her answer.
5. Hillary nailed the "gender card" response. Wolf Blitzer asked if anyone else wanted to follow her. Everyone but John Edwards wisely stayed mum. Edwards, the most feminine candidate on the stage, prattled on a bit about equality and fairness and then tailed off. Did I hear a niner in there?
6. Hillary is back. Obama and Edwards are where they have always been (number two and a distant third, respectively).
7. CNN was okay. Wolf Blitzer is not nearly as talented as Tim Russert or Brian Williams, but he is a pleasant fellow. The audience participation portion was worthless. Anyone want to talk about questions that are stiff and staged? They were all out of central casting in terms of what Democrats think Americans look like.
1. When Barack Obama finally had to answer the "driver's license for illegals" question, his position proved even more confusing and seemingly half-baked (even with two weeks to think about it) than Mrs. Clinton's now famous hiccup.
2. All candidates seem to agree that if we just get the federal government MORE involved in education, everything will be coming up roses. Most of them don't like "no child left behind," which up until now has been the most extensive federal intervention in education ever. Why? The current program is tainted by Bush fingerprints. No surprise there. One thing on which they all agree: the President has never done anything right. But they all promise to get a centrally managed national education infrastructure off the ground and correctly supervised, which will solve all current problems. By the way, they also agree that the teachers unions are doing a heckuva job.
3. Bill Richardson said (in essence, twice) "democracy and human rights" in foreign lands trumped vital national interests. Obama and a few others said we could do both. The adults (Hillary Clinton being one of them) explained that our hallowed American principles should drive foreign policy, and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive with national interest--but, sometimes, they diverge. When this happens, a president takes an oath to protect national interests (not promote democracy and human rights abroad). It was a telling exchange.
4. Richardson, Kucinich, and Obama all called the "surge" a failed strategy and called for an immediate withdrawal of US troops in Iraq. Mercifully, Clinton was not asked to comment on the obvious success of the surge. I would have liked to hear her answer.
5. Hillary nailed the "gender card" response. Wolf Blitzer asked if anyone else wanted to follow her. Everyone but John Edwards wisely stayed mum. Edwards, the most feminine candidate on the stage, prattled on a bit about equality and fairness and then tailed off. Did I hear a niner in there?
6. Hillary is back. Obama and Edwards are where they have always been (number two and a distant third, respectively).
7. CNN was okay. Wolf Blitzer is not nearly as talented as Tim Russert or Brian Williams, but he is a pleasant fellow. The audience participation portion was worthless. Anyone want to talk about questions that are stiff and staged? They were all out of central casting in terms of what Democrats think Americans look like.
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.
11/07: Why Hillary?
Yesterday, I wrote once again that Hillary Clinton is the most likely person to become the 44th President of the United States.
As a counter-weight, I will also repeat, once again, my mantra for Campaign 2008: Nobody Knows Anything. Almost anything can happen between now and November.
Having said that, why does every day seem to bring Mrs. Clinton one step closer to the Democratic nomination?
The three-way race is turning into a two-way race. Although always a long-shot in my book, many learned observers saw John Edwards as a real threat to win the nomination. But the former senator from North Carolina and 2004 Democratic nominee for Vice President seems to be falling farther and farther off the pace. Last week Barack Obama and Mrs. Clinton posted record campaign fundraising revenues. Edwards did not. Running a campaign designed to appeal to the "disinherited of this land," a poll today showed him garnering only 10 percent of American voters who live in households with a combined income of $20,000 or less. Who is the candidate of the poor? Mrs. Clinton overwhelmingly. Obama is a distant but respectable second. Edwards is betting it all on Iowa--but Clinton has the money and organization to wage a national campaign during a primary season in which more than thirty states will pick delegates over a fortnight.
What about Obama? As noted above, the first-term senator turned in unprecedented financial numbers last week. He continues to draw large crowds and avoid lethal gaffes. But the buzz seems to be abating.
Democratic primaries (all primaries) are about picking a winner in November. Could Obama win the general? I think he could. Absolutely. But Democratic voters may be getting a case of the cold feet. What do we know about Obama? How will he do in a debate against Fred Thompson on national TV? What does he really have to offer in the way of ideas and experience? Of course, these are not insurmountable problems. As I say, Obama can win this nomination--if he gets the right breaks.
But Democrats are beginning to think that it would be easier (safer) to hand the ball to Hillary Clinton. We know her, they say; sure, a lot of people don't like her, but we know who they are. We also know that Hillary is not going to lose anybody that she has not lost already. No one in America is going to wake up after Labor Day and realize that Hillary was the not the knight in shining armor that they once thought.
Hillary is not going to crater under the pressure. She is probably not going to rise above herself to meet this new challenge either--but that is okay. Hillary is going to give us the same measured performance she has delivered for the last twenty years. Combine that with perhaps the best political organization ever crafted together, and she is probably more than good enough to win. In this case, the devil they know may be superior to a promising wild card.
One other thing going against Obama: Race. I am not convinced that race would hurt Obama in the general election. In fact, I think race for Obama is, at worst, a wash. My hunch is that race would actually play to his advantage. Undoubtedly, there are still some Americans who would not vote for him because he is an African American. But most of those folks live in states that are not likely to go Democrat anyway. Maybe he will lose Alabama by a few more votes than a white Democratic candidate would have, but nothing from nothing leaves nothing. No net loss. On the other hand, I think there will be some voters of all races who will vote for Obama because he is black, and my hunch is that many of those voters may be in swing states where every converted vote counts.
So, why does race play to Obama's disadvantage? Democrats do not buy the scenario I just laid out. In their heart of hearts, according to their world view, fly-over America is racist and will not vote for a black candidate. I hear Democrats (especially African American Democrats) say this all the time. So, in calculating a candidate who can beat the Republicans in 2008, Obama and race nag at their optimism. He becomes an increasingly risky choice for more and more Democratic primary voters.
Add in Bill, organization and battle-tested hired guns, and Hill looks more like a winner every day.
UPDATE: Yesterday "Barry-Bonds Head" asserted that Hillary needed a transcendent, human, funny, ice-breaking, "Bill on Arsenio playing the saxophone" moment. Is this it? Although it is by surrogate--this little video is pretty cute (and sexy). You may view here via YouTube.
Previous Campaign 2008 posts from the Bosque Boys:
"Another Bad Hair Day for John Edwards: is the jig up?" here.
"Is Obama Losing his luster?" here.
Even more here (click and scroll down).
As a counter-weight, I will also repeat, once again, my mantra for Campaign 2008: Nobody Knows Anything. Almost anything can happen between now and November.
Having said that, why does every day seem to bring Mrs. Clinton one step closer to the Democratic nomination?
The three-way race is turning into a two-way race. Although always a long-shot in my book, many learned observers saw John Edwards as a real threat to win the nomination. But the former senator from North Carolina and 2004 Democratic nominee for Vice President seems to be falling farther and farther off the pace. Last week Barack Obama and Mrs. Clinton posted record campaign fundraising revenues. Edwards did not. Running a campaign designed to appeal to the "disinherited of this land," a poll today showed him garnering only 10 percent of American voters who live in households with a combined income of $20,000 or less. Who is the candidate of the poor? Mrs. Clinton overwhelmingly. Obama is a distant but respectable second. Edwards is betting it all on Iowa--but Clinton has the money and organization to wage a national campaign during a primary season in which more than thirty states will pick delegates over a fortnight.
What about Obama? As noted above, the first-term senator turned in unprecedented financial numbers last week. He continues to draw large crowds and avoid lethal gaffes. But the buzz seems to be abating.
Democratic primaries (all primaries) are about picking a winner in November. Could Obama win the general? I think he could. Absolutely. But Democratic voters may be getting a case of the cold feet. What do we know about Obama? How will he do in a debate against Fred Thompson on national TV? What does he really have to offer in the way of ideas and experience? Of course, these are not insurmountable problems. As I say, Obama can win this nomination--if he gets the right breaks.
But Democrats are beginning to think that it would be easier (safer) to hand the ball to Hillary Clinton. We know her, they say; sure, a lot of people don't like her, but we know who they are. We also know that Hillary is not going to lose anybody that she has not lost already. No one in America is going to wake up after Labor Day and realize that Hillary was the not the knight in shining armor that they once thought.
Hillary is not going to crater under the pressure. She is probably not going to rise above herself to meet this new challenge either--but that is okay. Hillary is going to give us the same measured performance she has delivered for the last twenty years. Combine that with perhaps the best political organization ever crafted together, and she is probably more than good enough to win. In this case, the devil they know may be superior to a promising wild card.
One other thing going against Obama: Race. I am not convinced that race would hurt Obama in the general election. In fact, I think race for Obama is, at worst, a wash. My hunch is that race would actually play to his advantage. Undoubtedly, there are still some Americans who would not vote for him because he is an African American. But most of those folks live in states that are not likely to go Democrat anyway. Maybe he will lose Alabama by a few more votes than a white Democratic candidate would have, but nothing from nothing leaves nothing. No net loss. On the other hand, I think there will be some voters of all races who will vote for Obama because he is black, and my hunch is that many of those voters may be in swing states where every converted vote counts.
So, why does race play to Obama's disadvantage? Democrats do not buy the scenario I just laid out. In their heart of hearts, according to their world view, fly-over America is racist and will not vote for a black candidate. I hear Democrats (especially African American Democrats) say this all the time. So, in calculating a candidate who can beat the Republicans in 2008, Obama and race nag at their optimism. He becomes an increasingly risky choice for more and more Democratic primary voters.
Add in Bill, organization and battle-tested hired guns, and Hill looks more like a winner every day.
UPDATE: Yesterday "Barry-Bonds Head" asserted that Hillary needed a transcendent, human, funny, ice-breaking, "Bill on Arsenio playing the saxophone" moment. Is this it? Although it is by surrogate--this little video is pretty cute (and sexy). You may view here via YouTube.
Previous Campaign 2008 posts from the Bosque Boys:
"Another Bad Hair Day for John Edwards: is the jig up?" here.
"Is Obama Losing his luster?" here.
Even more here (click and scroll down).
17/05: Chuck Hagel? So What?
Dana Milbank's column in the Washington Post today considers the potential for a Chuck Hagel campaign for President as an independent (read here).
As Milbank notes, Hagel keeps hinting he will run. More puzzling is the fact that pundits keep reacting to this flirtation as if the question had some relevance to the 2008 race.
A better question: Who would vote for Hagel?
Hagel is currently vying with Ron Paul for the dubious distinction of Republican least-likely to succeed with Republican voters. Paul is on top right now as a result of name recognition following this week's debate--but, if Republicans knew Hagel better, there is no doubt that they would despise him just as much.
And then there are the Democrats, who, for the first time in a generation, feel confident that they are on the brink of a fortuitous electoral swing back in their direction. Why would they embrace Hagel? True enough, Democrats enjoy his attacks on the President, and he is something of an anomaly as a defeatist Republican, but given the opportunity to vote for John Edwards or Barack Obama or any number of truly retreat-oriented Democrats, Hagel immediately loses his uniqueness.
There are no votes out there for Hagel. Why do we keep talking about this guy?
As Milbank notes, Hagel keeps hinting he will run. More puzzling is the fact that pundits keep reacting to this flirtation as if the question had some relevance to the 2008 race.
A better question: Who would vote for Hagel?
Hagel is currently vying with Ron Paul for the dubious distinction of Republican least-likely to succeed with Republican voters. Paul is on top right now as a result of name recognition following this week's debate--but, if Republicans knew Hagel better, there is no doubt that they would despise him just as much.
And then there are the Democrats, who, for the first time in a generation, feel confident that they are on the brink of a fortuitous electoral swing back in their direction. Why would they embrace Hagel? True enough, Democrats enjoy his attacks on the President, and he is something of an anomaly as a defeatist Republican, but given the opportunity to vote for John Edwards or Barack Obama or any number of truly retreat-oriented Democrats, Hagel immediately loses his uniqueness.
There are no votes out there for Hagel. Why do we keep talking about this guy?
15/11: Chet and the Gang
From the Washington Post:
House Approves Bill Linking War Funds, Troop Withdrawals
"The House yesterday approved a war funding bill that directs President Bush to withdraw most troops from Iraq by the end of next year, escalating a feud between the White House and congressional Democrats over spending priorities in wartime.
"The measure...passed 218 to 203...."
The Senate is likely to torpedo the bill this week. In the event something miraculous happens and the measure passes the Upper Chamber, the President will quickly veto and the process will restart.
Again?
Republican Mike Pence offered a succinct summary to this increasingly tiresome charade:
"With unambiguous evidence of progress on the ground in Iraq, the Democrats in Congress have seemed to add denial to the agenda of retreat and defeat."
Fifteen Democrats with good sense and an extra integrity chromosome decided NOT to participate in this latest Nancy, John, and Rahm tea party. Unfortunately, my congressman (George Bush's congressman), Chet Edwards, was not one of the stout-hearted few.
You would think Chet could throw us a bone on a vote this meaningless.
This session has proved incredibly disappointing (perhaps humiliating is a better word) for Chet's erstwhile Republican backers.
House Approves Bill Linking War Funds, Troop Withdrawals
"The House yesterday approved a war funding bill that directs President Bush to withdraw most troops from Iraq by the end of next year, escalating a feud between the White House and congressional Democrats over spending priorities in wartime.
"The measure...passed 218 to 203...."
The Senate is likely to torpedo the bill this week. In the event something miraculous happens and the measure passes the Upper Chamber, the President will quickly veto and the process will restart.
Again?
Republican Mike Pence offered a succinct summary to this increasingly tiresome charade:
"With unambiguous evidence of progress on the ground in Iraq, the Democrats in Congress have seemed to add denial to the agenda of retreat and defeat."
Fifteen Democrats with good sense and an extra integrity chromosome decided NOT to participate in this latest Nancy, John, and Rahm tea party. Unfortunately, my congressman (George Bush's congressman), Chet Edwards, was not one of the stout-hearted few.
You would think Chet could throw us a bone on a vote this meaningless.
This session has proved incredibly disappointing (perhaps humiliating is a better word) for Chet's erstwhile Republican backers.
06/06: Is Obama losing his luster?
Yesterday on the Sean Hannity radio show, Frank Luntz (celebrity Republican-leaning pollster) pronounced John Edwards the winner of the latest Democratic debate (BTW: he calls last night's GOP bout for Romney, more on that story here on RCP).
Luntz's analyses are based on focus groups working dials to register their approval for the candidates and what they are saying in real time.
My point: Luntz called Barack Obama the surprise loser in the Democratic debate. Although this goes against the conventional wisdom, fund-raising contest results and the latest national polling, I AGREE with him.
Obama seems to be stiffer and less-practiced than he was when he entered the race five months ago. As someone who was intrigued by Obama, I am increasingly uninterested in and unimpressed with him.
Obama is sharp, charismatic, handsome and black--but that alone is not enough to lift him past Hillary Clinton. The Obama-juggernaut was always a long shot that needed flawless political acumen and stimulating oratory.
I am not seeing that. A few months ago, I could not take my eyes off him. These days I am mostly bored by him.
More Bosque Boys thoughts on Campaign 2008 here (click and scroll down).
Luntz's analyses are based on focus groups working dials to register their approval for the candidates and what they are saying in real time.
My point: Luntz called Barack Obama the surprise loser in the Democratic debate. Although this goes against the conventional wisdom, fund-raising contest results and the latest national polling, I AGREE with him.
Obama seems to be stiffer and less-practiced than he was when he entered the race five months ago. As someone who was intrigued by Obama, I am increasingly uninterested in and unimpressed with him.
Obama is sharp, charismatic, handsome and black--but that alone is not enough to lift him past Hillary Clinton. The Obama-juggernaut was always a long shot that needed flawless political acumen and stimulating oratory.
I am not seeing that. A few months ago, I could not take my eyes off him. These days I am mostly bored by him.
More Bosque Boys thoughts on Campaign 2008 here (click and scroll down).
From the Washington Post:
"The top three Democratic presidential contenders remain locked in a close battle in Iowa, with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) seeing her advantages diminish on key issues, including the questions of experience and which candidate is best prepared to handle the war in Iraq, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll."
The Latest in Iowa:
Obama 30
Clinton 26
John Edwards 22
Bill Richardson 11
What does it mean?
First a few things to keep in mind:
Iowa has always been an obstacle for Hillary. So much so that she even considered bypassing the caucus; as a result, she was late in committing to contest Iowa. Why? Bill did not run a campaign in Iowa back in 1992 because Tom Harkin was running for president, so the exceptionally talented Clinton brain trust lacks experience in the Hawkeye State. The Edwards campaign, on the other hand, ran strong there in 2004 and opened the 2008 contest with a significant organizational advantage. Exciting newcomer, Barack Obama, hails from a neighboring state.
Perhaps more problematic, the polling data suggests a personal distaste for the candidate. Iowans question her honesty, perceiving her as guarded and calculating. For some anecdotal evidence from the Bosque Boys archives, you can review the Okie Gardener's on-the-ground reporting from Iowa early this summer (within a conversation we had back then) here. In a nutshell: Iowa is not a good fit for the Clinton candidacy. Iowans seem especially unimpressed, suspicious, and unfriendly to her personally.
Something Technical. There is always a lag time in polling. Any sampling represents merely a snapshot of opinion from a certain period, in this instance, November 14-18. It is reasonable to surmise that Hillary's poor debate performance two weeks ago and her subsequent scramble influenced that data, while her comeback performance in Las Vegas had little impact on the poll. So, for the next week, we are going to be talking about what 500 Iowans thought last week. In the back and forth of a year-long presidential nominating campaign, one set of those numbers is not especially significant.
The Real Danger for Clinton
Having said that, while the poll reflects merely a tiny ripple, the real import of the poll will be in how much it accelerates a potentially hazardous trend. Hillary Clinton is at risk while this storyline dominates the news cycle. Nothing has changed in real terms--but her campaign is in danger as long as the interested public consciousness perceives a contest in flux or, even worse, a momentum shift.
What does all this mean nationally?
To reiterate, not much has changed. Candidate Clinton can overcome a modest loss in Iowa, because she has the best organization. She is prepared to compete in every state primary following Iowa. Of course, a win in Iowa would be huge for her. A win would come very close to clinching her aura of inevitability and set in motion all the elements needed for a landslide victory.
This poll is another installment of the same sobering story for John Edwards. Iowa is make or break for him. If John Edwards does not win Iowa, he is finished. He is not gaining ground. To a lesser extent, this poll is bad news for Bill Richardson as well, who remains flat. He broke 10 percent in late summer, but he seems stuck there.
