2010 Could Easily Be Disastrous For Democrats
This was originally supposed to be posted in early October but I was unable to finish it until now. Nonetheless, Sean Trende has a good article here on the Kilgore election prediction absurdities. I did not have a chance to write an analysis on Kilgore's article but Trende now makes any effort on my part in that area superfluous. I will accompany this with my own reasons for espousing this for what is going on{1} but here it is in a nutshell: I have been saying since June in various and sundry places{2} that I was predicting a 40/6 seat pickup for the Republicans in 2010.
My 40 seat prediction{3} is a number incidentally that Michael Barone has since come around to viewing as "dark horse possibility" as of late compared to "not a snowballs chance" which was his view only six weeks earlier. Charlie Cook is now saying the odds of 40 in the House picked up is in the "33-50% range" compared to earlier when he was not so bold.{4} Here were my thoughts on this matter as of five weeks ago as expressed elsewhere:
[T]he entire House is up for re-election and there are about 50 seats in districts that went for McCain that are Democratic. Add to that the fact that there are Democratic incumbents in weak districts who have voted for crap and tax and also for this health care boondoggle and also that more seniors vote in off-elections than any other constituency and the seniors are PISSED at Obama and the Dems. The Senate for the demographic alignment issues cannot be taken in this cycle (though 6 seats as I said would be a nice dent into their advantage and solidify a filibuster: out of 34 odd seats up in this cycle that is about as good as it could get) and Obama is not up for re-election for three years at that point. So the anger at these arrogant Democratic majorities running roughshod over the public will have to come out somewhere and my guess is the body of congress where everyone is up for re-election and which is chaired by the highly unpopular Nancy Pelosi (who herself will win with about 73% of the vote in her district and therefore does not have the same fear as many of her colleagues will). I remind you in 1994 there was a 54 seat pickup and the environment now is a lot worse than it was then because the bills people were pissed about back then (assault weapons ban and Clinton's 1993 budget raising taxes) are nothing compared to the ones now (crap and tax passing the House with all but 8 votes from Democrats, the government run- health care that the public does not want and which they have been trying to ram through without anyone being able to read). Despite it all, a 40 seat gain would not match the 54 seat gain from 1994 but it would be enough for them to lose the House. And it may even be worse than that.
People like Kilgore can keep telling themselves it will be nothing because the guys in Jaws did not need a bigger boat either!!!
Notes:
{1} I am not sure if I covered any of this on the weblog offhand and do not have time to look for it if I did.
{2} As far as this weblog goes, see footnote one.
{3} Which since Owens won in NY 23 I have subsequently revised to a 41/6 prediction.
{4} Instead, saying the odds were "less than 25%".
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Friday, April 03, 2009
On Political "Front Runners" Historically, Sarah Palin's Prospects in 2012, Etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
To start with, talking heads in the msm are already (so soon after the last presidential election) opining about various political persons and their perceived viability or lack thereof in the 2012 contest. I however do not play the game of political prognosticating this far out for the simple fact that a year is an ice age in politics and four years might as well be like the Jurassic period metaphorically speaking. A lot can happen between now and then and I have traditionally been very accurate in my political prognosticating{1} to a good extent because I do not play this game that far out. However, there are certain trends politically that one can use to forecast with a greater degree of accuracy what will likely happen and I will at this time do that without currently making any definite predictions one way or the other.
To start with, politics as a vocation tends to be dynastic to a certain extent even though there have only been two presidential "dynasties" properly speaking thus far.{2} But to a certain extent, there are patterns one can refer to from the past to better help them forecast future probabilities. For one thing, though it is not by any means a universal, it is nonetheless true that presidents who are successful more often than not had previous experience as an executive in some capacity. This experience could come in a variety of ways from business owner to field commander in the military to mayor of a town or governor of a state but as a rule the best presidents have had this kind of experience and those who were not as good did not.
By contrast to those with executive experience, senators and representatives in Congress who later on become president are traditionally not as good though again this is not an absolute principle but instead more of a general rule. And having noted those things, we get to the issue of dynastic political elements which I will now touch on so the reader knows what I am talking about if they do not already.
Since the presidency of the businessman and general George Washington, those who were subsequently elected president have always had experience in government in some form or another. In Washington's cabinet was John Adams the vice president and Thomas Jefferson the secretary of state -both of whom had high profile government positions before serving in Washington's cabinet. Adams would succeed Washington as our second president and Jefferson was our second vice president and third president. Jefferson's secretary of state was James Madison who would succeed him as president and Madison's secretary of state was James Monroe who succeeded him. James Monroe's secretary of state was the heavily credentialed John Quincy Adams who had served in various government posts{3} prior to being Monroe's secretary of state.{4} Quincy Adams won the controversial 1824 election after not getting the popular vote against General Andrew Jackson who despite his popular image as the first "commoner" to be president{5} as well as the first of the Democratic party presidents{6} had previous experience as a senator from Tennessee, house member from Tennessee, judge on the Tennessee supreme court, general of the military, and military governor of Florida.
We could similarly trace this pattern throughout all of American political history but pointing to the patterns that we have seen since 1952 suffices to make this point. Let us begin the more modern era therefore starting with Richard M. Nixon who was the vice president for two terms under former army general and president Dwight D. Eisenhower. Nixon was the nominee for president in 1960 and we need not go over how the Democratic party machine in Chicago and other places cheated him out of victory in that election.{7} He later on was defeated in the California gubernatorial election of 1962. After losing that election (and claiming he was finished), Nixon came back in 1968 to capture the nomination and win the presidency and won re-election in 1972. Senator John F. Kennedy who narrowly failed to secure the vice presidential position at the 1956 Democratic party convention of course was the party nominee and "victor" in 1960.{8} His vice president Lyndon B. Johnson (Senate majority leader, former House member, and a candidate in the 1960 election) became president in 1963 when Kennedy was assassinated and won in his own right the following year.
Having already covered the Nixon election wins, it bears pointing out that when his successor Gerald Ford{9} ran unsuccessfully for president in 1976, he was very nearly upset by former California governor Ronald Reagan -winning the nomination by a mere hundred odd delegates out of a couple of thousand cast. Reagan of course went on to win the next two presidential elections by monumental victory margins. One of his adversaries in the 1980 election was George H. W. Bush who was then added as his vice presidential candidate when Reagan locked up the 1980 the nomination for president. (He was to succeed Reagan by winning in his own right in 1988.) One of the Democratic party failed presidential candidates of 1988 was Albert Gore Jr. who was added as Bill Clinton's vice presidential candidate in 1992. After eight years of serving as vice president, Gore was nominated as his party's candidate and ultimately lost the 2000 election by failing to win the electoral college. Gore was opposed by former President Bush's son George W. Bush who won the general election after fending off a tough challenge from Sen. John McCain in the Republican primaries. McCain as we all know was the Republican party nominee in the 2008 election.
I have traced this historical sketch out to provide a glimpse of sorts into how history has gone to better enable readers to better gauge how future election history will go. For one thing, those touting a possible future candidacy for Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal are already behind the curve in that my good friend Kevin M. Tierney in one of the frequent political conversations we have had was calling Jindal a possible "dark horse candidate" back in 2008 and already predicted he would run in 2012 and be the favourite for the nomination that year. I am not sure if he has changed his prediction or not in the aftermath of the political ascent of Alaska governor Sarah Palin but I have him on record picking Jindal as far back as at least eight months ago if not more.{10} In the meantime, I know of some people who are currently picking Palin as the front runner in 2012.
Speaking of Governor Sarah Palin, insofar as she goes as a front runner in the 2012 presidential election for the Republicans, a bit of history of former vice presidential candidates who later ran as presidential candidates seems in order. (I should note that when I say "ran" I mean was actually successfully nominated to run as representative of their respective political parties.) The first of the major parties to cover is the Federalist party and the only vice presidential candidate they had who later ran for president was President Washington's vice president John Adams but this example as well as the one from the elections of 1796 and 1800 cannot be used.{11} The opposition Democratic-Republican party{12} never had a vice presidential candidate who became president so we can rule them out as well. In the divisions of 1824 from which today's Democratic party takes its true origin to the present day, there have been several vice presidential candidates who have become president but in all but one case they succeeded to the presidency upon the death of the president.{13} The exception to the rule was the only vice presidential candidate who ever ran successfully as president later on and that was President Franklin D. Roosevelt.{14} There have been a number of former vice presidents from the Democratic party side who subsequently secured their parties nomination for president{15} but only FDR successfully won in his bid after securing the vice presidential nomination in a losing party effort.
On the side of the Whigs -a party that became the main opposition to the Democratic party in 1833 and eventually was replaced by the Republicans in 1854, two of their vice presidential candidates on winning presidential tickets became president but in both cases (Tyler in 1841 and Fillmore in 1850) it was because the president they ran under died in office.{16} On the Republican party side of things, seven successfully nominated vice presidential candidates ran for president later on. Of the seven, three succeeded to the presidency upon the death of the president before they made their runs{17} and two of them won election as president in their own right.{18} Of the others{19}, none of them successfully was elected president in their own right after failing to win the vice presidency earlier.
The history of political dynastic voting patterns points to Governor Sarah Palin being the logical front runner in 2012. However, only once in US history has a candidate from any major party successfully been elected president in their own right after failing to win the vice presidency on someone else's ticket. Does this mean that Governor Palin is certain to fail in this endeavour? Not necessarily. Senator Bob Dole after being nominated as President Ford's running mate failed to be elected vice president in 1976 and later on failed to win the presidency in 1996. There is no record of this sort to go on from the Democratic side of things other than the example of FDR. But before people read too heavily into these things as spelling certain death for Governor Palin's chances, they need to consider the circumstances behind the failed vp and successful bid of FDR and the failed bids both times of Senator Dole.
To start with, FDR did not have any executive experience when he ran in 1920 as James Cox's vice president and they ran on the tail end of President Woodrow Wilson from their own party who for a variety of reasons{20} was unpopular. No Democratic candidate was going to win that year basically under the climate of the times. Subsequent to that point, Roosevelt was successfully elected governor of New York in 1928 and thus by 1932 he had executive experience to make his presidential bid more credible than it otherwise would have been. He also in his presidential run had the benefit of opposing the boneheaded governance of the incumbent President Herbert Hoover who was no laissez-faire president by any means.{21} Senator Bob Dole ran as vice president on the ticket of a non-elected president who had previously been appointed as vice president himself two years after the previous vice president of his party (and later the president he replaced) resigned in disgrace.
The Ford/Dole ticket faced a particularly stiff challenge from former California governor Ronald Reagan which while it galvanized the party contributed in the short term to narrow presidential defeat.{22} Twenty years later, Senator Bob Dole ran for president and in a situation where his party had moved to prevent the possibility of potential upsets akin to what Reagan nearly pulled off in 1976, the deck was stacked in the primaries to favour party insiders and make a repeat of the 1976 nomination scenario next to impossible.{23} As a result, the candidate who was the strongest party nominee by force of party connections (Dole) was probably not their best candidate for winning the general election against an incumbent president like William J. Clinton who had recently achieved some significant real and perceived victories against the opposition Republican congress.{24} Plus, Senator Dole though he ran for president in 1988 and also 1996 had not bothered in the time since he was Ford's vp candidate to acquire any executive experience.
So of the two examples we have of successfully nominated vice presidential candidates, we have one that succeeded (FDR) and one that failed (Dole). We can also point to circumstances of the times of the various elections that contributed in no small way to the success of FDR and the failure of Dole in their presidential aspirations. What this tells us ultimately is the general rule I spelled out at the beginning of this posting applied here and the successful example (FDR) had executive experience that the unsuccessful example (Dole) did not.
So readers need to take that into account ultimately when they attempt to write off the chances of Governor Sarah Palin to successfully get her party's nomination in 2012 and potentially win the general election. Like FDR and unlike Dole, she has executive experience having been both a mayor as well as a state governor. As for predicting a front runner for 2012, all I will say is if Palin and Jindal do not win their re-elections in 2010, they will not be the party nominee in 2012 and while I believe they will both be re-elected (particularly Jindal), I will not dare to make a political prediction of the overall viability for presidential candidacy of either of them until they do.
As far as Senator Hillary Clinton goes, her chances of running again depend on how she sees herself in 2012. If President Obama has a successful or average presidency, he will not have any opposition in his party to re-election. If however he is a trainwreck, then he may well receive the sort of stiff party challenge that Ted Kennedy gave President Carter in 1980. Senator Clinton came closer to a come-from-behind victory for the nomination than any presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1976. If Obama really messes things up, she may well run again in 2012 for far from being "too old" she would know that she would be no older then (65) than Reagan was in 1976 when he challenged Ford (he was 65) and four years younger than Reagan was when he won the presidency in 1980 at 69 years of age.
If President Obama is a disaster as president, can anyone think of other Democratic party candidates besides former Senator and now Secretary of State Clinton to give him a political fight? Only two come to my mind offhand that could be similarly viable. One is former Indiana governor and current Indiana senator Evan Bayh and the other is Virginia governor Tim Kaine. Bayh is from a politically dynastic family and Kaine as of January 21, 2009 holds not only his position as Virginia governor (he is up for re-election in 2010) but also is chairman of the Democratic National Committee. It would seem far more probable to me that Kaine would be more the king (or queen) maker than the king himself in light of his new position as DNC chair so that would leave Bayh as the only candidate I can think of who could rival Secretary of State Clinton as a party challenger to President Obama if his presidency is floundering when 2012 approaches.
