Points to Ponder:
(On Building One's Character)
One builds one's own character. The required first step is a choice. One's got to choose to build one's character; one's got to hold it as a value - that's the first step. Once one understands that one possesses the faculty of volition, or the power of choice, that particular individual will go about seeking the character traits and integrating them into his personality structure or character structure. The question for most people is "how does one go about doing that?" The first step after making, deciding or focusing on the fact that he has a choice, is that he has to decide what character traits he finds valuable and meaningful. Most people would agree on most of them. Some of the "eternal verities," so to speak, very few people would challenge the importance of character traits such as honesty, integrity, hard work, discipline, and so forth. Then, when you get into the more debatable -- from certain points of view -- things such as altruism, or self-sacrifice, there would be considerable area for debate. But generally, just to answer your question, the most important factor in going about building character is, first of all, to decide or choose to hold that particular value as a high value, a premium, in one's life, and then actually the rest will fall into place. There are bound to be ups and downs along the way -- even some mistakes made in terms of what's integrated -- but if one holds Reason as a value, along with character-building, the rest will fall into place much easier. The very fact that a person would choose to hold character building as a high-value, I would assume that the person is a "seeker;" that is, a "seeker" after truth. [Mike Mentzer to John Little (circa 1986)]
Friday, November 24, 2006
"Santayana's Dictum" Dept.
(A Synopsis of Our Overall Prescience Viz. the 2006 Elections and A Bit of Analysis As Well)
[Prefatory Note: Your host apologizes for the delay in posting this thread -it was ready to go back on November 22, 2006 but there were too many glitches in the text formatting to be posted at that time and not enough time to fix them. Anyway, the text here is the same as before with only the most minor of adjustments (including the addition of a footnote among them). -ISM]
As it has been customary for the present writer to write an analysis of sorts after each election cycle{1}, it seems appropriate to do so after the recent election; ergo, the post you have before you.
Now readers of this weblog are aware that your humble servant has reiterated numerous times certain principles to account for in making prognoses on future events. We intend with this email to outline some areas where we were remarkable prescient before getting to one area where we must eat some crow. But without further ado, let us get to it.
To start with, there is the historical trackrecord of elections. Often did the present writer speak of these matters in private conversations and sometimes even in public media formats. In perusing the archives, the following bits were found which will be revisited in sequential order so that readers can denote the consistency of my approach to these matters for reasons which will soon be evident:
For those who know their history, political savvy is going to be needed in much greater supply than normal in the next year and a half. I will outline in this post reasons for that seemingly bold assertion.
To start with, I have noted before that a year is an eternity in politics.[...] For that reason alone, what seems like a certain thing now may not be that way a year from now. (Let alone a year and a half from now.) But that does not mean that there are not certain lessons that history can teach us of general tendencies which can give us probabilities of what is more likely than not to happen. And it is utilizing the latter that I intend to do in the rest of this post in discussing the 2006 elections.
By all historical indicators of norms, the 2006 elections should favour the Democrats because historically the party which holds the White House loses ground in the midterm elections of a two-term president as a rule. And while many might scoff at the idea of the current crop of Democrats achieving that kind of feat, it frankly does not matter as a rule how potent or impotent they are politically. And as a brief outline from recent history should help clarify this a bit, that is what we will do at this time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 21, 2005)]
The above text was the first public utterance we made on the principle of midterms in the second term of a presidency. Readers can review the entire thread to see the historical outline sketched which showed itself to apply again in this election year. The subject was revisited in the months prior to the election both in chat format as well as on this weblog. Here are the salient threads that can be recalled offhand -the first is a chat with Kevin Tierney which is reproduced in substantial integrity{2} at this time:
Kevin: the Machiavellian in me wants the dems to win the house so something like this can be put out and I'm at work, so I can't view it :)
me: well, if nothing else Conyers keeps me from having any of my blog postings be considered the "world's longest blog post" ;-)
Kevin: some of the charges there, let the dems go forward with that. It would give new definition to the concept of "hari-kari"
me: I predict Conyers and company may well use that report as their manifesto of sorts for this November and yes, it would turn off most people enough to marginalize the dems to make their takeover of the House go from possible/probable to snowballs-chance-in-hell ish
Kevin: their chances have declined incredibly from the beginning of the year when everyone was taking it as granted the dems were taking over both houses
me: agreed but I still think they are to be favoured
Kevin: I don't think either side is favored now it's 50-50 the dems have a chance in the senate, not the house I think
me: my reason is the "midterm of a two term president election cycle" pattern historically but the Senate will hold either way methinks the question mark is the House and that is key cause even if they take over and try impeachment schtick the Senate holding guarantees that there will be no removal of Bush prior to January 20, 2009
