22/10: The Next Big Thing
As the election nears, I sense that we are in a real lull of activity. I am not sure if we are waiting for the next trump card or, perhaps, have all the aces and spades already been played? Are all the money cards now on the table? If so, the last couple of tricks may fall to mid-level hearts and clubs.
Or, switching metaphors, are the two parties like two heavyweight fighters who have punched themselves out in the late-middle rounds and, unable to knock the other out, who intend to stagger around for the remainder of the fight, leaning on one another until the final bell comes? Unfortunately, one of these bloated, undeserving contestants will win a decision.
I am increasingly convinced that there is a great pall descending over the American electorate. Faced with the final reality that the majority must go, and well aware that the minority is ill-equipped to govern, voters are fast becoming disheartened and pessimistic about their future.
What is the next big thing?
Or, switching metaphors, are the two parties like two heavyweight fighters who have punched themselves out in the late-middle rounds and, unable to knock the other out, who intend to stagger around for the remainder of the fight, leaning on one another until the final bell comes? Unfortunately, one of these bloated, undeserving contestants will win a decision.
I am increasingly convinced that there is a great pall descending over the American electorate. Faced with the final reality that the majority must go, and well aware that the minority is ill-equipped to govern, voters are fast becoming disheartened and pessimistic about their future.
What is the next big thing?
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
C-SPAN (Brian-Lamb Friday) spent some time this morning noting that this week, by order of the Republican-controlled Congress, is "National Character Counts Week." Brian featured a story from yesterday in the Washington Post from Dana Milbank, "During National Character Counts Week, Bush Stumps for Philanderer," which refers to President Bush's campaign efforts on behalf of embattled Pennsylvania Representative, Robert Sherwood.
Sherwood, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, etc. For all of us who like to think of the Republican Party as the moral option, these are troubling times.
Although GOP leadership assures us that there is a logical explanation to all this, I am reminded of a passage from one of my favorite novels, Lonesome Dove, by Larry McMurtry.
The setting:
Upon apprehending their erstwhile friend and colleague, Jake Spoon, who has fallen in with a band of bad men and reluctantly participated in a crime spree that included murder and horse theft, our heroes, Woodrow Call and Augustus McCrae, former captains in the Texas Rangers, proceed to summary justice for the crew.
Jake pleads his case:
"I ain't done nothing. I just fell in with these boys to get through the Territory. I was aiming to leave them first chance I got."
"You should have made a chance a little sooner, Jake," Augustus said. "A man that will go along with six killings is making his escape a little slow."
And later:
"Ride with an outlaw, die with him," he [Augustus] added. "I admit it is a harsh code. But you rode on the other side long enough to know how it works. I'm sorry you crossed the line, Jake."
Maybe like Jake, the GOP leaders lost track of where the line was; they were "just trying to get to Kansas without getting scalped." Nevertheless, it is time for a change.
Sherwood, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, etc. For all of us who like to think of the Republican Party as the moral option, these are troubling times.
Although GOP leadership assures us that there is a logical explanation to all this, I am reminded of a passage from one of my favorite novels, Lonesome Dove, by Larry McMurtry.
The setting:
Upon apprehending their erstwhile friend and colleague, Jake Spoon, who has fallen in with a band of bad men and reluctantly participated in a crime spree that included murder and horse theft, our heroes, Woodrow Call and Augustus McCrae, former captains in the Texas Rangers, proceed to summary justice for the crew.
Jake pleads his case:
"I ain't done nothing. I just fell in with these boys to get through the Territory. I was aiming to leave them first chance I got."
"You should have made a chance a little sooner, Jake," Augustus said. "A man that will go along with six killings is making his escape a little slow."
And later:
"Ride with an outlaw, die with him," he [Augustus] added. "I admit it is a harsh code. But you rode on the other side long enough to know how it works. I'm sorry you crossed the line, Jake."
Maybe like Jake, the GOP leaders lost track of where the line was; they were "just trying to get to Kansas without getting scalped." Nevertheless, it is time for a change.
This morning Washington Journal featured Jennifer Duffey and Amy Walter, from the Cook Political Report; for my money, they are the two most knowledgeable political analysts working in the USA today. They are not flashy, but take what they say to the bank. If you have never heard of them, then you should definitely watch more C-SPAN.
Note: The Washington Journal link above will have today's show (Oct. 15) archived for about a week.
In terms of background, Duffey knows all things pertaining to gubernatorial races and senate contests; Walter knows all 435 Congressional districts in minute detail. Generally, Charlie Cook leans right politically, but the Cook report is scrupulously objective and always as on-target as one can be in these matters.