Furthermore, Secretary of State Clinton's current cabinet position as a political precursor to the presidency was touched on earlier in this note. While it is true that her cabinet position has not been as influential in the past hundred and fifty years as it was previously, it still bears noting that four of the first seven and six of the first fifteen presidents were secretaries of state for a previous president{25} before becoming president in their own right.
Notes:
{1} Though in 2008 I was less accurate than the norm because a lot of things went against type in that election year -the msm shedding the last vestiges of their pretenses of "objectivity" to whore for Barack Obama in a way that was both shocking as well as frightening.
{2} The first of these was John Adams and John Quincy Adams while the second was George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush.
{3} Including Ambassador to the Netherlands under President Washington, Ambassador to Prussia under his father President Adams, Member of the Massachussets state Senate from 1802-1803, Senator of Massachussets from 1803-1809, Ambassador to Russia under President Madison until 1814, negotiator at Ghent for an end to the War of 1812 (and subsequently Ambassador to England) under President Madison. He also served in the Massachussets House of Representatives after losing his bid for re-election in 1828 until his death twenty years later: the only former president to serve in "the people's chamber" after serving as president.
{4} See footnote three. Quincy Adams was also the mind behind the famous Monroe Doctrine as promulgated in 1823 by President James Monroe and one the more fervent early slavery abolitionists. To say that he got by far more on his own natural talents than riding his famous father's coattails than President George W. Bush did is well established and beyond any debate by rational people.
{5} Which to a certain extent is accurate in that he was the first president who was not from the aristocratic class of American society.
{6} The Democratic party does not date from the time of Thomas Jefferson however much modern Democrats may wish it did.
{7} Nixon wisely chose not to go the "Al Gore route" and accepted the election results.
{8} See footnote seven. I would like to add here that I do not think Kennedy personally had a hand in any of this though that his influential father did is pretty close to being beyond debate really.
{9} Who became president after he was appointed to succeed Spiro Agnew in 1973 as vice president and then sworn in when President Nixon resigned the presidency in August of 1974.
{10} I would have to check my archives to know for sure but I have to give Kevin his due for being ahead of the popular curve on Jindal.
{11} The reason is the current law of parties running specifically as designated presidential and vice president was not put into effect by constitutional amendment until after the election of 1800 when Jefferson and Burr tied in electoral votes despite Burr being intended initially to be the vice presidential not presidential candidate. Starting with the election of 1804, the practice as we know it today has been in force.
{12} Originally called the "Republican" party by its advocates who wanted to claim that they favoured republicanism and the opposing federalists were closet monarchists. The Federalists countered by calling them "Democrats" to associate them with the French Jacoban democrats who were the architects of the French Revolution and its anarchial aftermath. Today, they are referred to as the "Democratic-Republican" party to separate them from the later Democratic party formed by the Jacksonians and the later Republican party which originated from 1854 as a coalition of old Federalists and a good section of the then-dying Whig political party.
{13} These include Harry Truman in 1944 and Lyndon Johnson in 1963 -both of whom subsequently won elections to retain their hold on the presidency in the following presidential elections.
{14} Who was the vice presidential candidate on the losing ticket of 1920 to Ohio governor James Cox.
{15} These include John C. Breckenridge who was nominated vice president on the winning ticket in 1856 who ran in a split party election in 1860 (representing the south) and Hubert H. Humphrey who was nominated vice president on the winning 1964 ticket who ran as the party's nominee in 1968. There was also Walter F. Mondale who was nominated vice president on the winning ticket in 1976 and was the incumbent vice president on the losing 1980 ticket, and Al Gore who failed to be nominated in his own right in 1988 and was President Clinton's vice president for eight years. (And as we know, he failed to win in 2000.)
{16} Neither Tyler nor Fillmore despite running as incumbents were able to win the presidency in their own right later on.
{17} Chester A. Arthur (succeeded the assassinated President James Garfield in 1881), Theodore Roosevelt (succeeded the assassinated President William McKinley in 1901), and Calvin Coolidge (succeeded President Warren Harding who died in office in 1923).
{18} Roosevelt in 1904 and Coolidge in 1924.
{19} See footnote fifteen.
{20} Too numerous to go into here.
{21} Contrary to the revisionist historical nonsense paraded about today as "history" supposedly "teaches."
{22} President Ford made some pretty bad gaffes in debate against Georgia governor Jimmy Carter which also did not help him.
{23} This ultimately is why I told the Republicans to go to hell after the 1996 general election and have been an unaffiliated Independent voter ever since.
{24} See footnote twenty.
{25} Jefferson for Washington, Madison for Jefferson, Monroe for Madison, Quincy Adams for Monroe, Van Buren under Jackson, and Buchanan under Polk.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
To start with, talking heads in the msm are already (so soon after the last presidential election) opining about various political persons and their perceived viability or lack thereof in the 2012 contest. I however do not play the game of political prognosticating this far out for the simple fact that a year is an ice age in politics and four years might as well be like the Jurassic period metaphorically speaking. A lot can happen between now and then and I have traditionally been very accurate in my political prognosticating{1} to a good extent because I do not play this game that far out. However, there are certain trends politically that one can use to forecast with a greater degree of accuracy what will likely happen and I will at this time do that without currently making any definite predictions one way or the other.
To start with, politics as a vocation tends to be dynastic to a certain extent even though there have only been two presidential "dynasties" properly speaking thus far.{2} But to a certain extent, there are patterns one can refer to from the past to better help them forecast future probabilities. For one thing, though it is not by any means a universal, it is nonetheless true that presidents who are successful more often than not had previous experience as an executive in some capacity. This experience could come in a variety of ways from business owner to field commander in the military to mayor of a town or governor of a state but as a rule the best presidents have had this kind of experience and those who were not as good did not.
By contrast to those with executive experience, senators and representatives in Congress who later on become president are traditionally not as good though again this is not an absolute principle but instead more of a general rule. And having noted those things, we get to the issue of dynastic political elements which I will now touch on so the reader knows what I am talking about if they do not already.
Since the presidency of the businessman and general George Washington, those who were subsequently elected president have always had experience in government in some form or another. In Washington's cabinet was John Adams the vice president and Thomas Jefferson the secretary of state -both of whom had high profile government positions before serving in Washington's cabinet. Adams would succeed Washington as our second president and Jefferson was our second vice president and third president. Jefferson's secretary of state was James Madison who would succeed him as president and Madison's secretary of state was James Monroe who succeeded him. James Monroe's secretary of state was the heavily credentialed John Quincy Adams who had served in various government posts{3} prior to being Monroe's secretary of state.{4} Quincy Adams won the controversial 1824 election after not getting the popular vote against General Andrew Jackson who despite his popular image as the first "commoner" to be president{5} as well as the first of the Democratic party presidents{6} had previous experience as a senator from Tennessee, house member from Tennessee, judge on the Tennessee supreme court, general of the military, and military governor of Florida.
We could similarly trace this pattern throughout all of American political history but pointing to the patterns that we have seen since 1952 suffices to make this point. Let us begin the more modern era therefore starting with Richard M. Nixon who was the vice president for two terms under former army general and president Dwight D. Eisenhower. Nixon was the nominee for president in 1960 and we need not go over how the Democratic party machine in Chicago and other places cheated him out of victory in that election.{7} He later on was defeated in the California gubernatorial election of 1962. After losing that election (and claiming he was finished), Nixon came back in 1968 to capture the nomination and win the presidency and won re-election in 1972. Senator John F. Kennedy who narrowly failed to secure the vice presidential position at the 1956 Democratic party convention of course was the party nominee and "victor" in 1960.{8} His vice president Lyndon B. Johnson (Senate majority leader, former House member, and a candidate in the 1960 election) became president in 1963 when Kennedy was assassinated and won in his own right the following year.
Having already covered the Nixon election wins, it bears pointing out that when his successor Gerald Ford{9} ran unsuccessfully for president in 1976, he was very nearly upset by former California governor Ronald Reagan -winning the nomination by a mere hundred odd delegates out of a couple of thousand cast. Reagan of course went on to win the next two presidential elections by monumental victory margins. One of his adversaries in the 1980 election was George H. W. Bush who was then added as his vice presidential candidate when Reagan locked up the 1980 the nomination for president. (He was to succeed Reagan by winning in his own right in 1988.) One of the Democratic party failed presidential candidates of 1988 was Albert Gore Jr. who was added as Bill Clinton's vice presidential candidate in 1992. After eight years of serving as vice president, Gore was nominated as his party's candidate and ultimately lost the 2000 election by failing to win the electoral college. Gore was opposed by former President Bush's son George W. Bush who won the general election after fending off a tough challenge from Sen. John McCain in the Republican primaries. McCain as we all know was the Republican party nominee in the 2008 election.
I have traced this historical sketch out to provide a glimpse of sorts into how history has gone to better enable readers to better gauge how future election history will go. For one thing, those touting a possible future candidacy for Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal are already behind the curve in that my good friend Kevin M. Tierney in one of the frequent political conversations we have had was calling Jindal a possible "dark horse candidate" back in 2008 and already predicted he would run in 2012 and be the favourite for the nomination that year. I am not sure if he has changed his prediction or not in the aftermath of the political ascent of Alaska governor Sarah Palin but I have him on record picking Jindal as far back as at least eight months ago if not more.{10} In the meantime, I know of some people who are currently picking Palin as the front runner in 2012.
Speaking of Governor Sarah Palin, insofar as she goes as a front runner in the 2012 presidential election for the Republicans, a bit of history of former vice presidential candidates who later ran as presidential candidates seems in order. (I should note that when I say "ran" I mean was actually successfully nominated to run as representative of their respective political parties.) The first of the major parties to cover is the Federalist party and the only vice presidential candidate they had who later ran for president was President Washington's vice president John Adams but this example as well as the one from the elections of 1796 and 1800 cannot be used.{11} The opposition Democratic-Republican party{12} never had a vice presidential candidate who became president so we can rule them out as well. In the divisions of 1824 from which today's Democratic party takes its true origin to the present day, there have been several vice presidential candidates who have become president but in all but one case they succeeded to the presidency upon the death of the president.{13} The exception to the rule was the only vice presidential candidate who ever ran successfully as president later on and that was President Franklin D. Roosevelt.{14} There have been a number of former vice presidents from the Democratic party side who subsequently secured their parties nomination for president{15} but only FDR successfully won in his bid after securing the vice presidential nomination in a losing party effort.
On the side of the Whigs -a party that became the main opposition to the Democratic party in 1833 and eventually was replaced by the Republicans in 1854, two of their vice presidential candidates on winning presidential tickets became president but in both cases (Tyler in 1841 and Fillmore in 1850) it was because the president they ran under died in office.{16} On the Republican party side of things, seven successfully nominated vice presidential candidates ran for president later on. Of the seven, three succeeded to the presidency upon the death of the president before they made their runs{17} and two of them won election as president in their own right.{18} Of the others{19}, none of them successfully was elected president in their own right after failing to win the vice presidency earlier.
The history of political dynastic voting patterns points to Governor Sarah Palin being the logical front runner in 2012. However, only once in US history has a candidate from any major party successfully been elected president in their own right after failing to win the vice presidency on someone else's ticket. Does this mean that Governor Palin is certain to fail in this endeavour? Not necessarily. Senator Bob Dole after being nominated as President Ford's running mate failed to be elected vice president in 1976 and later on failed to win the presidency in 1996. There is no record of this sort to go on from the Democratic side of things other than the example of FDR. But before people read too heavily into these things as spelling certain death for Governor Palin's chances, they need to consider the circumstances behind the failed vp and successful bid of FDR and the failed bids both times of Senator Dole.
To start with, FDR did not have any executive experience when he ran in 1920 as James Cox's vice president and they ran on the tail end of President Woodrow Wilson from their own party who for a variety of reasons{20} was unpopular. No Democratic candidate was going to win that year basically under the climate of the times. Subsequent to that point, Roosevelt was successfully elected governor of New York in 1928 and thus by 1932 he had executive experience to make his presidential bid more credible than it otherwise would have been. He also in his presidential run had the benefit of opposing the boneheaded governance of the incumbent President Herbert Hoover who was no laissez-faire president by any means.{21} Senator Bob Dole ran as vice president on the ticket of a non-elected president who had previously been appointed as vice president himself two years after the previous vice president of his party (and later the president he replaced) resigned in disgrace.
The Ford/Dole ticket faced a particularly stiff challenge from former California governor Ronald Reagan which while it galvanized the party contributed in the short term to narrow presidential defeat.{22} Twenty years later, Senator Bob Dole ran for president and in a situation where his party had moved to prevent the possibility of potential upsets akin to what Reagan nearly pulled off in 1976, the deck was stacked in the primaries to favour party insiders and make a repeat of the 1976 nomination scenario next to impossible.{23} As a result, the candidate who was the strongest party nominee by force of party connections (Dole) was probably not their best candidate for winning the general election against an incumbent president like William J. Clinton who had recently achieved some significant real and perceived victories against the opposition Republican congress.{24} Plus, Senator Dole though he ran for president in 1988 and also 1996 had not bothered in the time since he was Ford's vp candidate to acquire any executive experience.
