12/11: Give Dean his Due
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
This Week, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean reaffirmed his intention to relinquish his position of party leadership when his term expires in January. No surprise there. A sitting president picks the national party chair, and Dean promised from the beginning to serve only one term in that capacity.
Dean's tenure was oftentimes tumultuous. In addition to providing an inviting target to conservative commentators, he famously fought with Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer over the allocation of resources in 2006 and faced down massive inside grumbling concerning the so-called fifty-state strategy in 2008.
However, from this vantage point, it is hard to argue with Dean's success. He presided over one of the most dramatic recoveries of political power in the history of our democratic-republic. Four years ago, his party was defeated, demoralized, and a disillusioned minority in both houses of Congress. Today a Democratic president-elect, overwhelmingly elected in a contest that turned the map blue, prepares to preside over comfortable majorities in the House and Senate.
Even more important than the fifty-state strategy, and a fact that goes overlooked way too often, is that Howard Dean the insurgent presidential candidate of 2004 provided the template for victory for Barack Obama in 2008. Obama understood well that Dean's strident anti-war stance provided the roadmap to winning the Democratic nomination four years later. As the only viable Democrat who could boast clean hands on Iraq, Obama expertly crafted the "nutroots" element of the party into a powerful base and endless source of financing.
Although the Dean juggernaut lost traction in the snows of Iowa, the Obama campaign went to school on their shortcomings and built on their successes. Best known for the "Dean Scream," which probably had very little to do with his overall defeat, Dr. Dean emerges today as one of the essential components of this amazing Democratic success.
Note to self: don't get too down about today's headlines.
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, but make allowance for their doubting too.
If you can meet with triumph and disaster. And treat those two impostors just the same.
Bottom Line: according to Rudyard Kipling’s definition, without question, Howard Dean is a man.
For a party reeling from setbacks, his example of fortitude is worth emulating.
Dean's tenure was oftentimes tumultuous. In addition to providing an inviting target to conservative commentators, he famously fought with Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer over the allocation of resources in 2006 and faced down massive inside grumbling concerning the so-called fifty-state strategy in 2008.
However, from this vantage point, it is hard to argue with Dean's success. He presided over one of the most dramatic recoveries of political power in the history of our democratic-republic. Four years ago, his party was defeated, demoralized, and a disillusioned minority in both houses of Congress. Today a Democratic president-elect, overwhelmingly elected in a contest that turned the map blue, prepares to preside over comfortable majorities in the House and Senate.
Even more important than the fifty-state strategy, and a fact that goes overlooked way too often, is that Howard Dean the insurgent presidential candidate of 2004 provided the template for victory for Barack Obama in 2008. Obama understood well that Dean's strident anti-war stance provided the roadmap to winning the Democratic nomination four years later. As the only viable Democrat who could boast clean hands on Iraq, Obama expertly crafted the "nutroots" element of the party into a powerful base and endless source of financing.
Although the Dean juggernaut lost traction in the snows of Iowa, the Obama campaign went to school on their shortcomings and built on their successes. Best known for the "Dean Scream," which probably had very little to do with his overall defeat, Dr. Dean emerges today as one of the essential components of this amazing Democratic success.
Note to self: don't get too down about today's headlines.
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, but make allowance for their doubting too.
If you can meet with triumph and disaster. And treat those two impostors just the same.
Bottom Line: according to Rudyard Kipling’s definition, without question, Howard Dean is a man.
For a party reeling from setbacks, his example of fortitude is worth emulating.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
I am a regular reader of Roger Ebert's movie reviews. I first became aware of him over 25 years ago as half of the team on Public Television's movie review program.
Ebert is a modern liberal in his sympathies and beliefs, though I don't think he is on the lunatic fringe. Two of his recent postings reveal some of the assumptions made by the American left, strongly held in spite of, or against, the evidence.
Writing about the election of Obama.
Our long national nightmare is ending. America will not soon again start a war based on lies and propaganda. We will not torture. We will restore the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of privacy, and habeas corpus. We will enter at last in the struggle against environmental disaster. Our ideas will once again be more powerful than our weapons. During the last eight years, the beacon on the hill flickered out. Now the torch will shine again.
