27/10: Get off McCain
Category: Campaign 2008.15
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Mark McKinnon wrote a brilliant column earlier this week that everyone should read.
He asserts:
Steve Schmidt and his colleagues took John McCain further than he had any reasonable right to, given the political climate.
McKinnon reminds us of this obvious truism:
One of the physical laws of politics is that if your campaign wins, you’re a genius. If you lose, you’re an idiot.
I agree. Get off McCain.
Considering the daunting political geography, there were only two times over the past three years in which I thought the Republicans had a good shot at winning this election. The first instance was when the Jeremiah Wright revelation finally emerged as a public issue. I was convinced that the American people would never tolerate Wright's brand of incendiary race mongering. Of course, at the time, even then I saw it more as the end of Barack Obama rather than the Democrats. I fully expected Hillary to pick up the pieces and carry her party to victory in November.
In re Wright, my instinct (my absolute certitude) has never been more wrong. Why did the Wright episodes not sink Obama? The media supported their man during his two times of trial concerning his longtime pastor. First, the prObama press rallied around his excellent speech in Philadelphia, which cleverly clouded the issue of Wright by thoughtfully addressing the larger issue of race in America. Then, when Wright reinserted himself into the campaign with his insanely riveting performance at the National Press Club, the candidate reversed himself. After saying he could never disown Wright--Obama vehemently disowned him, and his fans in the mainstream media applauded and accepted the about-face in stride.
Then, in what may be the most amazing display of restraint in the history of American politics, John McCain decided early-on to declare the issue off limits. Why? Without a doubt, Obama's twenty-year relationship with Wright was a legitimate issue. Why? McCain correctly reasoned that the exploitation of Reverend Wright would so divide the American electorate along racial lines that victory would pale in comparison to the cultural damage. Country First. Amazing.
For this unprecedented magnanimity McCain gained what? Ironically, the mainstream media trafficked the ubiquitous notion of McCain as a negative campaigner who had lowered himself to ruthlessly, relentlessly, and unscrupulously attacking his virtuous opponent. Shame, shame, John McCain.
The second moment when I thought victory was attainable came with the advent of Sarah Palin. Her dynamic explosion onto the political scene completely transformed this campaign. For all the pundits who want to point to Palin as McCain's downfall, they should recall how low down the McCain fortunes were when Palin raised him up to parity with the Obama juggernaut.
If I have a complaint against McCain worth pressing at this point, it is my sense that his campaign squandered the potential of Sarah Palin--hiding her under a bushel.
Once the Palin phenomenon emerged, the opposition pushed back with everything they had--correctly comprehending that crushing Palin was "make or break" for Obama 2008. It was not pretty--but the opposition expertly destroyed her public persona. The all-out offensive included blatant lies, distortions, double standards, and a devastating doppelganger--Tina Fey-lin.
Don't blame McCain for selecting the Alaska governor. It was the most brilliant political coup of this new century. However, you can blame McCain for not pushing back hard enough and/or quick enough. You can also blame Team McCain for not giving the young maverick her head. Sarah Palin is incredibly formidable live and on the attack. She should have been running circles around the enemy in a series of guerrilla raids--not laying low or attempting to connect to the electorate through taped and edited interviews with nightly news anchors.
Having said that, McCain has been McCain--and I give him credit for a bully effort. In a year in which the Republican brand is all but discredited, McCain fought valiantly and honorably. In a year in which no straightforward Republican strategy had even a ghost of a chance at success, McCain ran a courageous insurgent campaign. Not perfect--but perfection is a little bit too much to ask in human kind. Well done, Johnny McCain.
He asserts:
Steve Schmidt and his colleagues took John McCain further than he had any reasonable right to, given the political climate.
McKinnon reminds us of this obvious truism:
One of the physical laws of politics is that if your campaign wins, you’re a genius. If you lose, you’re an idiot.
I agree. Get off McCain.
Considering the daunting political geography, there were only two times over the past three years in which I thought the Republicans had a good shot at winning this election. The first instance was when the Jeremiah Wright revelation finally emerged as a public issue. I was convinced that the American people would never tolerate Wright's brand of incendiary race mongering. Of course, at the time, even then I saw it more as the end of Barack Obama rather than the Democrats. I fully expected Hillary to pick up the pieces and carry her party to victory in November.