So of the two examples we have of successfully nominated vice presidential candidates, we have one that succeeded (FDR) and one that failed (Dole). We can also point to circumstances of the times of the various elections that contributed in no small way to the success of FDR and the failure of Dole in their presidential aspirations. What this tells us ultimately is the general rule I spelled out at the beginning of this posting applied here and the successful example (FDR) had executive experience that the unsuccessful example (Dole) did not.
So readers need to take that into account ultimately when they attempt to write off the chances of Governor Sarah Palin to successfully get her party's nomination in 2012 and potentially win the general election. Like FDR and unlike Dole, she has executive experience having been both a mayor as well as a state governor. As for predicting a front runner for 2012, all I will say is if Palin and Jindal do not win their re-elections in 2010, they will not be the party nominee in 2012 and while I believe they will both be re-elected (particularly Jindal), I will not dare to make a political prediction of the overall viability for presidential candidacy of either of them until they do.
As far as Senator Hillary Clinton goes, her chances of running again depend on how she sees herself in 2012. If President Obama has a successful or average presidency, he will not have any opposition in his party to re-election. If however he is a trainwreck, then he may well receive the sort of stiff party challenge that Ted Kennedy gave President Carter in 1980. Senator Clinton came closer to a come-from-behind victory for the nomination than any presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1976. If Obama really messes things up, she may well run again in 2012 for far from being "too old" she would know that she would be no older then (65) than Reagan was in 1976 when he challenged Ford (he was 65) and four years younger than Reagan was when he won the presidency in 1980 at 69 years of age.
If President Obama is a disaster as president, can anyone think of other Democratic party candidates besides former Senator and now Secretary of State Clinton to give him a political fight? Only two come to my mind offhand that could be similarly viable. One is former Indiana governor and current Indiana senator Evan Bayh and the other is Virginia governor Tim Kaine. Bayh is from a politically dynastic family and Kaine as of January 21, 2009 holds not only his position as Virginia governor (he is up for re-election in 2010) but also is chairman of the Democratic National Committee. It would seem far more probable to me that Kaine would be more the king (or queen) maker than the king himself in light of his new position as DNC chair so that would leave Bayh as the only candidate I can think of who could rival Secretary of State Clinton as a party challenger to President Obama if his presidency is floundering when 2012 approaches.
Furthermore, Secretary of State Clinton's current cabinet position as a political precursor to the presidency was touched on earlier in this note. While it is true that her cabinet position has not been as influential in the past hundred and fifty years as it was previously, it still bears noting that four of the first seven and six of the first fifteen presidents were secretaries of state for a previous president{25} before becoming president in their own right.
Notes:
{1} Though in 2008 I was less accurate than the norm because a lot of things went against type in that election year -the msm shedding the last vestiges of their pretenses of "objectivity" to whore for Barack Obama in a way that was both shocking as well as frightening.
{2} The first of these was John Adams and John Quincy Adams while the second was George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush.
{3} Including Ambassador to the Netherlands under President Washington, Ambassador to Prussia under his father President Adams, Member of the Massachussets state Senate from 1802-1803, Senator of Massachussets from 1803-1809, Ambassador to Russia under President Madison until 1814, negotiator at Ghent for an end to the War of 1812 (and subsequently Ambassador to England) under President Madison. He also served in the Massachussets House of Representatives after losing his bid for re-election in 1828 until his death twenty years later: the only former president to serve in "the people's chamber" after serving as president.
{4} See footnote three. Quincy Adams was also the mind behind the famous Monroe Doctrine as promulgated in 1823 by President James Monroe and one the more fervent early slavery abolitionists. To say that he got by far more on his own natural talents than riding his famous father's coattails than President George W. Bush did is well established and beyond any debate by rational people.
{5} Which to a certain extent is accurate in that he was the first president who was not from the aristocratic class of American society.
{6} The Democratic party does not date from the time of Thomas Jefferson however much modern Democrats may wish it did.
{7} Nixon wisely chose not to go the "Al Gore route" and accepted the election results.
{8} See footnote seven. I would like to add here that I do not think Kennedy personally had a hand in any of this though that his influential father did is pretty close to being beyond debate really.
{9} Who became president after he was appointed to succeed Spiro Agnew in 1973 as vice president and then sworn in when President Nixon resigned the presidency in August of 1974.
{10} I would have to check my archives to know for sure but I have to give Kevin his due for being ahead of the popular curve on Jindal.
{11} The reason is the current law of parties running specifically as designated presidential and vice president was not put into effect by constitutional amendment until after the election of 1800 when Jefferson and Burr tied in electoral votes despite Burr being intended initially to be the vice presidential not presidential candidate. Starting with the election of 1804, the practice as we know it today has been in force.
{12} Originally called the "Republican" party by its advocates who wanted to claim that they favoured republicanism and the opposing federalists were closet monarchists. The Federalists countered by calling them "Democrats" to associate them with the French Jacoban democrats who were the architects of the French Revolution and its anarchial aftermath. Today, they are referred to as the "Democratic-Republican" party to separate them from the later Democratic party formed by the Jacksonians and the later Republican party which originated from 1854 as a coalition of old Federalists and a good section of the then-dying Whig political party.
{13} These include Harry Truman in 1944 and Lyndon Johnson in 1963 -both of whom subsequently won elections to retain their hold on the presidency in the following presidential elections.
{14} Who was the vice presidential candidate on the losing ticket of 1920 to Ohio governor James Cox.
{15} These include John C. Breckenridge who was nominated vice president on the winning ticket in 1856 who ran in a split party election in 1860 (representing the south) and Hubert H. Humphrey who was nominated vice president on the winning 1964 ticket who ran as the party's nominee in 1968. There was also Walter F. Mondale who was nominated vice president on the winning ticket in 1976 and was the incumbent vice president on the losing 1980 ticket, and Al Gore who failed to be nominated in his own right in 1988 and was President Clinton's vice president for eight years. (And as we know, he failed to win in 2000.)
{16} Neither Tyler nor Fillmore despite running as incumbents were able to win the presidency in their own right later on.
{17} Chester A. Arthur (succeeded the assassinated President James Garfield in 1881), Theodore Roosevelt (succeeded the assassinated President William McKinley in 1901), and Calvin Coolidge (succeeded President Warren Harding who died in office in 1923).
{18} Roosevelt in 1904 and Coolidge in 1924.
{19} See footnote fifteen.
{20} Too numerous to go into here.
{21} Contrary to the revisionist historical nonsense paraded about today as "history" supposedly "teaches."
{22} President Ford made some pretty bad gaffes in debate against Georgia governor Jimmy Carter which also did not help him.
{23} This ultimately is why I told the Republicans to go to hell after the 1996 general election and have been an unaffiliated Independent voter ever since.
{24} See footnote twenty.
{25} Jefferson for Washington, Madison for Jefferson, Monroe for Madison, Quincy Adams for Monroe, Van Buren under Jackson, and Buchanan under Polk.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Clarifying Ourselves on a Previous Point:
The purpose of posting today is to touch on a point in the following thread outlining the actions being taken by a soldier of the United States Military:
The crux of the above article can be summarized in the subheading of the article itself, namely this:
'As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this'
It seems appropriate to your humble host to clarify something he said back in December when writing on the election aftermath. Among the many points covered in that rather expansive expository musing{1} was the part about questioning the verdict of the election. My words on that subject were as follows:
There is voter fraud in all elections including both this last one and the one preceding it -though you would not know that to hear the silence from the msm on the last two elections because they got "their guys" in as opposed to the three elections previous to 2006.
Chronicling specific examples of voter fraud is fine, outlining various connections of unsavoury persons and circumstances with the Obama campaign is also fine. Going over how absolutely disgracefully the msm conducted themselves is also fine as well as problems with fundraising that the Obama campaign had with various donations of a controversial nature. But using any of this as a pre-text for rejecting the verdict of the voters is unacceptable.
Part of being not only a good soldier but also a mature human being is knowing not only which battles have been lost but also which battles are worth fighting. I will not go into the physiological realities behind the inverse natures of intensity and duration at this time but battles will need to be fought with the coming administration but ones based on principles. And acting like the spoiled child who throws a temper tantrum after losing a game -as many of the most rabid supporters of the incoming president did for the past eight years- will not help in any fashion.{10}
The tenth footnote from that posting read as follows:
Your host is aware of the court challenges to the legitimacy of President Obama to even run constitutionally due to questions of the circumstances and place of birth, etc. But even if such challenges are in various courts at the present time, prior to any ruling on these matters, the reality of Obama as president needs to be recognized even by those who are filing such cases. We cannot say we have put much thought into this particular approach though we will say this: if those filing the lawsuits do not win, they should show themselves to be of a higher species of humanity than those who spent eight years inaccurately regurgitating what happened in 2000 as their excuse to act like spoiled children who refused to grow up.
As the footnote noted, I did not put much thought into the approach being noted above but from a practical standpoint I did not see much value in this approach. However, I also did not take into consideration the phenomenon noted above concerning a soldier's pledged oath to the Constitution and what that involved. So having that factor brought into the equation, it changes a tad bit what I said previously so allow me to clarify my view on the matter further at this time.
Essentially, while I reaffirm my previous statement on the matter, I want to remove the appearance of an absolute statement on the matter and declare it to be a statement involving a general norm. I do not see for example how those who are bound by Constitutional oaths should be forced to go against their conscience if the latter really is a factor in the matter. However, those who would do so should have a degree of moral certainty that enables them to fulfill that function. And that means that for those sworn to follow the president should have a degree of moral certainty that the person they are following is actually the president. Ordinarily an election would suffice to supply this but in the case of both parties in the last election, they were born in extraordinary circumstances. However, Senator John McCain still fit the criteria under the Constitution to be president and the US Senate even went so far as to declare his meeting of this criteria in an official resolution. The same was not done for President Obama when he was running for the office.{2}
The bottom line is this really: if then-senator and now President Obama was actually born in Hawaii as he and his supporters claim, than what is wrong with releasing the original birth certificate for review. If there is one, this is the fastest way to end the controversy and do so decisively. The stubborn refusal of President Obama and others to do this is at the very least profoundly suspicious. And for that reason and in light of what this soldier has sworn under the Constitution to uphold, I cannot blame him for wanting proof of the legitimacy of the office holder to whom he is expected to obey in life and death situations.
Notes:
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Michael Steele Gives His First Interview as RNC Chairman
My comments made offhand in various forums on this matter will clarify my own view on this event so I post them here for your consideration from an interactive chat thread with various friends:
[I]n light of the election of Steele to RNC chair [I am] going to strongly consider reaffiliating with the Republicans after years in political exile...[circa January 30, 2009 @ 3:30pm]
I said consider it JJJ...after twelve years of exile I am finally optimistic that things are as they were after Goldwater's defeat where the base is rising again. (We have not had that for over twenty years.) [circa January 30, 2009 @ 3:37pm]
I hope so CCCCC...I saw the mess that the GOP is in now coming over a decade ago and wanted nothing to do with it. I felt about the Republicans like Reagan did the Democrats: he did not leave them they left him. At least he had a party to move to and I did not so it is what it is now and not in the same sense of "is" President Clinton used ;-) It is at least on the table now and has not been for ages. As far as gun toting goes, as long as we do not go hunting with Cheney consider that a rain check if I am out in that area... [circa January 30, 2009 @ 3:46pm]
There are sadly those who think that anyone who does not agree with them either 100% or at least 100% on their pet issues is somehow not a "real conservative." Those people despite having good intentions nonetheless end up doing nearly as much damage as the RINOS do. [circa January 31, 2009 @ 10:32am]
Without the election of a conservative to party chair, I would not be feeling this optimistic Aaaaaa. But I am now sensing that 2008 could be 1964 all over again except the sacrificial lamb for the cause was not Goldwater but Palin. (Johnny Mac went down too but he was not the one who in a classic Goldwater-like way fired up the base.) [circa January 31, 2009 @ 10:36am]
I have been tired of the old boys for nearly twenty years Ccccc so believe me, I know. But Steele has me seriously thinking about re-upping again...if they are actually gonna fight for a change I would be glad to help them. But I will not carry water for RINOS -my view is the same as Reagan's in that if there is 80% agreement then join common cause. The remaining differences can always be hashed out later on but this "political perfection" crap that so many idealists seek never translates into victory in the political arena. [circa January 31, 2009 @ 10:42am]
I agree Ttttt but for the first time in eons I am actually optimistic that the GOP may be starting to get it again. [circa January 31, 2009 @ 6:56am]
With that in mind, I have decided that the often-mentioned and long-completed thread on the necessary third way in politics{1} will be posted on February 6, 2009.
So that is where I am at now folks, strongly considering something I have not given even a second's thought to for over twelve years after the results of a few days ago.