me: admittedly my Machiavellian side would get joy in seeing such hearings take place...cause it would make the Dems in 2008 less likely to win the presidency because we would see all the rabidness in full media view rather than somewhat sequestered as it is now and most people would be turned off by it to no small degree
Kevin: the only problem is astute democrat congressmen are few and far between
me: in short, we are in agreement here
Kevin: even Hillary Clinton is not that smart. One thing is for sure, she does not have her husband's charisma or the ability to bullshit
me: Lieberman is being challenged by the rabid moronic leftist fringe sorts in his re-election I hope Joe kicks the fringe candidate's keister soundly. I like him and wish there were more Dems like him [Excerpt from a Chat With Kevin Tierney (circa August 7, 2006)]
As readers can see, our hope for Leiberman panned. Readers can say that our comments on Conyers and the strategery we noted not being used means that we missed a prediction but at best it is a half-prediction and the germ of the point remains intact.{3} The present writer also made another reference to the historical pattern in the above thread. And from another chat file with Kevin, we noted these points including some predictions which remain to be fulfilled{4}:
me: well, that is what closed door sessions are for and a complicit media remember only with the 1994 congress did a lot of this stuff get televised prior to that, it was not on TV for viewing on CSpan or whatever and if the Dems win, they will probably make some excuse that the subjects to be treated on are "too delicate a matter to be publicly broadcast" or some other bullshit of that sort
me: if I sound downright nasty in my portrayal, it is because of experience in seeing them when they have a majority and how haughty they act. The Republicans act stupid a lot but the Democratic ancients are downright evil at times...not to mention vindictive...think of the way high school bullies and the "popular class" sorts acted for a good picture of the mentality
Kevin: their flanks have collapsed now, so my worries are less
me: my worries are less too...but a wounded animal is a fiercer fighter and there is enough anger out there at Bush
Kevin: the republicans don't have to win in November they just have to not lose
me: if they can convince enough fools to make the 2006 election a referendum on Bush, it may well work this time...things have changed since 2004...Bush has shown weakness in spots which is from our POV appalling...from their view, it is exploitable if they know what they are doing
Kevin: they won't be able to focus their message though since they call for a referendum on bush, but then state we achieve that by withdrawing from Iraq which nobody outside of the angry left blogosphere actually believes
me: put it this way...if I was the strategist for the Dems in 2006, I guarantee they would win the House cause I know where to hit Bush for maximum effect
someone on their side has to know too...the Q is if they will be listened to
which odds are is no
Kevin: let the dems charge the line, all anyone has to do is just hold the spears forward. Sure one horse breaks through, but they don't take the ground :)
me: lol nice analogy
me: I hope it is apropo...history is not on our side here though midterms of a two term president are rarely not a disaster for the incumbent party particularly if one party holds both houses and the presidency
Kevin: I do not believe history is a God who is infallible and to be worshipped. :) the tides of history are always shifting.
me: even the Republicans after the absolute ass kicking they got in 1932 and a further setback in 1934 and a 1936 electoral absolutely cleaned House literally in 1938 (about 75 House seats and 14 Senate seats were gained that year)
history is not to be worshipped nor is it infallible, but as Newman said it has lessons that we ignore to our own detriment...or as Santayana said "ignore history and you are doomed to repeat it" [Excerpt from a Chat With Kevin Tierney (circa September 6, 2006)]
Again, readers can notice your host's appeal to history on this matter as something to be taken seriously. However, the present writer would be dishonest if he did not admit that the tea leaves were reading differently to him in September as noted in the following blog posting of miscellaneous tidbits:
Some have opined that there will be a tidalwave of anti-Republican sentiment this November aimed as some kind of "referendum" on President Bush. Others have claimed the converse: that the Republicans will consolidate and maybe expand their holdings as the Democrats come apart at the seams. I have noted in the past on various occasions that a year is an eternity in politics. Keeping that factor in mind, it suffices to note that even two months is a long time -maybe an ice age or whatever. My gut intuition on these matters at the moment is the following:
---The Republicans will not lose the Senate. Period. They are vulnerable in the House this is true both by virtue of current circumstances as well as the traditional pattern of parties out of power gaining in the mid term elections of a two term presidency. But the Senate will hold -only 33 are up for re-election and the Democrats would have to hold serve on all their guys and pick up about ten seats or so in the Senate just to tie. (Remember, Cheney is the tiebreaker.) But ultimately I see the Republicans at the moment losing some seats in the House but holding serve. They may lose some in the Senate too but whatever happens, they will retain the Senate no matter what. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 14, 2006)]
While making note of the historical pattern and also that two months is a long time in politics; nonetheless, your host writing on the fly should have double checked the Senate numbers before posting some of what is in the above thread. For some reason, we were thinking it was ten to tie instead of six which may not sound like much of a difference but it is for reasons now to be explained in brief.