The poll is obviously good news for Barack Obama, who has proven himself a dynamic campaigner in Iowa. His performance there has confirmed the notion that he is a real political force on the national level. A win in Iowa gives him a real boost and makes him the only alternative to Hillary in the ensuing contests.
However, if the Illinois senator, a favorite son from a neighboring state does not win in Iowa, he will be damaged. He will still have plenty of money with which to dust himself off, get back in the race, and go on to New Hampshire--but he will need to draw an inside straight from there to pull out the nomination.
For more on Obama's dilemma, my post from last week: The Power of Obama is palpable, but, then again, he is no Jack Kennedy.
Predictions?
I will recycle this old one, quoting myself from July (full previous post here):
"Right now Mrs. Clinton holds a comfortable lead. Most likely, Obama will continue to rise in the polls until he is even with Clinton, possibly even surpass Clinton, and then peak. These will be tense moments. Both camps will develop a deep dislike for the other. Then Mrs. Clinton's experience and superior organization will take over, the adults in the Democratic Party will exert their influence, Clinton will pull back ahead of Obama, and then pull away from him down the stretch. Then Mrs. Clinton will extend a gracious hand of friendship to Obama and offer him the VP. Obama will seize the opportunity to further his political education and prepare for his ultimate elevation to the Chief Executive. And they both shall live happily ever after.
"On the other hand, so much can go wrong. If Obama catches fire, and wins the nomination (still an entirely plausible potential outcome), all bets are off. Obama is the one viable candidate of inexperience."
As Tom Patterson likes to say, "I wouldn't bet my house on anything right now," but, even with that hedge, Mrs. Clinton's organization is going to be very difficult to beat. One thing is certain: it is definitely "crunch" time; the long pre-campaign season is quickly drawing to a close, and it is "now or never" for this whole slate of candidates.
UPDATE: The Bosque Boys welcome Slate readers. Thanks to Laurel Wamsley for noticing us in her "Today's Blogs: The Latest Chatter in Cyberspace" column.
"The top three Democratic presidential contenders remain locked in a close battle in Iowa, with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) seeing her advantages diminish on key issues, including the questions of experience and which candidate is best prepared to handle the war in Iraq, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll."
The Latest in Iowa:
Obama 30
Clinton 26
John Edwards 22
Bill Richardson 11
What does it mean?
First a few things to keep in mind:
Iowa has always been an obstacle for Hillary. So much so that she even considered bypassing the caucus; as a result, she was late in committing to contest Iowa. Why? Bill did not run a campaign in Iowa back in 1992 because Tom Harkin was running for president, so the exceptionally talented Clinton brain trust lacks experience in the Hawkeye State. The Edwards campaign, on the other hand, ran strong there in 2004 and opened the 2008 contest with a significant organizational advantage. Exciting newcomer, Barack Obama, hails from a neighboring state.
Perhaps more problematic, the polling data suggests a personal distaste for the candidate. Iowans question her honesty, perceiving her as guarded and calculating. For some anecdotal evidence from the Bosque Boys archives, you can review the Okie Gardener's on-the-ground reporting from Iowa early this summer (within a conversation we had back then) here. In a nutshell: Iowa is not a good fit for the Clinton candidacy. Iowans seem especially unimpressed, suspicious, and unfriendly to her personally.
Something Technical. There is always a lag time in polling. Any sampling represents merely a snapshot of opinion from a certain period, in this instance, November 14-18. It is reasonable to surmise that Hillary's poor debate performance two weeks ago and her subsequent scramble influenced that data, while her comeback performance in Las Vegas had little impact on the poll. So, for the next week, we are going to be talking about what 500 Iowans thought last week. In the back and forth of a year-long presidential nominating campaign, one set of those numbers is not especially significant.
The Real Danger for Clinton
Having said that, while the poll reflects merely a tiny ripple, the real import of the poll will be in how much it accelerates a potentially hazardous trend. Hillary Clinton is at risk while this storyline dominates the news cycle. Nothing has changed in real terms--but her campaign is in danger as long as the interested public consciousness perceives a contest in flux or, even worse, a momentum shift.
What does all this mean nationally?
To reiterate, not much has changed. Candidate Clinton can overcome a modest loss in Iowa, because she has the best organization. She is prepared to compete in every state primary following Iowa. Of course, a win in Iowa would be huge for her. A win would come very close to clinching her aura of inevitability and set in motion all the elements needed for a landslide victory.
This poll is another installment of the same sobering story for John Edwards. Iowa is make or break for him. If John Edwards does not win Iowa, he is finished. He is not gaining ground. To a lesser extent, this poll is bad news for Bill Richardson as well, who remains flat. He broke 10 percent in late summer, but he seems stuck there.
The poll is obviously good news for Barack Obama, who has proven himself a dynamic campaigner in Iowa. His performance there has confirmed the notion that he is a real political force on the national level. A win in Iowa gives him a real boost and makes him the only alternative to Hillary in the ensuing contests.
However, if the Illinois senator, a favorite son from a neighboring state does not win in Iowa, he will be damaged. He will still have plenty of money with which to dust himself off, get back in the race, and go on to New Hampshire--but he will need to draw an inside straight from there to pull out the nomination.
For more on Obama's dilemma, my post from last week: The Power of Obama is palpable, but, then again, he is no Jack Kennedy.
Predictions?
I will recycle this old one, quoting myself from July (full previous post here):
"Right now Mrs. Clinton holds a comfortable lead. Most likely, Obama will continue to rise in the polls until he is even with Clinton, possibly even surpass Clinton, and then peak. These will be tense moments. Both camps will develop a deep dislike for the other. Then Mrs. Clinton's experience and superior organization will take over, the adults in the Democratic Party will exert their influence, Clinton will pull back ahead of Obama, and then pull away from him down the stretch. Then Mrs. Clinton will extend a gracious hand of friendship to Obama and offer him the VP. Obama will seize the opportunity to further his political education and prepare for his ultimate elevation to the Chief Executive. And they both shall live happily ever after.
"On the other hand, so much can go wrong. If Obama catches fire, and wins the nomination (still an entirely plausible potential outcome), all bets are off. Obama is the one viable candidate of inexperience."
As Tom Patterson likes to say, "I wouldn't bet my house on anything right now," but, even with that hedge, Mrs. Clinton's organization is going to be very difficult to beat. One thing is certain: it is definitely "crunch" time; the long pre-campaign season is quickly drawing to a close, and it is "now or never" for this whole slate of candidates.
UPDATE: The Bosque Boys welcome Slate readers. Thanks to Laurel Wamsley for noticing us in her "Today's Blogs: The Latest Chatter in Cyberspace" column.
D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it's over! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's on a roll.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...
[thinks hard]
Bluto: the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!
[runs out, alone; then returns]
Bluto: What the [expletive deleted] happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my [expletive deleted] from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer...
Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these [expletive deleted]. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.
D-Day: Let's do it.
Bluto: LET'S DO IT!
I continue to be flabbergasted by the parade of effete column-writers and faint-hearted Democratic Party hand-wringers who suggest that Mrs. Clinton should quit.
Did these guys never have a high school football coach?
Quitters never win and winners never quit.
There is time on the clock, and she's got the ball. Granted, she needs to march the length of the field and three points won't win it--but so what. Fourth quarter, man! This is why you come out for two-a-days in the heat of August. Gut-check time.
Seriously, what kind of a message would a Hillary capitulation send to the youth of America?
Quitting is for lightweights like John Edwards. Mrs. Clinton may go down, but she goes down swinging. She doesn't quit; they have to beat her (God help them).
Nancy Pelosi be damned, I still think this thing is going the distance.
Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it's over! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's on a roll.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...
[thinks hard]
Bluto: the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!
[runs out, alone; then returns]
Bluto: What the [expletive deleted] happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my [expletive deleted] from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer...
Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these [expletive deleted]. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.
D-Day: Let's do it.
Bluto: LET'S DO IT!
I continue to be flabbergasted by the parade of effete column-writers and faint-hearted Democratic Party hand-wringers who suggest that Mrs. Clinton should quit.
Did these guys never have a high school football coach?
Quitters never win and winners never quit.
There is time on the clock, and she's got the ball. Granted, she needs to march the length of the field and three points won't win it--but so what. Fourth quarter, man! This is why you come out for two-a-days in the heat of August. Gut-check time.
Seriously, what kind of a message would a Hillary capitulation send to the youth of America?
Quitting is for lightweights like John Edwards. Mrs. Clinton may go down, but she goes down swinging. She doesn't quit; they have to beat her (God help them).
Nancy Pelosi be damned, I still think this thing is going the distance.
Nobody Knows Anything....but, as it happens, no one more so than I.
My predictions tens day out:
The Party of Jackson:
Hillary wins a squeaker. Obama second. Edwards a close but, nevertheless, terminal third.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong--but possibly right in spirit.
This was a huge win for Obama. If there were any doubters left before last night (not me), they are running for the hills today. Barack Obama is big time for real. Most importantly, unlike many past insurgents (Gary Hart, Pat Buchanan, Paul Tsongas to name a few), Obama is in great shape money wise and organizationally to move to the next battle with strength and style. He has plenty of money in the coffers and is likely to out-raise Hillary 3-to-1 during the next few days.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is still Hillary Clinton. As I have written previously, she is unlikely to collapse in the face of disappointment. She is an amazing candidate in her own right, with the best national organization in the first-ever "national primary." She has a whole slew of political assets and big guns in her arsenal. Now that the battle is irrevocably and indisputably joined, I expect to see a primary fight over the next five weeks unlike anything we have ever seen in American politics. Fasten your seatbelts, boys; we're in for a bumpy ride.
As for Edwards, his tie for a distant-second seems terminally impotent. For the man who staked his whole campaign on Iowa and started there with a lot of advantages, a seven-point loss in the Hawkeye State to another insurgent is devastating. He was vying to be the alternative to Clinton--but Obama clearly won that distinction. This remains a two-person race. The recently adopted Huey Long populism appears to be a gimmick that failed.
One quick note before the mythology takes root: many will wonder if Hillary erred in coming to Iowa. My opinion is that she really had no choice. Certainly, she understood that Iowa was not a good fit for her and a tough place in which she did NOT play particularly well. Having said that, she would have looked silly and cowardly, if she had sidestepped the caucus. She came, she ran hard, and she lost; It is a tough blow--but watching from the sidelines likely would have proved even more devastating.
One other Clinton note: Bill must take a back seat. After the loss in New Hampshire for George W. Bush in 2000, the elder Bushes (as popular as they were) went underground. A presidential candidate must be the top dog. Bill talks too much, he exudes self-absorption and self importance. Sit down, Bill, and shut up. Quite frankly, the three generations of Rodham-Clinton women are much more compelling at this stage of the contest than the old silver-tongued he-devil.
One last Clinton note: New Hampshire may or may not be do or die for Hill--but she must play it as if it is. New Hampshire saved the Clintons in 1992. She finds herself with her back against the wall there in 2008. NH is crucial. And while Obama will get a big bounce from his win in Iowa, Hillary still holds some high cards in the Granite State. We'll see.
Two random notes:
1. Zogby International was right on. He captured the steep Clinton drop-off in the waning moments of Iowa (he was also close enough on Huckabee, and he had his pulse on the Thompson surge and slight fade--see next post).
2. Hats-off to the Democrats, who boasted a roster of impressive candidates this time around. With the exception of John Edwards, all of the major Democrats struck me as good Americans who approached this contest with sincerity and noble motives (which is not to say, of course, that I agree with their policy proposals). But it is not surprising to me that Democrats in Iowa caucused in record numbers. Some of that was good weather (it only got down to 24 degrees last night in many parts of Iowa), but serious candidates and enthusiastic campaigning are also a large part of the explanation. Impressive.
My predictions tens day out:
The Party of Jackson:
Hillary wins a squeaker. Obama second. Edwards a close but, nevertheless, terminal third.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong--but possibly right in spirit.
This was a huge win for Obama. If there were any doubters left before last night (not me), they are running for the hills today. Barack Obama is big time for real. Most importantly, unlike many past insurgents (Gary Hart, Pat Buchanan, Paul Tsongas to name a few), Obama is in great shape money wise and organizationally to move to the next battle with strength and style. He has plenty of money in the coffers and is likely to out-raise Hillary 3-to-1 during the next few days.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is still Hillary Clinton. As I have written previously, she is unlikely to collapse in the face of disappointment. She is an amazing candidate in her own right, with the best national organization in the first-ever "national primary." She has a whole slew of political assets and big guns in her arsenal. Now that the battle is irrevocably and indisputably joined, I expect to see a primary fight over the next five weeks unlike anything we have ever seen in American politics. Fasten your seatbelts, boys; we're in for a bumpy ride.
As for Edwards, his tie for a distant-second seems terminally impotent. For the man who staked his whole campaign on Iowa and started there with a lot of advantages, a seven-point loss in the Hawkeye State to another insurgent is devastating. He was vying to be the alternative to Clinton--but Obama clearly won that distinction. This remains a two-person race. The recently adopted Huey Long populism appears to be a gimmick that failed.
One quick note before the mythology takes root: many will wonder if Hillary erred in coming to Iowa. My opinion is that she really had no choice. Certainly, she understood that Iowa was not a good fit for her and a tough place in which she did NOT play particularly well. Having said that, she would have looked silly and cowardly, if she had sidestepped the caucus. She came, she ran hard, and she lost; It is a tough blow--but watching from the sidelines likely would have proved even more devastating.
One other Clinton note: Bill must take a back seat. After the loss in New Hampshire for George W. Bush in 2000, the elder Bushes (as popular as they were) went underground. A presidential candidate must be the top dog. Bill talks too much, he exudes self-absorption and self importance. Sit down, Bill, and shut up. Quite frankly, the three generations of Rodham-Clinton women are much more compelling at this stage of the contest than the old silver-tongued he-devil.
One last Clinton note: New Hampshire may or may not be do or die for Hill--but she must play it as if it is. New Hampshire saved the Clintons in 1992. She finds herself with her back against the wall there in 2008. NH is crucial. And while Obama will get a big bounce from his win in Iowa, Hillary still holds some high cards in the Granite State. We'll see.
Two random notes:
1. Zogby International was right on. He captured the steep Clinton drop-off in the waning moments of Iowa (he was also close enough on Huckabee, and he had his pulse on the Thompson surge and slight fade--see next post).
2. Hats-off to the Democrats, who boasted a roster of impressive candidates this time around. With the exception of John Edwards, all of the major Democrats struck me as good Americans who approached this contest with sincerity and noble motives (which is not to say, of course, that I agree with their policy proposals). But it is not surprising to me that Democrats in Iowa caucused in record numbers. Some of that was good weather (it only got down to 24 degrees last night in many parts of Iowa), but serious candidates and enthusiastic campaigning are also a large part of the explanation. Impressive.
02/02: The "A" Word
I continue to ask what was wrong with Joe Biden's description of Barack Obama. Everyone seems to agree that it was an egregious example of insensitivity and latent racism--but I continue to search for a detailed explanation of why.
Eugene Robinson, columnist for the Washington Post, weighs in:
"[A]rticulate" [is] a word that's like fingernails on a blackboard to my ear."
Really? What don't you like about it?
"Will wonders never cease? Here we have a man who graduated from Columbia University, who was president of the Harvard Law Review, who serves in the U.S. Senate and is the author of two best-selling books, who's a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, and what do you know, he turns out to be articulate. Stop the presses."
This line of thinking assumes a definition of articulate that strikes me as so broad as to be too confining. One meaning of articulate is capable of speech. But, in political terms, articulate connotes an ability to express yourself and your ideas with clarity and effectiveness. Every person who graduates from a prestigious institution is not necessarily articulate. Not every celebrity writer is articulate. Not every senator (perhaps not even a majority) is articulate.
"Articulate is really a shorthand way of describing a black person who isn't too black -- or, rather, who comports with white America's notion of how a black person should come across."
"The word articulate is being used to encompass not just speech but a whole range of cultural cues -- dress, bearing, education, golf handicap. It's being used to describe a black person around whom white people can be comfortable, a black person who not only speaks white America's language but is fluent in its body language as well."
So Biden called Obama too white? Are you sure about this?
"Before you accuse me of being hypersensitive, try to think of the last time you heard a white public figure described as articulate. Acclaimed white orators such as Bill Clinton and John Edwards are more often described as eloquent."
I went back and checked my own writing on this blog. I have, indeed, called a black man, Michael Steele, articulate. But I also spoke of my good friend, Tocqueville, whom I admire as a persuasive writer and thinker, as articulate. Several times I have described as articulate one of my academic writing heroes, Bill McClay. I have referred to John McCain, whom I support for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, as an "articulate spokesman for conservatism."
I am unhappy that articulate is fast becoming off limits as a way to describe gifted African American public figures.
Disclaimer: This was not an actual interview. Read Robinson's article here in full.
Eugene Robinson, columnist for the Washington Post, weighs in:
"[A]rticulate" [is] a word that's like fingernails on a blackboard to my ear."
Really? What don't you like about it?
"Will wonders never cease? Here we have a man who graduated from Columbia University, who was president of the Harvard Law Review, who serves in the U.S. Senate and is the author of two best-selling books, who's a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, and what do you know, he turns out to be articulate. Stop the presses."
This line of thinking assumes a definition of articulate that strikes me as so broad as to be too confining. One meaning of articulate is capable of speech. But, in political terms, articulate connotes an ability to express yourself and your ideas with clarity and effectiveness. Every person who graduates from a prestigious institution is not necessarily articulate. Not every celebrity writer is articulate. Not every senator (perhaps not even a majority) is articulate.
"Articulate is really a shorthand way of describing a black person who isn't too black -- or, rather, who comports with white America's notion of how a black person should come across."
"The word articulate is being used to encompass not just speech but a whole range of cultural cues -- dress, bearing, education, golf handicap. It's being used to describe a black person around whom white people can be comfortable, a black person who not only speaks white America's language but is fluent in its body language as well."
So Biden called Obama too white? Are you sure about this?
"Before you accuse me of being hypersensitive, try to think of the last time you heard a white public figure described as articulate. Acclaimed white orators such as Bill Clinton and John Edwards are more often described as eloquent."
I went back and checked my own writing on this blog. I have, indeed, called a black man, Michael Steele, articulate. But I also spoke of my good friend, Tocqueville, whom I admire as a persuasive writer and thinker, as articulate. Several times I have described as articulate one of my academic writing heroes, Bill McClay. I have referred to John McCain, whom I support for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, as an "articulate spokesman for conservatism."