Note:
{1} To my knowledge (and I may be mistaken), this was the last time I mentioned the piece on this humble weblog:
But that point aside, the originally planned posting will be done soon -though I may lead off tomorrow's new blogging cycle with the oft-mentioned posting on the needed third way in politics.
I am not sure right now how I plan to do that and will basically decide on a whim tomorrow depending on if I am motivated to finish the aforementioned material into a bloggable piece or not at that time or thereabouts. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 21, 2008)]
My comments made offhand in various forums on this matter will clarify my own view on this event so I post them here for your consideration from an interactive chat thread with various friends:
[I]n light of the election of Steele to RNC chair [I am] going to strongly consider reaffiliating with the Republicans after years in political exile...[circa January 30, 2009 @ 3:30pm]
I said consider it JJJ...after twelve years of exile I am finally optimistic that things are as they were after Goldwater's defeat where the base is rising again. (We have not had that for over twenty years.) [circa January 30, 2009 @ 3:37pm]
I hope so CCCCC...I saw the mess that the GOP is in now coming over a decade ago and wanted nothing to do with it. I felt about the Republicans like Reagan did the Democrats: he did not leave them they left him. At least he had a party to move to and I did not so it is what it is now and not in the same sense of "is" President Clinton used ;-) It is at least on the table now and has not been for ages. As far as gun toting goes, as long as we do not go hunting with Cheney consider that a rain check if I am out in that area... [circa January 30, 2009 @ 3:46pm]
There are sadly those who think that anyone who does not agree with them either 100% or at least 100% on their pet issues is somehow not a "real conservative." Those people despite having good intentions nonetheless end up doing nearly as much damage as the RINOS do. [circa January 31, 2009 @ 10:32am]
Without the election of a conservative to party chair, I would not be feeling this optimistic Aaaaaa. But I am now sensing that 2008 could be 1964 all over again except the sacrificial lamb for the cause was not Goldwater but Palin. (Johnny Mac went down too but he was not the one who in a classic Goldwater-like way fired up the base.) [circa January 31, 2009 @ 10:36am]
I have been tired of the old boys for nearly twenty years Ccccc so believe me, I know. But Steele has me seriously thinking about re-upping again...if they are actually gonna fight for a change I would be glad to help them. But I will not carry water for RINOS -my view is the same as Reagan's in that if there is 80% agreement then join common cause. The remaining differences can always be hashed out later on but this "political perfection" crap that so many idealists seek never translates into victory in the political arena. [circa January 31, 2009 @ 10:42am]
I agree Ttttt but for the first time in eons I am actually optimistic that the GOP may be starting to get it again. [circa January 31, 2009 @ 6:56am]
With that in mind, I have decided that the often-mentioned and long-completed thread on the necessary third way in politics{1} will be posted on February 6, 2009.
So that is where I am at now folks, strongly considering something I have not given even a second's thought to for over twelve years after the results of a few days ago.
Note:
{1} To my knowledge (and I may be mistaken), this was the last time I mentioned the piece on this humble weblog:
But that point aside, the originally planned posting will be done soon -though I may lead off tomorrow's new blogging cycle with the oft-mentioned posting on the needed third way in politics.
I am not sure right now how I plan to do that and will basically decide on a whim tomorrow depending on if I am motivated to finish the aforementioned material into a bloggable piece or not at that time or thereabouts. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 21, 2008)]
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Hollow victory: Republicans deliver slap in the face to Barack Obama (UK Telegraph)
Unlike the Democrats who egregiously abused this option in the Senate during the tenure of President George W. Bush{1}, the Republicans in the Senate would be well within the right to use the filibuster for what it was intended for: to stop legislation from getting to the floor for a vote. And I for one hope they do it because this boondoggle will do nothing to help the economy -only line the pockets of political prostitutes and attempt to enslave more people to the Democratic party welfare voting block. Show some spine Senate Republicans and that goes for you also Senator John McCain.
Note:
{1} Or to reference one of the times in the past where I spoke on the issue of judicial filibustering:
[T]here is no provision in proper Constitutional thought for judicial filibustering... [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 8, 2005)]
No more needs to be noted on this than that; ergo that is all I will say for now.
Unlike the Democrats who egregiously abused this option in the Senate during the tenure of President George W. Bush{1}, the Republicans in the Senate would be well within the right to use the filibuster for what it was intended for: to stop legislation from getting to the floor for a vote. And I for one hope they do it because this boondoggle will do nothing to help the economy -only line the pockets of political prostitutes and attempt to enslave more people to the Democratic party welfare voting block. Show some spine Senate Republicans and that goes for you also Senator John McCain.
Note:
{1} Or to reference one of the times in the past where I spoke on the issue of judicial filibustering:
[T]here is no provision in proper Constitutional thought for judicial filibustering... [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 8, 2005)]
No more needs to be noted on this than that; ergo that is all I will say for now.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved
Of course this writer wrote on the fallacy of so-called "global warming" prior to 2008{1} but it does not hurt to remind readers from time to time particularly considering how much the fraud was embraced by not only incoming President Barack Obama but also Senator John McCain{2} in the last presidential election.
Notes:
{1} On the Fraud of "Global Warming" With Greg Mockeridge and Kevin Tierney (circa April 13, 2006)
[I]ndeed readers of this weblog know that we pronounced on the global warming matter some time ago[...] but it does not hurt to remind readers of this considering the magnitude of the confidence trick many are attempting to pull with the so-called "global warming" schtick. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 29, 2007)]
{2} On the subject of the environment, McCain gets a B. If not for his stance on global warming which is (at best) an unproven hypothesis, he would get an A. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]
Of course this writer wrote on the fallacy of so-called "global warming" prior to 2008{1} but it does not hurt to remind readers from time to time particularly considering how much the fraud was embraced by not only incoming President Barack Obama but also Senator John McCain{2} in the last presidential election.
Notes:
{1} On the Fraud of "Global Warming" With Greg Mockeridge and Kevin Tierney (circa April 13, 2006)
[I]ndeed readers of this weblog know that we pronounced on the global warming matter some time ago[...] but it does not hurt to remind readers of this considering the magnitude of the confidence trick many are attempting to pull with the so-called "global warming" schtick. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 29, 2007)]
{2} On the subject of the environment, McCain gets a B. If not for his stance on global warming which is (at best) an unproven hypothesis, he would get an A. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
On How To Approach the Presidential Election Results of 2008 and Analyzing the Political Trends for 2008 and Beyond:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
We announced in a previous posting, certain exceptions notwithstanding and at our discretion{1}, that this was the only posting we intend to make on election related issues prior to inauguration day. And while we were planning on a shorter yet comprehensive coverage of this subject in the following posting, frankly we are simply not in the mood to do it. So we have decided to touch briefly on a variety of points which we believe point towards general trends of the electorate. From there we will restate in a very brief fashion{2} our own philosophy on these matters, and also point out some steps we believe need to be undertaken if genuine progress is to be made without the sacrificing of core principles as we move into the next administration of government this coming January 20th. It seems appropriate to touch on these in the order listed so without further ado, let us get to it.
To start with the same sex pseudo "marriage"{3} initiatives failed in every state that ran them including those states which went heavily for the soon-to-be President Barack H. Obama. Similarly in states where affirmative action was on the ballot it was voted down. The Republicans despite this being the worst election season to be a Republican since the 1974 midterm election{4} held down some pretty important seats which many of the talking punditry were proclaiming would be likely lost causes. This factor points towards not some sort of "mandate" for the incoming president{5} and congress but more of a referendum on the present administration.
As far as a supposed "landslide" goes, this was no landslide by objective criteria folks. A "landslide" requires a much larger electoral vote margin than the one that Senator Obama got.{6} And those who denied presidential mandates were in order for Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. (whose electoral college majorities were much larger than that of the soon-to-be-President Obama) cannot be allowed to engage in double standards on this matter. No, they must be held to ethical consistency even if it means dragging them there kicking and screaming in the process. Having noted those matters at the outset, how should conservatives handle this upcoming paradigm shift of sorts??? In our mind there are a variety of ways that this needs to be approached and we will go over the more pertinent ones right now underlining them for easier text differentiation.
Any attempts to pretend that President Brack H. Obama is not "our president" need to be avoided.
It was both stupid as well as embarrassing to see the deranged antics of the moonbat fringe who played this game with President George W. Bush because they did not like how the election of 2000 turned out. Many of these same sorts will make "holy pilgrimages" topray at Mecca worship at the next inaugural. Meanwhile, conservatives who are bitter over how the msm handled the election coverage{7} or how badly in spots Senator John McCain ran his campaign or other factors{8} need to set all that aside now. More on this in a moment.
Opposition if it is made at all must be differentiated between that of the president and the country
Far too often we witnessed since 2000 a tactic taken by those who were opposed to the president that resulted in a blurring of distinctions. Meaning, they took opposition to the president so far and to such an extreme that it inexorably became opposition to the country. This is something conservatives need to avoid at all costs. They must oppose President Obama personally where warranted, support him where warranted, and never in any fashion come across as opposing their country in the process.
Avoid taking a "chickenhawk" approach
One thing that really bothered us was the attitudes of those who despised our last two presidents whereby they took issue with the principle of their utilizing the military as opposed to having issues with the use of the military in a particular situation based on how the presidents themselves never served in the military. Conservatives criticized this with President Clinton before he was elected which was of course just fine much as they raised the superior military credentials of President Bush Sr. in 1992 they did the same with Senator Dole in 1996. In an election season this is one thing but arguing this way on the basis of any president using the military is out of line. Your host never took the latter approach when Clinton was president then{9} and he will not with Obama as president now.
Questioning the verdict of the election
There is voter fraud in all elections including both this last one and the one preceding it -though you would not know that to hear the silence from the msm on the last two elections because they got "their guys" in as opposed to the three elections previous to 2006.
Chronicling specific examples of voter fraud is fine, outlining various connections of unsavoury persons and circumstances with the Obama campaign is also fine. Going over how absolutely disgracefully the msm conducted themselves is also fine as well as problems with fundraising that the Obama campaign had with various donations of a controversial nature. But using any of this as a pre-text for rejecting the verdict of the voters is unacceptable.
Part of being not only a good soldier but also a mature human being is knowing not only which battles have been lost but also which battles are worth fighting. I will not go into the physiological realities behind the inverse natures of intensity and duration at this time but battles will need to be fought with the coming administration but ones based on principles. And acting like the spoiled child who throws a temper tantrum after losing a game -as many of the most rabid supporters of the incoming president did for the past eight years- will not help in any fashion.{10}
Blaming the voters
Your host has at times voiced an opinion of the electorate prior to an election that was by no means flattering. But he has never in recent memory{11} blamed the voters afterward. It serves no constructive purpose as what is done is done. There are reasons for this and the GOP needs to do some serious soul searching first and foremost because they gave the public reasons for doing what they did. That is where they can focus and should they do that, they can expect support from independent voters such as your host. If not...well...lets move onto the next subject.
Refocus for the next election
Building on what was just covered, the focus needs to be the next election and we are not talking about 2012 here. No, we are talking about the 2010 midterms which are less than two years away now. We at Rerum Novarum certainly are going to do our part to assist on these matters at various levels of government as we noted recently in our ultra-brief post election comments.{12} We advise all who are not pleased with how this election went to do likewise.
Strategery, Strategery, Strategery
With an incoming Democratic president and a Democratic majority in both houses of the Congress, a lot of issues are going to be pushed -many of them ones that we who did not vote for President Obama and the Democrats do not agree with. The problem is, if we run all over the map and oppose simply to be opposing, that will achieve nothing constructive. And furthermore, it is naive to think that everything they attempt to do we will be able to stop so that also needs to be taken into account.
Basically, we need to decide in how we go about this first of all, what we will fight tooth and nail for: what are the issues which we absolutely must stand up and hold the line on without an iota of compromise. From there, the rest can be categorized into basically (i) things we want to try and force the Democrats on record supporting so we can make election issues on them in 2010, (ii) things of a less significant nature we actually think can be accomplished despite the Democrats having control of the government, (iii) things we need to put out there for the future which we know will not succeed in the soon-to-be present but nonetheless are points of reference for the future of a positive nature.
In other words, we need to strategerize here and not play the same bullshit of those who opposed the outgoing Bush administration on everything and anything simply because they hated President Bush, thought he was Hitler, or whatever.
It is a tall order and those who are presuming that the incoming president is some kind of messianic figure are going to be profoundly disappointed before long. Keep that in mind and do not let their smugness get to you. And remember, politics is the art of the possible not of the perfect. As far as that goes, it is just about time for a final grade on the Bush presidency and as we do with every administration, President Barack Obama will start off with an A grade by us on the day of his inauguration. What he does after that is up to him.
Notes:
{1} I do not intend prior to the publishing of that commentary to say anything about the election unless it is a response to reader email.[...] Furthermore, even after that commentary is published through at least the final months of President Bush's term that is how I intend to approach this matter. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 5, 2008)]
{2} It is probably a certainty that our view as touched on in this posting will be misunderstood with the brevity to be undertaken -and we would gladly after the inauguration clarify the position as the need is perceived to do so of course. But our intention here is to give a general overview for the reader so they have some points of reference in navigating this and other statements we have made over the years on these matters.