In re Wright, my instinct (my absolute certitude) has never been more wrong. Why did the Wright episodes not sink Obama? The media supported their man during his two times of trial concerning his longtime pastor. First, the prObama press rallied around his excellent speech in Philadelphia, which cleverly clouded the issue of Wright by thoughtfully addressing the larger issue of race in America. Then, when Wright reinserted himself into the campaign with his insanely riveting performance at the National Press Club, the candidate reversed himself. After saying he could never disown Wright--Obama vehemently disowned him, and his fans in the mainstream media applauded and accepted the about-face in stride.
Then, in what may be the most amazing display of restraint in the history of American politics, John McCain decided early-on to declare the issue off limits. Why? Without a doubt, Obama's twenty-year relationship with Wright was a legitimate issue. Why? McCain correctly reasoned that the exploitation of Reverend Wright would so divide the American electorate along racial lines that victory would pale in comparison to the cultural damage. Country First. Amazing.
For this unprecedented magnanimity McCain gained what? Ironically, the mainstream media trafficked the ubiquitous notion of McCain as a negative campaigner who had lowered himself to ruthlessly, relentlessly, and unscrupulously attacking his virtuous opponent. Shame, shame, John McCain.
The second moment when I thought victory was attainable came with the advent of Sarah Palin. Her dynamic explosion onto the political scene completely transformed this campaign. For all the pundits who want to point to Palin as McCain's downfall, they should recall how low down the McCain fortunes were when Palin raised him up to parity with the Obama juggernaut.
If I have a complaint against McCain worth pressing at this point, it is my sense that his campaign squandered the potential of Sarah Palin--hiding her under a bushel.
Once the Palin phenomenon emerged, the opposition pushed back with everything they had--correctly comprehending that crushing Palin was "make or break" for Obama 2008. It was not pretty--but the opposition expertly destroyed her public persona. The all-out offensive included blatant lies, distortions, double standards, and a devastating doppelganger--Tina Fey-lin.
Don't blame McCain for selecting the Alaska governor. It was the most brilliant political coup of this new century. However, you can blame McCain for not pushing back hard enough and/or quick enough. You can also blame Team McCain for not giving the young maverick her head. Sarah Palin is incredibly formidable live and on the attack. She should have been running circles around the enemy in a series of guerrilla raids--not laying low or attempting to connect to the electorate through taped and edited interviews with nightly news anchors.
Having said that, McCain has been McCain--and I give him credit for a bully effort. In a year in which the Republican brand is all but discredited, McCain fought valiantly and honorably. In a year in which no straightforward Republican strategy had even a ghost of a chance at success, McCain ran a courageous insurgent campaign. Not perfect--but perfection is a little bit too much to ask in human kind. Well done, Johnny McCain.
The Ark of the Covenant, according to the Bible, was a wooden box, overlaid with gold, in which were the Tablets of the Law. Housed in a movable tent for centuries, it later was placed in the Temple in Jerusalem that Solomon built. It is generally assumed that the Ark disappeared when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple, hauling the treasures back to Babylon.
However, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church believes they have the Ark, kept safe and guarded for millenia in Ethiopia.
Story from The Smithsonian Magazine.
However, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church believes they have the Ark, kept safe and guarded for millenia in Ethiopia.
Story from The Smithsonian Magazine.
25/10: Did You Know?
Has anybody noticed that many of the most reputable public opinion polls indicate that Barack Obama is set to garner the biggest white male vote for any Democratic Party candidate since Lyndon Johnson in 1964?
According to the Zogby-Reuters-C-SPAN poll, white and male voters are fairly evenly split between John McCain and Obama (both in the forties among "decideds")--with McCain holding a modest edge within both groups.
According to the same poll, 95 percent of African Americans report that they are likely to vote for Barack Obama. A staggering number—but not surprising in that this near monolithic statement of support would signal only a slight uptick from the past two elections: African Americans voted 92 percent and 88 percent for Al Gore and John Kerry, respectively, in 2000 and 2004.
More disappointing--but perhaps not surprising--huge numbers of Hispanics seem likely to vote for Obama as well. Many polls predict a twenty-to-thirty point drop off for McCain in 2008 from the Bush heights of 2000 and 2004. Some of that turnaround must be attributed to Obama's charisma and appeal as a minority candidate, but some of it, undoubtedly, is the mendacious Spanish-language ads depicting John McCain in league with the Talk Radio anti-immigration populist revolution of 2007. If voters had any sense of recent history, they would find these blatant lies so preposterous as to be hilarious. But, unfortunately, that particular "if" is a luxury we don't enjoy this election.