I am unhappy that articulate is fast becoming off limits as a way to describe gifted African American public figures.
Disclaimer: This was not an actual interview. Read Robinson's article here in full.
28/03: What Mandate?
Category: US in Iraq.archive.iii
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The tag from an NPR story from yesterday:
"Still, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid insisted Democrats are simply carrying out a mandate they got at the polls from a war-weary nation. Democrats seem confident that in this fight, public opinion's on their side" (link here).
Some caveats: I am not sure if "mandate" was solely NPR correspondent David Welna's interpretation; there is no direct quote concerning a "mandate" in the story, and Reid has avoided "mandate" talk before. However, "mandate" is the buzz word of this particular debate.
Is there a public mandate to withdraw US troops from Iraq?
Public polling is mixed, although there are a number of polls that indicate Americans are increasingly exasperated with our progress in Iraq. As well they should be. But I am skeptical that the understandable grumbling and frustration in the heartland is actually hard support for "redeployment" (as John Murtha likes to call it).
Also: there is a lag time to public polling. The polls will be behind any change in public sentiment resulting from any successes that might occur as a result of the Petraeus-coordinated influx.
But by the same token, admittedly, this is a fluid situation. Bad news or a lack of progress increases the momentum of discontent. The vote yesterday in the Senate may indicate that Gordon Smith, Chuck Hegel and Ben Nelson read the aforementioned current polls as significant.
However, in terms of an electoral mandate from the November election, I suspect the Democrats are overplaying their hand.
Some things to remember:
1. While no one can doubt that the war played a role in Democratic gains, arguably, the Republicans lost only one Senate seat directly as a result of Iraq: Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania.
a. George Allen in Virginia shot himself in the foot--and then succumbed to a ferocious media campaign against him, in which the Washington Post trumpeted charges of racial violence against him, which as of today still remain uncorroborated. Even so, Allen lost by a whisker.
b. Jim Talent lost Missouri, always a close state, on a myriad of issues, including Michael J. Fox and stem cell politics.
c. The GOP lost Ohio and Montana as a result of scandals unconnected to Iraq.
d. The GOP held Arizona and Tennessee against serious antiwar opposition and ran very close in Democratic strongholds, NJ and Maryland.
2. The GOP lost the House as much as a result of pent-up conservative nausea as antiwar outrage. Mark Foley was the straw that broke the camel's back.
3. In fact, if there was a bell weather race in terms of the war, I would argue that it was Connecticut, where Joe Lieberman rebounded from a devastating attack on his war position to win the general election with enormous bipartisan support in a very Blue state.
4. One more thing, read this post from a few days ago concerning Texas 17 Representative Chet Edwards and the way he characterized his vote to set a timetable for withdrawal--and then tell me if Congressman Edwards thinks he was fulfilling a mandate from his voters.
Mandate? If given the choice, Americans prefer winning this war to losing it.
"Still, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid insisted Democrats are simply carrying out a mandate they got at the polls from a war-weary nation. Democrats seem confident that in this fight, public opinion's on their side" (link here).
Some caveats: I am not sure if "mandate" was solely NPR correspondent David Welna's interpretation; there is no direct quote concerning a "mandate" in the story, and Reid has avoided "mandate" talk before. However, "mandate" is the buzz word of this particular debate.
Is there a public mandate to withdraw US troops from Iraq?
Public polling is mixed, although there are a number of polls that indicate Americans are increasingly exasperated with our progress in Iraq. As well they should be. But I am skeptical that the understandable grumbling and frustration in the heartland is actually hard support for "redeployment" (as John Murtha likes to call it).
Also: there is a lag time to public polling. The polls will be behind any change in public sentiment resulting from any successes that might occur as a result of the Petraeus-coordinated influx.
But by the same token, admittedly, this is a fluid situation. Bad news or a lack of progress increases the momentum of discontent. The vote yesterday in the Senate may indicate that Gordon Smith, Chuck Hegel and Ben Nelson read the aforementioned current polls as significant.
However, in terms of an electoral mandate from the November election, I suspect the Democrats are overplaying their hand.
Some things to remember:
1. While no one can doubt that the war played a role in Democratic gains, arguably, the Republicans lost only one Senate seat directly as a result of Iraq: Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania.
a. George Allen in Virginia shot himself in the foot--and then succumbed to a ferocious media campaign against him, in which the Washington Post trumpeted charges of racial violence against him, which as of today still remain uncorroborated. Even so, Allen lost by a whisker.
b. Jim Talent lost Missouri, always a close state, on a myriad of issues, including Michael J. Fox and stem cell politics.
c. The GOP lost Ohio and Montana as a result of scandals unconnected to Iraq.
d. The GOP held Arizona and Tennessee against serious antiwar opposition and ran very close in Democratic strongholds, NJ and Maryland.
2. The GOP lost the House as much as a result of pent-up conservative nausea as antiwar outrage. Mark Foley was the straw that broke the camel's back.
3. In fact, if there was a bell weather race in terms of the war, I would argue that it was Connecticut, where Joe Lieberman rebounded from a devastating attack on his war position to win the general election with enormous bipartisan support in a very Blue state.
4. One more thing, read this post from a few days ago concerning Texas 17 Representative Chet Edwards and the way he characterized his vote to set a timetable for withdrawal--and then tell me if Congressman Edwards thinks he was fulfilling a mandate from his voters.
Mandate? If given the choice, Americans prefer winning this war to losing it.
Nobody Knows Anything--but here goes nothing:
The Party of Jackson:
There are four people in this world who might possibly win the Democratic nomination for 2008. One is too fat physically, mentally, and socially. One is too green (the wrong color to be when up against a lean, mean, fighting machine). One is too light (if he were a Republican running for president in 2000, we would have said, "he lacked gravitas"). That leaves the most manly competitor of the Democratic field, Hillary Clinton.
FYI: I know nothing of the debate tonight. History is unfolding as I write, which may be making my predictions obsolete.
The Party of Lincoln:
Rudy is out. Forget about the polls. I love Rudy. I really do. But every passing day makes it clearer and clearer to me that Rudy is not the kind of fellow who takes the GOP nomination. He is too New York. He is too lawyerly. He is on his third marriage. His kids don't seem to like him. Bernie Kerik. Judith Regan. Gun Control. Pro Choice. Not going to happen. Rudy for AG. Rudy for DHS. But never on a GOP ticket.
John McCain is still out. He is a fighter. He would have been a great president. He is smart. He is tough. He understands the art of the deal. But he is a non-starter at this point.
Mike Huckabee is the fresh-faced wild card. He will make an impact--but he probably doesn't have the foundation for a legitimate run at the big time. He will be exciting, but, in the end, he probably falls well short.
Mitt Romney has a great strategy and a lot of money. Although he is nowhere in the polls right now, his campaign is the smartest and best funded. He could take off in Iowa and New Hampshire, gain momentum, and stampede the competition. The Mormon thing is a minor nuisance. I continue to believe his religion is a non-issue for most people. Would it come up eventually? Yes. If nominated, Democrats would make sure every evangelical in America knew Romney was Mormon--and we would find out more about Mormonism between Labor Day and Halloween than we had learned over a lifetime. Remember how John Kerry and John Edwards both took great pains to interject Mary Cheney's homosexuality into the national debates? We would see a plethora of Mormon stories from all angles, all the while bemoaning the fact that so many Americans were still so closed minded. Double prizes. Submarine the GOP candidate while spreading ugly stereotypes about GOP voters. But I don't think it gets that far. Romney is too Massachusetts. He has too many center-left skeletons in his closet. I can see how he wins the nomination--but my gut feeling is that he will not.
This leaves Fred. He has a horrible organization and he his currently running the worst campaign. But he is the best candidate. That is, he is the most convincing, most likable, most consistent conservative in the race. He very likely wins by default. After everybody else craters, Fred takes the part.
I hate to mention this--but things are so crazy this year, I think it is actually possible, for the first time since 1976, to have a convention in which the winner is not apparent going in. Things are so murky that several candidates might emerge and split votes in the front-loaded primaries, leaving several candidates with healthy delegate totals but not a majority. If that unlikely eventuality comes to pass, then the convention would be a throwback to something from the last century, and some other prominent Republican might likely emerge as the GOP standard bearer. But that's probably just wishful thinking from the historian in me.
The Party of Jackson:
There are four people in this world who might possibly win the Democratic nomination for 2008. One is too fat physically, mentally, and socially. One is too green (the wrong color to be when up against a lean, mean, fighting machine). One is too light (if he were a Republican running for president in 2000, we would have said, "he lacked gravitas"). That leaves the most manly competitor of the Democratic field, Hillary Clinton.
FYI: I know nothing of the debate tonight. History is unfolding as I write, which may be making my predictions obsolete.
The Party of Lincoln:
Rudy is out. Forget about the polls. I love Rudy. I really do. But every passing day makes it clearer and clearer to me that Rudy is not the kind of fellow who takes the GOP nomination. He is too New York. He is too lawyerly. He is on his third marriage. His kids don't seem to like him. Bernie Kerik. Judith Regan. Gun Control. Pro Choice. Not going to happen. Rudy for AG. Rudy for DHS. But never on a GOP ticket.
John McCain is still out. He is a fighter. He would have been a great president. He is smart. He is tough. He understands the art of the deal. But he is a non-starter at this point.
Mike Huckabee is the fresh-faced wild card. He will make an impact--but he probably doesn't have the foundation for a legitimate run at the big time. He will be exciting, but, in the end, he probably falls well short.
Mitt Romney has a great strategy and a lot of money. Although he is nowhere in the polls right now, his campaign is the smartest and best funded. He could take off in Iowa and New Hampshire, gain momentum, and stampede the competition. The Mormon thing is a minor nuisance. I continue to believe his religion is a non-issue for most people. Would it come up eventually? Yes. If nominated, Democrats would make sure every evangelical in America knew Romney was Mormon--and we would find out more about Mormonism between Labor Day and Halloween than we had learned over a lifetime. Remember how John Kerry and John Edwards both took great pains to interject Mary Cheney's homosexuality into the national debates? We would see a plethora of Mormon stories from all angles, all the while bemoaning the fact that so many Americans were still so closed minded. Double prizes. Submarine the GOP candidate while spreading ugly stereotypes about GOP voters. But I don't think it gets that far. Romney is too Massachusetts. He has too many center-left skeletons in his closet. I can see how he wins the nomination--but my gut feeling is that he will not.
This leaves Fred. He has a horrible organization and he his currently running the worst campaign. But he is the best candidate. That is, he is the most convincing, most likable, most consistent conservative in the race. He very likely wins by default. After everybody else craters, Fred takes the part.
I hate to mention this--but things are so crazy this year, I think it is actually possible, for the first time since 1976, to have a convention in which the winner is not apparent going in. Things are so murky that several candidates might emerge and split votes in the front-loaded primaries, leaving several candidates with healthy delegate totals but not a majority. If that unlikely eventuality comes to pass, then the convention would be a throwback to something from the last century, and some other prominent Republican might likely emerge as the GOP standard bearer. But that's probably just wishful thinking from the historian in me.
06/09: Is She Reagan?
I am seeing all kinds of Ronald Reagan-Sarah Palin comparisons careening around the blogoshere over the last seventy hours (perhaps the most eerie from Mike Reagan). Any validity? Maybe. I see some similarities.
Truly, she has a Reagan-like gift for communication. She talks, we listen, and we understand exactly what she means. Moreover, we admire her style even as we process her message. She feels at ease with us--and vice versa. She is confident, sincere, and approachable. Those are rare qualities that Reagan possessed in spades.
A member of the Bosque Boys community, "speakerofdacommoner," recently compared Palin to John Kennedy:
"She is bright, enthusiastic, matter of fact, and easy on the eyes! JFK was able to appear like a regular Joe each time he took center stage – almost as if he were having a conversation with just you. Palin did a remarkable job of appearing as real and rooted as anyone since Reagan. She seems trustworthy, honest, and tough – yet strikingly feminine: assertive without outright aggression."
"Speaker" is right to NOT shy away from her appealing appearance. The sheer physical beauty of Reagan and Kennedy should not be overlooked in explaining their political allure. Most of us are naturally drawn to beautiful people. Of course, you need to do more than look pretty (ask John Edwards). But an attractive countenance seems a wonderful starting place for a public figure.
One other comparison to Reagan (and this may be important):
She is polarizing. Just about half of us have already fallen in love with Sarah Palin--but the other half seems intent on ripping her heart out. If you remember the Reagan days, you will recall how much the left hated the Gipper. Even as there is a new energy and sense of great expectation on our side about her, our opponents are overflowing with fulmination. You could feel an uneasiness and dread on the part of the Obama nation and the almost intuitive and collective desire on the left to crush Palin immediately. This lady Hercules needed to be killed in the cradle, but, instead, she showed up on Wednesday night smiling and joyfully taunting her tormentors with the carcasses of the unsuccessful character assassins.
One thing about Reagan, the more you disparaged him, the more he smiled. "Well, Jimmy, there you go again." She smiles a lot--even when she is giving her opponent the business. Put me down and I will laugh good-naturedly--but you better be ready for my comeback. You make fun of me for being a small-town mayor, I've got a joke that puts you in your place, buster. And when it is all over, you will wish you had never opened up that can of worms.
One more thing I like: she doesn't look off into space; she looks directly at me through the television set.
One note of caution: we met Ronald Reagan the politician in 1964. We watched him for sixteen years before we elected him president, which included eight years as governor of the most populous state in the Union and two unsuccessful campaigns for president.
We met Sarah Palin eight days ago.
Truly, she has a Reagan-like gift for communication. She talks, we listen, and we understand exactly what she means. Moreover, we admire her style even as we process her message. She feels at ease with us--and vice versa. She is confident, sincere, and approachable. Those are rare qualities that Reagan possessed in spades.
A member of the Bosque Boys community, "speakerofdacommoner," recently compared Palin to John Kennedy:
"She is bright, enthusiastic, matter of fact, and easy on the eyes! JFK was able to appear like a regular Joe each time he took center stage – almost as if he were having a conversation with just you. Palin did a remarkable job of appearing as real and rooted as anyone since Reagan. She seems trustworthy, honest, and tough – yet strikingly feminine: assertive without outright aggression."
"Speaker" is right to NOT shy away from her appealing appearance. The sheer physical beauty of Reagan and Kennedy should not be overlooked in explaining their political allure. Most of us are naturally drawn to beautiful people. Of course, you need to do more than look pretty (ask John Edwards). But an attractive countenance seems a wonderful starting place for a public figure.
One other comparison to Reagan (and this may be important):
She is polarizing. Just about half of us have already fallen in love with Sarah Palin--but the other half seems intent on ripping her heart out. If you remember the Reagan days, you will recall how much the left hated the Gipper. Even as there is a new energy and sense of great expectation on our side about her, our opponents are overflowing with fulmination. You could feel an uneasiness and dread on the part of the Obama nation and the almost intuitive and collective desire on the left to crush Palin immediately. This lady Hercules needed to be killed in the cradle, but, instead, she showed up on Wednesday night smiling and joyfully taunting her tormentors with the carcasses of the unsuccessful character assassins.
One thing about Reagan, the more you disparaged him, the more he smiled. "Well, Jimmy, there you go again." She smiles a lot--even when she is giving her opponent the business. Put me down and I will laugh good-naturedly--but you better be ready for my comeback. You make fun of me for being a small-town mayor, I've got a joke that puts you in your place, buster. And when it is all over, you will wish you had never opened up that can of worms.
One more thing I like: she doesn't look off into space; she looks directly at me through the television set.
One note of caution: we met Ronald Reagan the politician in 1964. We watched him for sixteen years before we elected him president, which included eight years as governor of the most populous state in the Union and two unsuccessful campaigns for president.
We met Sarah Palin eight days ago.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Last week I voted (early) for John McCain in the Texas primary. Barring some unforeseen calamity or epiphany, I will vote for John McCain again in the fall. However, I seriously considered requesting a Democratic ballot in order to vote for Hillary Clinton for the nomination of her party.
Why did I waive my right to "cross over," as we refer to it here in the Lone Star State?
--I very much wanted to vote for one specific Republican, "Doc Anderson," down the ballot in the GOP canvass.
--To vote Democratic, the procedure requires a promise to refrain from any Republican Party activity for a calendar year. Although I am not a very active Republican, I would have felt uncomfortable making that declaration. And, as it was designed to do, the promise gave me pause intuitively.
--Most importantly though, I know a number of Republicans have advocated a vote for Hillary Clinton as a method of sabotage; that is, vote for Hillary to extend the internecine Democratic Party fight for a few more weeks or months. Many of these Republicans also see Mrs. Clinton as a more vulnerable opposition candidate in November. For the record, in my view, they are right to worry that the Obama juggernaut is unprecedentedly powerful and unique as a political force.
Notwithstanding, I abhor sabotage. I ultimately demurred from wading into the Democratic primary because I would have invited suspicion among my friends in the other party, who might have wondered whether I really had their best interest in mind. I did not want even the hint of impropriety or the suggestion that I attempted to deprive Democrats of their best candidate. And, in the end, for that reason, I determined that my vote would do Hillary Clinton more harm than good.
Having said that, I have always participated in my own private Democratic primary, mentally supporting a candidate that I wanted to win the nomination--based not on who would be easiest to beat in my opinion, but based on who, if elected, would make the best president. Examples: Joe Lieberman in 2004; Paul Tsongas in 1992 (although I had a soft spot of Clinton that year also); Henry Jackson (and then Jimmy Carter) in 1976.
Here is a less than complete list of reasons (and something of a review) of why I think Hillary Clinton is the best Democratic Party alternative this time around:
1. I believe Hillary is a tough-minded, no-nonsense person. She is a hard-boiled realist, who understands national vital interests as well as political necessities. She will throw rhetorical bones to the left but govern in the center, because she will want to be reelected. She will employ the traditional American foreign-policy making establishment and pursue a moderate-to-firm course in international relations. She will not be exactly what I want, but neither will she bring about a socialist revolution or a unilateral retreat from American interests abroad.
John Edwards was fairly close to reality when he said a "vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for the status quo."
2. This is really a more specific extension of #1: if Hillary remains faithful to her record and rhetoric, her election will commit the Democratic Party en masse to the global war on terror. Just as Harry Truman and the Democrats owned the Cold War until Dwight Eisenhower came along and embraced the policy, the War on Terror at this moment is a unilateral Republican policy. It is vital for American survival that the Democrats have a partisan interest in our success in the larger war on terror.