{3} We say "pseudo 'marriage'" because your host refuses to concede to the proponents of such absurdity any pretext of legitimacy for their position. We have explained the extremely important principle being used here in years gone by and felt prior to the posting of this commentary that the subject needed to be revisited in a more complete fashion than could be done in this posting; ergo it was pre-emptively done with the results viewable here:
Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of "Language Control" (circa November 25, 2008)
{4} The elections held in the immediate aftermath of the resignation in disgrace of President Richard M. Nxon.
{5} Setting aside the issue of 2000 for a moment here, if there was no "mandate" for President George W. Bush with his 52% popular vote gain in 2004 than there is no "mandate" for President Barack H. Obama who only got 53% of the vote in this election. Those who affirmed the former must out of consistency affirm the latter if they want anyone with a normal intact functioning brain to take them seriously.
{6} We define a "landslide" as far more than a major majority vote but instead an election where the winner received 70% or more of the electoral vote. Here are some examples of presidential electoral landslides to illustrate our point -more than one set of numbers indicates an election with three or more candidates getting electoral votes:
1789: Washington won 69-0 - 1792: Washington won 132-0 - 1804; Jefferson won 163-14 - 1816: Monroe won 116-34 - 1820: Monroe won 231-1 - 1832: Jackson won 219-49 - 1840: Harrison won 234-60 - 1852: Pierce won 254-42 - 1864: Lincoln won 212-21 - 1868: Grant won 214-80 - 1872: Grant won 286-42-18-3-2 - 1904: T. Roosevelt won 336-140 - 1920: Harding won 404-120 - 1924: Coolidge won 382-136-13 - 1928: Hoover won 444-87 - 1932: F. Roosevelt won 472-59 - 1936: FDR won 523-8 - 1940: FDR won 449-82 - 1944: FDR won 432-99 - 1952: Eisenhower won 442-89 - 1956: Eisenhower won 457-83 - 1964: Johnson won 486-52 - 1972: Nixon won 520-17 - 1980: Reagan won 489-49 - 1984: Reagan won 525-13 - 1988: Bush Sr. won 426-111
There has not been a "landslide" since 1988 going by the manner in which we have defined the term and the last time a Democrat won by a landside was LBJ over Senator Goldwater in 1964.
{7} And yes, it was so biased to be ridiculous and has perhaps destroyed if not forever than at least for a long time any remaining credibility the msm had left after the past six years of ever-increasing journalistic ethical malpractice. This was touched on a bit in a dialogue with freelance writer Joseph D'Hippolito which can be read here for those who are interested in the context of a dialogue on the state of journalism in general. (Mr. D'Hippolito was responding to a commentary your host did on journalism back in June of 2005 and while it had been in the can for a while, the increasing irresponsibility of the msm in covering this election is what prompted its posting in the final weeks before the election.)
{8} Including the whole question of who the best Republican candidate would have been, whether Bush was better than McCain would have been as president, and all the other kinds of questions that were thrashed about before the election was concluded.
{9} We opposed President Clinton on many things but never on either the manner in which he was elected or the principle that he as commander in chief of the armed forces was not eligible to utilize them on the basis of who he was personally.
{10} Your host is aware of the court challenges to the legitimacy of President Obama to even run constitutionally due to questions of the circumstances and place of birth, etc. But even if such challenges are in various courts at the present time, prior to any ruling on these matters, the reality of Obama as president needs to be recognized even by those who are filing such cases. We cannot say we have put much thought into this particular approach though we will say this: if those filing the lawsuits do not win, they should show themselves to be of a higher species of humanity than those who spent eight years inaccurately regurgitating what happened in 2000 as their excuse to act like spoiled children who refused to grow up.
{11} Well, not since 1992 anyway: a year we voted for H. Ross Perot incidentally enough.
{12} I may however in that interim [prior to the inauguration] and as time allows for it sketch out a rough draft of the second of two initiative ideas I want to get on the ballot for Washington State in the 2010 election. (The first idea of which was sketched out nearly five years ago on this humble weblog and may be revisited again in the interim prior to the election as well.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 5, 2008)]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
We announced in a previous posting, certain exceptions notwithstanding and at our discretion{1}, that this was the only posting we intend to make on election related issues prior to inauguration day. And while we were planning on a shorter yet comprehensive coverage of this subject in the following posting, frankly we are simply not in the mood to do it. So we have decided to touch briefly on a variety of points which we believe point towards general trends of the electorate. From there we will restate in a very brief fashion{2} our own philosophy on these matters, and also point out some steps we believe need to be undertaken if genuine progress is to be made without the sacrificing of core principles as we move into the next administration of government this coming January 20th. It seems appropriate to touch on these in the order listed so without further ado, let us get to it.
To start with the same sex pseudo "marriage"{3} initiatives failed in every state that ran them including those states which went heavily for the soon-to-be President Barack H. Obama. Similarly in states where affirmative action was on the ballot it was voted down. The Republicans despite this being the worst election season to be a Republican since the 1974 midterm election{4} held down some pretty important seats which many of the talking punditry were proclaiming would be likely lost causes. This factor points towards not some sort of "mandate" for the incoming president{5} and congress but more of a referendum on the present administration.
As far as a supposed "landslide" goes, this was no landslide by objective criteria folks. A "landslide" requires a much larger electoral vote margin than the one that Senator Obama got.{6} And those who denied presidential mandates were in order for Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. (whose electoral college majorities were much larger than that of the soon-to-be-President Obama) cannot be allowed to engage in double standards on this matter. No, they must be held to ethical consistency even if it means dragging them there kicking and screaming in the process. Having noted those matters at the outset, how should conservatives handle this upcoming paradigm shift of sorts??? In our mind there are a variety of ways that this needs to be approached and we will go over the more pertinent ones right now underlining them for easier text differentiation.
Any attempts to pretend that President Brack H. Obama is not "our president" need to be avoided.
It was both stupid as well as embarrassing to see the deranged antics of the moonbat fringe who played this game with President George W. Bush because they did not like how the election of 2000 turned out. Many of these same sorts will make "holy pilgrimages" to
Opposition if it is made at all must be differentiated between that of the president and the country
Far too often we witnessed since 2000 a tactic taken by those who were opposed to the president that resulted in a blurring of distinctions. Meaning, they took opposition to the president so far and to such an extreme that it inexorably became opposition to the country. This is something conservatives need to avoid at all costs. They must oppose President Obama personally where warranted, support him where warranted, and never in any fashion come across as opposing their country in the process.
Avoid taking a "chickenhawk" approach
One thing that really bothered us was the attitudes of those who despised our last two presidents whereby they took issue with the principle of their utilizing the military as opposed to having issues with the use of the military in a particular situation based on how the presidents themselves never served in the military. Conservatives criticized this with President Clinton before he was elected which was of course just fine much as they raised the superior military credentials of President Bush Sr. in 1992 they did the same with Senator Dole in 1996. In an election season this is one thing but arguing this way on the basis of any president using the military is out of line. Your host never took the latter approach when Clinton was president then{9} and he will not with Obama as president now.
Questioning the verdict of the election
There is voter fraud in all elections including both this last one and the one preceding it -though you would not know that to hear the silence from the msm on the last two elections because they got "their guys" in as opposed to the three elections previous to 2006.
Chronicling specific examples of voter fraud is fine, outlining various connections of unsavoury persons and circumstances with the Obama campaign is also fine. Going over how absolutely disgracefully the msm conducted themselves is also fine as well as problems with fundraising that the Obama campaign had with various donations of a controversial nature. But using any of this as a pre-text for rejecting the verdict of the voters is unacceptable.
Part of being not only a good soldier but also a mature human being is knowing not only which battles have been lost but also which battles are worth fighting. I will not go into the physiological realities behind the inverse natures of intensity and duration at this time but battles will need to be fought with the coming administration but ones based on principles. And acting like the spoiled child who throws a temper tantrum after losing a game -as many of the most rabid supporters of the incoming president did for the past eight years- will not help in any fashion.{10}
Blaming the voters
Your host has at times voiced an opinion of the electorate prior to an election that was by no means flattering. But he has never in recent memory{11} blamed the voters afterward. It serves no constructive purpose as what is done is done. There are reasons for this and the GOP needs to do some serious soul searching first and foremost because they gave the public reasons for doing what they did. That is where they can focus and should they do that, they can expect support from independent voters such as your host. If not...well...lets move onto the next subject.
Refocus for the next election
Building on what was just covered, the focus needs to be the next election and we are not talking about 2012 here. No, we are talking about the 2010 midterms which are less than two years away now. We at Rerum Novarum certainly are going to do our part to assist on these matters at various levels of government as we noted recently in our ultra-brief post election comments.{12} We advise all who are not pleased with how this election went to do likewise.
Strategery, Strategery, Strategery
With an incoming Democratic president and a Democratic majority in both houses of the Congress, a lot of issues are going to be pushed -many of them ones that we who did not vote for President Obama and the Democrats do not agree with. The problem is, if we run all over the map and oppose simply to be opposing, that will achieve nothing constructive. And furthermore, it is naive to think that everything they attempt to do we will be able to stop so that also needs to be taken into account.
Basically, we need to decide in how we go about this first of all, what we will fight tooth and nail for: what are the issues which we absolutely must stand up and hold the line on without an iota of compromise. From there, the rest can be categorized into basically (i) things we want to try and force the Democrats on record supporting so we can make election issues on them in 2010, (ii) things of a less significant nature we actually think can be accomplished despite the Democrats having control of the government, (iii) things we need to put out there for the future which we know will not succeed in the soon-to-be present but nonetheless are points of reference for the future of a positive nature.
In other words, we need to strategerize here and not play the same bullshit of those who opposed the outgoing Bush administration on everything and anything simply because they hated President Bush, thought he was Hitler, or whatever.
It is a tall order and those who are presuming that the incoming president is some kind of messianic figure are going to be profoundly disappointed before long. Keep that in mind and do not let their smugness get to you. And remember, politics is the art of the possible not of the perfect. As far as that goes, it is just about time for a final grade on the Bush presidency and as we do with every administration, President Barack Obama will start off with an A grade by us on the day of his inauguration. What he does after that is up to him.
Notes:
{1} I do not intend prior to the publishing of that commentary to say anything about the election unless it is a response to reader email.[...] Furthermore, even after that commentary is published through at least the final months of President Bush's term that is how I intend to approach this matter. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 5, 2008)]
{2} It is probably a certainty that our view as touched on in this posting will be misunderstood with the brevity to be undertaken -and we would gladly after the inauguration clarify the position as the need is perceived to do so of course. But our intention here is to give a general overview for the reader so they have some points of reference in navigating this and other statements we have made over the years on these matters.
{3} We say "pseudo 'marriage'" because your host refuses to concede to the proponents of such absurdity any pretext of legitimacy for their position. We have explained the extremely important principle being used here in years gone by and felt prior to the posting of this commentary that the subject needed to be revisited in a more complete fashion than could be done in this posting; ergo it was pre-emptively done with the results viewable here:
Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of "Language Control" (circa November 25, 2008)
{4} The elections held in the immediate aftermath of the resignation in disgrace of President Richard M. Nxon.
{5} Setting aside the issue of 2000 for a moment here, if there was no "mandate" for President George W. Bush with his 52% popular vote gain in 2004 than there is no "mandate" for President Barack H. Obama who only got 53% of the vote in this election. Those who affirmed the former must out of consistency affirm the latter if they want anyone with a normal intact functioning brain to take them seriously.
{6} We define a "landslide" as far more than a major majority vote but instead an election where the winner received 70% or more of the electoral vote. Here are some examples of presidential electoral landslides to illustrate our point -more than one set of numbers indicates an election with three or more candidates getting electoral votes:
1789: Washington won 69-0 - 1792: Washington won 132-0 - 1804; Jefferson won 163-14 - 1816: Monroe won 116-34 - 1820: Monroe won 231-1 - 1832: Jackson won 219-49 - 1840: Harrison won 234-60 - 1852: Pierce won 254-42 - 1864: Lincoln won 212-21 - 1868: Grant won 214-80 - 1872: Grant won 286-42-18-3-2 - 1904: T. Roosevelt won 336-140 - 1920: Harding won 404-120 - 1924: Coolidge won 382-136-13 - 1928: Hoover won 444-87 - 1932: F. Roosevelt won 472-59 - 1936: FDR won 523-8 - 1940: FDR won 449-82 - 1944: FDR won 432-99 - 1952: Eisenhower won 442-89 - 1956: Eisenhower won 457-83 - 1964: Johnson won 486-52 - 1972: Nixon won 520-17 - 1980: Reagan won 489-49 - 1984: Reagan won 525-13 - 1988: Bush Sr. won 426-111
There has not been a "landslide" since 1988 going by the manner in which we have defined the term and the last time a Democrat won by a landside was LBJ over Senator Goldwater in 1964.
{7} And yes, it was so biased to be ridiculous and has perhaps destroyed if not forever than at least for a long time any remaining credibility the msm had left after the past six years of ever-increasing journalistic ethical malpractice. This was touched on a bit in a dialogue with freelance writer Joseph D'Hippolito which can be read here for those who are interested in the context of a dialogue on the state of journalism in general. (Mr. D'Hippolito was responding to a commentary your host did on journalism back in June of 2005 and while it had been in the can for a while, the increasing irresponsibility of the msm in covering this election is what prompted its posting in the final weeks before the election.)