In an elected body where only one third are elected in a given cycle, basically assuming an even split roughly between the parties (which is something that is not necessarily a given), we were seeing approximately a third of the senators up for election (ten) being needed to close the senate gap rather than roughly a fifth (six). If we had taken a few minutes to double check the numbers above, the above statement would never have made about the Dems "not winning the Senate period" but instead we would have recognized that it was much more probable than we were presuming.{5}
Basically not much changed between what was noted on September 14, 2006 and what was posted on the weekend leading up to the election. Or to quote a post of miscellaneous tidbits on some subjects:
---As I have told not a few friends and associates in recent weeks, watch for this election cycle's "October Surprise." Well, it took 30 days but on 10/30 we got it in John Kerry's recent public snafu. After this one, I cannot see how the Democrats can win either house of Congress because (i) seven days before an election is too quick to be able to spin this one away and (ii) this will anger Independents like your weblog host as well as Republicans who may have been a bit lax viz. the upcoming election. Anyway, that is what our gut intuition is on the election at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 1, 2006)]
For the record, it is obvious that our intuition in the above paragraph was wrong. However, while the present writer did note more than once his intuition about the Republicans holding, he also noted a concern that they would not get the message if they did. Or to quote a post from the day of the election when it was too early to tell where the winds were blowing:
It needs to be made clear that any support for the Republicans is done grudgingly and not because people think they are that good a party because they are not...
[W]e must avoid being one-issue focused here. Granted national security is a huge issue and definitely must be at or near the top of the list of anyone who actually is concerned with the survival of not only themselves but also civilization. But we cannot let these guys off the hook in the myriad of areas where they are screwing up. They need to be told in no uncertain terms that they are not being approved of in this election as much as their opponents are being rejected. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa November 7, 2006)]
Obviously our concern there ended up being not founded as the Republicans were rebuked on election day. And the reasons why they were rebuked are ones which your host outlined in advance. In other words, while we outlined what the Dems would need to do to win and also noted the historical trackrecord, we obviously underestimated the Dems being smart enough to know what they needed to do to win and to actually do it. We said they would need to nationalize the election around Bush and they did that. We also said that they would need to shut their traps and not tell people what they really planned to do{6} and they actually did that also. Give them credit for actually learning from past mistakes if nothing else. The question is, will the idiotic Republicans realize why they lost in the election or not. Alas, we cannot say there is much optimism here at Rerum Novarum that they will -at least not in the short term. Maybe it will take handing over the gavels in the chambers on January 20, 2007 for them to realize what happened and start the process of pondering why what happened actually happened.
How does your host feel about the election results??? He noted on the day after the election, that he was not that disturbed by what happened in the election -which is a surprise cause the converse was actually presumed to be how he would take it. And as time goes on, we find that appraisal not changing in the slightest. What happened to the Republicans and why did they lose -history's pattern working against them notwithstanding??? Well, the present writer summarized it in an email just the other day and will quote from it{7} at this time:
[T]he Republicans...saw their congressional power obliterated overnight because they were not true to conservative principles first and foremost.[...] They were in other words hypocrites for preaching about caring for the Constitution while they spent like drunken sailors in the most foul and unconstitutional fashion ala the Democrats in the old days. They also gave every impression of trying to do just enough to placate the base and get re-elected. Frankly, I can respect the people for throwing the Republicans out because if they are going to govern like Democrats, why go with a pale impressionist of the real thing when you can have the real thing...[Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa November 14, 2006)]
There is also the fact that no conservatives lost their seats and if anything, conservatives were either re-elected amongst the Republicans or elected amongst the Democrats. The reason the Dems will have majorities in both houses is because of southern conservative Democrats being elected. This makes the majority the Democrats will have a very fragile one -particularly in the Senate- and if the more rabid Democrat sorts do not show that they can work and play well with others{8}, then they will fail to govern effectively and will be thrown out in 2008.