Note on style for some of my Democratic friends in re "war on terror": I understand that this articulation is problematic for some—but, in order to avoid the less than constructive semantic argument, suffice it to say, we face a worldwide movement to create chaos, which must be addressed in a bipartisan way.
Why did I waive my right to "cross over," as we refer to it here in the Lone Star State?
--I very much wanted to vote for one specific Republican, "Doc Anderson," down the ballot in the GOP canvass.
--To vote Democratic, the procedure requires a promise to refrain from any Republican Party activity for a calendar year. Although I am not a very active Republican, I would have felt uncomfortable making that declaration. And, as it was designed to do, the promise gave me pause intuitively.
--Most importantly though, I know a number of Republicans have advocated a vote for Hillary Clinton as a method of sabotage; that is, vote for Hillary to extend the internecine Democratic Party fight for a few more weeks or months. Many of these Republicans also see Mrs. Clinton as a more vulnerable opposition candidate in November. For the record, in my view, they are right to worry that the Obama juggernaut is unprecedentedly powerful and unique as a political force.
Notwithstanding, I abhor sabotage. I ultimately demurred from wading into the Democratic primary because I would have invited suspicion among my friends in the other party, who might have wondered whether I really had their best interest in mind. I did not want even the hint of impropriety or the suggestion that I attempted to deprive Democrats of their best candidate. And, in the end, for that reason, I determined that my vote would do Hillary Clinton more harm than good.
Having said that, I have always participated in my own private Democratic primary, mentally supporting a candidate that I wanted to win the nomination--based not on who would be easiest to beat in my opinion, but based on who, if elected, would make the best president. Examples: Joe Lieberman in 2004; Paul Tsongas in 1992 (although I had a soft spot of Clinton that year also); Henry Jackson (and then Jimmy Carter) in 1976.
Here is a less than complete list of reasons (and something of a review) of why I think Hillary Clinton is the best Democratic Party alternative this time around:
1. I believe Hillary is a tough-minded, no-nonsense person. She is a hard-boiled realist, who understands national vital interests as well as political necessities. She will throw rhetorical bones to the left but govern in the center, because she will want to be reelected. She will employ the traditional American foreign-policy making establishment and pursue a moderate-to-firm course in international relations. She will not be exactly what I want, but neither will she bring about a socialist revolution or a unilateral retreat from American interests abroad.
John Edwards was fairly close to reality when he said a "vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for the status quo."
2. This is really a more specific extension of #1: if Hillary remains faithful to her record and rhetoric, her election will commit the Democratic Party en masse to the global war on terror. Just as Harry Truman and the Democrats owned the Cold War until Dwight Eisenhower came along and embraced the policy, the War on Terror at this moment is a unilateral Republican policy. It is vital for American survival that the Democrats have a partisan interest in our success in the larger war on terror.
Note on style for some of my Democratic friends in re "war on terror": I understand that this articulation is problematic for some—but, in order to avoid the less than constructive semantic argument, suffice it to say, we face a worldwide movement to create chaos, which must be addressed in a bipartisan way.
From Tocqueville (Wednesday PM):
Last night, Romney lifted this message directly from Rush Limbaugh's program yesterday, which I think was a GREAT move:
"Tonight is a victory for optimism over Washington-style pessimism. (applause) What we're going to see in the next few days is Democrats say that they're the party of change. (grumbling) You're going to hear Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, saying that they're the party of change, and I think they would bring change to America, just not the kind we want. You see, I think they take their inspiration from the Europe of old: big government, Big Brother, big taxes. They fundamentally in their hearts believe, that America is great because we have a great government -- and we do have a great government, but that's not what makes us the best nation, the strongest nation, the greatest nation on earth. What makes us such a great nation is the American people. I take my inspiration from Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush, who said we are a great and good people. It's exactly what we are, it's why we will always be the most powerful nation on earth."
A Waco Farmer:
I agree with Tocqueville. You have to admire Romney's game. He is smart enough to understand that he cannot win the nomination without bringing along Limbaugh (unlike Huck and McCain—who seem unwilling to accept this basic fact of life). Romney is positioning himself as an acceptable alternative to Huckabee and/or McCain. In my mind, this race comes down to a contest between Romney and Thompson. Rush is clearly for Thompson, and Thompson has his last last chance on Saturday night in South Carolina. But if Thompson cannot get traction, Limbaugh et al will have no choice but to support Romney to thwart either Huckabee or McCain, both of whom he detests.
Another note: I haven't heard as much impassioned yelling on Talk Radio in years. The conservative talkers are pulling out all the stops to stop Mac and Huck--and they will.
One last note: as the economy cools down (and heats up as an issue—what war in Iraq?), Romney and his optimism becomes increasingly attractive. He is authentically the no-nonsense, straight arrow whom we can trust to fix things.
The path to victory for Romney is suddenly wide open and well lit.
Last night, Romney lifted this message directly from Rush Limbaugh's program yesterday, which I think was a GREAT move:
"Tonight is a victory for optimism over Washington-style pessimism. (applause) What we're going to see in the next few days is Democrats say that they're the party of change. (grumbling) You're going to hear Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, saying that they're the party of change, and I think they would bring change to America, just not the kind we want. You see, I think they take their inspiration from the Europe of old: big government, Big Brother, big taxes. They fundamentally in their hearts believe, that America is great because we have a great government -- and we do have a great government, but that's not what makes us the best nation, the strongest nation, the greatest nation on earth. What makes us such a great nation is the American people. I take my inspiration from Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush, who said we are a great and good people. It's exactly what we are, it's why we will always be the most powerful nation on earth."
A Waco Farmer:
I agree with Tocqueville. You have to admire Romney's game. He is smart enough to understand that he cannot win the nomination without bringing along Limbaugh (unlike Huck and McCain—who seem unwilling to accept this basic fact of life). Romney is positioning himself as an acceptable alternative to Huckabee and/or McCain. In my mind, this race comes down to a contest between Romney and Thompson. Rush is clearly for Thompson, and Thompson has his last last chance on Saturday night in South Carolina. But if Thompson cannot get traction, Limbaugh et al will have no choice but to support Romney to thwart either Huckabee or McCain, both of whom he detests.
Another note: I haven't heard as much impassioned yelling on Talk Radio in years. The conservative talkers are pulling out all the stops to stop Mac and Huck--and they will.
One last note: as the economy cools down (and heats up as an issue—what war in Iraq?), Romney and his optimism becomes increasingly attractive. He is authentically the no-nonsense, straight arrow whom we can trust to fix things.
The path to victory for Romney is suddenly wide open and well lit.
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.
Hillary Clinton is still the most likely person to be elected the forty-fourth president of the United States in 2008 (see Part I). If she is elected, America will endure (see Part II); perhaps, we will even prosper.
Clinton-44: Part III. Why it might even be good:
1. We have reason to hope that Republicans will better inhabit the role of loyal opposition than the erstwhile players.
2. Most importantly, if Mrs. Clinton remains faithful to her record and rhetoric, her election will commit the Democratic Party en masse to the global war on terror. Just as Harry Truman and the Democrats owned the Cold War until Dwight Eisenhower came along and embraced the policy, the War on Terror at this moment is a unilateral Republican policy. It is vital for American survival that the Democrats have a partisan interest in our success in the larger war on terror.
A crucial time. Mrs. Clinton is at a crossroads right now. Does she stand pat on her Iraq position? Or should she hedge her bet? During the next few days, President Bush will reaffirm his commitment to winning in Iraq, and he will announce a "surge" in troops (very likely a number larger than many of us are prepared for). Will Mrs. Clinton support the President? Or will she join John Kerry and John Edwards, who have both repudiated their 2002 support and are vocally advocating for an expedited withdrawal? Hillary's choice will be the most important decision of her political career, and not merely vital for her personally; her determination goes a long way toward shaping our future as a nation.
Her political calculation: To win the general election, Mrs. Clinton must cast herself as a moderate Democrat, tough on terror, strong on defense, realistic on taxes and sane on the cultural issues. She has steadily constructed this political persona for almost a decade. For the most part, she has succeeded grandly. As a result, most of the other moderate Democrats are fleeing the field, leaving the canvass to Mrs. Clinton.
An aside: Most handicappers have this race down to Hillary and Barack Obama (the candidate who has burst onto the political scene from nowhere to become a viable choice with astonishing momentum). Not invested in the original decision to invade Iraq, Obama has made the safest bet: he opposes increased troop levels (his statement here ). This is clearly the best route for him, as it highlights his original opposition to what has become an incredibly unpopular military action. His compelling answer to the inevitable question of experience: "My opponent may have a few years on me, but I have enough common sense to avoid a debacle." Notwithstanding, there are weaknesses in this strategy (see below).
Back to Clinton: Although she wobbled a bit this week, significantly, Mrs. Clinton has not laid the predicate for supporting a precipitous exit from Iraq. Why has she remained firm thus far? She understands that success in Iraq is in her interest. Best case scenario for candidate Clinton in 2008? A passive Iraq quietly building strength below the media radar. In fairness to her, she also understands that wresting a stable Iraq from the current chaos is in America's vital national interests, comprehending the catastrophic consequences of a humiliating withdrawal.
The Politics: Mrs. Clinton is the frontrunner. She is a superstar; she sits atop the best organization in the contest; she has unlimited access to money, and she (in partnership with her husband) has spent a lifetime locking in endorsements, racking up favors and collecting promises from all the key players in the upcoming primary battle. But she has a dilemma. If a volatile Iraq continues to deteriorate through January 2008, her opponents in the Democratic primary will inflict monumental damage depicting her as George Bush's enabler. Can she survive that? Impossible to say.
On the other hand, staying the course may be the wiser political move. She is not in a desperate position like John Edwards, who must publicly and repeatedly repent to resurrect his 2008 viability. She does not need to appeal to the most radical elements in her party, who detest the war. A degree of hawkishness and faith in American good intentions helps her in the heartland.
The McCain factor: More significantly, if she abandons ship, and the plan to increase troop levels succeeds, she is in real trouble in the general election. Surprisingly, John McCain seems now in position to secure the Republican nomination. Increased troop strength is John McCain's recipe for success. He has been sounding this call for three years. If this last gasp works, John McCain (with the willing aid of President Bush) takes full credit for the change in tactics. If Hillary deserts the cause at this late date, and the new plan works, she cedes the foreign policy high ground to her Republican opponent. On the other hand, if she stays true to her previous commitment, she fights McCain on even ground in November of 2008.
This is an extremely vexing political decision. But it is momentous. If she holds firm, the Democratic Senate leadership in the Senate will back her. With the support of Mrs. Clinton, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman, the United States gets one more chance to snatch victory from the awful struggle in Iraq.
Dick Morris wrote an insightful piece a few weeks ago (read it here courtesy of Jewish World Review).
He begs us not to elect Hillary Clinton and enumerates a long list of reasons why she would be a disaster. Undoubtedly, he has a lot of this right. I agree with much of his unflattering character profile. Morris is a canny operator and an insightful observer with expert knowledge of the Clintons. Having said that, Morris's analysis is always flavored by his hatred for them (especially intense for Hillary), which clouds his judgment.
Even so, Morris points out that Hillary, in contradistinction to Bill, is rigid and stubborn, inclined to make up her mind and "charge ahead and do what she thinks needs to be done, the torpedoes be damned." Morris sees this as a horrendous flaw, and I would agree with him in ordinary circumstances; however, in this case it may work to our national benefit. We need stubborn more than practical right now.
Clinton-44: Part III. Why it might even be good:
1. We have reason to hope that Republicans will better inhabit the role of loyal opposition than the erstwhile players.
2. Most importantly, if Mrs. Clinton remains faithful to her record and rhetoric, her election will commit the Democratic Party en masse to the global war on terror. Just as Harry Truman and the Democrats owned the Cold War until Dwight Eisenhower came along and embraced the policy, the War on Terror at this moment is a unilateral Republican policy. It is vital for American survival that the Democrats have a partisan interest in our success in the larger war on terror.
A crucial time. Mrs. Clinton is at a crossroads right now. Does she stand pat on her Iraq position? Or should she hedge her bet? During the next few days, President Bush will reaffirm his commitment to winning in Iraq, and he will announce a "surge" in troops (very likely a number larger than many of us are prepared for). Will Mrs. Clinton support the President? Or will she join John Kerry and John Edwards, who have both repudiated their 2002 support and are vocally advocating for an expedited withdrawal? Hillary's choice will be the most important decision of her political career, and not merely vital for her personally; her determination goes a long way toward shaping our future as a nation.
Her political calculation: To win the general election, Mrs. Clinton must cast herself as a moderate Democrat, tough on terror, strong on defense, realistic on taxes and sane on the cultural issues. She has steadily constructed this political persona for almost a decade. For the most part, she has succeeded grandly. As a result, most of the other moderate Democrats are fleeing the field, leaving the canvass to Mrs. Clinton.
An aside: Most handicappers have this race down to Hillary and Barack Obama (the candidate who has burst onto the political scene from nowhere to become a viable choice with astonishing momentum). Not invested in the original decision to invade Iraq, Obama has made the safest bet: he opposes increased troop levels (his statement here ). This is clearly the best route for him, as it highlights his original opposition to what has become an incredibly unpopular military action. His compelling answer to the inevitable question of experience: "My opponent may have a few years on me, but I have enough common sense to avoid a debacle." Notwithstanding, there are weaknesses in this strategy (see below).
Back to Clinton: Although she wobbled a bit this week, significantly, Mrs. Clinton has not laid the predicate for supporting a precipitous exit from Iraq. Why has she remained firm thus far? She understands that success in Iraq is in her interest. Best case scenario for candidate Clinton in 2008? A passive Iraq quietly building strength below the media radar. In fairness to her, she also understands that wresting a stable Iraq from the current chaos is in America's vital national interests, comprehending the catastrophic consequences of a humiliating withdrawal.
The Politics: Mrs. Clinton is the frontrunner. She is a superstar; she sits atop the best organization in the contest; she has unlimited access to money, and she (in partnership with her husband) has spent a lifetime locking in endorsements, racking up favors and collecting promises from all the key players in the upcoming primary battle. But she has a dilemma. If a volatile Iraq continues to deteriorate through January 2008, her opponents in the Democratic primary will inflict monumental damage depicting her as George Bush's enabler. Can she survive that? Impossible to say.
On the other hand, staying the course may be the wiser political move. She is not in a desperate position like John Edwards, who must publicly and repeatedly repent to resurrect his 2008 viability. She does not need to appeal to the most radical elements in her party, who detest the war. A degree of hawkishness and faith in American good intentions helps her in the heartland.
The McCain factor: More significantly, if she abandons ship, and the plan to increase troop levels succeeds, she is in real trouble in the general election. Surprisingly, John McCain seems now in position to secure the Republican nomination. Increased troop strength is John McCain's recipe for success. He has been sounding this call for three years. If this last gasp works, John McCain (with the willing aid of President Bush) takes full credit for the change in tactics. If Hillary deserts the cause at this late date, and the new plan works, she cedes the foreign policy high ground to her Republican opponent. On the other hand, if she stays true to her previous commitment, she fights McCain on even ground in November of 2008.
This is an extremely vexing political decision. But it is momentous. If she holds firm, the Democratic Senate leadership in the Senate will back her. With the support of Mrs. Clinton, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman, the United States gets one more chance to snatch victory from the awful struggle in Iraq.
Dick Morris wrote an insightful piece a few weeks ago (read it here courtesy of Jewish World Review).
He begs us not to elect Hillary Clinton and enumerates a long list of reasons why she would be a disaster. Undoubtedly, he has a lot of this right. I agree with much of his unflattering character profile. Morris is a canny operator and an insightful observer with expert knowledge of the Clintons. Having said that, Morris's analysis is always flavored by his hatred for them (especially intense for Hillary), which clouds his judgment.
Even so, Morris points out that Hillary, in contradistinction to Bill, is rigid and stubborn, inclined to make up her mind and "charge ahead and do what she thinks needs to be done, the torpedoes be damned." Morris sees this as a horrendous flaw, and I would agree with him in ordinary circumstances; however, in this case it may work to our national benefit. We need stubborn more than practical right now.
22/12: Compassionate Conservatives
New in Print: Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide. Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters
By Arthur C. Brooks
(Basic, 250 pages, $26)
Bosque Boys favorite Wilfred M. McClay offers a very fine review of the book in today's Wall Street Journal.
McClay writes:
"If Mr. Brooks is right, our era's common sense of the matter -- that the political left is more compassionate than the political right, and that America is a remarkably ungenerous nation by world standards -- is demonstrably inaccurate. In fact, Sen. John Edwards's repeated claim that there are "two Americas" turns out to be correct but misstated: The line of separation runs most saliently not between the haves and have-nots but between the gives and the give-nots, between those Americans who respond to social needs with their own money and time and those who do not."
"The correlations are strong and unmistakable. For example, people who attend houses of worship regularly are 25% more likely to give and 23% more likely to volunteer, and the religious give away four times the amounts of money that the secular do. Working families without welfare support give three times as much to charity as do welfare families with the same total income. Conservative households give 30% more to charity than liberal households. Redistributionist liberals give about a fourth of what redistributionist skeptics give. And perhaps most interesting of all, in states in which George W. Bush got more than 60% of the 2004 vote, charitable giving averaged 3.5% of income, as compared with states in which Mr. Bush got less than 40% of the vote, in which the giving averaged a mere 1.9% of income. So much for the idea that red states are red in tooth and claw."
I agree with McClay's articulate backhand to sociology as a discipline: "The social sciences even at their best do nothing but restate the obvious in obscure language." However, he heartily recommends this effort as a "lucidly written, carefully distilled and persuasively cogent work, a tidy time-bomb of a book whose findings will, if they are taken to heart, transform much of what we thought we knew about charity and the social good in America...."
We'll see. If nothing else, we can expect a needed conversation and perhaps reevaluation of some hackneyed negative stereotypes regarding conservatives.
Bill McClay's review online in full here (registration may be required).
By Arthur C. Brooks
(Basic, 250 pages, $26)
Bosque Boys favorite Wilfred M. McClay offers a very fine review of the book in today's Wall Street Journal.
McClay writes:
"If Mr. Brooks is right, our era's common sense of the matter -- that the political left is more compassionate than the political right, and that America is a remarkably ungenerous nation by world standards -- is demonstrably inaccurate. In fact, Sen. John Edwards's repeated claim that there are "two Americas" turns out to be correct but misstated: The line of separation runs most saliently not between the haves and have-nots but between the gives and the give-nots, between those Americans who respond to social needs with their own money and time and those who do not."