"Nightmare"? What nightmare? Since 9/11/01 we have had no major terrorist attacks on our soil. The economy has performed well, until recently (thank you Barney Frank, Barak Obama, and Christ Dodd, you weasels). "Start a war based on lies and propaganda." I assume he means Iraq. "Start." We have been in a state of war with Iraq since its invasion of Kuwait. Saddam regularly and deliberately violated agreements made in the cease-fire. His military frequently shot at Coalition planes doing reconnaissance. Saddam plotted to assassinate Bush 41. The terms of the cease-fire mandated that he not only dismantle his weapons programs, but prove to the world he had dismantled them; instead, he played a dangerous game of evasion with weapons inspectors. "Lies and propaganda." I assume he means that no recent weapons of mass destruction were found. See above on Saddam's responsibilities for dismantling his weapons programs. We know he had such weapons, he had used them on the Kurds and Iranians. And, weapons of mass destruction were only one of the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq under Bush 43. "We will not torture." Waterboarding is unpleasant, but not inhumane torture; neither is panties on the head. "Restore the rights of freedom of speech"? How many Bush-bashing journalists, bloggers, actors/actresses, academics, were hauled into re-education camps? None. Sheer hysteria. "Freedom of privacy." So, is he thinking that privacy is absolute? Is he asserting that Americans who communicate with individuals, groups, etc. of concern should not have conversations listened in on? Is he asserting that all of us have had our privacy invaded? Is he assuming that if we cannot conduct a perfect war against radical Islam we should conduct none at all? "Habeus corpus." Is he suggesting that fighting radical Islam is a matter of law enforcement rather than war? Is he asserting that enemy combantants, who do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection, should be given U.S. Constitutional protections?
Listening to, and reading liberals, makes me feel like I've entered Bizarro World.
Ebert is a modern liberal in his sympathies and beliefs, though I don't think he is on the lunatic fringe. Two of his recent postings reveal some of the assumptions made by the American left, strongly held in spite of, or against, the evidence.
Writing about the election of Obama.
Our long national nightmare is ending. America will not soon again start a war based on lies and propaganda. We will not torture. We will restore the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of privacy, and habeas corpus. We will enter at last in the struggle against environmental disaster. Our ideas will once again be more powerful than our weapons. During the last eight years, the beacon on the hill flickered out. Now the torch will shine again.
"Nightmare"? What nightmare? Since 9/11/01 we have had no major terrorist attacks on our soil. The economy has performed well, until recently (thank you Barney Frank, Barak Obama, and Christ Dodd, you weasels). "Start a war based on lies and propaganda." I assume he means Iraq. "Start." We have been in a state of war with Iraq since its invasion of Kuwait. Saddam regularly and deliberately violated agreements made in the cease-fire. His military frequently shot at Coalition planes doing reconnaissance. Saddam plotted to assassinate Bush 41. The terms of the cease-fire mandated that he not only dismantle his weapons programs, but prove to the world he had dismantled them; instead, he played a dangerous game of evasion with weapons inspectors. "Lies and propaganda." I assume he means that no recent weapons of mass destruction were found. See above on Saddam's responsibilities for dismantling his weapons programs. We know he had such weapons, he had used them on the Kurds and Iranians. And, weapons of mass destruction were only one of the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq under Bush 43. "We will not torture." Waterboarding is unpleasant, but not inhumane torture; neither is panties on the head. "Restore the rights of freedom of speech"? How many Bush-bashing journalists, bloggers, actors/actresses, academics, were hauled into re-education camps? None. Sheer hysteria. "Freedom of privacy." So, is he thinking that privacy is absolute? Is he asserting that Americans who communicate with individuals, groups, etc. of concern should not have conversations listened in on? Is he asserting that all of us have had our privacy invaded? Is he assuming that if we cannot conduct a perfect war against radical Islam we should conduct none at all? "Habeus corpus." Is he suggesting that fighting radical Islam is a matter of law enforcement rather than war? Is he asserting that enemy combantants, who do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection, should be given U.S. Constitutional protections?