As many of you know, I tend to view George W. Bush as much more astute than the hapless buffoon he plays on TV. He certainly understood better than most that chasing off Hispanic voters was a bad idea for the GOP in the long term. It seems that those chickens are coming home to roost this time around.
But, back to the real point of this post, what does it mean for our "racist nation," if Barack Obama wins more white males than any other Democratic candidate of the post-New Deal era?
As I have said before, the liberal establishment in this country has a huge stake in the accepted notion that I am a racist. Why else would a middle-class American continue to vote Republican? Because I am a simpleton who does not understand my own interests. The GOP waves the bloody shirt of race hatred, homophobia, and evangelical sophistry in front of my face, and I revert to conditioned behavior.
Not too long ago America was "too racist" to elect Obama. But as his election grows more probable, we are now forced to endure the new explanation: white America is so desperate for a competent leader that there is no choice but to accept Obama. Economic fear trumps race prejudice. This assumption, by the way, rests on the well-known fact that Barack Obama is an expert on the economy.
All that noise aside, "whitey" turning out in record numbers to vote for the first serious African American candidate for president in our nation's 220 year history will speak loudly and clearly. Of course, the axis of disingenuousness, so invested in the image of virulent racism lurking in heart of Red-State America, will use every weapon in its vast arsenal to combat the notion of the United States as a place that actually hungers for racial justice and fairness.
At this point, who can bet against them?
According to the Zogby-Reuters-C-SPAN poll, white and male voters are fairly evenly split between John McCain and Obama (both in the forties among "decideds")--with McCain holding a modest edge within both groups.
According to the same poll, 95 percent of African Americans report that they are likely to vote for Barack Obama. A staggering number—but not surprising in that this near monolithic statement of support would signal only a slight uptick from the past two elections: African Americans voted 92 percent and 88 percent for Al Gore and John Kerry, respectively, in 2000 and 2004.
More disappointing--but perhaps not surprising--huge numbers of Hispanics seem likely to vote for Obama as well. Many polls predict a twenty-to-thirty point drop off for McCain in 2008 from the Bush heights of 2000 and 2004. Some of that turnaround must be attributed to Obama's charisma and appeal as a minority candidate, but some of it, undoubtedly, is the mendacious Spanish-language ads depicting John McCain in league with the Talk Radio anti-immigration populist revolution of 2007. If voters had any sense of recent history, they would find these blatant lies so preposterous as to be hilarious. But, unfortunately, that particular "if" is a luxury we don't enjoy this election.
As many of you know, I tend to view George W. Bush as much more astute than the hapless buffoon he plays on TV. He certainly understood better than most that chasing off Hispanic voters was a bad idea for the GOP in the long term. It seems that those chickens are coming home to roost this time around.
But, back to the real point of this post, what does it mean for our "racist nation," if Barack Obama wins more white males than any other Democratic candidate of the post-New Deal era?
As I have said before, the liberal establishment in this country has a huge stake in the accepted notion that I am a racist. Why else would a middle-class American continue to vote Republican? Because I am a simpleton who does not understand my own interests. The GOP waves the bloody shirt of race hatred, homophobia, and evangelical sophistry in front of my face, and I revert to conditioned behavior.
Not too long ago America was "too racist" to elect Obama. But as his election grows more probable, we are now forced to endure the new explanation: white America is so desperate for a competent leader that there is no choice but to accept Obama. Economic fear trumps race prejudice. This assumption, by the way, rests on the well-known fact that Barack Obama is an expert on the economy.
All that noise aside, "whitey" turning out in record numbers to vote for the first serious African American candidate for president in our nation's 220 year history will speak loudly and clearly. Of course, the axis of disingenuousness, so invested in the image of virulent racism lurking in heart of Red-State America, will use every weapon in its vast arsenal to combat the notion of the United States as a place that actually hungers for racial justice and fairness.
At this point, who can bet against them?
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
The sleaze, the sleaze.
Powerline has this post on how the donations to the Obama campaign by folks like Doodad Pro, and also fraudulent card use, are happening.
Two choices: systemic incompetence or intentional dishonesty.
Neither of which is a positive characteristic in a candidate for the powerful office of president. Perhaps, since we are attacked if we print Barak Hussein Obama's full name, we should substitute Barak Milhouse Obama.