In brief, when pressed to prognosticate, here is what the ladies predicted:
Duffey on the
Senate: 51-49 (she would not/could not say who would be in the majority)
Governors: she predicted a 6-8 statehouse gain for the Dems
Walter on the
House: +17 pick-up for Dems (which would give them a razor-thin majority)
My view:
I think that is about right. I called the House for the Dems two weeks ago. I predict that the Senate will stay GOP. I cannot imagine Kyl losing in AZ. I have already picked Talent in MO (this is an emotional pick; I think Talent is a comer; if he makes it out of this election, he will grow to be an important and revered senator). I am picking Mike DeWine in OH on emotion as well. Duffey has MO and OH as toss-ups. DeWine and Talent would be monumental losses for the country. Therefore, I pick them to win. I hope; I hope.
Review of some of my former picks:
Note: The Washington Journal link above will have today's show (Oct. 15) archived for about a week.
In terms of background, Duffey knows all things pertaining to gubernatorial races and senate contests; Walter knows all 435 Congressional districts in minute detail. Generally, Charlie Cook leans right politically, but the Cook report is scrupulously objective and always as on-target as one can be in these matters.
In brief, when pressed to prognosticate, here is what the ladies predicted:
Duffey on the
Senate: 51-49 (she would not/could not say who would be in the majority)
Governors: she predicted a 6-8 statehouse gain for the Dems
Walter on the
House: +17 pick-up for Dems (which would give them a razor-thin majority)
My view:
I think that is about right. I called the House for the Dems two weeks ago. I predict that the Senate will stay GOP. I cannot imagine Kyl losing in AZ. I have already picked Talent in MO (this is an emotional pick; I think Talent is a comer; if he makes it out of this election, he will grow to be an important and revered senator). I am picking Mike DeWine in OH on emotion as well. Duffey has MO and OH as toss-ups. DeWine and Talent would be monumental losses for the country. Therefore, I pick them to win. I hope; I hope.
Review of some of my former picks:
14/10: Political Reading
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Some of you who read this are political junkies. You know who you are. If you need a ready fix handy by the bed, check out this list of the best insider books on politics on the Wall Street Journal online editorial page today. From city machine politics to presidential primaries to conventions, books guaranteed to get your political high. Here. Anybody out there read any of these books?
Personally, I don't think the Republicans have earned the opportunity to retain the Congressional majority (can you say "BIG GOVERNMENT"?); and, I do not think the Democrats have earned the opportunity to become the Congressional majority (can you say "NO IDEAS"?) But, in real life we usually do not have perfect choices. Since we are living in a hot period of the nearly 1400-year-long war between Islam and everyone else, the Democrats scare me while the Republicans merely disgust me.
Though Instapundit does not give it a political interpretation, today he offers these observations that might give the Republicans hope. I am assuming that once alone in the voting booth, citizens may do something different than what pollsters predict.
SO WHEN I WAS AT THE MALL THE OTHER DAY, I saw that Eddie Bauer had a prominent display featuring this Disaster Emergency Kit for 2. It's not bad, especially for a car or apartment, though I'd certainly want to supplement it.
But what struck me more than the kit itself was the prominence of the display. Put that together with the fact that Target is marketing survival kits with the American Red Cross, Slate has run a series on disaster survival, and Consumer Reports is pushing disaster preparedness and it looks like we've got something of a trend. (Popular Mechanics is on the job, too, but you expect that from them.) And walking through J.C. Penney the same day I saw hand-cranked dynamo lanterns and radios prominently displayed by the entrance.
It's a trend I approve of, of course, as I think that everyone should be prepared for emergencies. And it's one that's being pushed by government -- my brother recently got a mailing from the State of Ohio telling him he should have a month's worth of food set aside in case of avian flu or other disasters -- but it seems to be more than that. I think that it's something that goes to the Zeitgeist. We know that the world isn't the warm, fuzzy place that it often seemed in the 1990s (it wasn't then, either, but it was easier to ignore that if you tried, and most of us tried). Modest preparations now, of course, can have a big payoff later, so I'm glad to see people giving the subject some thought. Whether or not Eddie Bauer sells many of those kits, everyone who sees them will at least have disaster preparation cross his/her mind.
More on disaster preparedness here and here. Remember, though, it's not just about buying things -- it's about learning things, too.
Though Instapundit does not give it a political interpretation, today he offers these observations that might give the Republicans hope. I am assuming that once alone in the voting booth, citizens may do something different than what pollsters predict.
SO WHEN I WAS AT THE MALL THE OTHER DAY, I saw that Eddie Bauer had a prominent display featuring this Disaster Emergency Kit for 2. It's not bad, especially for a car or apartment, though I'd certainly want to supplement it.