Listening to, and reading liberals, makes me feel like I've entered Bizarro World.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
What Barack Obama said at his first press availability as president-elect:
When asked if he had spoken with any ex-presidents since his election on Tuesday, Obama responded that he had spoken to all former presidents "that are living."
When a few titters of laughter ensued at his awkward phrasing, the candidate attempted to recover with humor:
"I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances."
Why this is disturbing.
1. It is mean. Why go out of your way to slam a former first lady in her nineties?
2. It is wrong. Nancy Reagan never had any seances. She famously consulted an astrologer about her husband's schedule after the 1981 assassination attempt that almost claimed his life.
3. It is a disturbing conflation. He was probably confused about the allegations that Hillary Clinton used a spiritualist to communicate with the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt.
4. As good as he is in some facets of his public performance, he is often tongue-tied and extremely uncomfortable in other situations as a public speaker. This is a strange paradox that will plague his presidency and, undoubtedly, have some unexpected deleterious consequences.
Even more disturbing.
1. The Press laughed. If Obama "bagged" on an elderly woman, it must be pretty funny and appropriate.
2. The Press gave him a pass on the facts. No reporters challenged his erroneous assumption. He was wrong--and certainly there must have been some reporters who understood how wrong he was--but no one said anything. The coverage of the press availability generally ignored the comment. Of course, the right-wing media picked up on it and responded with outrage--but the mainstream papers are only now, and with palpable reluctance, reporting on the slight.
A Small Reason for Hope?
The best thing about this (and admittedly I may be grasping here), the president-elect has reportedly already called Nancy Reagan personally and apologized for his callous comment and his erroneous insinuation.
Thank you, Mr. President-elect, for that gesture of civility.
When asked if he had spoken with any ex-presidents since his election on Tuesday, Obama responded that he had spoken to all former presidents "that are living."
When a few titters of laughter ensued at his awkward phrasing, the candidate attempted to recover with humor:
"I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances."
Why this is disturbing.
1. It is mean. Why go out of your way to slam a former first lady in her nineties?
2. It is wrong. Nancy Reagan never had any seances. She famously consulted an astrologer about her husband's schedule after the 1981 assassination attempt that almost claimed his life.
3. It is a disturbing conflation. He was probably confused about the allegations that Hillary Clinton used a spiritualist to communicate with the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt.
4. As good as he is in some facets of his public performance, he is often tongue-tied and extremely uncomfortable in other situations as a public speaker. This is a strange paradox that will plague his presidency and, undoubtedly, have some unexpected deleterious consequences.
Even more disturbing.
1. The Press laughed. If Obama "bagged" on an elderly woman, it must be pretty funny and appropriate.
2. The Press gave him a pass on the facts. No reporters challenged his erroneous assumption. He was wrong--and certainly there must have been some reporters who understood how wrong he was--but no one said anything. The coverage of the press availability generally ignored the comment. Of course, the right-wing media picked up on it and responded with outrage--but the mainstream papers are only now, and with palpable reluctance, reporting on the slight.
A Small Reason for Hope?
The best thing about this (and admittedly I may be grasping here), the president-elect has reportedly already called Nancy Reagan personally and apologized for his callous comment and his erroneous insinuation.
Thank you, Mr. President-elect, for that gesture of civility.
As I mentioned a few days ago, I'm a spatially-focused kind of guy, and a sucker for maps. I love the immediate interpretation of vast amounts of data that a map can show. So, for the election results, I've been going straight to the maps. We've all seen the state-by-state maps, and have probably noticed that the map seems to look pretty red, even though Obama cleaned house with Electoral college votes.
The obvious explanation is that the difference is due to population in these states, which, since we're looking at this spatially, corresponds to population density. Obama overwhelmingly carried densely-populated areas. Compare this population density map, shown by county, with this election results map, also by county (scroll down a bit).
A more unconventional way to show the population difference is with a population-scaled cartogram. [Aside: these weighted cartograms can end up showing some really neat stuff. Check out this site and browse.] Someone's been industrious overnight, and we've already got a weighted cartogram for the election results, here.