{8} Including the whole question of who the best Republican candidate would have been, whether Bush was better than McCain would have been as president, and all the other kinds of questions that were thrashed about before the election was concluded.
{9} We opposed President Clinton on many things but never on either the manner in which he was elected or the principle that he as commander in chief of the armed forces was not eligible to utilize them on the basis of who he was personally.
{10} Your host is aware of the court challenges to the legitimacy of President Obama to even run constitutionally due to questions of the circumstances and place of birth, etc. But even if such challenges are in various courts at the present time, prior to any ruling on these matters, the reality of Obama as president needs to be recognized even by those who are filing such cases. We cannot say we have put much thought into this particular approach though we will say this: if those filing the lawsuits do not win, they should show themselves to be of a higher species of humanity than those who spent eight years inaccurately regurgitating what happened in 2000 as their excuse to act like spoiled children who refused to grow up.
{11} Well, not since 1992 anyway: a year we voted for H. Ross Perot incidentally enough.
{12} I may however in that interim [prior to the inauguration] and as time allows for it sketch out a rough draft of the second of two initiative ideas I want to get on the ballot for Washington State in the 2010 election. (The first idea of which was sketched out nearly five years ago on this humble weblog and may be revisited again in the interim prior to the election as well.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 5, 2008)]
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Why McCain Will Win (Tammy Bruce)
I hope for the reasons she outlines (among others) that she is right on this.
I hope for the reasons she outlines (among others) that she is right on this.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Miscellaneous Musings on Threads of Interest:
A few threads pertaining to the election which is 48 hours away{1} seem to be appropriate at the present time so here goes...
An ACORN Whistleblower Testifies in Court (John Fund)
Here is a bit from the above article...
The FBI is investigating its voter registration efforts in several states, amid allegations that almost a third of the 1.3 million cards it turned in are invalid. And yesterday, a former employee of Acorn testified in a Pennsylvania state court that the group's quality-control efforts were "minimal or nonexistent" and largely window dressing. Anita MonCrief also says that Acorn was given lists of potential donors by several Democratic presidential campaigns, including that of Barack Obama, to troll for contributions.
But remember folks, Sen. Obama has had no affiliation with ACORN. He told us so, remember ;-) Moving on we have this article on voting from someone who has not been mentioned on this weblog in a few years...
Don't Let the Polls Affect Your Vote (Karl Rove)
Here is a tidbit from the text to whet the appetite:
Polls can reveal underlying or emerging trends and help campaigns decide where to focus. The danger is that commentators use them to declare a race over before the votes are in. This can demoralize the underdog's supporters, depressing turnout. I know that from experience.
For our part, we at Rerum Novarum will be voting on Tuesday regardless of the so-called "lead" that the msm will assign to Sen. Obama.
Obama and the Politics of Crowds (Fouad Ajami)
Another article well worth reading -I will quote the summary to give an idea of what the article will cover:
The morning after the election, the disappointment will begin to settle upon the Obama crowd. Defeat -- by now unthinkable to the devotees -- will bring heartbreak. Victory will steadily deliver the sobering verdict that our troubles won't be solved by a leader's magic.
That my friends is something we all need to remember: if we place as some kind of integral source of our happiness weight on who the president is, who runs congress, etc., Ultimately happiness has to come from within because otherwise we would cede to others control over our own happiness which it is never wise nor prudent to do. Then there is this tidbit from the LA Times...
The Los Angeles Times’s Strange Notion of Journalistic Ethics
The title says it all as far as I am concerned, give the article a read to see another example of mainstream media double standards as far as this election is concerned. But it appears finally folks that we may have the "October Surprise" coming out in November and this could affect the outcome of the voting in several key states. Here is the story and some of the reactions from some of those states:
Hidden Audio: Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry
Here is just a taste:
Imagine if John McCain had whispered somewhere that he was willing to bankrupt a major industry? Would this declaration not immediately be front page news? Well, Barack Obama actually flat out told the San Francisco Chronicle (SF Gate) that he was willing to see the coal industry go bankrupt in a January 17, 2008 interview. The result? Nothing. This audio interview has been hidden from the public...until now.
Here is the response from some of the states which would be affected by the Obama energy plan as it pertains to coal starting with West Virginia -a state with five electoral votes and where the GOP has had a weak lead up to now:
Coal official calls Obama comments 'unbelievable'
Here is one from Ohio which is a state that was tending towards Obama and which has 20 electoral votes:
Ohio Coal Association Says Obama Remarks Make It Clear: Obama Ticket Not Supportive of Coal
Other states where Obama is weakly leading which could be affected by this latest news include Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes) and Virginia (13 electoral votes). There is also Indiana (11 electoral votes) where McCain's hanging on by his fingernails which could be bolstered by this latest news not to mention North Carolina (15 electoral votes) where Obama has a very small lead who also has a coal industry.
Anyway, this may be the silver bullet we have been looking for in this election folks...we will only know for sure after tomorrow.
Note:
{1} Though for our part we at Rerum Novarum voted by mail the other day.
A few threads pertaining to the election which is 48 hours away{1} seem to be appropriate at the present time so here goes...
An ACORN Whistleblower Testifies in Court (John Fund)
Here is a bit from the above article...
The FBI is investigating its voter registration efforts in several states, amid allegations that almost a third of the 1.3 million cards it turned in are invalid. And yesterday, a former employee of Acorn testified in a Pennsylvania state court that the group's quality-control efforts were "minimal or nonexistent" and largely window dressing. Anita MonCrief also says that Acorn was given lists of potential donors by several Democratic presidential campaigns, including that of Barack Obama, to troll for contributions.
But remember folks, Sen. Obama has had no affiliation with ACORN. He told us so, remember ;-) Moving on we have this article on voting from someone who has not been mentioned on this weblog in a few years...
Don't Let the Polls Affect Your Vote (Karl Rove)
Here is a tidbit from the text to whet the appetite:
Polls can reveal underlying or emerging trends and help campaigns decide where to focus. The danger is that commentators use them to declare a race over before the votes are in. This can demoralize the underdog's supporters, depressing turnout. I know that from experience.
For our part, we at Rerum Novarum will be voting on Tuesday regardless of the so-called "lead" that the msm will assign to Sen. Obama.
Obama and the Politics of Crowds (Fouad Ajami)
Another article well worth reading -I will quote the summary to give an idea of what the article will cover:
The morning after the election, the disappointment will begin to settle upon the Obama crowd. Defeat -- by now unthinkable to the devotees -- will bring heartbreak. Victory will steadily deliver the sobering verdict that our troubles won't be solved by a leader's magic.
That my friends is something we all need to remember: if we place as some kind of integral source of our happiness weight on who the president is, who runs congress, etc., Ultimately happiness has to come from within because otherwise we would cede to others control over our own happiness which it is never wise nor prudent to do. Then there is this tidbit from the LA Times...
The Los Angeles Times’s Strange Notion of Journalistic Ethics
The title says it all as far as I am concerned, give the article a read to see another example of mainstream media double standards as far as this election is concerned. But it appears finally folks that we may have the "October Surprise" coming out in November and this could affect the outcome of the voting in several key states. Here is the story and some of the reactions from some of those states:
Hidden Audio: Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry
Here is just a taste:
Imagine if John McCain had whispered somewhere that he was willing to bankrupt a major industry? Would this declaration not immediately be front page news? Well, Barack Obama actually flat out told the San Francisco Chronicle (SF Gate) that he was willing to see the coal industry go bankrupt in a January 17, 2008 interview. The result? Nothing. This audio interview has been hidden from the public...until now.
Here is the response from some of the states which would be affected by the Obama energy plan as it pertains to coal starting with West Virginia -a state with five electoral votes and where the GOP has had a weak lead up to now:
Coal official calls Obama comments 'unbelievable'
Here is one from Ohio which is a state that was tending towards Obama and which has 20 electoral votes:
Ohio Coal Association Says Obama Remarks Make It Clear: Obama Ticket Not Supportive of Coal
Other states where Obama is weakly leading which could be affected by this latest news include Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes) and Virginia (13 electoral votes). There is also Indiana (11 electoral votes) where McCain's hanging on by his fingernails which could be bolstered by this latest news not to mention North Carolina (15 electoral votes) where Obama has a very small lead who also has a coal industry.
Anyway, this may be the silver bullet we have been looking for in this election folks...we will only know for sure after tomorrow.
Note:
{1} Though for our part we at Rerum Novarum voted by mail the other day.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Some Final Week Election Strategery:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I wrote and posted a similar text as this to another forum back on Monday. Without further ado...
Based on a lesson of "wealth redistribution" that I have noted before (and want to reiterate anew at this time) it gave me a good idea for a final election week strategery to drive home to people in ways they can feel the seriousness of Obama's "income redistribution" plans should he become president with a Democratic Congress. First let us recap the lesson before outlining the plan. I got the idea from someone called "AzVet" back on October 24th and Chris Blosser reminded me of it today with another source who had the same concept outlined. Here is "AzVet's" version of things to refresh the mind of the readers:
Redistribution experiment. On my way to lunch today, a homeless man was sitting on the sidewalk holding a sign, "vote for Obama...I need the money!" The waiter had a "Vote for Obama" tie. After lunch, the waiting handed me the bill. I told [him] that he was not getting a tip because I am doing an experiment of redistribution of wealth. I told him that I am going to give his tip the homeless man. He turned abruptly and left in a huff. I gave the homeless man $10.00 for which he did not earn. I told him to thank the waiter in the restaurant because he's the one that actually earned it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 24, 2008)]
Basically folks, we should all do this before the election. Go out to eat a few times to the extent it is in your budget{1}, get a waiter to serve you, and ask them whom they are voting for in the election.{2} If the waiter says they are voting for Obama, then merely say "ok" or some neutral response not indicating intent, eat up, have them work to serve you, and then when the bill comes invite the waiter over and pay the bill. Tell them that you had a nice tip for them but since they support Obama who wants to redistribute your wealth to people who did not work for it that you will give their tip to a homeless person{3} or to someone else who did not earn it so they can better "share" in the economic plan that Sen. Obama has in mind as president. But that is not all.
If they say McCain, try to find out why they would vote for McCain to see if they are telling you the truth or not. If you think they are, give them a slightly larger tip and tell them that you too believe in rewarding those who actually earn their money rather than taking from those who work and giving it to those who did not earn it. That way, even if they lied to you about their intentions you may well give them something to think about before they go into the voting booth.
Remember, the best education quite often comes from real life experiences as opposed to from books so with those who in the abstract think Sen. Obama would be a "cool president", give them something that they can relate to and in the case of people in restaurant industry, that is their tip money which if they are good can constitute a good chunk of their income.
Anyway, that is my idea for last week campaign influencing the service/hospitality people to reassess a preference for Sen. Obama with a recommended plan of action for implementing the "redistribution experiment" of the aforementioned "AzVet."
Notes:
{1} Because in an Obama presidency it will not likely be as frequent you will be able to do this.
{2} This works better the younger you are by the way as the really youthful demographic is the one most heavily skewed towards Sen. Obama but everyone should try this nonetheless.
{3} I rarely advocate giving money to homeless people though admittedly I do at times nonetheless. However, my usual modus opperandi over the years when downtown is to offer those who ask for money to buy them food instead -usually a breakfast sandwich from McDonalds, a couple items from their "value menu" or whatever depending on the time of day. Those who accept the offer and actually eat the food I view as being potentially in need whereas those who throw the food away or otherwise do not eat it (after claiming they wanted the money for food: and yes I have seen this at times), I chalk up as charletans who would have used the money for something other than food.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I wrote and posted a similar text as this to another forum back on Monday. Without further ado...
Based on a lesson of "wealth redistribution" that I have noted before (and want to reiterate anew at this time) it gave me a good idea for a final election week strategery to drive home to people in ways they can feel the seriousness of Obama's "income redistribution" plans should he become president with a Democratic Congress. First let us recap the lesson before outlining the plan. I got the idea from someone called "AzVet" back on October 24th and Chris Blosser reminded me of it today with another source who had the same concept outlined. Here is "AzVet's" version of things to refresh the mind of the readers:
Redistribution experiment. On my way to lunch today, a homeless man was sitting on the sidewalk holding a sign, "vote for Obama...I need the money!" The waiter had a "Vote for Obama" tie. After lunch, the waiting handed me the bill. I told [him] that he was not getting a tip because I am doing an experiment of redistribution of wealth. I told him that I am going to give his tip the homeless man. He turned abruptly and left in a huff. I gave the homeless man $10.00 for which he did not earn. I told him to thank the waiter in the restaurant because he's the one that actually earned it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 24, 2008)]
Basically folks, we should all do this before the election. Go out to eat a few times to the extent it is in your budget{1}, get a waiter to serve you, and ask them whom they are voting for in the election.{2} If the waiter says they are voting for Obama, then merely say "ok" or some neutral response not indicating intent, eat up, have them work to serve you, and then when the bill comes invite the waiter over and pay the bill. Tell them that you had a nice tip for them but since they support Obama who wants to redistribute your wealth to people who did not work for it that you will give their tip to a homeless person{3} or to someone else who did not earn it so they can better "share" in the economic plan that Sen. Obama has in mind as president. But that is not all.