"The correlations are strong and unmistakable. For example, people who attend houses of worship regularly are 25% more likely to give and 23% more likely to volunteer, and the religious give away four times the amounts of money that the secular do. Working families without welfare support give three times as much to charity as do welfare families with the same total income. Conservative households give 30% more to charity than liberal households. Redistributionist liberals give about a fourth of what redistributionist skeptics give. And perhaps most interesting of all, in states in which George W. Bush got more than 60% of the 2004 vote, charitable giving averaged 3.5% of income, as compared with states in which Mr. Bush got less than 40% of the vote, in which the giving averaged a mere 1.9% of income. So much for the idea that red states are red in tooth and claw."
I agree with McClay's articulate backhand to sociology as a discipline: "The social sciences even at their best do nothing but restate the obvious in obscure language." However, he heartily recommends this effort as a "lucidly written, carefully distilled and persuasively cogent work, a tidy time-bomb of a book whose findings will, if they are taken to heart, transform much of what we thought we knew about charity and the social good in America...."
We'll see. If nothing else, we can expect a needed conversation and perhaps reevaluation of some hackneyed negative stereotypes regarding conservatives.
Bill McClay's review online in full here (registration may be required).
Category: Farmer's Favorites
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I wrote this piece more than a year ago (New Year's Eve, 2006). Some of it I got right--some of it I missed. But I submit that the post is worth reconsidering on this near-anniversary of the surge, and in the midst of this hotly contested primary campaign, as the basic dynamic I describe below remains at work (at least partially) in 2008.
One other comment: Hillary did not make the choice for which I hoped--but, in retrospect, if she had, it is doubtful that she could have survived this long. I wildly underestimated how much her base wants George Bush and the United States to lose this war at any cost.
From December 31, 2006:
Clinton-44: Part III: Hillary's Choice
Hillary Clinton is still the most likely person to be elected the forty-fourth president of the United States in 2008 (see Part I). If she is elected, America will endure (see Part II); perhaps, we will even prosper.
Clinton-44: Part III. Why it might even be good:
1. We have reason to hope that Republicans will better inhabit the role of loyal opposition than the erstwhile players.
2. Most importantly, if Mrs. Clinton remains faithful to her record and rhetoric, her election will commit the Democratic Party en masse to the global war on terror. Just as Harry Truman and the Democrats owned the Cold War until Dwight Eisenhower came along and embraced the policy, the War on Terror at this moment is a unilateral Republican policy. It is vital for American survival that the Democrats have a partisan interest in our success in the larger war on terror.
A crucial time. Mrs. Clinton is at a crossroads right now. Does she stand pat on her Iraq position? Or should she hedge her bet? During the next few days, President Bush will reaffirm his commitment to winning in Iraq, and he will announce a "surge" in troops (very likely a number larger than many of us are prepared for). Will Mrs. Clinton support the President? Or will she join John Kerry and John Edwards, who have both repudiated their 2002 support and are vocally advocating for an expedited withdrawal? Hillary's choice will be the most important decision of her political career, and not merely vital for her personally; her determination goes a long way toward shaping our future as a nation.
Her political calculation: To win the general election, Mrs. Clinton must cast herself as a moderate Democrat, tough on terror, strong on defense, realistic on taxes and sane on the cultural issues. She has steadily constructed this political persona for almost a decade. For the most part, she has succeeded grandly. As a result, most of the other moderate Democrats are fleeing the field, leaving the canvass to Mrs. Clinton.
An aside: Most handicappers have this race down to Hillary and Barack Obama (the candidate who has burst onto the political scene from nowhere to become a viable choice with astonishing momentum). Not invested in the original decision to invade Iraq, Obama has made the safest bet: he opposes increased troop levels (his statement here ). This is clearly the best route for him, as it highlights his original opposition to what has become an incredibly unpopular military action. His compelling answer to the inevitable question of experience: "My opponent may have a few years on me, but I have enough common sense to avoid a debacle." Notwithstanding, there are weaknesses in this strategy (see below).
Back to Clinton: Although she wobbled a bit this week, significantly, Mrs. Clinton has not laid the predicate for supporting a precipitous exit from Iraq. Why has she remained firm thus far? She understands that success in Iraq is in her interest. Best case scenario for candidate Clinton in 2008? A passive Iraq quietly building strength below the media radar. In fairness to her, she also understands that wresting a stable Iraq from the current chaos is in America's vital national interests, comprehending the catastrophic consequences of a humiliating withdrawal.
The Politics: Mrs. Clinton is the frontrunner. She is a superstar; she sits atop the best organization in the contest; she has unlimited access to money, and she (in partnership with her husband) has spent a lifetime locking in endorsements, racking up favors, and collecting promises from all the key players in the upcoming primary battle. But she has a dilemma. If a volatile Iraq continues to deteriorate through January 2008, her opponents in the Democratic primary will inflict monumental damage depicting her as George Bush's enabler. Can she survive that? Impossible to say.
On the other hand, staying the course may be the wiser political move. She is not in a desperate position like John Edwards, who must publicly and repeatedly repent to resurrect his 2008 viability. She does not need to appeal to the most radical elements in her party, who detest the war. A degree of hawkishness and faith in American good intentions helps her in the heartland.
The McCain factor: More significantly, if she abandons ship, and the plan to increase troop levels succeeds, she is in real trouble in the general election. Surprisingly, John McCain seems now in position to secure the Republican nomination. Increased troop strength is John McCain's recipe for success. He has been sounding this call for three years. If this last gasp works, John McCain (with the willing aid of President Bush) takes full credit for the change in tactics. If Hillary deserts the cause at this late date, and the new plan works, she cedes the foreign policy high ground to her Republican opponent. On the other hand, if she stays true to her previous commitment, she fights McCain on even ground in November of 2008.
This is an extremely vexing political decision. But it is momentous. If she holds firm, the Democratic Senate leadership in the Senate will back her. With the support of Mrs. Clinton, Joe Biden, and Joe Lieberman, the United States gets one more chance to snatch victory from the awful struggle in Iraq.
Dick Morris wrote an insightful piece a few weeks ago (read it here courtesy of Jewish World Review).
He begs us not to elect Hillary Clinton and enumerates a long list of reasons why she would be a disaster. Undoubtedly, he has a lot of this right. I agree with much of his unflattering character profile. Morris is a canny operator and an insightful observer with expert knowledge of the Clintons. Having said that, Morris's analysis is always flavored by his hatred for them (especially intense for Hillary), which clouds his judgment.
Even so, Morris points out that Hillary, in contradistinction to Bill, is rigid and stubborn, inclined to make up her mind and "charge ahead and do what she thinks needs to be done, the torpedoes be damned." Morris sees this as a horrendous flaw, and I would agree with him in ordinary circumstances; however, in this case it may work to our national benefit. We need stubborn more than practical right now.
One other comment: Hillary did not make the choice for which I hoped--but, in retrospect, if she had, it is doubtful that she could have survived this long. I wildly underestimated how much her base wants George Bush and the United States to lose this war at any cost.
From December 31, 2006:
Clinton-44: Part III: Hillary's Choice
Hillary Clinton is still the most likely person to be elected the forty-fourth president of the United States in 2008 (see Part I). If she is elected, America will endure (see Part II); perhaps, we will even prosper.
Clinton-44: Part III. Why it might even be good:
1. We have reason to hope that Republicans will better inhabit the role of loyal opposition than the erstwhile players.
2. Most importantly, if Mrs. Clinton remains faithful to her record and rhetoric, her election will commit the Democratic Party en masse to the global war on terror. Just as Harry Truman and the Democrats owned the Cold War until Dwight Eisenhower came along and embraced the policy, the War on Terror at this moment is a unilateral Republican policy. It is vital for American survival that the Democrats have a partisan interest in our success in the larger war on terror.
A crucial time. Mrs. Clinton is at a crossroads right now. Does she stand pat on her Iraq position? Or should she hedge her bet? During the next few days, President Bush will reaffirm his commitment to winning in Iraq, and he will announce a "surge" in troops (very likely a number larger than many of us are prepared for). Will Mrs. Clinton support the President? Or will she join John Kerry and John Edwards, who have both repudiated their 2002 support and are vocally advocating for an expedited withdrawal? Hillary's choice will be the most important decision of her political career, and not merely vital for her personally; her determination goes a long way toward shaping our future as a nation.
Her political calculation: To win the general election, Mrs. Clinton must cast herself as a moderate Democrat, tough on terror, strong on defense, realistic on taxes and sane on the cultural issues. She has steadily constructed this political persona for almost a decade. For the most part, she has succeeded grandly. As a result, most of the other moderate Democrats are fleeing the field, leaving the canvass to Mrs. Clinton.
An aside: Most handicappers have this race down to Hillary and Barack Obama (the candidate who has burst onto the political scene from nowhere to become a viable choice with astonishing momentum). Not invested in the original decision to invade Iraq, Obama has made the safest bet: he opposes increased troop levels (his statement here ). This is clearly the best route for him, as it highlights his original opposition to what has become an incredibly unpopular military action. His compelling answer to the inevitable question of experience: "My opponent may have a few years on me, but I have enough common sense to avoid a debacle." Notwithstanding, there are weaknesses in this strategy (see below).
Back to Clinton: Although she wobbled a bit this week, significantly, Mrs. Clinton has not laid the predicate for supporting a precipitous exit from Iraq. Why has she remained firm thus far? She understands that success in Iraq is in her interest. Best case scenario for candidate Clinton in 2008? A passive Iraq quietly building strength below the media radar. In fairness to her, she also understands that wresting a stable Iraq from the current chaos is in America's vital national interests, comprehending the catastrophic consequences of a humiliating withdrawal.
The Politics: Mrs. Clinton is the frontrunner. She is a superstar; she sits atop the best organization in the contest; she has unlimited access to money, and she (in partnership with her husband) has spent a lifetime locking in endorsements, racking up favors, and collecting promises from all the key players in the upcoming primary battle. But she has a dilemma. If a volatile Iraq continues to deteriorate through January 2008, her opponents in the Democratic primary will inflict monumental damage depicting her as George Bush's enabler. Can she survive that? Impossible to say.
On the other hand, staying the course may be the wiser political move. She is not in a desperate position like John Edwards, who must publicly and repeatedly repent to resurrect his 2008 viability. She does not need to appeal to the most radical elements in her party, who detest the war. A degree of hawkishness and faith in American good intentions helps her in the heartland.
The McCain factor: More significantly, if she abandons ship, and the plan to increase troop levels succeeds, she is in real trouble in the general election. Surprisingly, John McCain seems now in position to secure the Republican nomination. Increased troop strength is John McCain's recipe for success. He has been sounding this call for three years. If this last gasp works, John McCain (with the willing aid of President Bush) takes full credit for the change in tactics. If Hillary deserts the cause at this late date, and the new plan works, she cedes the foreign policy high ground to her Republican opponent. On the other hand, if she stays true to her previous commitment, she fights McCain on even ground in November of 2008.
This is an extremely vexing political decision. But it is momentous. If she holds firm, the Democratic Senate leadership in the Senate will back her. With the support of Mrs. Clinton, Joe Biden, and Joe Lieberman, the United States gets one more chance to snatch victory from the awful struggle in Iraq.
Dick Morris wrote an insightful piece a few weeks ago (read it here courtesy of Jewish World Review).
He begs us not to elect Hillary Clinton and enumerates a long list of reasons why she would be a disaster. Undoubtedly, he has a lot of this right. I agree with much of his unflattering character profile. Morris is a canny operator and an insightful observer with expert knowledge of the Clintons. Having said that, Morris's analysis is always flavored by his hatred for them (especially intense for Hillary), which clouds his judgment.
Even so, Morris points out that Hillary, in contradistinction to Bill, is rigid and stubborn, inclined to make up her mind and "charge ahead and do what she thinks needs to be done, the torpedoes be damned." Morris sees this as a horrendous flaw, and I would agree with him in ordinary circumstances; however, in this case it may work to our national benefit. We need stubborn more than practical right now.
Sometimes the very thing you're looking for
Is the one thing you can't see
And now we're standing face to face
Isn't this world a crazy place
Just when I thought our chance had passed
You go and save the best for last
John McCain has executed a phoenix-like comeback. Now leading in the polls in New Hampshire, he is on the verge of winning the historically meaningful "first" primary. His new-found potency, once again, incredibly, makes him a viable player in the greater race for the Republican nomination. Is the much-maligned John McCain really going to win the Republican standard in 2008?
David Brooks, Robert Novak, and Bill Kristol think so.
While confessing my admiration for McCain, and reminding readers that I had come out for McCain twenty-one months ago as a courageous and electable Reagan conservative, I wrote with confidence a few days ago that the McCain comeback would necessarily fall short.
I offered a list of five improbable events, which would need to transpire in order for the seventy-two year-old Arizona senator to emerge victorious. But I argued then, taken together, they were highly unlikely; however, yesterday I noted that "two have come to pass and, incredibly, the ice seems to be breaking on the other three."
The Five Signs of the Political Apocalypse:
1. Huckabee holds on to Iowa.
Happened. This much and more. I had expected Huck to fade a bit and Mitt Romney to prevail thinly on the strength of money, organization, and electability. Not so! Huckabee won the caucus by nine points, and he is the darling of the national press corps this weekend. On the other hand, the person McCain has always seen as his primary obstacle to victory, Mitt Romney, is staggered, bloody, and on the ropes.
2. McCain "finishes strong" (third place) in Iowa.
Miraculously, in effect, this happened also. McCain surged to finish in a statistical dead-heat with Fred Thompson for third-place in Iowa, adding to his growing sense of possibility and sapping Fred of the bounce he might have enjoyed from a solo finish in the money.
3. Independents in NH abandon Obama and other attractive fruitcakes and come out for McCain.
Of the five improbables, this one remains the most intractable. While McCain did well with independents in New Hampshire in 2000, New Hampshire independents have a lot more choices than they did then: Ron Paul, John Edwards, and, most troubling for McCain, Barack Obama.
Many pundits had averred that an Obama loss in Iowa would help McCain with independents in New Hampshire--but, alas, a triumphant Obama arrives in the Granite State with momentum, enthusiasm, and a compelling pitch for independents. One other problem for McCain and NH independents: while McCain's incredibly courageous and prescient leadership on the war in Iraq inspires rock-ribbed Republicans, I wonder whether this facet of his current political package makes him much less appealing to these independents, whoever they really are?
On the other hand, perhaps the conventional wisdom is wrong, and McCain does not really need the mysterious independents to win this race. Perhaps he is surging the old-fashioned way--which could portend more success in the aftermath of New Hampshire 2008 than in 2000. Following the shocking McCain upset eight years ago, the independent-tainted victory seemed an albatross around his neck in the ensuing primaries, serving as further proof to core Republicans that the Maverick really was not one of us.
4. At the crucial moment, the GOP establishment (conservative talk radio, blogs, non profits, etc.) experiences an epiphany, suddenly embracing "Maverick McCain" and admitting grievous error.
Within my original post a few days ago, I said: "Not in this lifetime." But, maybe so. Of all the "improbables," this would be the most ironic. It is not happening right now--but a big win in New Hampshire, which seems possible, will force conservatives to re-examine McCain. Rush has advocated for Fred Thompson as the only conservative alternative. Sean Hannity says he could accept either Rudy, Mitt, or Fred Thompson. But what if none of these candidates are around next month? Mitt is probably out. Fred is Fred (see below). Rudy is in the netherworld right now--but will likely get one more chance on the national stage as we head South (and West).
My point: alternatives to McCain are falling away. At some point, conceivably, the conservative establishment could be forced to pick between two options: McCain or Huckabee. Most likely, they pick the old hero.
5. Fred Thompson proves as lifeless as advertised.
As noted above, Fred won third, but (quoting myself from yesterday) "[h]e pulled off a surprisingly lackluster and curiously uninspiring third place. He may have, once again, done the minimum to keep himself above water in this race."
Fred is still alive--but only because there are so few other options. Let's see what happens in the big prime-time, nationally televised debate tonight on ABC--but, as always, it is now or never for Fred. He certainly could prove as "lifeless as advertised" and as insignificant as every knowledgeable person in the mainstream media seems to think. We'll see.
The Bottom Line: Does McCain have a chance? Yes. Today I think he does, but I still would not bet the house on it.
Is the one thing you can't see
And now we're standing face to face
Isn't this world a crazy place
Just when I thought our chance had passed
You go and save the best for last
John McCain has executed a phoenix-like comeback. Now leading in the polls in New Hampshire, he is on the verge of winning the historically meaningful "first" primary. His new-found potency, once again, incredibly, makes him a viable player in the greater race for the Republican nomination. Is the much-maligned John McCain really going to win the Republican standard in 2008?
David Brooks, Robert Novak, and Bill Kristol think so.
While confessing my admiration for McCain, and reminding readers that I had come out for McCain twenty-one months ago as a courageous and electable Reagan conservative, I wrote with confidence a few days ago that the McCain comeback would necessarily fall short.
I offered a list of five improbable events, which would need to transpire in order for the seventy-two year-old Arizona senator to emerge victorious. But I argued then, taken together, they were highly unlikely; however, yesterday I noted that "two have come to pass and, incredibly, the ice seems to be breaking on the other three."
The Five Signs of the Political Apocalypse:
1. Huckabee holds on to Iowa.
Happened. This much and more. I had expected Huck to fade a bit and Mitt Romney to prevail thinly on the strength of money, organization, and electability. Not so! Huckabee won the caucus by nine points, and he is the darling of the national press corps this weekend. On the other hand, the person McCain has always seen as his primary obstacle to victory, Mitt Romney, is staggered, bloody, and on the ropes.
2. McCain "finishes strong" (third place) in Iowa.
Miraculously, in effect, this happened also. McCain surged to finish in a statistical dead-heat with Fred Thompson for third-place in Iowa, adding to his growing sense of possibility and sapping Fred of the bounce he might have enjoyed from a solo finish in the money.
3. Independents in NH abandon Obama and other attractive fruitcakes and come out for McCain.
Of the five improbables, this one remains the most intractable. While McCain did well with independents in New Hampshire in 2000, New Hampshire independents have a lot more choices than they did then: Ron Paul, John Edwards, and, most troubling for McCain, Barack Obama.
Many pundits had averred that an Obama loss in Iowa would help McCain with independents in New Hampshire--but, alas, a triumphant Obama arrives in the Granite State with momentum, enthusiasm, and a compelling pitch for independents. One other problem for McCain and NH independents: while McCain's incredibly courageous and prescient leadership on the war in Iraq inspires rock-ribbed Republicans, I wonder whether this facet of his current political package makes him much less appealing to these independents, whoever they really are?