To wrap up this thread, while more could be noted than just what is in the above snippet and followup paragraph, that will nonetheless have to suffice for now -though your host will probably revisit this subject after the new congress convenes in January of 2007. In summary: conservatism did not lose in 2006 while party loyalty at all cost amongst the Republicans did. Thank God the present writer is an Independent voter of ten years standing is all he will say about that at the present time.
Notes:
{1} Here are the analyses blogged on the elections that have taken place since this weblog debuted:
A Rerum Novarum Post-Election Commentary, Development of Some Key November 2002 Post-Election Observations, Etc. (circa November 24, 2004)
Analysis of the Overall Election Trends (circa November 6, 2002)
{2} The only changes made were some spelling glitches, removing the time stamps to give the thread a better cohesion, and imbedding any url links from the chat log. All of these were done for easier reading of the material.
{3} For while the Democrat leadership did not act as we said they may well act, at the same time (i) if they had acted that way or essentially been honest with the electorate, they would have lost soundly and (ii) their silence in the final weeks from public interaction shows that they knew well that to speak their minds would have meant defeat.
{4} For the record, your host hopes to be disproven on the predictions of upcoming Democrat party media censorship of congressional proceedings.
{5} Gut intuitions do not constitute "predictions" properly-speaking but we note it here nonetheless in the interest of disclosure.
{6} We may post that email in its entirety and not revealing the identity of the person it was sent it to; however, because of the contents of said email and what it says about certain persons and institutions, we want to mull over that for a while longer before deciding one way or the other on what to do with it.
{7} Or in other words, be profoundly disingenuous to the voting public.
{8} Your host predicts that to some extent they will not be as rabid as they may want to for one reason: it would sabotage Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations in 2008. You gotta know that Bill Clinton will have a talk with the party leadership about that before they are sworn in on January 20, 2007 --if he has not done so already-- and tell this crowd to not impair Hillary's chances by acting out their extremist tendencies on several polarizing issues. (We may discuss some of them later including a couple predictions made in private on this crowd that may shock the readers of this humble weblog.)
(A Synopsis of Our Overall Prescience Viz. the 2006 Elections and A Bit of Analysis As Well)
[Prefatory Note: Your host apologizes for the delay in posting this thread -it was ready to go back on November 22, 2006 but there were too many glitches in the text formatting to be posted at that time and not enough time to fix them. Anyway, the text here is the same as before with only the most minor of adjustments (including the addition of a footnote among them). -ISM]
As it has been customary for the present writer to write an analysis of sorts after each election cycle{1}, it seems appropriate to do so after the recent election; ergo, the post you have before you.
Now readers of this weblog are aware that your humble servant has reiterated numerous times certain principles to account for in making prognoses on future events. We intend with this email to outline some areas where we were remarkable prescient before getting to one area where we must eat some crow. But without further ado, let us get to it.
To start with, there is the historical trackrecord of elections. Often did the present writer speak of these matters in private conversations and sometimes even in public media formats. In perusing the archives, the following bits were found which will be revisited in sequential order so that readers can denote the consistency of my approach to these matters for reasons which will soon be evident:
For those who know their history, political savvy is going to be needed in much greater supply than normal in the next year and a half. I will outline in this post reasons for that seemingly bold assertion.
To start with, I have noted before that a year is an eternity in politics.[...] For that reason alone, what seems like a certain thing now may not be that way a year from now. (Let alone a year and a half from now.) But that does not mean that there are not certain lessons that history can teach us of general tendencies which can give us probabilities of what is more likely than not to happen. And it is utilizing the latter that I intend to do in the rest of this post in discussing the 2006 elections.