But what struck me more than the kit itself was the prominence of the display. Put that together with the fact that Target is marketing survival kits with the American Red Cross, Slate has run a series on disaster survival, and Consumer Reports is pushing disaster preparedness and it looks like we've got something of a trend. (Popular Mechanics is on the job, too, but you expect that from them.) And walking through J.C. Penney the same day I saw hand-cranked dynamo lanterns and radios prominently displayed by the entrance.
It's a trend I approve of, of course, as I think that everyone should be prepared for emergencies. And it's one that's being pushed by government -- my brother recently got a mailing from the State of Ohio telling him he should have a month's worth of food set aside in case of avian flu or other disasters -- but it seems to be more than that. I think that it's something that goes to the Zeitgeist. We know that the world isn't the warm, fuzzy place that it often seemed in the 1990s (it wasn't then, either, but it was easier to ignore that if you tried, and most of us tried). Modest preparations now, of course, can have a big payoff later, so I'm glad to see people giving the subject some thought. Whether or not Eddie Bauer sells many of those kits, everyone who sees them will at least have disaster preparation cross his/her mind.
More on disaster preparedness here and here. Remember, though, it's not just about buying things -- it's about learning things, too.
12/10: KWTX Appearance
I appeared on Channel 10 this morning (Thursday) to analyze the President's press conference yesterday (Wednesday).
The gist of my comments:
On the political impact of the Rose Garden press conference:
The President needed to come out and address the very serious situation in North Korea. We expect the president of the United States to come before us in these moments. Moreover, I am not a big fan of viewing all events through the prism of politics. I reject the premise that politics drives all policy. [In fact, I am convinced that this President more often uses elections to leverage policy than he employs policy debates to influence elections.]
On the other hand, having said that, the President, as leader of the Republican Party, desperately needed to drive the discussion back toward issues that are more favorable to Republicans. The President made an aggressive attempt to seize the agenda and the initiative. As the President said time and again on Wednesday, he wants this election to be about the economy and security.
Iraq:
But the undercurrent in this election (in this presidency) is always Iraq. Are we so dissatisfied with Iraq that we turn out the Republican Congress to voice our displeasure with the war? Will we stay the course? Or will we cut our losses and come home? In many ways, this election is another referendum on our policy in Iraq and our vision for the post-911 world.
The Polls:
There is a great paradox in public opinion polling. On one hand, scientifically, the polls are very effective measurements of public sentiment; they can be very accurate in determining what people feel at any given minute. On the other hand, the polls are merely a snapshot. They tell us what people were thinking a few days ago. But that does not really tell us what is going to happen on November 7. This is a fluid election, and momentum is likely to go back and forth several times before Election Day.
[Last week Republicans were convinced that the Foley abomination was having little effect on the election. They were completely wrong and silly to listen to polling data that confirmed what they wanted to believe. This week the Democrats (and the MSM) are convinced that the Republicans are finished; they too are probably much too sanguine about what this week's polling data really means.]
Moreover, much more so than election results, polling tends to register emotion. Americans generally take voting very seriously. The weight of Election Day tends to sober American voters. Polling on any given day one-month out from an election is often wildly inaccurate in terms of predicting winners on the first Tuesday in November.
The gist of my comments:
On the political impact of the Rose Garden press conference:
The President needed to come out and address the very serious situation in North Korea. We expect the president of the United States to come before us in these moments. Moreover, I am not a big fan of viewing all events through the prism of politics. I reject the premise that politics drives all policy. [In fact, I am convinced that this President more often uses elections to leverage policy than he employs policy debates to influence elections.]
On the other hand, having said that, the President, as leader of the Republican Party, desperately needed to drive the discussion back toward issues that are more favorable to Republicans. The President made an aggressive attempt to seize the agenda and the initiative. As the President said time and again on Wednesday, he wants this election to be about the economy and security.
Iraq:
But the undercurrent in this election (in this presidency) is always Iraq. Are we so dissatisfied with Iraq that we turn out the Republican Congress to voice our displeasure with the war? Will we stay the course? Or will we cut our losses and come home? In many ways, this election is another referendum on our policy in Iraq and our vision for the post-911 world.
The Polls:
There is a great paradox in public opinion polling. On one hand, scientifically, the polls are very effective measurements of public sentiment; they can be very accurate in determining what people feel at any given minute. On the other hand, the polls are merely a snapshot. They tell us what people were thinking a few days ago. But that does not really tell us what is going to happen on November 7. This is a fluid election, and momentum is likely to go back and forth several times before Election Day.