Powerline has this post on how the donations to the Obama campaign by folks like Doodad Pro, and also fraudulent card use, are happening.
Two choices: systemic incompetence or intentional dishonesty.
Neither of which is a positive characteristic in a candidate for the powerful office of president. Perhaps, since we are attacked if we print Barak Hussein Obama's full name, we should substitute Barak Milhouse Obama.
According to Harry Reid and a host of pseudo-experts on American history, Sarah Palin "obviously knows absolutely nothing about our Constitution or our country."
Who is the ignorant buffoon in this instance? Harry Reid, actually, and all the smug but misinformed "know-it-alls" who have been laughing up their sleeves all day.
The Constitution of the United States authorizes the vice president to perform two functions:
1. to assume the powers and duties of the office of chief executive in case the president finds himself incapable of discharging his appointed duties.
2. to preside over the Senate.
Article I, Section 3.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
First of all, please note that this explanation of vice presidential duties comes in Article I, which describes the nature of the legislative branch (the executive is detailed in Article II, the judiciary in Article III). While Article II explains the election of the vice president, and his prescribed role as successor to an incapacitated president, it is Article I that actually articulates the one regular duty of the vice president, presiding over the Senate, which includes several enumerated functions (including breaking tie votes in the Upper Chamber).
Indeed, the framers developed the position of vice president as something of an afterthought, creating the second executive office in early September during the latter weeks of the four-month deliberations that produced the Constitution of the United States in 1787. But, once settled on a second national office, the framers envisioned the vice president as an "ex-officio President of the Senate." Undoubtedly, they had in mind the contemporary lieutenant governors of various states, elected to state-wide office but charged with presiding over their respective legislatures.
Some framers argued on 7 September that the installation of an executive officer, empowered to preside over the proceedings of the Upper House, dangerously diluted the power of the legislative branch. Notwithstanding, the Convention voted to install the vice president despite those fears regarding an inappropriate intermingling of divided powers.
Moreover, the framers clearly expected the vice president to actually fulfill the role of ex-officio president, providing for a temporary replacement selected from the upper body in case of the vice president's absence. Significantly, the framers also provided for an extraordinary instance in which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would replace the vice president as presiding officer (during an impeachment trial). This protocol for automatic recusation also affirms the expectation that the vice president would chair the Senate under normal circumstances.
The first vice president, John Adams, seemed to harbor no doubts about his role as president of the Senate and at times even understood his obligation to the legislative as superior to the executive.
From the Senate historian:
Shortly after taking office, he wrote to his friend and supporter Benjamin Lincoln, "The Constitution has instituted two great offices . . . and the nation at large has created two officers: one who is the first of the two . . . is placed at the Head of the Executive, the other at the Head of the Legislative." The following year, he informed another correspondent that the office of vice president "is totally detached from the executive authority and confined to the legislative."
Early on, Adams regularly lectured the Senate and directed the proceedings in a manner his opponents disdained as quite partisan. Eventually, the Senate itself instituted a rule (not a law or a Constitutional amendment) that prohibited the vice president from participating in debate. It was after this insult, that Adams bitterly offered his famous quote concerning the vice presidency: "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."
Thomas Jefferson, who succeeded Adams as the second vice president, happily affirmed the rule of silence, as the Sage of Monticello was famously shy about public speaking.
Therefore, the tradition of a silent vice president and one estranged from the Senate is a long one, but it is not rooted in the Constitution.
How does Joe Biden do as a constitutional scholar?
During the vice-presidential debate in St. Louis, Joe Biden stated unequivocally:
"The idea he [Dick Cheney] doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that."
Actually, nobody should understand that because it is wrong. Remember Article I defines the role of the legislative branch.
More Biden: "And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit."
Actually, the Constitution is not explicit about any of this, and it does not even hint at any advisory role to the president (although that is not an illogical inference). However, the Constitution says nothing about limiting the veep's role as chair of the Senate to merely instances of a tie vote. Wrong again.
More Biden: "The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous. "
Perhaps bizarre to Biden--and a good opportunity to push a conspiracy theory near and dear to the hearts of the "nutroots"--but not so historically and/or constitutionally unorthodox (Jefferson too espoused this theory). Maybe if President Lincoln could have gotten on TV back during the early 1790s and explained it to the nation, Biden would enjoy a better understanding of this murky reality: the framers confusingly created the vice president with one foot in the two separate branches of government.