By all historical indicators of norms, the 2006 elections should favour the Democrats because historically the party which holds the White House loses ground in the midterm elections of a two-term president as a rule. And while many might scoff at the idea of the current crop of Democrats achieving that kind of feat, it frankly does not matter as a rule how potent or impotent they are politically. And as a brief outline from recent history should help clarify this a bit, that is what we will do at this time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 21, 2005)]
The above text was the first public utterance we made on the principle of midterms in the second term of a presidency. Readers can review the entire thread to see the historical outline sketched which showed itself to apply again in this election year. The subject was revisited in the months prior to the election both in chat format as well as on this weblog. Here are the salient threads that can be recalled offhand -the first is a chat with Kevin Tierney which is reproduced in substantial integrity{2} at this time:
Kevin: the Machiavellian in me wants the dems to win the house so something like this can be put out and I'm at work, so I can't view it :)
me: well, if nothing else Conyers keeps me from having any of my blog postings be considered the "world's longest blog post" ;-)
Kevin: some of the charges there, let the dems go forward with that. It would give new definition to the concept of "hari-kari"
me: I predict Conyers and company may well use that report as their manifesto of sorts for this November and yes, it would turn off most people enough to marginalize the dems to make their takeover of the House go from possible/probable to snowballs-chance-in-hell ish
Kevin: their chances have declined incredibly from the beginning of the year when everyone was taking it as granted the dems were taking over both houses
me: agreed but I still think they are to be favoured
Kevin: I don't think either side is favored now it's 50-50 the dems have a chance in the senate, not the house I think
me: my reason is the "midterm of a two term president election cycle" pattern historically but the Senate will hold either way methinks the question mark is the House and that is key cause even if they take over and try impeachment schtick the Senate holding guarantees that there will be no removal of Bush prior to January 20, 2009
me: admittedly my Machiavellian side would get joy in seeing such hearings take place...cause it would make the Dems in 2008 less likely to win the presidency because we would see all the rabidness in full media view rather than somewhat sequestered as it is now and most people would be turned off by it to no small degree
Kevin: the only problem is astute democrat congressmen are few and far between
me: in short, we are in agreement here
Kevin: even Hillary Clinton is not that smart. One thing is for sure, she does not have her husband's charisma or the ability to bullshit
me: Lieberman is being challenged by the rabid moronic leftist fringe sorts in his re-election I hope Joe kicks the fringe candidate's keister soundly. I like him and wish there were more Dems like him [Excerpt from a Chat With Kevin Tierney (circa August 7, 2006)]
As readers can see, our hope for Leiberman panned. Readers can say that our comments on Conyers and the strategery we noted not being used means that we missed a prediction but at best it is a half-prediction and the germ of the point remains intact.{3} The present writer also made another reference to the historical pattern in the above thread. And from another chat file with Kevin, we noted these points including some predictions which remain to be fulfilled{4}:
me: well, that is what closed door sessions are for and a complicit media remember only with the 1994 congress did a lot of this stuff get televised prior to that, it was not on TV for viewing on CSpan or whatever and if the Dems win, they will probably make some excuse that the subjects to be treated on are "too delicate a matter to be publicly broadcast" or some other bullshit of that sort
me: if I sound downright nasty in my portrayal, it is because of experience in seeing them when they have a majority and how haughty they act. The Republicans act stupid a lot but the Democratic ancients are downright evil at times...not to mention vindictive...think of the way high school bullies and the "popular class" sorts acted for a good picture of the mentality
Kevin: their flanks have collapsed now, so my worries are less
me: my worries are less too...but a wounded animal is a fiercer fighter and there is enough anger out there at Bush
Kevin: the republicans don't have to win in November they just have to not lose
me: if they can convince enough fools to make the 2006 election a referendum on Bush, it may well work this time...things have changed since 2004...Bush has shown weakness in spots which is from our POV appalling...from their view, it is exploitable if they know what they are doing
Kevin: they won't be able to focus their message though since they call for a referendum on bush, but then state we achieve that by withdrawing from Iraq which nobody outside of the angry left blogosphere actually believes
me: put it this way...if I was the strategist for the Dems in 2006, I guarantee they would win the House cause I know where to hit Bush for maximum effect
someone on their side has to know too...the Q is if they will be listened to
which odds are is no
Kevin: let the dems charge the line, all anyone has to do is just hold the spears forward. Sure one horse breaks through, but they don't take the ground :)
me: lol nice analogy
me: I hope it is apropo...history is not on our side here though midterms of a two term president are rarely not a disaster for the incumbent party particularly if one party holds both houses and the presidency
Kevin: I do not believe history is a God who is infallible and to be worshipped. :) the tides of history are always shifting.