On the other hand, perhaps the conventional wisdom is wrong, and McCain does not really need the mysterious independents to win this race. Perhaps he is surging the old-fashioned way--which could portend more success in the aftermath of New Hampshire 2008 than in 2000. Following the shocking McCain upset eight years ago, the independent-tainted victory seemed an albatross around his neck in the ensuing primaries, serving as further proof to core Republicans that the Maverick really was not one of us.
4. At the crucial moment, the GOP establishment (conservative talk radio, blogs, non profits, etc.) experiences an epiphany, suddenly embracing "Maverick McCain" and admitting grievous error.
Within my original post a few days ago, I said: "Not in this lifetime." But, maybe so. Of all the "improbables," this would be the most ironic. It is not happening right now--but a big win in New Hampshire, which seems possible, will force conservatives to re-examine McCain. Rush has advocated for Fred Thompson as the only conservative alternative. Sean Hannity says he could accept either Rudy, Mitt, or Fred Thompson. But what if none of these candidates are around next month? Mitt is probably out. Fred is Fred (see below). Rudy is in the netherworld right now--but will likely get one more chance on the national stage as we head South (and West).
My point: alternatives to McCain are falling away. At some point, conceivably, the conservative establishment could be forced to pick between two options: McCain or Huckabee. Most likely, they pick the old hero.
5. Fred Thompson proves as lifeless as advertised.
As noted above, Fred won third, but (quoting myself from yesterday) "[h]e pulled off a surprisingly lackluster and curiously uninspiring third place. He may have, once again, done the minimum to keep himself above water in this race."
Fred is still alive--but only because there are so few other options. Let's see what happens in the big prime-time, nationally televised debate tonight on ABC--but, as always, it is now or never for Fred. He certainly could prove as "lifeless as advertised" and as insignificant as every knowledgeable person in the mainstream media seems to think. We'll see.
The Bottom Line: Does McCain have a chance? Yes. Today I think he does, but I still would not bet the house on it.
23/03: House Votes for Timetable
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From the Washington Post :
"The House of Representatives today passed a $124 billion emergency spending bill that sets binding benchmarks for progress in Iraq, establishes tough readiness standards for deploying U.S. troops abroad and requires the withdrawal of American combat forces from Iraq by the end of August 2008" (read the entire article here).
The President promises to veto (condensed):
"The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq.
"As I have made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk. And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained. Today's action in the House does only one thing: it delays the delivering of vital resources for our troops.
"Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq. They have made their point. For some, that is not enough. These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen.
"The Democrats have sent their message, now it's time to send their money. This is an important moment -- a decision for the new leaders in Congress. I expect Congress to do its duty and to fund our troops, and so do the American people -- and so do the good men and women [in uniform] standing with me here today."
The President's full statement here.
What does it mean? Speaker Nancy Pelosi won this vote with absolutely no room to spare.
Of course, my guess is that she had a few votes up here sleeve. Surely, they would not have taken the vote to the floor with such a razor-thin margin.
Analysis from Paul Kane of the Washinton Post here on who voted for what and why.
My analysis in brief: The Speaker won the vote--but she is still losing the war to lose the war. She and John Murtha ought not to laugh too loudly, my guess is that the laughing is not done.
Some brief notes: My favorite Democrat, Gene Taylor, voted against the timetable. A Democrat I admire, and one for whom I have consistently voted, Texas 17 Representative, Chet Edwards, disappointingly, voted for the timetable. The next congressional election in Central Texas should be interesting.
"The House of Representatives today passed a $124 billion emergency spending bill that sets binding benchmarks for progress in Iraq, establishes tough readiness standards for deploying U.S. troops abroad and requires the withdrawal of American combat forces from Iraq by the end of August 2008" (read the entire article here).
The President promises to veto (condensed):
"The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq.
"As I have made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk. And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained. Today's action in the House does only one thing: it delays the delivering of vital resources for our troops.
"Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq. They have made their point. For some, that is not enough. These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen.
"The Democrats have sent their message, now it's time to send their money. This is an important moment -- a decision for the new leaders in Congress. I expect Congress to do its duty and to fund our troops, and so do the American people -- and so do the good men and women [in uniform] standing with me here today."
The President's full statement here.
What does it mean? Speaker Nancy Pelosi won this vote with absolutely no room to spare.
Of course, my guess is that she had a few votes up here sleeve. Surely, they would not have taken the vote to the floor with such a razor-thin margin.
Analysis from Paul Kane of the Washinton Post here on who voted for what and why.
My analysis in brief: The Speaker won the vote--but she is still losing the war to lose the war. She and John Murtha ought not to laugh too loudly, my guess is that the laughing is not done.
Some brief notes: My favorite Democrat, Gene Taylor, voted against the timetable. A Democrat I admire, and one for whom I have consistently voted, Texas 17 Representative, Chet Edwards, disappointingly, voted for the timetable. The next congressional election in Central Texas should be interesting.
Category: Campaign 2008.8
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Sometimes the very thing you're looking for
Is the one thing you can't see
Sometimes the snow comes down in June
Sometimes the sun goes round the moon
Just when I thought our chance had passed
You go and save the best for last
Do you believe in miracles?
Stories depicting John McCain as the ultimate "Comeback Kid" are everywhere.
Even stolid conservative columnist, Robert Novak, supremely connected and not given to flights of fancy, waxed sanguine yesterday, as he pronounced McCain the "GOP's Last Man Standing."
Novak writes: "canny Republican professionals [view McCain] as the best bet to win the party's presidential nomination. What's more, they consider him their most realistic prospect to buck the overall Democratic tide and win the general election."
Novak praises the candidate for his sublimely rugged constitution, which McCain demonstrated in spades "during his six years of torture in a communist prison camp," but also more recently in his "personal determination" to carry on his presidential campaign long after all rational observers (read "canny professionals") had given him up for dead.
You don't have to convince me of McCain's character or his November viability. Way back in March of 2006 (only my sixth post on this blog), I sang his praises and endorsed his candidacy. Based on the specific challenges we currently face, I remain convinced that McCain was the absolute right choice for this cycle.
But (dramatic pause) it is not going to happen.
Conservative opposition to McCain remains deeply entrenched, bitter, and potent. Twenty-one months ago I underestimated the resistance to McCain. Fool me once...and...I won't get fooled again. McCain remains deader than a doornail.
The McCain comeback scenario hangs on a number of contingencies (which are improbable when taken together):
1. Huckabee holds on to Iowa. Not impossible--but not likely in my view.
2. McCain "finishes strong" (third place) in Iowa. Not likely--McCain has never run strong in Iowa. Among other problems, his "straight talk express" is not ethanol-compatible.
3. Independents in NH abandon Obama and other attractive fruitcakes and come out for McCain. Again, not likely. Why would they?
4. At the crucial moment, the GOP establishment (conservative talk radio, blogs, non profits, etc.) experiences an epiphany, suddenly embracing "Maverick McCain" and admitting grievous error. Not in this lifetime.
5. Fred Thompson proves as lifeless as advertised. I am not so sure.
What actually could happen:
Dean of Iowa political pundits, David Yepsen, averred this week that third place in the Hawkeye State equals death for either Obama, Clinton, or Edwards in the greater Democratic contest; however, the three-spot in the GOP caucus offers new life for the lucky Republican also-ran (I agree).
I continue to believe that Romney will buy first place in Iowa, Huckabee will finish a respectable second, and Fred Thompson may well take third--showing himself the surprise of the night. Romney would emerge from Iowa battle-tested and victorious--but not invincible. Assuming McCain's surge in New Hampshire is not completely manufactured by the media, Romney, Rudy, and McCain should fight it out in the Granite State—with Romney again emerging victorious but not dominant.
During all this, Fred continues to enjoy an opportunity to emerge—and make his stand in South Carolina and on Super Duper Tuesday.
My contention for months has been that Fred Thompson is a taller and statelier version of McCain without the "independent" baggage (tax cuts, Kyoto, and immigration reform). It is not surprising that many conservatives are re-evaluating McCain during this desperate moment—but, once that reconsideration proves unacceptable, Fred likely emerges the most suitable (perhaps the only viable) alternative.
I continue to believe that it is not too late for Fred. We'll see.
Disclaimer: This message paid for by “Fred Thompson for President” (just kidding).
Is the one thing you can't see
Sometimes the snow comes down in June
Sometimes the sun goes round the moon
Just when I thought our chance had passed
You go and save the best for last
Do you believe in miracles?
Stories depicting John McCain as the ultimate "Comeback Kid" are everywhere.
Even stolid conservative columnist, Robert Novak, supremely connected and not given to flights of fancy, waxed sanguine yesterday, as he pronounced McCain the "GOP's Last Man Standing."
Novak writes: "canny Republican professionals [view McCain] as the best bet to win the party's presidential nomination. What's more, they consider him their most realistic prospect to buck the overall Democratic tide and win the general election."
Novak praises the candidate for his sublimely rugged constitution, which McCain demonstrated in spades "during his six years of torture in a communist prison camp," but also more recently in his "personal determination" to carry on his presidential campaign long after all rational observers (read "canny professionals") had given him up for dead.
You don't have to convince me of McCain's character or his November viability. Way back in March of 2006 (only my sixth post on this blog), I sang his praises and endorsed his candidacy. Based on the specific challenges we currently face, I remain convinced that McCain was the absolute right choice for this cycle.
But (dramatic pause) it is not going to happen.
Conservative opposition to McCain remains deeply entrenched, bitter, and potent. Twenty-one months ago I underestimated the resistance to McCain. Fool me once...and...I won't get fooled again. McCain remains deader than a doornail.
The McCain comeback scenario hangs on a number of contingencies (which are improbable when taken together):
1. Huckabee holds on to Iowa. Not impossible--but not likely in my view.
2. McCain "finishes strong" (third place) in Iowa. Not likely--McCain has never run strong in Iowa. Among other problems, his "straight talk express" is not ethanol-compatible.
3. Independents in NH abandon Obama and other attractive fruitcakes and come out for McCain. Again, not likely. Why would they?
4. At the crucial moment, the GOP establishment (conservative talk radio, blogs, non profits, etc.) experiences an epiphany, suddenly embracing "Maverick McCain" and admitting grievous error. Not in this lifetime.
5. Fred Thompson proves as lifeless as advertised. I am not so sure.
What actually could happen:
Dean of Iowa political pundits, David Yepsen, averred this week that third place in the Hawkeye State equals death for either Obama, Clinton, or Edwards in the greater Democratic contest; however, the three-spot in the GOP caucus offers new life for the lucky Republican also-ran (I agree).
I continue to believe that Romney will buy first place in Iowa, Huckabee will finish a respectable second, and Fred Thompson may well take third--showing himself the surprise of the night. Romney would emerge from Iowa battle-tested and victorious--but not invincible. Assuming McCain's surge in New Hampshire is not completely manufactured by the media, Romney, Rudy, and McCain should fight it out in the Granite State—with Romney again emerging victorious but not dominant.
During all this, Fred continues to enjoy an opportunity to emerge—and make his stand in South Carolina and on Super Duper Tuesday.
My contention for months has been that Fred Thompson is a taller and statelier version of McCain without the "independent" baggage (tax cuts, Kyoto, and immigration reform). It is not surprising that many conservatives are re-evaluating McCain during this desperate moment—but, once that reconsideration proves unacceptable, Fred likely emerges the most suitable (perhaps the only viable) alternative.
I continue to believe that it is not too late for Fred. We'll see.
Disclaimer: This message paid for by “Fred Thompson for President” (just kidding).
What's wrong with initiating the next presidential election in earnest immediately after the last one concludes?
Joe Biden.
I am guessing that most of our reading community does not understand my admiration for Joe Biden. You see the grandstanding, bloviating, self-absorbed senator always mugging for the cameras. I see that Joe Biden too, of course. But I also see the Joe Biden who is talented, diligent, and dedicated to good government. I admire the America-loving public official who has spent almost his entire career learning foreign policy and the judiciary in order to be a constructive element of the solution. He is, in fact, quite good at and what he does, and he oftentimes offers incredibly astute analysis on the topics to which he had dedicated his life.
But then you wave the White House in front of him, and he contracts a classic case of "Potomac Fever," which causes him to froth at the mouth.
Today on Fox News Sunday (see note below on FNS), when asked to comment on John McCain's assertion that congressional control of the military was unconstitutional, Biden launched into a tirade against George Bush (not McCain): "The President doesn't understand the Constitution."
Biden further allowed that the President held a "unitary" view of executive power in relation to the other branches, cleverly using a phrase (unitary executive) that has become a code word for calling the President an inchoate dictator.
Why do that? Clearly, Candidate Biden hoped to make a little headway with the most strident and adamant Bush-haters.
"Did you hear what Biden said about Bush?"
"Yeah. That was fantastic."
Next Topic: "General Betray Us" and MoveOn.org.
Biden said: "MoveOn.org was wrong." Give him some credit for admitting the obvious. Many of his colleagues could not summon the courage to go that far. But Biden went on to qualify his statement: The Move-On folks are good Americans whose frustration got the better of them. The wanton misleadership of the President drove his patriotic opponents to do this unsavory thing--but come on fellas--this is no "capital offense."
So, while gently criticizing MoveOn, the senator made clear he was with them all the way .
My beef with the system? Biden is better than that. If he were not under intense pressure to please the unhinged wing of his party, he would certainly offer words and actions more in keeping with his desire to bring positive change. This current election cycle is the logical extension of the Clinton (42) brain trust’s innovation to American politics: the "permanent campaign." If a sitting president must campaign constantly while in office, the opposition must campaign constantly to counter the President, and the would-be presidents must campaign constantly, forming a shadow government.
Accountability is good for the system--but ultra-democracy snuffs out republican statesmanship. Sometimes the people's representatives must do necessarily unappetizing things (remember the sausage analogy) in order to make the system work. The twenty-four hour news cycle and the permanent campaign threatens good government by shining too much light on the system. In essence, modern politicians are all public performance now.
More to the point, if Joe Biden weren't out running for president and courting the most destructive element of the American electorate, he might be in the Senate helping to lead our nation through one of the most treacherous moments in our long and proud history.
One more thing: Will the "General Betray Us" ad affect the election of the next president?
John Edwards never saw it.
Hillary and Obama ignored it.
But all three embraced it tacitly.
Does it matter?
Only if the war turns around. If the war continues to flounder a year from now, David Petraeus will be as despised as George Bush. The ever-present but lightly used Westmoreland comparisons this time around will be the unquestioned template a year from now--if the current direction fails. Therefore, a year from now (under the gloomy scenario) castigating the dirty dog general will have seemed the appropriate reaction.
However, if the war turns around (the biggest "if" there ever was), then perhaps the Democrats will pay a price with a few (but important) reasonable voters whose support will be up for grabs.
Note on Fox News Sunday: this unique program continues to be the best network Sunday morning talking-head show. Partly a result of the ideologically "balanced" team of news analyzers, and partly because of its conservative perspective on the issues, FNS consistently delves into topics of interest to me that all the other Sunday shows miss completely. Special kudos to Chris Wallace for his steady leadership.
Joe Biden.
I am guessing that most of our reading community does not understand my admiration for Joe Biden. You see the grandstanding, bloviating, self-absorbed senator always mugging for the cameras. I see that Joe Biden too, of course. But I also see the Joe Biden who is talented, diligent, and dedicated to good government. I admire the America-loving public official who has spent almost his entire career learning foreign policy and the judiciary in order to be a constructive element of the solution. He is, in fact, quite good at and what he does, and he oftentimes offers incredibly astute analysis on the topics to which he had dedicated his life.
But then you wave the White House in front of him, and he contracts a classic case of "Potomac Fever," which causes him to froth at the mouth.
Today on Fox News Sunday (see note below on FNS), when asked to comment on John McCain's assertion that congressional control of the military was unconstitutional, Biden launched into a tirade against George Bush (not McCain): "The President doesn't understand the Constitution."
Biden further allowed that the President held a "unitary" view of executive power in relation to the other branches, cleverly using a phrase (unitary executive) that has become a code word for calling the President an inchoate dictator.
Why do that? Clearly, Candidate Biden hoped to make a little headway with the most strident and adamant Bush-haters.
"Did you hear what Biden said about Bush?"
"Yeah. That was fantastic."
Next Topic: "General Betray Us" and MoveOn.org.
Biden said: "MoveOn.org was wrong." Give him some credit for admitting the obvious. Many of his colleagues could not summon the courage to go that far. But Biden went on to qualify his statement: The Move-On folks are good Americans whose frustration got the better of them. The wanton misleadership of the President drove his patriotic opponents to do this unsavory thing--but come on fellas--this is no "capital offense."
So, while gently criticizing MoveOn, the senator made clear he was with them all the way .
My beef with the system? Biden is better than that. If he were not under intense pressure to please the unhinged wing of his party, he would certainly offer words and actions more in keeping with his desire to bring positive change. This current election cycle is the logical extension of the Clinton (42) brain trust’s innovation to American politics: the "permanent campaign." If a sitting president must campaign constantly while in office, the opposition must campaign constantly to counter the President, and the would-be presidents must campaign constantly, forming a shadow government.
Accountability is good for the system--but ultra-democracy snuffs out republican statesmanship. Sometimes the people's representatives must do necessarily unappetizing things (remember the sausage analogy) in order to make the system work. The twenty-four hour news cycle and the permanent campaign threatens good government by shining too much light on the system. In essence, modern politicians are all public performance now.
More to the point, if Joe Biden weren't out running for president and courting the most destructive element of the American electorate, he might be in the Senate helping to lead our nation through one of the most treacherous moments in our long and proud history.
One more thing: Will the "General Betray Us" ad affect the election of the next president?
John Edwards never saw it.
Hillary and Obama ignored it.
But all three embraced it tacitly.
Does it matter?
Only if the war turns around. If the war continues to flounder a year from now, David Petraeus will be as despised as George Bush. The ever-present but lightly used Westmoreland comparisons this time around will be the unquestioned template a year from now--if the current direction fails. Therefore, a year from now (under the gloomy scenario) castigating the dirty dog general will have seemed the appropriate reaction.
However, if the war turns around (the biggest "if" there ever was), then perhaps the Democrats will pay a price with a few (but important) reasonable voters whose support will be up for grabs.
Note on Fox News Sunday: this unique program continues to be the best network Sunday morning talking-head show. Partly a result of the ideologically "balanced" team of news analyzers, and partly because of its conservative perspective on the issues, FNS consistently delves into topics of interest to me that all the other Sunday shows miss completely. Special kudos to Chris Wallace for his steady leadership.