If they say McCain, try to find out why they would vote for McCain to see if they are telling you the truth or not. If you think they are, give them a slightly larger tip and tell them that you too believe in rewarding those who actually earn their money rather than taking from those who work and giving it to those who did not earn it. That way, even if they lied to you about their intentions you may well give them something to think about before they go into the voting booth.
Remember, the best education quite often comes from real life experiences as opposed to from books so with those who in the abstract think Sen. Obama would be a "cool president", give them something that they can relate to and in the case of people in restaurant industry, that is their tip money which if they are good can constitute a good chunk of their income.
Anyway, that is my idea for last week campaign influencing the service/hospitality people to reassess a preference for Sen. Obama with a recommended plan of action for implementing the "redistribution experiment" of the aforementioned "AzVet."
Notes:
{1} Because in an Obama presidency it will not likely be as frequent you will be able to do this.
{2} This works better the younger you are by the way as the really youthful demographic is the one most heavily skewed towards Sen. Obama but everyone should try this nonetheless.
{3} I rarely advocate giving money to homeless people though admittedly I do at times nonetheless. However, my usual modus opperandi over the years when downtown is to offer those who ask for money to buy them food instead -usually a breakfast sandwich from McDonalds, a couple items from their "value menu" or whatever depending on the time of day. Those who accept the offer and actually eat the food I view as being potentially in need whereas those who throw the food away or otherwise do not eat it (after claiming they wanted the money for food: and yes I have seen this at times), I chalk up as charletans who would have used the money for something other than food.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
"Down on the Corner" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Four Thread NRO Commentary)
A few musings on these threads from recent days...
Did W Backfire? (NRO)
Interesting hypothesis by Tom Hoopes -here is the gist of what the article is about in its own words:
Reviewers keep remarking on the strange phenomenon. They hated Bush going in — and kind of liked the guy when they came out.
If that is the case, it may not bode well for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama in the election next week. Moving on we get to an article on the msm:
An Instructive Candidacy (Victor Davis Hanson)
The unethical double standards of the msm with regards to Sen. Obama and Gov. Palin could not be more educational as we wind down in this election season. As Hanson notes so well in the article there turns out to be no standard of objectivity in contemporary journalism. Gee folks, who has been saying that for years??? The first footnote of this posting will give you a hint{1} and that is all we will say on the matter for now. And finally...
Point of No Return (Mark Steyn)
No, this is not a reference to the 1977 concept album by Kansas{2} however preferable such a reference may be. No, this is to how potentially transformative for the worse this upcoming election could be if Sen. Obama wins and there is not at least a super majority-proof Republican minority in the Senate. Or as Steyn succinctly puts it:
[T]he only reason why Belgium has gotten away with being Belgium and Sweden Sweden and Germany Germany this long is because America’s America. The soft comfortable cocoon in which western Europe has dozed this last half-century is girded by cold hard American power. What happens when the last serious western nation votes for the same soothing beguiling siren song as its enervated allies?
I explained the problem last year in the context of the subject of the Crusades as the enemy we are facing now is in many ways not much different and I stand by that assessment now which will be linked to in a footnote on this posting for those who may not remember it.{3}
Right now we are demonstrating a willingness to take stands unpopular to the Euroweenie contingent but it is because of those stands that they have been able to get away with being Euroweenies. Peace cannot be achieved with enemies such as those we are facing except through either a profound spiritual metanoia on their part (which is alien to the genesis and expansion of Islam historically) or the west showing resolve to not be pushed around by these kinds of thugs.
For it is easy to take stands like "why can't we be friends???"{4} and make grandiose advocacy of "unconditional dialogue" when there is someone there willing to do the heavy lifting of the sort that you are not willing to do. But what happens in this geopolitical world of "recess" when you cannot run to the adult on duty for protection from those who would seek to do you harm??? You do one of two things, you either run scared and goad those sorts to continue to try and inflict harm on you or you take it upon yourself to build yourself up, develop a mean streak, and knock their blocks off so they will leave you alone.{5}
It may sound simple to many readers but workable solutions are rarely complicated when the dynamics of what prompts people to act a certain way are known. And those who prey on weaker people{6} regardless of the context in which it is done{7} do so usually as a result of two factors; namely (i) their own insecurities about things they have no control over and (ii) their seeing in the perceived weaker person or group a source with which they can exercise control over as a way of masking the aforementioned insecurities. This is why bullies often back down when confronted by someone who refuses to be bullied and will oppose them with force to prevent it. Usually it is in their best interests for such bullies to either cease such things or to find other targets who will roll over for them.
Whatever one wants to say about Sen. John McCain as president, I do not have anxiety about him in the area of national security and presenting the required projection of America as a bulwark against these kinds of threats. I cannot say the same thing about someone like Sen. Barack Obama who has taken no positions of principle that went against the grain -either in the Illinois State Senate or in the United States Senate where he constantly voted present in the former and nearly 100% on the side of liberal Democrats in the latter. In fact, that is the subject of this article by Rich Lowry:
Barack Obama, False Moderate
The article is worth a read but here is the summary which is worth reflecting upon:
When has Obama stood up to liberals and fought for a principled centrism? Never. This is why part of McCain’s closing argument must be that he’d be a better check on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid than the moderate poseur.
Indeed, I do not see someone with such a track record of placating political machines as being sufficiently independent minded to truly give pause to our enemies. And that is why I cannot in conscience vote for him -his quasi-marxist economy destroying tax and income redistribution policies{8} notwithstanding. Like Charles Krauthammer{9} I take a stand not popular but one that on principle I must take even if it means going down with the ship figuratively speaking.
Notes:
{1} A Dialogue on the State of Journalism With Joseph D'Hippolito (circa October 17, 2008)
{2} Which I have on vinyl by the way.
{3} On the Crusades and Learning From History (circa April 13, 2007)
{4} This is not a reference to the song by War of that name.
{5} This is an area of which I was not unfamiliar in school and thus I speak from experience on both fronts. (Being bullied and later after preparation and getting stronger smacking around many of those same bullies who were still around who then left me alone.)
{6} And these terrorist sorts see in the west a people weakened by decadence: make no mistake about that.
{7} Either individually or collectively, physically, psychologically, economically, or in other ways. (Bullying can take many forms after all.)
{8} Another significant reason for opposing Sen. Obama but that is subject I am not going to touch on now but instead mention only in passing due to lack of time and desire to talk about it now.
{9} McCain Gets My Vote (Charles Krauthammer)
(A Rerum Novarum Four Thread NRO Commentary)
A few musings on these threads from recent days...
Did W Backfire? (NRO)
Interesting hypothesis by Tom Hoopes -here is the gist of what the article is about in its own words:
Reviewers keep remarking on the strange phenomenon. They hated Bush going in — and kind of liked the guy when they came out.
If that is the case, it may not bode well for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama in the election next week. Moving on we get to an article on the msm:
An Instructive Candidacy (Victor Davis Hanson)
The unethical double standards of the msm with regards to Sen. Obama and Gov. Palin could not be more educational as we wind down in this election season. As Hanson notes so well in the article there turns out to be no standard of objectivity in contemporary journalism. Gee folks, who has been saying that for years??? The first footnote of this posting will give you a hint{1} and that is all we will say on the matter for now. And finally...
Point of No Return (Mark Steyn)
No, this is not a reference to the 1977 concept album by Kansas{2} however preferable such a reference may be. No, this is to how potentially transformative for the worse this upcoming election could be if Sen. Obama wins and there is not at least a super majority-proof Republican minority in the Senate. Or as Steyn succinctly puts it:
[T]he only reason why Belgium has gotten away with being Belgium and Sweden Sweden and Germany Germany this long is because America’s America. The soft comfortable cocoon in which western Europe has dozed this last half-century is girded by cold hard American power. What happens when the last serious western nation votes for the same soothing beguiling siren song as its enervated allies?
I explained the problem last year in the context of the subject of the Crusades as the enemy we are facing now is in many ways not much different and I stand by that assessment now which will be linked to in a footnote on this posting for those who may not remember it.{3}
Right now we are demonstrating a willingness to take stands unpopular to the Euroweenie contingent but it is because of those stands that they have been able to get away with being Euroweenies. Peace cannot be achieved with enemies such as those we are facing except through either a profound spiritual metanoia on their part (which is alien to the genesis and expansion of Islam historically) or the west showing resolve to not be pushed around by these kinds of thugs.
For it is easy to take stands like "why can't we be friends???"{4} and make grandiose advocacy of "unconditional dialogue" when there is someone there willing to do the heavy lifting of the sort that you are not willing to do. But what happens in this geopolitical world of "recess" when you cannot run to the adult on duty for protection from those who would seek to do you harm??? You do one of two things, you either run scared and goad those sorts to continue to try and inflict harm on you or you take it upon yourself to build yourself up, develop a mean streak, and knock their blocks off so they will leave you alone.{5}
It may sound simple to many readers but workable solutions are rarely complicated when the dynamics of what prompts people to act a certain way are known. And those who prey on weaker people{6} regardless of the context in which it is done{7} do so usually as a result of two factors; namely (i) their own insecurities about things they have no control over and (ii) their seeing in the perceived weaker person or group a source with which they can exercise control over as a way of masking the aforementioned insecurities. This is why bullies often back down when confronted by someone who refuses to be bullied and will oppose them with force to prevent it. Usually it is in their best interests for such bullies to either cease such things or to find other targets who will roll over for them.
Whatever one wants to say about Sen. John McCain as president, I do not have anxiety about him in the area of national security and presenting the required projection of America as a bulwark against these kinds of threats. I cannot say the same thing about someone like Sen. Barack Obama who has taken no positions of principle that went against the grain -either in the Illinois State Senate or in the United States Senate where he constantly voted present in the former and nearly 100% on the side of liberal Democrats in the latter. In fact, that is the subject of this article by Rich Lowry:
Barack Obama, False Moderate
The article is worth a read but here is the summary which is worth reflecting upon:
When has Obama stood up to liberals and fought for a principled centrism? Never. This is why part of McCain’s closing argument must be that he’d be a better check on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid than the moderate poseur.
Indeed, I do not see someone with such a track record of placating political machines as being sufficiently independent minded to truly give pause to our enemies. And that is why I cannot in conscience vote for him -his quasi-marxist economy destroying tax and income redistribution policies{8} notwithstanding. Like Charles Krauthammer{9} I take a stand not popular but one that on principle I must take even if it means going down with the ship figuratively speaking.
Notes:
{1} A Dialogue on the State of Journalism With Joseph D'Hippolito (circa October 17, 2008)
{2} Which I have on vinyl by the way.
{3} On the Crusades and Learning From History (circa April 13, 2007)
{4} This is not a reference to the song by War of that name.
{5} This is an area of which I was not unfamiliar in school and thus I speak from experience on both fronts. (Being bullied and later after preparation and getting stronger smacking around many of those same bullies who were still around who then left me alone.)
{6} And these terrorist sorts see in the west a people weakened by decadence: make no mistake about that.
{7} Either individually or collectively, physically, psychologically, economically, or in other ways. (Bullying can take many forms after all.)
{8} Another significant reason for opposing Sen. Obama but that is subject I am not going to touch on now but instead mention only in passing due to lack of time and desire to talk about it now.
{9} McCain Gets My Vote (Charles Krauthammer)
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Palin Becomes Increasingly Accessible To The National Media (CBS News)
Meanwhile, it would seem that Sen. Joe Biden is MIA for some reason...my guess is that they do not want him saying anything stupid to get in the way of the presumed "coronation" of the Obamessiah. I am putting together some skeletal bits for musing tomorrow on the issue of the msm and the election coverage as well as certain things that I and others are being asked to presume in this election concerning the candidates{1} so that is all I will say on the matter for now except to note that Sen. McCain was being criticized for "hiding Gov. Palin" two weeks ago whereas nothing of a similar nature is being said about the Obama campaign and the absence of Sen. Biden.
Note:
{1} Not to mention other persons involved to varying degrees in this election season.
Meanwhile, it would seem that Sen. Joe Biden is MIA for some reason...my guess is that they do not want him saying anything stupid to get in the way of the presumed "coronation" of the Obamessiah. I am putting together some skeletal bits for musing tomorrow on the issue of the msm and the election coverage as well as certain things that I and others are being asked to presume in this election concerning the candidates{1} so that is all I will say on the matter for now except to note that Sen. McCain was being criticized for "hiding Gov. Palin" two weeks ago whereas nothing of a similar nature is being said about the Obama campaign and the absence of Sen. Biden.