me: even the Republicans after the absolute ass kicking they got in 1932 and a further setback in 1934 and a 1936 electoral absolutely cleaned House literally in 1938 (about 75 House seats and 14 Senate seats were gained that year)
history is not to be worshipped nor is it infallible, but as Newman said it has lessons that we ignore to our own detriment...or as Santayana said "ignore history and you are doomed to repeat it" [Excerpt from a Chat With Kevin Tierney (circa September 6, 2006)]
Again, readers can notice your host's appeal to history on this matter as something to be taken seriously. However, the present writer would be dishonest if he did not admit that the tea leaves were reading differently to him in September as noted in the following blog posting of miscellaneous tidbits:
Some have opined that there will be a tidalwave of anti-Republican sentiment this November aimed as some kind of "referendum" on President Bush. Others have claimed the converse: that the Republicans will consolidate and maybe expand their holdings as the Democrats come apart at the seams. I have noted in the past on various occasions that a year is an eternity in politics. Keeping that factor in mind, it suffices to note that even two months is a long time -maybe an ice age or whatever. My gut intuition on these matters at the moment is the following:
---The Republicans will not lose the Senate. Period. They are vulnerable in the House this is true both by virtue of current circumstances as well as the traditional pattern of parties out of power gaining in the mid term elections of a two term presidency. But the Senate will hold -only 33 are up for re-election and the Democrats would have to hold serve on all their guys and pick up about ten seats or so in the Senate just to tie. (Remember, Cheney is the tiebreaker.) But ultimately I see the Republicans at the moment losing some seats in the House but holding serve. They may lose some in the Senate too but whatever happens, they will retain the Senate no matter what. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 14, 2006)]
While making note of the historical pattern and also that two months is a long time in politics; nonetheless, your host writing on the fly should have double checked the Senate numbers before posting some of what is in the above thread. For some reason, we were thinking it was ten to tie instead of six which may not sound like much of a difference but it is for reasons now to be explained in brief.
In an elected body where only one third are elected in a given cycle, basically assuming an even split roughly between the parties (which is something that is not necessarily a given), we were seeing approximately a third of the senators up for election (ten) being needed to close the senate gap rather than roughly a fifth (six). If we had taken a few minutes to double check the numbers above, the above statement would never have made about the Dems "not winning the Senate period" but instead we would have recognized that it was much more probable than we were presuming.{5}
Basically not much changed between what was noted on September 14, 2006 and what was posted on the weekend leading up to the election. Or to quote a post of miscellaneous tidbits on some subjects:
---As I have told not a few friends and associates in recent weeks, watch for this election cycle's "October Surprise." Well, it took 30 days but on 10/30 we got it in John Kerry's recent public snafu. After this one, I cannot see how the Democrats can win either house of Congress because (i) seven days before an election is too quick to be able to spin this one away and (ii) this will anger Independents like your weblog host as well as Republicans who may have been a bit lax viz. the upcoming election. Anyway, that is what our gut intuition is on the election at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 1, 2006)]
For the record, it is obvious that our intuition in the above paragraph was wrong. However, while the present writer did note more than once his intuition about the Republicans holding, he also noted a concern that they would not get the message if they did. Or to quote a post from the day of the election when it was too early to tell where the winds were blowing:
It needs to be made clear that any support for the Republicans is done grudgingly and not because people think they are that good a party because they are not...
[W]e must avoid being one-issue focused here. Granted national security is a huge issue and definitely must be at or near the top of the list of anyone who actually is concerned with the survival of not only themselves but also civilization. But we cannot let these guys off the hook in the myriad of areas where they are screwing up. They need to be told in no uncertain terms that they are not being approved of in this election as much as their opponents are being rejected. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa November 7, 2006)]
Obviously our concern there ended up being not founded as the Republicans were rebuked on election day. And the reasons why they were rebuked are ones which your host outlined in advance. In other words, while we outlined what the Dems would need to do to win and also noted the historical trackrecord, we obviously underestimated the Dems being smart enough to know what they needed to do to win and to actually do it. We said they would need to nationalize the election around Bush and they did that. We also said that they would need to shut their traps and not tell people what they really planned to do{6} and they actually did that also. Give them credit for actually learning from past mistakes if nothing else. The question is, will the idiotic Republicans realize why they lost in the election or not. Alas, we cannot say there is much optimism here at Rerum Novarum that they will -at least not in the short term. Maybe it will take handing over the gavels in the chambers on January 20, 2007 for them to realize what happened and start the process of pondering why what happened actually happened.