County-by-county maps can show startling results. For example, my state, Missouri, is still "too close to call." A map of election results by county shows that only 8 of 114 counties were carried by Obama! (Plus the city of St. Louis, not in a county.) Looking at these counties, though, shows that you've got Kansas City, St. Louis, and Columbia all going Obama. Of course, this county-by-county examination is not completely meaningful, since there is no state electoral college, and many of those red counties were 55-44 sorts of places, and those 44s add up.
As far as conclusions go, well, I generally avoid them. But in this case, especially looking at the population density map and county election results map in conjunction, there seems to be significant evidence for an Urban-Rural gap in this country. Voting for a president is only partially indicative of overall values and preferences, but it is a key indicator. Rural and Urban Americans seem to value different things.
[I know, that's not much of a new point. But I do like to see some empirical evidence to back this up, in addition to the anecdotal and assumptive evidence we've had so far. I'm a bit more into social sciences than Farmer and gardener, and I think this preference of mine is one of the main reasons.]
The obvious explanation is that the difference is due to population in these states, which, since we're looking at this spatially, corresponds to population density. Obama overwhelmingly carried densely-populated areas. Compare this population density map, shown by county, with this election results map, also by county (scroll down a bit).
A more unconventional way to show the population difference is with a population-scaled cartogram. [Aside: these weighted cartograms can end up showing some really neat stuff. Check out this site and browse.] Someone's been industrious overnight, and we've already got a weighted cartogram for the election results, here.
County-by-county maps can show startling results. For example, my state, Missouri, is still "too close to call." A map of election results by county shows that only 8 of 114 counties were carried by Obama! (Plus the city of St. Louis, not in a county.) Looking at these counties, though, shows that you've got Kansas City, St. Louis, and Columbia all going Obama. Of course, this county-by-county examination is not completely meaningful, since there is no state electoral college, and many of those red counties were 55-44 sorts of places, and those 44s add up.
As far as conclusions go, well, I generally avoid them. But in this case, especially looking at the population density map and county election results map in conjunction, there seems to be significant evidence for an Urban-Rural gap in this country. Voting for a president is only partially indicative of overall values and preferences, but it is a key indicator. Rural and Urban Americans seem to value different things.
[I know, that's not much of a new point. But I do like to see some empirical evidence to back this up, in addition to the anecdotal and assumptive evidence we've had so far. I'm a bit more into social sciences than Farmer and gardener, and I think this preference of mine is one of the main reasons.]
04/11: Iowa for Obama?
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
It is 9:36 pm CST. The networks have called Iowa for Obama now with about 15% of the votes reported. I am looking at the Iowa state map, county by county vote totals. I do not see an Obama clinch yet. We'll know in a couple of hours about Iowa. At 9:40 I am cautiously optimistic about Missouri for McCain, looking at the county by county maps.
I grew up in Missouri and lived there several years as an adult; I lived several years in Iowa.
Update: 10:10pm CST I now can see calling Iowa for Obama. I am very surprised at his strength in the rural counties of central Iowa outside Polk County (Des Moines). It will be interesting to see any data on why these Iowan voted as they did. The economy?
I grew up in Missouri and lived there several years as an adult; I lived several years in Iowa.
Update: 10:10pm CST I now can see calling Iowa for Obama. I am very surprised at his strength in the rural counties of central Iowa outside Polk County (Des Moines). It will be interesting to see any data on why these Iowan voted as they did. The economy?
03/11: No excuses: Vote.
We'll forget about the Voting Paradox for a moment, and say instead: Vote.
There are many good reasons, but I'll save the professoring for the farmer and gardener; I'll just point the way:
FIND YOUR POLLING PLACE
I'm a sucker for maps, especially when they're searchable and applicable. Don't know where to vote? Just go to the above link, type in your address, and get a map showing you how to get to your polling place. Ain't technology grand?
I'll be riding my bike to my polling place at 7am and casting my vote for all federal, state, and local elections. Democracy rolls on.