In truth, none of this history matters all that much. The nature of the vice presidency is pretty well defined at this point by tradition, history, and modern expectations. However, loud-mouth critics who want to pile on Sarah Palin for her "lack of understanding" regarding American history and the Constitution ought to crack a book before they start spewing.
Who is the ignorant buffoon in this instance? Harry Reid, actually, and all the smug but misinformed "know-it-alls" who have been laughing up their sleeves all day.
The Constitution of the United States authorizes the vice president to perform two functions:
1. to assume the powers and duties of the office of chief executive in case the president finds himself incapable of discharging his appointed duties.
2. to preside over the Senate.
Article I, Section 3.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
First of all, please note that this explanation of vice presidential duties comes in Article I, which describes the nature of the legislative branch (the executive is detailed in Article II, the judiciary in Article III). While Article II explains the election of the vice president, and his prescribed role as successor to an incapacitated president, it is Article I that actually articulates the one regular duty of the vice president, presiding over the Senate, which includes several enumerated functions (including breaking tie votes in the Upper Chamber).
Indeed, the framers developed the position of vice president as something of an afterthought, creating the second executive office in early September during the latter weeks of the four-month deliberations that produced the Constitution of the United States in 1787. But, once settled on a second national office, the framers envisioned the vice president as an "ex-officio President of the Senate." Undoubtedly, they had in mind the contemporary lieutenant governors of various states, elected to state-wide office but charged with presiding over their respective legislatures.
Some framers argued on 7 September that the installation of an executive officer, empowered to preside over the proceedings of the Upper House, dangerously diluted the power of the legislative branch. Notwithstanding, the Convention voted to install the vice president despite those fears regarding an inappropriate intermingling of divided powers.
Moreover, the framers clearly expected the vice president to actually fulfill the role of ex-officio president, providing for a temporary replacement selected from the upper body in case of the vice president's absence. Significantly, the framers also provided for an extraordinary instance in which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would replace the vice president as presiding officer (during an impeachment trial). This protocol for automatic recusation also affirms the expectation that the vice president would chair the Senate under normal circumstances.
The first vice president, John Adams, seemed to harbor no doubts about his role as president of the Senate and at times even understood his obligation to the legislative as superior to the executive.
From the Senate historian:
Shortly after taking office, he wrote to his friend and supporter Benjamin Lincoln, "The Constitution has instituted two great offices . . . and the nation at large has created two officers: one who is the first of the two . . . is placed at the Head of the Executive, the other at the Head of the Legislative." The following year, he informed another correspondent that the office of vice president "is totally detached from the executive authority and confined to the legislative."
Early on, Adams regularly lectured the Senate and directed the proceedings in a manner his opponents disdained as quite partisan. Eventually, the Senate itself instituted a rule (not a law or a Constitutional amendment) that prohibited the vice president from participating in debate. It was after this insult, that Adams bitterly offered his famous quote concerning the vice presidency: "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."
Thomas Jefferson, who succeeded Adams as the second vice president, happily affirmed the rule of silence, as the Sage of Monticello was famously shy about public speaking.
Therefore, the tradition of a silent vice president and one estranged from the Senate is a long one, but it is not rooted in the Constitution.
How does Joe Biden do as a constitutional scholar?
During the vice-presidential debate in St. Louis, Joe Biden stated unequivocally:
"The idea he [Dick Cheney] doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that."
Actually, nobody should understand that because it is wrong. Remember Article I defines the role of the legislative branch.
More Biden: "And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit."
Actually, the Constitution is not explicit about any of this, and it does not even hint at any advisory role to the president (although that is not an illogical inference). However, the Constitution says nothing about limiting the veep's role as chair of the Senate to merely instances of a tie vote. Wrong again.
More Biden: "The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous. "
Perhaps bizarre to Biden--and a good opportunity to push a conspiracy theory near and dear to the hearts of the "nutroots"--but not so historically and/or constitutionally unorthodox (Jefferson too espoused this theory). Maybe if President Lincoln could have gotten on TV back during the early 1790s and explained it to the nation, Biden would enjoy a better understanding of this murky reality: the framers confusingly created the vice president with one foot in the two separate branches of government.
In truth, none of this history matters all that much. The nature of the vice presidency is pretty well defined at this point by tradition, history, and modern expectations. However, loud-mouth critics who want to pile on Sarah Palin for her "lack of understanding" regarding American history and the Constitution ought to crack a book before they start spewing.