How does your host feel about the election results??? He noted on the day after the election, that he was not that disturbed by what happened in the election -which is a surprise cause the converse was actually presumed to be how he would take it. And as time goes on, we find that appraisal not changing in the slightest. What happened to the Republicans and why did they lose -history's pattern working against them notwithstanding??? Well, the present writer summarized it in an email just the other day and will quote from it{7} at this time:
[T]he Republicans...saw their congressional power obliterated overnight because they were not true to conservative principles first and foremost.[...] They were in other words hypocrites for preaching about caring for the Constitution while they spent like drunken sailors in the most foul and unconstitutional fashion ala the Democrats in the old days. They also gave every impression of trying to do just enough to placate the base and get re-elected. Frankly, I can respect the people for throwing the Republicans out because if they are going to govern like Democrats, why go with a pale impressionist of the real thing when you can have the real thing...[Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa November 14, 2006)]
There is also the fact that no conservatives lost their seats and if anything, conservatives were either re-elected amongst the Republicans or elected amongst the Democrats. The reason the Dems will have majorities in both houses is because of southern conservative Democrats being elected. This makes the majority the Democrats will have a very fragile one -particularly in the Senate- and if the more rabid Democrat sorts do not show that they can work and play well with others{8}, then they will fail to govern effectively and will be thrown out in 2008.
To wrap up this thread, while more could be noted than just what is in the above snippet and followup paragraph, that will nonetheless have to suffice for now -though your host will probably revisit this subject after the new congress convenes in January of 2007. In summary: conservatism did not lose in 2006 while party loyalty at all cost amongst the Republicans did. Thank God the present writer is an Independent voter of ten years standing is all he will say about that at the present time.
Notes:
{1} Here are the analyses blogged on the elections that have taken place since this weblog debuted:
A Rerum Novarum Post-Election Commentary, Development of Some Key November 2002 Post-Election Observations, Etc. (circa November 24, 2004)
Analysis of the Overall Election Trends (circa November 6, 2002)
{2} The only changes made were some spelling glitches, removing the time stamps to give the thread a better cohesion, and imbedding any url links from the chat log. All of these were done for easier reading of the material.
{3} For while the Democrat leadership did not act as we said they may well act, at the same time (i) if they had acted that way or essentially been honest with the electorate, they would have lost soundly and (ii) their silence in the final weeks from public interaction shows that they knew well that to speak their minds would have meant defeat.
{4} For the record, your host hopes to be disproven on the predictions of upcoming Democrat party media censorship of congressional proceedings.
{5} Gut intuitions do not constitute "predictions" properly-speaking but we note it here nonetheless in the interest of disclosure.
{6} We may post that email in its entirety and not revealing the identity of the person it was sent it to; however, because of the contents of said email and what it says about certain persons and institutions, we want to mull over that for a while longer before deciding one way or the other on what to do with it.
{7} Or in other words, be profoundly disingenuous to the voting public.
{8} Your host predicts that to some extent they will not be as rabid as they may want to for one reason: it would sabotage Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations in 2008. You gotta know that Bill Clinton will have a talk with the party leadership about that before they are sworn in on January 20, 2007 --if he has not done so already-- and tell this crowd to not impair Hillary's chances by acting out their extremist tendencies on several polarizing issues. (We may discuss some of them later including a couple predictions made in private on this crowd that may shock the readers of this humble weblog.)
On an Upcoming Weblog Update, Etc.
I am working bit by bit on a weblog update which will cover materials blogged since the last update (August 16, 2006). It will probably incorporate some old threads from the archives and also remand some other threads to the archivesbut the main focus will be on the stuff since the last update. As some threads will be removed from the side margin in this update, it seems appropriate to explain what my criteria is for such a selection -as I have been asked before why some threads are included and others are not.
Of course some threads are simply better than other ones subject-wise, argumentation-wise{1}, and the like. Other times, I look back and wish I had handled a subject better and decide for that reason to remand existing side margin threads or not include a particular thread in the update sequence. But this is not an exact science by any means.
Remanding threads to the archives does not necessarily mean that I disapprove of them. Sometimes it happens that certain threads are no longer as relevent to particular circumstances to remain in the side margin when there are space limits to consider and other threads of greater prevalance to take their place. Another way of saying it is this: nothing gets deleted here at Rerum Novarum but sometimes certain threads are not as relevant so they are removed from the side margin but are still accessible in the archives.{2}
Anyway, I should have the weblog updated by December 1st. That is the time frame I am shooting for time-willing.
Notes:
{1} Unfortunately, shorter threads are usually not my best though over time I have been improving in this area.
{2} Sometimes on those rare occasions where I actually change my mind on a person or issue, I will update the thread to note this if I remember the existence of said thread. (Not easy to do with so many blog entries.) The same is the case with threads directed at arguments made by individuals.
I am working bit by bit on a weblog update which will cover materials blogged since the last update (August 16, 2006). It will probably incorporate some old threads from the archives and also remand some other threads to the archivesbut the main focus will be on the stuff since the last update. As some threads will be removed from the side margin in this update, it seems appropriate to explain what my criteria is for such a selection -as I have been asked before why some threads are included and others are not.