If you did not read the "comments" sections under Looking Forward: Election 2008 and/or Explaining Bill's Odd Behavior, you may have missed an extended (and worthwhile) discussion of "where we are" right now. I am posting some highlights here from my thoughts in response to JC's provocative questions and/or assertions:
JC: I believe Clinton still has the edge over Obama. The hard-core Dems. will follow Bill (not necessarily Hillary) for the most part. Bill has enough political power to make things go their way.
WF: Some "hardcore Dems" will side with Bill--but my guess is that the majority will fall in with the Obama juggernaut, if it is still on course. They want to win more than they feel any sense of obligation to Bill. The Clintons are finding to their great surprise and chagrin that their vaunted ability to control the party machinery is wide but not very deep.
JC: There are Democrats who will have to hold their noses (big time) to put the Clintons back in the White House.
WF: Yes. More and more Democrats seem to have serious reservations about the Clintons. I find this amusing, as they are now offended by the same attributes that Rush Limbaugh has been castigating for nearly two decades. But life is funny. Enough said.
However, never underestimate the power to hold your nose and vote for your party candidate. Even as bad as things are for John McCain, the vast majority of Republicans who are fundamentally unhappy with him will ultimately "hold their nose" and pull the lever.
The Democrats are more desperate to win this time around; therefore, we can expect them to be even less reticent about "nose holding."
JC: Many Independents and some Democrats would vote for McCain/Crist.
WF: Can you really vote for McCain? The war monger? The man who says he might fight the Iraq war for 100 years? The man with an 84 percent conservative lifetime record in the Senate?
The cruelest part of this election may turn out to be the betrayal of McCain's enablers, many of whom may now feel compelled to paint the "maverick" as the reactionary. We will see.
Experience and Organization: Isn't Obama equal to Hillary in that regard?
WF: Hillary has tremendous experience. She has been actively engaged in politics since law school. It is not fair to take that away from her. She is not a political wife in the image of Barbara or Laura Bush or Pat Nixon. She played a crucial and active role in the political life of Bill Clinton. She has held her own in a very high profile senate seat. She is an incredibly polished and practiced American statesperson.
Obama's organization must be read as an endorsement of his ability to command and control. But more than organization and strategy, Obama is winning on charisma. Having said that, I take nothing away from his genius and vision in understanding this campaign better than any other candidate in the race. But I am serious when I wonder if even he wonders if he is actually ready to carry the ball on this.
JC: Obama isn't scary. In particular, his youth is less scary than McCain's age. McCain will be 72 by November, and has had some health problems. That VP choice will be very important.
WF: Obama is a bit scary on some things. He is an idealist--and they have traditionally scared the American electorate. He has no record of legislative or executive accomplishment. All we have is image and ideas. They are powerful--but Obama-mania is an unpredictable vessel on which to run a fall election campaign.
I will give you that McCain is the most UNattractive candidate in either party to come down the pike in decades. His age is dreadful. His looks are dreadful. His oratory is dreadful. Standing on a stage with Obama will be an extremely painful experience for Senator McCain. I have said before, I do not think he can overcome the surface visuals in this image-conscious age.
JC: I agree that a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket would be the strongest bet for the Dems. I'm not sure either would want the #2 slot. Obama could learn a lot by traveling with Bill, and they would make quite a pair. But Obama would risk tarnishing his image and desire for a different kind of politics.
Throwing in with the Clintons would be an imperfect choice for Obama--but one thing 46-year-old idealists have to learn at some point is that this world is full of imperfect choices.
After I intimated that Obama's original anti-war stand on Iraq was more good fortune and local politics than far-sightedness,
JC responded:
As an ardent Obama supporter, I wanted to take exception to your characterization of his opposition to the Iraq war as "politically expedient". Although he wasn't yet on the national scene, Obama was gearing up for his U.S. Senate run at that time. If you think about the confusion that reigned then, and what most of us thought was a certainty: that WMD would be found in Iraq, Obama was the only Democrat (later to run for president) who saw the situation with clear eyes. Finding chemical weapons or a nuclear program in Iraq, would have immediately put Obama in a bad position for his senate run.
You should read his entire speech, if you have not.
WF: Obama's 2002 anti-Iraq speech is a great speech. And, YES, it is incredibly prescient. On the other hand, I think it is a stretch on your part to argue that it was bad politics (even if he was preparing to run for the Senate). After all, he was not preparing to run for the Senate in Texas; he was vying for a seat from Illinois. He was not thinking about a presidential run like John F. Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Chris Dodd et al. He was planning on running for the US Senate in a state where Dick Durbin never lost a wink of sleep voting against the war resolution.
JC: I noted your description of Obama supporters... but I think I'll let that pass!
WF: As for Obama supporters: I think they are good folks--just overly optimistic about human nature. This is the endearing flaw of most progressives, who make great and compassionate friends--but often steer us into intractable problems on the macro level.
Of course, I continue to support the most naive idealist of the modern era, George Bush. So who am I to chide you for your sanguine assessment of what Obama can accomplish?
JC: I believe Clinton still has the edge over Obama. The hard-core Dems. will follow Bill (not necessarily Hillary) for the most part. Bill has enough political power to make things go their way.
WF: Some "hardcore Dems" will side with Bill--but my guess is that the majority will fall in with the Obama juggernaut, if it is still on course. They want to win more than they feel any sense of obligation to Bill. The Clintons are finding to their great surprise and chagrin that their vaunted ability to control the party machinery is wide but not very deep.
JC: There are Democrats who will have to hold their noses (big time) to put the Clintons back in the White House.
WF: Yes. More and more Democrats seem to have serious reservations about the Clintons. I find this amusing, as they are now offended by the same attributes that Rush Limbaugh has been castigating for nearly two decades. But life is funny. Enough said.
However, never underestimate the power to hold your nose and vote for your party candidate. Even as bad as things are for John McCain, the vast majority of Republicans who are fundamentally unhappy with him will ultimately "hold their nose" and pull the lever.
The Democrats are more desperate to win this time around; therefore, we can expect them to be even less reticent about "nose holding."
JC: Many Independents and some Democrats would vote for McCain/Crist.
WF: Can you really vote for McCain? The war monger? The man who says he might fight the Iraq war for 100 years? The man with an 84 percent conservative lifetime record in the Senate?
The cruelest part of this election may turn out to be the betrayal of McCain's enablers, many of whom may now feel compelled to paint the "maverick" as the reactionary. We will see.
Experience and Organization: Isn't Obama equal to Hillary in that regard?
WF: Hillary has tremendous experience. She has been actively engaged in politics since law school. It is not fair to take that away from her. She is not a political wife in the image of Barbara or Laura Bush or Pat Nixon. She played a crucial and active role in the political life of Bill Clinton. She has held her own in a very high profile senate seat. She is an incredibly polished and practiced American statesperson.
Obama's organization must be read as an endorsement of his ability to command and control. But more than organization and strategy, Obama is winning on charisma. Having said that, I take nothing away from his genius and vision in understanding this campaign better than any other candidate in the race. But I am serious when I wonder if even he wonders if he is actually ready to carry the ball on this.
JC: Obama isn't scary. In particular, his youth is less scary than McCain's age. McCain will be 72 by November, and has had some health problems. That VP choice will be very important.
WF: Obama is a bit scary on some things. He is an idealist--and they have traditionally scared the American electorate. He has no record of legislative or executive accomplishment. All we have is image and ideas. They are powerful--but Obama-mania is an unpredictable vessel on which to run a fall election campaign.
I will give you that McCain is the most UNattractive candidate in either party to come down the pike in decades. His age is dreadful. His looks are dreadful. His oratory is dreadful. Standing on a stage with Obama will be an extremely painful experience for Senator McCain. I have said before, I do not think he can overcome the surface visuals in this image-conscious age.
JC: I agree that a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket would be the strongest bet for the Dems. I'm not sure either would want the #2 slot. Obama could learn a lot by traveling with Bill, and they would make quite a pair. But Obama would risk tarnishing his image and desire for a different kind of politics.
Throwing in with the Clintons would be an imperfect choice for Obama--but one thing 46-year-old idealists have to learn at some point is that this world is full of imperfect choices.
After I intimated that Obama's original anti-war stand on Iraq was more good fortune and local politics than far-sightedness,
JC responded:
As an ardent Obama supporter, I wanted to take exception to your characterization of his opposition to the Iraq war as "politically expedient". Although he wasn't yet on the national scene, Obama was gearing up for his U.S. Senate run at that time. If you think about the confusion that reigned then, and what most of us thought was a certainty: that WMD would be found in Iraq, Obama was the only Democrat (later to run for president) who saw the situation with clear eyes. Finding chemical weapons or a nuclear program in Iraq, would have immediately put Obama in a bad position for his senate run.
You should read his entire speech, if you have not.
WF: Obama's 2002 anti-Iraq speech is a great speech. And, YES, it is incredibly prescient. On the other hand, I think it is a stretch on your part to argue that it was bad politics (even if he was preparing to run for the Senate). After all, he was not preparing to run for the Senate in Texas; he was vying for a seat from Illinois. He was not thinking about a presidential run like John F. Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Chris Dodd et al. He was planning on running for the US Senate in a state where Dick Durbin never lost a wink of sleep voting against the war resolution.
JC: I noted your description of Obama supporters... but I think I'll let that pass!
WF: As for Obama supporters: I think they are good folks--just overly optimistic about human nature. This is the endearing flaw of most progressives, who make great and compassionate friends--but often steer us into intractable problems on the macro level.
Of course, I continue to support the most naive idealist of the modern era, George Bush. So who am I to chide you for your sanguine assessment of what Obama can accomplish?
03/12: The Short and Happy Life of Mike Huckabee as a Viable Candidate for the 2008 Republican Nomination
It is all over for Mike Huckabee. Today, Rush Limbaugh anointed him the "candidate the media wants to win." So long, Mike. We hardly knew ye. Do not let my light-hearted tone mislead you. I am 100 percent serious. Mike Huckabee's candidacy is now "deader than a door nail." Nobody comes back from this kind of pronouncement at the hands of Rush Limbaugh, the king of all conservative media. John McCain is still working (tragically and without any real hope of success) to overcome Rush's negative designation from back in 2000.
Even before this lethal blow, Huckabee was swimming against an arrestingly strong tide of resistance. Ironically, Huckabee's evangelical background is even more problematic for a Republican running for president in 2008 than Mitt Romney's Mormonism.
What's wrong with being an evangelical Republican in 2008?
1. To put it mildly, the axis of liberalism (Hollywood, the mainstream media, and the academy) looks askance at this particular religious persuasion. In a tight general election, this tradition opens up gaping holes for the opposition.
2. More importantly, a vital element of the conservative movement has soured on evangelicals. Traditional conservatives (many of whom are Catholic) are generally much more staid in their religious traditions than the evangelical variety. For many of the paleo-conservatives, George Bush represents much of what went wrong with evangelical conservatism (what Bush called "compassionate conservatism"). They see the Bush administration as disastrously unorthodox--even dangerous. Think of these examples: an evangelical foreign policy (saving the world through the gospel of democracy), using government to ameliorate the human condition ("no child left behind" and prescription drugs for seniors), and his "traitorously bleeding-heart" immigration proposals.
Traditional conservatives see the Arkansan preacher-turned-pol as more of the same, and they are coming out of the woodwork to throw cold water on the Huckabee boomlet.
3. Ironically, even evangelicals are divided. The traditional evangelical political leadership has not embraced Huckabee. While Pat Robertson et al probably do not speak for many evangelicals anymore (if they ever did), their reluctance to support this ordained Baptist minister speaks volumes about the emerging rift among born-again Christians.
Some of the division is generational. The older evangelicals are more conservative politically and more Southern than the new crop (think Rick Warren), who take a softer view of social conservatism. Huckabee's concern for environmental issues, his willingness to pursue social engagement, and his position on immigration is very much in line with an emerging composite of modern rank-and-file evangelicalism.
No wonder the paleos have had enough.
In all seriousness, the brief affair between Southern-based evangelical churches and the GOP may be approaching a dramatic rupture. Of course, in the general election, where exactly do these Mike Huckabee evangelicals have to go?
As for the rest of the party of Lincoln, where are we now?
For the moment, the race remains a fairly static contest. The following is a review of some of my earlier thoughts from the middle of last month, which seem more true today than three weeks ago.
Even before this lethal blow, Huckabee was swimming against an arrestingly strong tide of resistance. Ironically, Huckabee's evangelical background is even more problematic for a Republican running for president in 2008 than Mitt Romney's Mormonism.
What's wrong with being an evangelical Republican in 2008?
1. To put it mildly, the axis of liberalism (Hollywood, the mainstream media, and the academy) looks askance at this particular religious persuasion. In a tight general election, this tradition opens up gaping holes for the opposition.
2. More importantly, a vital element of the conservative movement has soured on evangelicals. Traditional conservatives (many of whom are Catholic) are generally much more staid in their religious traditions than the evangelical variety. For many of the paleo-conservatives, George Bush represents much of what went wrong with evangelical conservatism (what Bush called "compassionate conservatism"). They see the Bush administration as disastrously unorthodox--even dangerous. Think of these examples: an evangelical foreign policy (saving the world through the gospel of democracy), using government to ameliorate the human condition ("no child left behind" and prescription drugs for seniors), and his "traitorously bleeding-heart" immigration proposals.
Traditional conservatives see the Arkansan preacher-turned-pol as more of the same, and they are coming out of the woodwork to throw cold water on the Huckabee boomlet.
3. Ironically, even evangelicals are divided. The traditional evangelical political leadership has not embraced Huckabee. While Pat Robertson et al probably do not speak for many evangelicals anymore (if they ever did), their reluctance to support this ordained Baptist minister speaks volumes about the emerging rift among born-again Christians.
Some of the division is generational. The older evangelicals are more conservative politically and more Southern than the new crop (think Rick Warren), who take a softer view of social conservatism. Huckabee's concern for environmental issues, his willingness to pursue social engagement, and his position on immigration is very much in line with an emerging composite of modern rank-and-file evangelicalism.
No wonder the paleos have had enough.
In all seriousness, the brief affair between Southern-based evangelical churches and the GOP may be approaching a dramatic rupture. Of course, in the general election, where exactly do these Mike Huckabee evangelicals have to go?
As for the rest of the party of Lincoln, where are we now?
For the moment, the race remains a fairly static contest. The following is a review of some of my earlier thoughts from the middle of last month, which seem more true today than three weeks ago.
2 October 2007
"Ahmadinejad controls no legions."
"The Iranian President's words had no practical, only symbolic, global import. He has very little real power in Iran, none over foreign policy or the nuclear program."
Mostly, I read TIME Magazine for the laughs and fodder for the blog.
One of my favorite foils is Joe Klein, who is mostly a harmless kook.
To pass the time, I enjoy breaking down his blustering essays in search of logical fallacies and contradictions. It is sort of an intellectual version of "Where's Waldo." And, of course, Waldo is everywhere.
For your review, an extended piece in that vein from April here.
Since that particular rage against the machine, Klein has pronounced Mitt Romney a superficial phoney. Not long after that he praised John Edwards as a fellow with big ideas not afraid to laugh at himself. Somewhere along the way Klein asserted that bloggers were ruining the country. All this political stuff should be left to the pros (like Joe Klein). He has proclaimed Iraq a disaster for years--and then recently he went to Iraq during a time of widespread grudging optimism and found--drum roll, please--Iraq was a disaster. Most recently, he loved Hillary Care.
As I have said before, the crazy thing is that this guy made a good living for years posing as a marquee political reporter and dispassionate wiseman concerning national politics.
This Week in TIME ?
"Inflating a Little Man. The neoconservatives want you to think Ahmadinejad is another Hitler. That's dishonest, and plumps for war."
Full TIME article here.
Klein declares that Ahmadinejad (and presumably Iran) presents "no existential threat to the United States."
Why do so many misguided Americans think he is important?
Easy. The neoconservatives have created another boogey man, Klein reveals, by "taking him literally." That is, dastardly neocons like Norman Podhoretz (and other neocons like Mort Zuckerman) falsely claim that Ahmadinejad's myriad scary threats ought to be addressed as serious statements of intent. Klein calls foul: "This is incendiary foolishness." Klein knows better.
An aside: Klein assumes that if Bush said it, the neocons must have thought it, and if the neocons thought it, it must be wrong.
While that certainly works sometimes, it is a shaky assumption upon which to base your entire worldview.
Notwithstanding, I agree with Klein, at least in part. We have a tendency to exagerate the institutional power of the Iranian president when it suits our purposes. On the other hand, Ahmadinejad is the elected leader of Iran, he is the spokesperson for the ruling Mullahs, and, most importantly, no one really knows for sure how crucial his role will be in the future of Iran.
The two major themes from Klein:
1. Ahmadinejad is no Hitler. We are "inflating a little man."
2. He advises us to laugh him off. Laughter is our most powerful defense against the threat of Iran and its leader. Klein: "But to be found ridiculous? How devastating. How delightfully Western."
Ironically, Klein's certainty that Ahmadinejad is too dimunitive and ridiculous to be threatening is in itself laughable. Even as Klein bemoans the comparison to Hitler, his position invites another similarity: the reluctance of the West to accept that the "Little Corporal," in the early stages of his ascendancy, competing for power in a chaotic and depressed Germany half a world away, could possibly pose a "an existential threat to the United States."
As for laughter being the best medicine, I am not persuaded. Charlie Chaplin got some good ones in on the "Great Dictator," but Patton, Ike and Bradley ultimately proved more convincing.
"Ahmadinejad controls no legions."
"The Iranian President's words had no practical, only symbolic, global import. He has very little real power in Iran, none over foreign policy or the nuclear program."
~~Joe Klein
Mostly, I read TIME Magazine for the laughs and fodder for the blog.
One of my favorite foils is Joe Klein, who is mostly a harmless kook.
To pass the time, I enjoy breaking down his blustering essays in search of logical fallacies and contradictions. It is sort of an intellectual version of "Where's Waldo." And, of course, Waldo is everywhere.
For your review, an extended piece in that vein from April here.
Since that particular rage against the machine, Klein has pronounced Mitt Romney a superficial phoney. Not long after that he praised John Edwards as a fellow with big ideas not afraid to laugh at himself. Somewhere along the way Klein asserted that bloggers were ruining the country. All this political stuff should be left to the pros (like Joe Klein). He has proclaimed Iraq a disaster for years--and then recently he went to Iraq during a time of widespread grudging optimism and found--drum roll, please--Iraq was a disaster. Most recently, he loved Hillary Care.