21/10: A People's Revolution
I voted yesterday in Waco, Texas. In addition to the six or seven generic retired regulars I generally see when I cast my ballot during early voting, I also encountered (literally) scores of citizens seemingly unfamiliar with the venue and/or the system but, nevertheless, gleeful and anxious to participate in the carnival atmosphere. These were young people (likely college students) and many African Americans of all ages.
FYI: I arrived approximately ten minutes after the Elections Office opened for business. There were probably ten Obama supporters outside on the periphery of the parking lot enthusiastically waving signs for their candidate. There were no Republican counterparts.
What lesson do I draw from this scene? This election is over. While I don't think it possible that Barack Obama will take Texas--I look for him to do surprisingly well here. More importantly, look for a lot trouble down-ticket for Republicans (if not in Texas, in a lot of other surprising places).
Why is Obama going to do so well?
1. Give him some credit. He is an amazingly gifted candidate.
2. This is a very bad year for Republicans.
--Why so bad? Because Republicans ran a lousy war. Give Petraeus, Crocker, and Gates credit for saving our asses--but we were in a mess directly connected to Bush administration malfeasance.
--Why so bad? Because Republicans ran a lousy economy. We are ten trillion dollars in debt. We are TEN TRILLION DOLLARS in debt!!! We are $10,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. Forget about all the explanatory noise--Republicans did not lift a finger during their six years in control of Washington to place us on a path to economic sanity.
--Why so bad? Because the Republicans ran a lousy PR campaign. Some of the above could have been justified with the right amount of sincerity and finesse. But it wasn't.
3. Media Manipulation.
As Mark Salter complained the other day, the political reporters in this campaign have covered 2008 with a "thumb on the scale." They are fully invested in an Obama victory, and they are "blunting attacks against Obama even before the candidate can articulate a defense." These guys are in the tank to an extent unprecedented in modern American politics (for comparison sake, see the Washington Globe's coverage of Andrew Jackson circa 1832).
What do I mean? Some examples:
Candidate for president, Barack Obama, the forty-seven year-old, half-term senator from Illinois, is imminently qualified to transform America and the world. On the other hand, candidate for vice president, the forty-four year-old, half-term governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, is an embarrassment to all right-thinking citizens and proof that John McCain cannot be trusted.
Joe Biden (in reality, the most prolific human gaffe machine since Norm Crosby) is an eloquent and wise statesman of renown, who provides additional depth and understanding to the already exceptionally brilliant former editor of the Harvard Law Review--as if he needed such buttressing. On the other hand, Sarah Palin (who, in reality, has had one bad taped interview with an unfriendly edit) is the tongue-tied airhead with a penchant for mentioning beauty pageants and keeps saying, "I can see Russia from my house."
Barack Obama is his own man and a healer, likely to transcend the cruel racial and partisan divides that afflict our nation, distributing (not to be confused with re-distributing) love and friendship to all Americans. This is the dawning of the age of Obama.
John McCain is Bush redux, incapable of bucking his odious party and slavishly loyal to the discredited Republican orthodoxy. He was not always this way--and this is the tragic part of our tale-- but he sold his soul to the Devil (Karl Rove--who is, in fact, acting as the silent mastermind to his current campaign) in order to gain the presidency at any cost and quench his fierce and blinding ambition.
Barack Obama is the tax reformer who wants to ease the burden on 95 percent of Americans. Believe him. He could not say something like that if it were not true. John McCain, on the other hand, is erratic and consumed by his contempt for our young champion. Sadly, the erstwhile Maverick and operator of the once storied straight-talk express will say anything to get elected. This is all very dishonorable.
And so it goes. I could go on--but what's the point?
Okie Gardener: steak dinner in Cowtown? You're on. If you win, bring the kids and new members of the family. I will gladly pony up for a feast if you are right.
FYI: I arrived approximately ten minutes after the Elections Office opened for business. There were probably ten Obama supporters outside on the periphery of the parking lot enthusiastically waving signs for their candidate. There were no Republican counterparts.
What lesson do I draw from this scene? This election is over. While I don't think it possible that Barack Obama will take Texas--I look for him to do surprisingly well here. More importantly, look for a lot trouble down-ticket for Republicans (if not in Texas, in a lot of other surprising places).
Why is Obama going to do so well?