Of course some threads are simply better than other ones subject-wise, argumentation-wise{1}, and the like. Other times, I look back and wish I had handled a subject better and decide for that reason to remand existing side margin threads or not include a particular thread in the update sequence. But this is not an exact science by any means.
Remanding threads to the archives does not necessarily mean that I disapprove of them. Sometimes it happens that certain threads are no longer as relevent to particular circumstances to remain in the side margin when there are space limits to consider and other threads of greater prevalance to take their place. Another way of saying it is this: nothing gets deleted here at Rerum Novarum but sometimes certain threads are not as relevant so they are removed from the side margin but are still accessible in the archives.{2}
Anyway, I should have the weblog updated by December 1st. That is the time frame I am shooting for time-willing.
Notes:
{1} Unfortunately, shorter threads are usually not my best though over time I have been improving in this area.
{2} Sometimes on those rare occasions where I actually change my mind on a person or issue, I will update the thread to note this if I remember the existence of said thread. (Not easy to do with so many blog entries.) The same is the case with threads directed at arguments made by individuals.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
I should have the election synopsis thread done in about an hour. If that is achieved, then it will be the last thread posted until the weekend -I would have said last thread posted until Monday but I want to possibly remember an old friend before ceasing posting before that time. It depends on how much spacing I can get in essentially but if it is not possible than I will remember my old friend sometime next week.
"None Dare Call It A Zionist Conspiracy" Dept.
(With no apologies to Gary Allen)
With that title, we have a resumption of a thread started here and a followup note from someone accusing me of "zionist complicity: or whatever. I will let them explain it in their own words so here goes...
Mr. McElhinney,
One could only wish that you were as concerned about the heinous Zionist influence in the Catholic apologetics community and Church in general as you are about the spelling of your name! But I will at least give you credit for putting up my letter. I did not think you had the guts to do it. Maybe you are not completely brainwashed, a mind-numbed robot working for the Zionists in their filthy drive to rebuild the insane profanity known as the "Jewish Temple". We shall see.
But rest assured, Mr. McElhinney, I have the proof and you and everyone in the apologetics world is going to be rocked by the proof I will provide. It will be iron-clad and only those living in the Zionist fool's paradise will be able to ignore it. It will be completed soon and only then will the world see whether you are a buffoon and coward. Will you have the guts to print it, Mr. McElhinney? Will you have the fortitude to be Catholic?
These are the questions to be answered.
Henrik Hassen
In short, no proof yet from "Mr. Hassen" so we must wait a bit longer it seems. I wonder if Mr. Hassen realizes that the whole idea of "cliffhangers" be it in books, television shows, or whatever is an invention of the Zionists to distract people from reality and fixate their attention on unimportant minutiae while the cabal of semitic globalists move their agenda for world domination along outside of the public eye. Or perhaps he has not gotten that far along in the "conspiracy theorist manual"??? ;-) We shall see I suppose...
To be Continued...
(With no apologies to Gary Allen)
With that title, we have a resumption of a thread started here and a followup note from someone accusing me of "zionist complicity: or whatever. I will let them explain it in their own words so here goes...
Mr. McElhinney,
One could only wish that you were as concerned about the heinous Zionist influence in the Catholic apologetics community and Church in general as you are about the spelling of your name! But I will at least give you credit for putting up my letter. I did not think you had the guts to do it. Maybe you are not completely brainwashed, a mind-numbed robot working for the Zionists in their filthy drive to rebuild the insane profanity known as the "Jewish Temple". We shall see.
But rest assured, Mr. McElhinney, I have the proof and you and everyone in the apologetics world is going to be rocked by the proof I will provide. It will be iron-clad and only those living in the Zionist fool's paradise will be able to ignore it. It will be completed soon and only then will the world see whether you are a buffoon and coward. Will you have the guts to print it, Mr. McElhinney? Will you have the fortitude to be Catholic?
These are the questions to be answered.
Henrik Hassen
In short, no proof yet from "Mr. Hassen" so we must wait a bit longer it seems. I wonder if Mr. Hassen realizes that the whole idea of "cliffhangers" be it in books, television shows, or whatever is an invention of the Zionists to distract people from reality and fixate their attention on unimportant minutiae while the cabal of semitic globalists move their agenda for world domination along outside of the public eye. Or perhaps he has not gotten that far along in the "conspiracy theorist manual"??? ;-) We shall see I suppose...
To be Continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)