[Last week Republicans were convinced that the Foley abomination was having little effect on the election. They were completely wrong and silly to listen to polling data that confirmed what they wanted to believe. This week the Democrats (and the MSM) are convinced that the Republicans are finished; they too are probably much too sanguine about what this week's polling data really means.]
Moreover, much more so than election results, polling tends to register emotion. Americans generally take voting very seriously. The weight of Election Day tends to sober American voters. Polling on any given day one-month out from an election is often wildly inaccurate in terms of predicting winners on the first Tuesday in November.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Somehow I had overlooked these before. Below is the questionaire filled out by each candidate for the Kansas City Star newspaper last summer.
Claire McCaskill (D)
I do not think there are real surprises in her positions. She does sound more hawkish on Iran than some Democrats, but talk is cheap.
Jim Talent (R)
I do not think there are any real surprises in his positions. He is more straightforward than many candidates.
Claire McCaskill (D)
I do not think there are real surprises in her positions. She does sound more hawkish on Iran than some Democrats, but talk is cheap.
Jim Talent (R)
I do not think there are any real surprises in his positions. He is more straightforward than many candidates.
08/10: Weekend Debates
A lot of debating went on this weekend. I caught the Texas 17 in full and some snippets of some others. Here are some quick impressions:
Texas 17. Incumbent Democrat Chet Edwards and Republican challenger Van Taylor: Not much substance to argue over. Mostly petty exchanges. Edwards is a Democrat who votes Republican, which is very frustrating for the Republican challenger. However, standing toe-to-toe with a long-term incumbent raises the status of the challenger. Taylor did not disqualify himself. He raised his visibility. Tie goes to the Republican challenger in a Republican-dominated district, but the advantage still lies with the incumbent Edwards.
Texas Gubernatorial: It is a funny race. I have long believed that the much-maligned Rick Perry holds an almost impregnable position in this campaign. The Democratic nominee, Chris Bell, is virtually unknown--even today. The novelty candidate, comedian Kinky Friedman has not caught fire. Carole Strayhorn, the articulate erstwhile-Republican Comptroller and independent challenger, may be the best candidate all things being equal--but all things are not equal.
Perry is the incumbent Republican in a rock-solid Republican state (last cycle no Democrat won a state office). He has all the money. He has all the connections and corporate support. And he looks marvelous. Perry is a tall former rancher with movie-star good looks. Physically towering over his independent but charismatic competition, and outshining his dull Democratic challenger, Perry seems well-positioned to win his second term as governor of Texas.
Missouri Senate: I saw only seconds of the Talent and McCaskill debate on Meet the Press, but Talent seemed so in control of the facts and the stage, I am going to go ahead and call Missouri for Talent on gut feeling alone (although some of the latest polls say different).
California Governor: I caught quite a bit of the debate between Arnold Schwarzenegger and some guy who wasn't Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Governator is that good. I agree with all the polls that predict Arnold with enjoy a double-digit win. So much for the polls and pundits this time last year that eulogized Schwarzenegger.
Review of former picks:
Pennsylvania: Casey
Virginia: Allen
Texas 17. Incumbent Democrat Chet Edwards and Republican challenger Van Taylor: Not much substance to argue over. Mostly petty exchanges. Edwards is a Democrat who votes Republican, which is very frustrating for the Republican challenger. However, standing toe-to-toe with a long-term incumbent raises the status of the challenger. Taylor did not disqualify himself. He raised his visibility. Tie goes to the Republican challenger in a Republican-dominated district, but the advantage still lies with the incumbent Edwards.
Texas Gubernatorial: It is a funny race. I have long believed that the much-maligned Rick Perry holds an almost impregnable position in this campaign. The Democratic nominee, Chris Bell, is virtually unknown--even today. The novelty candidate, comedian Kinky Friedman has not caught fire. Carole Strayhorn, the articulate erstwhile-Republican Comptroller and independent challenger, may be the best candidate all things being equal--but all things are not equal.
Perry is the incumbent Republican in a rock-solid Republican state (last cycle no Democrat won a state office). He has all the money. He has all the connections and corporate support. And he looks marvelous. Perry is a tall former rancher with movie-star good looks. Physically towering over his independent but charismatic competition, and outshining his dull Democratic challenger, Perry seems well-positioned to win his second term as governor of Texas.
Missouri Senate: I saw only seconds of the Talent and McCaskill debate on Meet the Press, but Talent seemed so in control of the facts and the stage, I am going to go ahead and call Missouri for Talent on gut feeling alone (although some of the latest polls say different).