As I have said before, the crazy thing is that this guy made a good living for years posing as a marquee political reporter and dispassionate wiseman concerning national politics.
This Week in TIME ?
"Inflating a Little Man. The neoconservatives want you to think Ahmadinejad is another Hitler. That's dishonest, and plumps for war."
Full TIME article here.
Klein declares that Ahmadinejad (and presumably Iran) presents "no existential threat to the United States."
Why do so many misguided Americans think he is important?
Easy. The neoconservatives have created another boogey man, Klein reveals, by "taking him literally." That is, dastardly neocons like Norman Podhoretz (and other neocons like Mort Zuckerman) falsely claim that Ahmadinejad's myriad scary threats ought to be addressed as serious statements of intent. Klein calls foul: "This is incendiary foolishness." Klein knows better.
An aside: Klein assumes that if Bush said it, the neocons must have thought it, and if the neocons thought it, it must be wrong.
While that certainly works sometimes, it is a shaky assumption upon which to base your entire worldview.
Notwithstanding, I agree with Klein, at least in part. We have a tendency to exagerate the institutional power of the Iranian president when it suits our purposes. On the other hand, Ahmadinejad is the elected leader of Iran, he is the spokesperson for the ruling Mullahs, and, most importantly, no one really knows for sure how crucial his role will be in the future of Iran.
The two major themes from Klein:
1. Ahmadinejad is no Hitler. We are "inflating a little man."
2. He advises us to laugh him off. Laughter is our most powerful defense against the threat of Iran and its leader. Klein: "But to be found ridiculous? How devastating. How delightfully Western."
Ironically, Klein's certainty that Ahmadinejad is too dimunitive and ridiculous to be threatening is in itself laughable. Even as Klein bemoans the comparison to Hitler, his position invites another similarity: the reluctance of the West to accept that the "Little Corporal," in the early stages of his ascendancy, competing for power in a chaotic and depressed Germany half a world away, could possibly pose a "an existential threat to the United States."
As for laughter being the best medicine, I am not persuaded. Charlie Chaplin got some good ones in on the "Great Dictator," but Patton, Ike and Bradley ultimately proved more convincing.
Some Perspective: At this point during the last election cycle four years ago, the talking heads were anointing Howard Dean as the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for president. But a funny thing happened on the way to the coronation.
Is Hillary the latest Howard Dean? I doubt it. Dean was an insurgent nobody from an out of the way state who caught fire unexpectedly and then flamed out just as suddenly. Dean embodied "flash in the pan."
Hillary Clinton is a second-term senator from the Empire State. She is the wife of a popular and incredibly powerful former president. She has been a mega public figure for sixteen years, thoughtfully charting a path to the Oval Office for nearly that long. She is loaded with cash, she has assembled the best campaign organization in recent memory, and she is the most disciplined candidate of my lifetime.
An aside: The Okie Gardener has previously compared Mrs. Clinton to Richard Nixon. No comparison to Nixon is ever favorable, but RN had some notably similar attributes necessary for success in politics. Like Mrs. Clinton, Nixon was not a naturally talented politician, but, like Mrs. Clinton, he made up for his lack of innate skill with hard work and tenacity. "You gotta want it to win it," and he usually wanted it more. Mrs. Clinton is a hard-charging, take-no-prisoners, tough-minded steamroller. She is a lot like Nixon in that regard.
What happened in the debate on Tuesday? Tim Russert and Brian Williams hammered her, and she staggered for a moment. Her stonewalling on the library question, her decision to pander to the ACLU-liberals rather than the working-class, rank-and-file Democrats on immigration, and her tendency to go overboard on sisterhood combined to leave her uncharacteristically dazed, confused, and momentarily vulnerable. Arriving at the debate intent on pounding the frontrunner, her desperately frustrated opponents saw an opening and pounced.
Nobody Knows Anything--but I think that those who are expecting Mrs. Clinton to fold like a house of cards at the first sign of trouble are reading her wrong. Hillary never craters. She never backs down. She never apologizes. She comes out swinging and plays through the pain, always pressing forward.
Hillary's Dilemma: Of course, her primary problem--the one that actually poses the biggest threat to her campaign for the nomination--continues to be her moderation on foreign policy.
Ironically, Mrs. Clinton's biggest obstacle in the Democratic primary is her sanity. For all of us who are rubbing our hands together with glee this week, we are not thinking very strategically. Of the Democrats who have a chance to win the nomination, Hillary is the one we have the best chance at beating. More importantly, of the Democrats who have a chance to win the nomination, Hillary is the one who is least likely to radically alter the course of American politics if she wins.
Hillary Clinton, like Richard Nixon, is a hard-boiled realist, who understands national vital interests as well as political necessities. She will throw rhetorical bones to the left but govern in the center, because she will want to be reelected. She will employ all the usual suspects of the American foreign-policy making establishment and pursue a moderate-to-firm course in international relations. She, like her husband, will accept the necessity of "torture" under certain dire circumstances. She will not be what we want, but neither will she rock the boat very much. No socialist revolution. No unilateral retreat from American interests abroad. No Pollyannaish, Jimmy-Carter-like naiveté.
John Edwards is fairly close to reality when he says a "vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for the status quo."
UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers. We are honored. Please make yourself at home.
Is Hillary the latest Howard Dean? I doubt it. Dean was an insurgent nobody from an out of the way state who caught fire unexpectedly and then flamed out just as suddenly. Dean embodied "flash in the pan."
Hillary Clinton is a second-term senator from the Empire State. She is the wife of a popular and incredibly powerful former president. She has been a mega public figure for sixteen years, thoughtfully charting a path to the Oval Office for nearly that long. She is loaded with cash, she has assembled the best campaign organization in recent memory, and she is the most disciplined candidate of my lifetime.
An aside: The Okie Gardener has previously compared Mrs. Clinton to Richard Nixon. No comparison to Nixon is ever favorable, but RN had some notably similar attributes necessary for success in politics. Like Mrs. Clinton, Nixon was not a naturally talented politician, but, like Mrs. Clinton, he made up for his lack of innate skill with hard work and tenacity. "You gotta want it to win it," and he usually wanted it more. Mrs. Clinton is a hard-charging, take-no-prisoners, tough-minded steamroller. She is a lot like Nixon in that regard.
What happened in the debate on Tuesday? Tim Russert and Brian Williams hammered her, and she staggered for a moment. Her stonewalling on the library question, her decision to pander to the ACLU-liberals rather than the working-class, rank-and-file Democrats on immigration, and her tendency to go overboard on sisterhood combined to leave her uncharacteristically dazed, confused, and momentarily vulnerable. Arriving at the debate intent on pounding the frontrunner, her desperately frustrated opponents saw an opening and pounced.
Nobody Knows Anything--but I think that those who are expecting Mrs. Clinton to fold like a house of cards at the first sign of trouble are reading her wrong. Hillary never craters. She never backs down. She never apologizes. She comes out swinging and plays through the pain, always pressing forward.
Hillary's Dilemma: Of course, her primary problem--the one that actually poses the biggest threat to her campaign for the nomination--continues to be her moderation on foreign policy.
Ironically, Mrs. Clinton's biggest obstacle in the Democratic primary is her sanity. For all of us who are rubbing our hands together with glee this week, we are not thinking very strategically. Of the Democrats who have a chance to win the nomination, Hillary is the one we have the best chance at beating. More importantly, of the Democrats who have a chance to win the nomination, Hillary is the one who is least likely to radically alter the course of American politics if she wins.
Hillary Clinton, like Richard Nixon, is a hard-boiled realist, who understands national vital interests as well as political necessities. She will throw rhetorical bones to the left but govern in the center, because she will want to be reelected. She will employ all the usual suspects of the American foreign-policy making establishment and pursue a moderate-to-firm course in international relations. She, like her husband, will accept the necessity of "torture" under certain dire circumstances. She will not be what we want, but neither will she rock the boat very much. No socialist revolution. No unilateral retreat from American interests abroad. No Pollyannaish, Jimmy-Carter-like naiveté.
John Edwards is fairly close to reality when he says a "vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for the status quo."
UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers. We are honored. Please make yourself at home.
Category: Campaign 2008.1
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
A few weeks ago, I attended a discussion of the coming 2008 presidential race offered by Thomas Patterson, Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
As I said then, I like Patterson. I heard him speak a few years ago at another convention. He is thoughtful and fair-minded. He has a great line: "the forecasting models indicate (insert prediction here) but I wouldn't bet my house on it." It is an important caveat. He sees this as a Democratic Party year, and I agree with him, but there is a reason we show up for the game even when the odds are prohibitive. On any given Sunday....
With a recent spate of polls and news analysis pieces reinforcing his points, I thought it would be appropriate to re-emphasize the wisdom of Professor Patterson:
Why are the Democrats ahead? Patterson noted that 1952 and 1968 were historical parallels. Stuck in unpopular wars, the parties of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson suffered the consequences of presidential unpopularity. Looking at the job approval ratings of the President, the party of Bush groans with dread. The Democrats are currently running an 18-point lead in the generic canvass. There are potential pitfalls for the Dems (looking "anti-American" for one), but right now they have the better hand to play.
Even as there are many strongly persuasive indicators on general elections, the dynamics of the primaries make predictions on party nominations uncertain. Having said that, the nominations are now decided during the "invisible primary." That is, in the era of front-loading, the campaign prior to the first caucus and first primary generally determines the nominee. In a nutshell, this time next year, in all likelihood, we will know our two major party nominees.
Some things to watch for between now and the primaries:
1. Follow the Money. A winning candidate will need to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to win the nomination. George Bush busted the ancien regime, opting out of the matching funds system in 2000. Flush with cash, Bush rebounded after a loss in New Hampshire by swamping the poorly funded opposition on Super Tuesday. Then John Kerry in 2004 reaffirmed that no candidate could afford to stay within the federally funded order. Unable to gain traction, Kerry used his own money to fund his comeback. Limited funds deny candidate flexibility. The more money a candidate possesses, the less lethal any one mistake or setback will be.
2. Follow the Media and the Media Paradox. Media coverage drives popularity. The Media only cover viable candidates. Candidates cannot gain popularity without media coverage. In an era of limited media resources, only candidates with momentum and popular appeal will draw coverage.
The conclusion: It is very difficult for second tier candidates to break into the front-runners. Having said that, it happens: Howard Dean in 2004 for example.
Who will break through this time? Maybe no one in the party of Jackson. Patterson sees the Democratic race fairly fixed. There are three major candidates: a charismatic fresh face with a classically liberal outlook, an experienced DLC centrist triangulator and a populist white guy outlier (Obama, Hillary and Edwards).
The one wild card? Al Gore. He keeps saying he won't run--but Patterson wondered if an Academy Award and a Nobel Prize might create enough momentum to change the course of the primary battle. Sunday night [2-25-07] reinforces Gore's improbable dream. However, based on personal acquaintance with some Gore insiders, and the physical appearance of the former VP, Patterson guesses that Gore stays out.
For the GOP. There are three prominent Republican candidates: Romney, McCain and Giuliani. But they don't strike Patterson as very GOP-like. There may be an opening because the Republicans really need another choice.
UPDATE: Fred Thompson mania may be just the beginning....
As I said then, I like Patterson. I heard him speak a few years ago at another convention. He is thoughtful and fair-minded. He has a great line: "the forecasting models indicate (insert prediction here) but I wouldn't bet my house on it." It is an important caveat. He sees this as a Democratic Party year, and I agree with him, but there is a reason we show up for the game even when the odds are prohibitive. On any given Sunday....
With a recent spate of polls and news analysis pieces reinforcing his points, I thought it would be appropriate to re-emphasize the wisdom of Professor Patterson:
Why are the Democrats ahead? Patterson noted that 1952 and 1968 were historical parallels. Stuck in unpopular wars, the parties of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson suffered the consequences of presidential unpopularity. Looking at the job approval ratings of the President, the party of Bush groans with dread. The Democrats are currently running an 18-point lead in the generic canvass. There are potential pitfalls for the Dems (looking "anti-American" for one), but right now they have the better hand to play.
Even as there are many strongly persuasive indicators on general elections, the dynamics of the primaries make predictions on party nominations uncertain. Having said that, the nominations are now decided during the "invisible primary." That is, in the era of front-loading, the campaign prior to the first caucus and first primary generally determines the nominee. In a nutshell, this time next year, in all likelihood, we will know our two major party nominees.
Some things to watch for between now and the primaries:
1. Follow the Money. A winning candidate will need to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to win the nomination. George Bush busted the ancien regime, opting out of the matching funds system in 2000. Flush with cash, Bush rebounded after a loss in New Hampshire by swamping the poorly funded opposition on Super Tuesday. Then John Kerry in 2004 reaffirmed that no candidate could afford to stay within the federally funded order. Unable to gain traction, Kerry used his own money to fund his comeback. Limited funds deny candidate flexibility. The more money a candidate possesses, the less lethal any one mistake or setback will be.
2. Follow the Media and the Media Paradox. Media coverage drives popularity. The Media only cover viable candidates. Candidates cannot gain popularity without media coverage. In an era of limited media resources, only candidates with momentum and popular appeal will draw coverage.
The conclusion: It is very difficult for second tier candidates to break into the front-runners. Having said that, it happens: Howard Dean in 2004 for example.
Who will break through this time? Maybe no one in the party of Jackson. Patterson sees the Democratic race fairly fixed. There are three major candidates: a charismatic fresh face with a classically liberal outlook, an experienced DLC centrist triangulator and a populist white guy outlier (Obama, Hillary and Edwards).
The one wild card? Al Gore. He keeps saying he won't run--but Patterson wondered if an Academy Award and a Nobel Prize might create enough momentum to change the course of the primary battle. Sunday night [2-25-07] reinforces Gore's improbable dream. However, based on personal acquaintance with some Gore insiders, and the physical appearance of the former VP, Patterson guesses that Gore stays out.
For the GOP. There are three prominent Republican candidates: Romney, McCain and Giuliani. But they don't strike Patterson as very GOP-like. There may be an opening because the Republicans really need another choice.
UPDATE: Fred Thompson mania may be just the beginning....
26/02: An Accounting and an Agenda
Category: Something Personal
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The Accounting: Last week I was "on assignment." More precisely, my day job overcame my avocation.
For those of you who like to keep track of what I do, here are the highlights of the week that was:
Wednesday: In my capacity as student government advisor, I assisted in hosting a Civil Rights lecture in celebration of Black History Month. Baylor's James SoRelle brought a bit of gender equity to the study of the CRM with "Where Have All the Women Gone? Re-imaging the Civil Rights Movement, 1865-1965."
FYI: We are also hosting an African American Literature colloquium this week.
Thursday: I accompanied a dozen student leaders to Austin, where we met with our elected state representatives (Senator Kip Averett & Representatives Jim Dunnam and Charles "Doc" Anderson).
Friday: I once again made the 100-mile jaunt down I-35 to Austin, this time in the company of colleagues for the annual convention of Texas community college teachers. On that assignment, I was able to spend an immensely enjoyable day of conversation and conviviality with friends dedicated to perpetuating the American experiment.
We enjoyed a stimulating and intimate lunch with an emerging superstar in American scholarship: H.W. Brands.
Agenda: I intend to offer some thoughts on all of these events at some point.
But First. We also attended a discussion of the coming 2008 presidential race offered by Thomas Patterson, Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. I like Patterson. I heard him speak a few years ago at another convention. He is thoughtful and fair-minded. He has a great line: "the forecasting models indicate (insert prediction here) but I wouldn't bet my house on it." It is an important caveat. He sees this as a Democratic Party year, and I agree with him, but there is a reason we show up for the game even when the odds are prohibitive. On any given Sunday....
Why are the Democrats ahead? Patterson noted that 1952 and 1968 were historical parallels. Stuck in unpopular wars, the parties of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson suffered the consequences of presidential unpopularity. Looking at the job approval ratings of the President, the party of Bush groans with dread. The Democrats are currently running an 18-point lead in the generic canvass. There are potential pitfalls for the Dems (looking "anti-American" for one), but right now they have the better hand to play.
Even as there are many strongly persuasive indicators on general elections, the dynamics of the primaries make predictions on party nominations uncertain. Having said that, the nominations are now decided during the "invisible primary." That is, in the era of front-loading, the campaign prior to the first caucus and first primary generally determines the nominee. In a nutshell, this time next year, in all likelihood, we will know our two major party nominees.
Some things to watch:
For those of you who like to keep track of what I do, here are the highlights of the week that was:
Wednesday: In my capacity as student government advisor, I assisted in hosting a Civil Rights lecture in celebration of Black History Month. Baylor's James SoRelle brought a bit of gender equity to the study of the CRM with "Where Have All the Women Gone? Re-imaging the Civil Rights Movement, 1865-1965."
FYI: We are also hosting an African American Literature colloquium this week.
Thursday: I accompanied a dozen student leaders to Austin, where we met with our elected state representatives (Senator Kip Averett & Representatives Jim Dunnam and Charles "Doc" Anderson).
Friday: I once again made the 100-mile jaunt down I-35 to Austin, this time in the company of colleagues for the annual convention of Texas community college teachers. On that assignment, I was able to spend an immensely enjoyable day of conversation and conviviality with friends dedicated to perpetuating the American experiment.
We enjoyed a stimulating and intimate lunch with an emerging superstar in American scholarship: H.W. Brands.
Agenda: I intend to offer some thoughts on all of these events at some point.
But First. We also attended a discussion of the coming 2008 presidential race offered by Thomas Patterson, Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. I like Patterson. I heard him speak a few years ago at another convention. He is thoughtful and fair-minded. He has a great line: "the forecasting models indicate (insert prediction here) but I wouldn't bet my house on it." It is an important caveat. He sees this as a Democratic Party year, and I agree with him, but there is a reason we show up for the game even when the odds are prohibitive. On any given Sunday....
Why are the Democrats ahead? Patterson noted that 1952 and 1968 were historical parallels. Stuck in unpopular wars, the parties of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson suffered the consequences of presidential unpopularity. Looking at the job approval ratings of the President, the party of Bush groans with dread. The Democrats are currently running an 18-point lead in the generic canvass. There are potential pitfalls for the Dems (looking "anti-American" for one), but right now they have the better hand to play.
Even as there are many strongly persuasive indicators on general elections, the dynamics of the primaries make predictions on party nominations uncertain. Having said that, the nominations are now decided during the "invisible primary." That is, in the era of front-loading, the campaign prior to the first caucus and first primary generally determines the nominee. In a nutshell, this time next year, in all likelihood, we will know our two major party nominees.
Some things to watch:
Sidebar