1. Give him some credit. He is an amazingly gifted candidate.
2. This is a very bad year for Republicans.
--Why so bad? Because Republicans ran a lousy war. Give Petraeus, Crocker, and Gates credit for saving our asses--but we were in a mess directly connected to Bush administration malfeasance.
--Why so bad? Because Republicans ran a lousy economy. We are ten trillion dollars in debt. We are TEN TRILLION DOLLARS in debt!!! We are $10,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. Forget about all the explanatory noise--Republicans did not lift a finger during their six years in control of Washington to place us on a path to economic sanity.
--Why so bad? Because the Republicans ran a lousy PR campaign. Some of the above could have been justified with the right amount of sincerity and finesse. But it wasn't.
3. Media Manipulation.
As Mark Salter complained the other day, the political reporters in this campaign have covered 2008 with a "thumb on the scale." They are fully invested in an Obama victory, and they are "blunting attacks against Obama even before the candidate can articulate a defense." These guys are in the tank to an extent unprecedented in modern American politics (for comparison sake, see the Washington Globe's coverage of Andrew Jackson circa 1832).
What do I mean? Some examples:
Candidate for president, Barack Obama, the forty-seven year-old, half-term senator from Illinois, is imminently qualified to transform America and the world. On the other hand, candidate for vice president, the forty-four year-old, half-term governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, is an embarrassment to all right-thinking citizens and proof that John McCain cannot be trusted.
Joe Biden (in reality, the most prolific human gaffe machine since Norm Crosby) is an eloquent and wise statesman of renown, who provides additional depth and understanding to the already exceptionally brilliant former editor of the Harvard Law Review--as if he needed such buttressing. On the other hand, Sarah Palin (who, in reality, has had one bad taped interview with an unfriendly edit) is the tongue-tied airhead with a penchant for mentioning beauty pageants and keeps saying, "I can see Russia from my house."
Barack Obama is his own man and a healer, likely to transcend the cruel racial and partisan divides that afflict our nation, distributing (not to be confused with re-distributing) love and friendship to all Americans. This is the dawning of the age of Obama.
John McCain is Bush redux, incapable of bucking his odious party and slavishly loyal to the discredited Republican orthodoxy. He was not always this way--and this is the tragic part of our tale-- but he sold his soul to the Devil (Karl Rove--who is, in fact, acting as the silent mastermind to his current campaign) in order to gain the presidency at any cost and quench his fierce and blinding ambition.
Barack Obama is the tax reformer who wants to ease the burden on 95 percent of Americans. Believe him. He could not say something like that if it were not true. John McCain, on the other hand, is erratic and consumed by his contempt for our young champion. Sadly, the erstwhile Maverick and operator of the once storied straight-talk express will say anything to get elected. This is all very dishonorable.
And so it goes. I could go on--but what's the point?
Okie Gardener: steak dinner in Cowtown? You're on. If you win, bring the kids and new members of the family. I will gladly pony up for a feast if you are right.
Category: Religion & Public Policy
Posted by: an okie gardener
From the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life,
Oct. 27 marks the 10th anniversary of the signing of the International Religious Freedom Act, a law that made the promotion of religious freedom a basic aim of U.S. foreign policy. The passage of the legislation marked the culmination of a campaign of unlikely religious allies, who went on to champion other international human rights causes. Pew Forum Visiting Senior Fellow Allen Hertzke, an eyewitness observer of the birth and growth of the international religious freedom movement and author of Freeing God's Children: The Unlikely Alliance for Global Human Rights (2004), recounts what he witnessed in Washington, D.C., a decade ago and discusses the difference the landmark legislation has made in promoting religious freedom worldwide.
Read the full article.
Oct. 27 marks the 10th anniversary of the signing of the International Religious Freedom Act, a law that made the promotion of religious freedom a basic aim of U.S. foreign policy. The passage of the legislation marked the culmination of a campaign of unlikely religious allies, who went on to champion other international human rights causes. Pew Forum Visiting Senior Fellow Allen Hertzke, an eyewitness observer of the birth and growth of the international religious freedom movement and author of Freeing God's Children: The Unlikely Alliance for Global Human Rights (2004), recounts what he witnessed in Washington, D.C., a decade ago and discusses the difference the landmark legislation has made in promoting religious freedom worldwide.
Read the full article.