There are many good reasons, but I'll save the professoring for the farmer and gardener; I'll just point the way:
FIND YOUR POLLING PLACE
I'm a sucker for maps, especially when they're searchable and applicable. Don't know where to vote? Just go to the above link, type in your address, and get a map showing you how to get to your polling place. Ain't technology grand?
I'll be riding my bike to my polling place at 7am and casting my vote for all federal, state, and local elections. Democracy rolls on.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
We need a man that is simple perfection
There's nothing that's harder to find
Someone to lead us protect us and feed us
And help us to make up our minds
We need a man that's sophisticated
Quiet and strong and well educated
Where to go what to do
Could it be somebody super like you
We need a man that can stand as a symbol
And symbols have got to be tall
Someone with taste and the tiniest waist
With his help would not life be a ball
If we had fun he would not restrain us
If we got caught he would just explain us
Where to go what to do
Could it be somebody super like you
We pledge allegiance to his
Gracefulness and charming manners
With a voice that's both sides choice
He'll bring us to our knees in admiration
He is king of all who see and hear his perfect pitch
And more surprises when his time is come a stallion rises
We need a man with a head on his shoulders
A nose that is simply divine
Hollywood smile and a perfect profile
And with eyes that would sparkle and shine
Long flowing hair for a crowning glory
There'd be a man who could tell our story
Where to go what to do
Could it be somebody super like you
We pledge allegiance to his
Gracefulness and charming manners
With a voice that's both sides choice
He'll bring us to our knees in admiration
He is king of all who see and hear his perfect pitch
And more surprises when his time is come a stallion rises
Rises... rises... rises
"Somebody Super Like You" by Paul Williams
Performance from Phantom of the Paradise
Liberty can be frightening. There really is an "Anxiety of Freedom." Therefore there always will be the tug toward The Strong Man, Someone to lead us protect us and feed us
And help us to make up our minds
We have seen a lot of that tendency this election. Mostly among Obama supporters, who have romantically, not rationally, chosen someone to make their lives better. The Obama movement this year has reminded me of Juan Peron in Argentina. And of Plato's prediction that the demogogue would be the end of democracy.
Be careful what you wish for.
This song is from The Phantom of the Paradise, lyrics by Paul Williams. Trailer. A great little movie combining Faust, The Phantom of the Opera, and Shock Rock. Early Brian De Palma.
There's nothing that's harder to find
Someone to lead us protect us and feed us
And help us to make up our minds
We need a man that's sophisticated
Quiet and strong and well educated
Where to go what to do
Could it be somebody super like you
We need a man that can stand as a symbol
And symbols have got to be tall
Someone with taste and the tiniest waist
With his help would not life be a ball
If we had fun he would not restrain us
If we got caught he would just explain us
Where to go what to do
Could it be somebody super like you
We pledge allegiance to his
Gracefulness and charming manners
With a voice that's both sides choice
He'll bring us to our knees in admiration
He is king of all who see and hear his perfect pitch
And more surprises when his time is come a stallion rises
We need a man with a head on his shoulders
A nose that is simply divine
Hollywood smile and a perfect profile
And with eyes that would sparkle and shine
Long flowing hair for a crowning glory
There'd be a man who could tell our story
Where to go what to do
Could it be somebody super like you
We pledge allegiance to his
Gracefulness and charming manners
With a voice that's both sides choice
He'll bring us to our knees in admiration
He is king of all who see and hear his perfect pitch
And more surprises when his time is come a stallion rises
Rises... rises... rises
"Somebody Super Like You" by Paul Williams
Performance from Phantom of the Paradise
Liberty can be frightening. There really is an "Anxiety of Freedom." Therefore there always will be the tug toward The Strong Man, Someone to lead us protect us and feed us
And help us to make up our minds
We have seen a lot of that tendency this election. Mostly among Obama supporters, who have romantically, not rationally, chosen someone to make their lives better. The Obama movement this year has reminded me of Juan Peron in Argentina. And of Plato's prediction that the demogogue would be the end of democracy.
Be careful what you wish for.
This song is from The Phantom of the Paradise, lyrics by Paul Williams. Trailer. A great little movie combining Faust, The Phantom of the Opera, and Shock Rock. Early Brian De Palma.
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.
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