California Governor: I caught quite a bit of the debate between Arnold Schwarzenegger and some guy who wasn't Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Governator is that good. I agree with all the polls that predict Arnold with enjoy a double-digit win. So much for the polls and pundits this time last year that eulogized Schwarzenegger.
Review of former picks:
Pennsylvania: Casey
Virginia: Allen
06/10: Emerging from the Foley Fog
Some things that are probably true:
1. Republicans are going to lose the House. If not for Foley, the GOP might have dodged the bullet, but this should do it. In truth, the Republican House deserves to go.
George Will had the quote of the day yesterday:
"If, after the Foley episode -- a maraschino cherry atop the Democrats' delectable sundae of Republican miseries -- the Democrats cannot gain 13 seats, they should go into another line of work."
Losing is probably what we need the most; it will facilitate repentance and revival.
2. The long history of the Republican Party (that goes back even to its Whig roots) as the "moral party" is well deserved; the label is a two-edged sword, but well deserved nonetheless.
The GOP rank-and-file are unique in their standards of conduct. While some pundits and leaders are attempting to blame a well-timed opposition leak for this story (which may be accurate in part), the real truth is that genuine horror and disgust from the Republican masses fired this scandal.
I have a certain sense of pride in my party in regard to our outrage. Regardless of the mistakes of leadership, it is clear to any observer that the party is exacting in its demands for moral conduct.
Are we open to charges of hypocrisy? Yes. Aren't we all? But there is little room for quibbling over the vehemence with which we have pursued this series of indiscretions and violations of our trust.
It amazes me that one month out from a crucial election the GOP faithful are willing to call for the heads of their leaders over a matter of principle. Good for us.
Today I am not ashamed to be a Republican; I am prouder than ever to be associated with the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan.
3. The silver lining: We now have a new standard of conduct for Congress. We will look back on Speaker Pelosi's passionate condemnations of immorality on the part of Republican leadership and replay those sound bites for the next twenty years, holding all parties to the same yardstick.
Barney Frank's next sex scandal will be his last.
1. Republicans are going to lose the House. If not for Foley, the GOP might have dodged the bullet, but this should do it. In truth, the Republican House deserves to go.
George Will had the quote of the day yesterday:
"If, after the Foley episode -- a maraschino cherry atop the Democrats' delectable sundae of Republican miseries -- the Democrats cannot gain 13 seats, they should go into another line of work."
Losing is probably what we need the most; it will facilitate repentance and revival.
2. The long history of the Republican Party (that goes back even to its Whig roots) as the "moral party" is well deserved; the label is a two-edged sword, but well deserved nonetheless.
The GOP rank-and-file are unique in their standards of conduct. While some pundits and leaders are attempting to blame a well-timed opposition leak for this story (which may be accurate in part), the real truth is that genuine horror and disgust from the Republican masses fired this scandal.
I have a certain sense of pride in my party in regard to our outrage. Regardless of the mistakes of leadership, it is clear to any observer that the party is exacting in its demands for moral conduct.
Are we open to charges of hypocrisy? Yes. Aren't we all? But there is little room for quibbling over the vehemence with which we have pursued this series of indiscretions and violations of our trust.
It amazes me that one month out from a crucial election the GOP faithful are willing to call for the heads of their leaders over a matter of principle. Good for us.
Today I am not ashamed to be a Republican; I am prouder than ever to be associated with the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan.
3. The silver lining: We now have a new standard of conduct for Congress. We will look back on Speaker Pelosi's passionate condemnations of immorality on the part of Republican leadership and replay those sound bites for the next twenty years, holding all parties to the same yardstick.
Barney Frank's next sex scandal will be his last.
I have not seen this in print yet, but I get the feeling that there is a rationale building in GOP circles for not taking action on sexual predator Mark Foley:
We could not take action against Foley because he is a homosexual, and the rules of political correctness precluded further investigation. That is, imagine the angry recriminations and accusations of Republican homophobia that would have emerged if we had pushed Foley on scant evidence.
Unacceptable! Anyone who follows current politics understands that there is truth in that assertion. Quite frankly, the Foley case was a no-win situation politically. Nevertheless, it was a no-brainer morally and ethically. GOP leadership should have done the right thing and taken the heat for the breach in political correctness decorum.
We could not take action against Foley because he is a homosexual, and the rules of political correctness precluded further investigation. That is, imagine the angry recriminations and accusations of Republican homophobia that would have emerged if we had pushed Foley on scant evidence.
Unacceptable! Anyone who follows current politics understands that there is truth in that assertion. Quite frankly, the Foley case was a no-win situation politically. Nevertheless, it was a no-brainer morally and ethically. GOP leadership should have done the right thing and taken the heat for the breach in political correctness decorum.