21/10: A McCain/Palin Win
I remain cautiously optimistic that McCain/Palin will win this election, and Obama/Biden lose.
Reasons:
*Counter to the media template, the polls are tightening.
*McCain support is looking stronger in Ohio and Florida.
*Joe Biden just spouted off one for the poly-sci textbooks: he said that Obama would be tested seriously in foreign affairs within 6 months in office, and his response would appear at first to be wrong. Not reassuring. Biden still has two weeks to try to control his mouth, which would be a record for him.
*"Joe the Plumber" now has put the S word into the campaign. Is the majority of American voters ready for income redistribution?
*In his contest with Hillary, Obama could not close the deal, and now seems in a similar position as he is unable to get close enough to 50% in the polls.
*In the last primaries against Hillary, Obama did not do as well in actual votes as his poll numbers asserted. On voting day, his vote totals were lower than the exit polling numbers. More people may be lying to pollsters this time around, for fear of being seen as racist. I agree with those who say that if Obama is not up by at least 6% going into election day, he is in trouble.
*It seems that all the dirt on Obama is now starting to stick: ACORN, Rezko, Ayers, Wright, campaign contribution fraud. Even ABC has noticed a few specks on the shining messiah.
*Obama's allies, the MSM and Pelose/Reid & Co., are extremely unpopular with average Americans.
Farmer, I know you are anticipating an Obama win. We'll need to agree on some sort of wager, perhaps a steak in Ft. Worth.
Reasons:
*Counter to the media template, the polls are tightening.
*McCain support is looking stronger in Ohio and Florida.
*Joe Biden just spouted off one for the poly-sci textbooks: he said that Obama would be tested seriously in foreign affairs within 6 months in office, and his response would appear at first to be wrong. Not reassuring. Biden still has two weeks to try to control his mouth, which would be a record for him.
*"Joe the Plumber" now has put the S word into the campaign. Is the majority of American voters ready for income redistribution?
*In his contest with Hillary, Obama could not close the deal, and now seems in a similar position as he is unable to get close enough to 50% in the polls.
*In the last primaries against Hillary, Obama did not do as well in actual votes as his poll numbers asserted. On voting day, his vote totals were lower than the exit polling numbers. More people may be lying to pollsters this time around, for fear of being seen as racist. I agree with those who say that if Obama is not up by at least 6% going into election day, he is in trouble.
*It seems that all the dirt on Obama is now starting to stick: ACORN, Rezko, Ayers, Wright, campaign contribution fraud. Even ABC has noticed a few specks on the shining messiah.
*Obama's allies, the MSM and Pelose/Reid & Co., are extremely unpopular with average Americans.
Farmer, I know you are anticipating an Obama win. We'll need to agree on some sort of wager, perhaps a steak in Ft. Worth.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Christianity Today has two articles worth reading.
This one has some discussion of McCain's faith, and covers his bumpy relationship with evangelicals.
This one on Obama, including how he is reaching out to white evangelicals more effectively than any Democrat candidate since Carter.
This one has some discussion of McCain's faith, and covers his bumpy relationship with evangelicals.
This one on Obama, including how he is reaching out to white evangelicals more effectively than any Democrat candidate since Carter.
19/10: Why I Am Voting for McCain
In no particular order. For Obama see this post.
*He's not a Socialist.
* I do not expect him to govern from the left.
*I expect him to nominate less-activist judges than Obama would.
*He may be serious about cutting spending by the Federal Government.
*He is seasoned and experienced.
*I have no doubt he loves America.
*He is honest and open.
*He can laugh at himself.
*He doesn't seem to hold grudges.
*He will not kill the economy with tax increases and income redistribution.
*Palin as VP.
*He gets it that the War against Radical Islam is long, hard, and difficult.
*World bullies, yes I'm thinking of you Russia and you Iran and you China, would hesitate to push McCain, I think.
*He's not a Socialist.
* I do not expect him to govern from the left.
*I expect him to nominate less-activist judges than Obama would.
*He may be serious about cutting spending by the Federal Government.
*He is seasoned and experienced.
*I have no doubt he loves America.
*He is honest and open.
*He can laugh at himself.
*He doesn't seem to hold grudges.
*He will not kill the economy with tax increases and income redistribution.
*Palin as VP.
*He gets it that the War against Radical Islam is long, hard, and difficult.
*World bullies, yes I'm thinking of you Russia and you Iran and you China, would hesitate to push McCain, I think.