Note:
{1} Not to mention other persons involved to varying degrees in this election season.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Points to Ponder:
There’s a lot of things I wish McCain would say. As far as this, yes, I would like him to speak. Not so much about small businesses, but just people in general that make this money. It’s not up to them to help America, I mean – let me rephrase that. It’s not – they shouldn’t be taxed more because they’ve succeeded. That’s envy and jealousy. Get off your butt and go work. Don’t sit there and expect the government to give it to you. So I wouldn’t mind him speaking on it like that. I know he couldn’t say it probably like that because that’d turn a lot of people off. But it just – yeah, I guess I would like him to speak about that and a bunch of other things. I’d like to hear him talk about immigration and what he plans on doing about that and with our borders. I mean, there’s a lot of things that haven’t even been addressed in the last two debates. ["Joe the Plumber"]
There’s a lot of things I wish McCain would say. As far as this, yes, I would like him to speak. Not so much about small businesses, but just people in general that make this money. It’s not up to them to help America, I mean – let me rephrase that. It’s not – they shouldn’t be taxed more because they’ve succeeded. That’s envy and jealousy. Get off your butt and go work. Don’t sit there and expect the government to give it to you. So I wouldn’t mind him speaking on it like that. I know he couldn’t say it probably like that because that’d turn a lot of people off. But it just – yeah, I guess I would like him to speak about that and a bunch of other things. I’d like to hear him talk about immigration and what he plans on doing about that and with our borders. I mean, there’s a lot of things that haven’t even been addressed in the last two debates. ["Joe the Plumber"]
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Miscellaneous Musings on Threads of Interest:
I intended to post this a few days ago but did not have time to finish it. Nonetheless...
CNN: Obama’s lying about William Ayers (Hot Air)
Here is a bit from the thread:
Obama has lied repeatedly about his relationship with the unrepentant domestic terrorist. He spent years working for Ayers, promoting Ayers’ causes. Even CNN won’t buy the Obama line any longer. Expect John McCain to raise this point tonight in the debate.
Well let us hope so. As I said recently in a chat with a good friend:
McCain had a "Vietnam" kind of debate the first time basically winning on all the points but being perceived as losing he needs to do a lot better this time around and he can start by looking at Obama at times when talking to or about him. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa October 6, 2008)]
Now I have to admit that I am so not thrilled with this election selection that I did not watch the second debate. But my friend Kevin Tierney did; ergo I quote from a chat we had on the matter to give his take:
me: [I] wanted to see if you saw the debate the other night or not I am getting the impression that it was another "Vietnam debate" for Sen. McCain or is it simply the media insisting no matter what that Obama wins? what are your Spidey senses telling you?
Kevin: McCain won on points, but he needs a real knockout...which he isn't getting.
me: so he won another match on points but the unwashed masses think he lost? or is it tricky polling by various places? I mean we know the msm is so in bed with Obama's campaign that he should pay them money for their services. I guess I am starting to get into the mindset that the public at large is stupid and we are about to be snowed. [An] Irish defense mechanism to prepare for the letdown perhaps.
Kevin: well winning on points isn't enough right now he needs to win bigtime. [Excerpt from a Chat With Kevin Tierney (circa October 8, 2008)]
I do not want the reader to think I am somehow being fatalistic about the election situation though on the night I chatted with Kevin I was not feeling too optimistic admittedly. One reason is if the public is so stupid that they think the Fannie and Freddie mess is the fault of President Bush and "the last eight years" then we are in for a snow job worthy of any Alaska blizzard because that is what it would involve. I have gone over this before but right now will relegate those threads to a footnote{1} so I do not get sidetracked and move onto the next thread for this posting.
BLAME BARACK FOR ME$$: MAC (New York Post)
Here is a bit from the thread:
I intended to post this a few days ago but did not have time to finish it. Nonetheless...
CNN: Obama’s lying about William Ayers (Hot Air)
Here is a bit from the thread:
Obama has lied repeatedly about his relationship with the unrepentant domestic terrorist. He spent years working for Ayers, promoting Ayers’ causes. Even CNN won’t buy the Obama line any longer. Expect John McCain to raise this point tonight in the debate.
Well let us hope so. As I said recently in a chat with a good friend:
McCain had a "Vietnam" kind of debate the first time basically winning on all the points but being perceived as losing he needs to do a lot better this time around and he can start by looking at Obama at times when talking to or about him. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa October 6, 2008)]
Now I have to admit that I am so not thrilled with this election selection that I did not watch the second debate. But my friend Kevin Tierney did; ergo I quote from a chat we had on the matter to give his take:
me: [I] wanted to see if you saw the debate the other night or not I am getting the impression that it was another "Vietnam debate" for Sen. McCain or is it simply the media insisting no matter what that Obama wins? what are your Spidey senses telling you?
Kevin: McCain won on points, but he needs a real knockout...which he isn't getting.
me: so he won another match on points but the unwashed masses think he lost? or is it tricky polling by various places? I mean we know the msm is so in bed with Obama's campaign that he should pay them money for their services. I guess I am starting to get into the mindset that the public at large is stupid and we are about to be snowed. [An] Irish defense mechanism to prepare for the letdown perhaps.
Kevin: well winning on points isn't enough right now he needs to win bigtime. [Excerpt from a Chat With Kevin Tierney (circa October 8, 2008)]
I do not want the reader to think I am somehow being fatalistic about the election situation though on the night I chatted with Kevin I was not feeling too optimistic admittedly. One reason is if the public is so stupid that they think the Fannie and Freddie mess is the fault of President Bush and "the last eight years" then we are in for a snow job worthy of any Alaska blizzard because that is what it would involve. I have gone over this before but right now will relegate those threads to a footnote{1} so I do not get sidetracked and move onto the next thread for this posting.
BLAME BARACK FOR ME$$: MAC (New York Post)
Here is a bit from the thread:
"Whatever the question, whatever the issues, there's always a back story with Senator Obama... Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. The crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them.
"Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread," McCain said during an event in Albuquerque, NM.
"This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama."
Whatever one wants to say about both Sen. John McCain and President George W. Bush{2}, they were stumping for reform of Fannie and Freddie for years before the meltdown -unlike Sen. Obama and the leaders of the current Congressional majority. And that is the bottom line really.
Notes:
{1} To note two recent threads in order from oldest to newest:
Briefly on the Current Real Estate Situation (circa July 26, 2008)
More Brief Bits on the "Bailout" (circa October 5, 2008)
{2} And Lord knows I have said plenty about both over the years -particularly President Bush. (See the tags "Pres. Bush" and "John McCain" for more information on this if you are so inclined.)
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Briefly on the Proposed "Bailout":
This is a text written a few days ago in response to a discussion thread from September 24, 2008 pertaining to the subject in question.
XXXX and Kevin [Tierney] are both correct on this in part. They forgot about the Justice Department under Clinton threatening banks with federal lawsuits for "redlining" if the banks did not make a certain percentage of loans available for those who were very high credit risks. The program was put in place by the Carter administration in 1977 but it was not until 1994 that the Clinton administration started really giving it teeth via that scumbag Deval Patrick at the helm of the Justice Department.{1}
The problem with the Bush administration is that they basically went along with what was in place already when they should not have. Both Bush and the post 2001 Republican congresses are equally at blame for this as far as I am concerned -the 2007-present Democratic congresses for recessing and leaving the mess as it is for political advantage should be taken outside and shot every last one of them for wasting time on stupid "impeachment" crap and other attempts to obstruct the Bush administration instead of focusing on this problem which they knew very well was coming.
I am no congressperson but this problem was one I knew would happen at some point and indeed some such as Sen. McCain warned of it back in 2005 and 2006 when Sen. Obama was supping at the trough of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as one of their three most financed lobbyists.{2}
The solution is not federalizing things as that always has historically made things worse. (Such as the New Deal prolonging the Depression which we only went out of by going to war and ramping up military production.) The solution is letting the market work and not trying to coerce it -including not trying to force banks to lend to people who are high credit risks at the risk of federal lawsuits. That is after all how we got into this mess to begin with.
Notes:
{1} Briefly on the Current Real Estate Situation (circa July 26, 2008)
{2} I meant to say "contributed to politicians" but wrote that text in a hurry without giving it the customary final review before sending it.
This is a text written a few days ago in response to a discussion thread from September 24, 2008 pertaining to the subject in question.
XXXX and Kevin [Tierney] are both correct on this in part. They forgot about the Justice Department under Clinton threatening banks with federal lawsuits for "redlining" if the banks did not make a certain percentage of loans available for those who were very high credit risks. The program was put in place by the Carter administration in 1977 but it was not until 1994 that the Clinton administration started really giving it teeth via that scumbag Deval Patrick at the helm of the Justice Department.{1}
The problem with the Bush administration is that they basically went along with what was in place already when they should not have. Both Bush and the post 2001 Republican congresses are equally at blame for this as far as I am concerned -the 2007-present Democratic congresses for recessing and leaving the mess as it is for political advantage should be taken outside and shot every last one of them for wasting time on stupid "impeachment" crap and other attempts to obstruct the Bush administration instead of focusing on this problem which they knew very well was coming.
I am no congressperson but this problem was one I knew would happen at some point and indeed some such as Sen. McCain warned of it back in 2005 and 2006 when Sen. Obama was supping at the trough of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as one of their three most financed lobbyists.{2}
The solution is not federalizing things as that always has historically made things worse. (Such as the New Deal prolonging the Depression which we only went out of by going to war and ramping up military production.) The solution is letting the market work and not trying to coerce it -including not trying to force banks to lend to people who are high credit risks at the risk of federal lawsuits. That is after all how we got into this mess to begin with.
Notes:
{1} Briefly on the Current Real Estate Situation (circa July 26, 2008)
{2} I meant to say "contributed to politicians" but wrote that text in a hurry without giving it the customary final review before sending it.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Miscellaneous Musings on Threads of Interest:
Two quick subjects for the time being...
The First Presidential Debate Comments Via Little Green Footballs
I watched the debate after the fact on reruns and probably saw about 70% of it. But what I saw was adequate and it really shows that Sen. Obama could practice for days while Sen. McCain was in Washington only to be badly outclassed by Sen. McCain when at the last minute the debate was on again. My view is closely aligned with that of message #346 in the thread above so much so that I could have written most of that comment myself.{1}
Hopefully for round two Sen. McCain will not pull so many punches as he did in the first debate -it is obvious that Sen. Obama without a teleprompter is no better than President Bush oratorically. And his lack of experience was glaringly apparent in the first debate though Sen. McCain would have done better to actually look at Sen. Obama from time to time. Moving on, we come to something else that was pleasing to our eyes and it is trouble for a representative of congress who deserves to be in trouble...
Murtha sued over remarks
It is not the first time this has happened and hopefully it will not be the last time. Whatever you think about the military involvement in Iraq, to ruin someone's good name{2} for attempted political gain is disgusting. Rep. Murtha deserves a heavy financial penalty as well as jail time for what he did (at a minimum). I could say more but that is all I intend to at this time on that matter.
Notes:
{1} Though I did not of course.
{2} I will not go into the theological aspects of the matter at this time.
Two quick subjects for the time being...
The First Presidential Debate Comments Via Little Green Footballs
I watched the debate after the fact on reruns and probably saw about 70% of it. But what I saw was adequate and it really shows that Sen. Obama could practice for days while Sen. McCain was in Washington only to be badly outclassed by Sen. McCain when at the last minute the debate was on again. My view is closely aligned with that of message #346 in the thread above so much so that I could have written most of that comment myself.{1}
Hopefully for round two Sen. McCain will not pull so many punches as he did in the first debate -it is obvious that Sen. Obama without a teleprompter is no better than President Bush oratorically. And his lack of experience was glaringly apparent in the first debate though Sen. McCain would have done better to actually look at Sen. Obama from time to time. Moving on, we come to something else that was pleasing to our eyes and it is trouble for a representative of congress who deserves to be in trouble...
Murtha sued over remarks
It is not the first time this has happened and hopefully it will not be the last time. Whatever you think about the military involvement in Iraq, to ruin someone's good name{2} for attempted political gain is disgusting. Rep. Murtha deserves a heavy financial penalty as well as jail time for what he did (at a minimum). I could say more but that is all I intend to at this time on that matter.
Notes:
{1} Though I did not of course.
{2} I will not go into the theological aspects of the matter at this time.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Super Briefly on the McCain Campaign Suspension Issue:
I could post articles on Sen. McCain suspending his campaign and then agreeing now to the debate even though there is not an agreed-upon "bailout package" but in substance, I see Sen. McCain's attempt to provide executive style leadership on this matter as a good thing and Sen. Obama's unwillingness to join with Sen. McCain and pursue a genuinely non-partisan solution to this problem to be another example of Sen. Obama not wanting to do anything that does not emphasize him personally rather than placing the common good above personal accolades.
That said, I hope Sen. McCain after showing a willingness to put the good of the economy over his own personal whims really cleans Sen. Obama's clock in tonight's debate.
I could post articles on Sen. McCain suspending his campaign and then agreeing now to the debate even though there is not an agreed-upon "bailout package" but in substance, I see Sen. McCain's attempt to provide executive style leadership on this matter as a good thing and Sen. Obama's unwillingness to join with Sen. McCain and pursue a genuinely non-partisan solution to this problem to be another example of Sen. Obama not wanting to do anything that does not emphasize him personally rather than placing the common good above personal accolades.
That said, I hope Sen. McCain after showing a willingness to put the good of the economy over his own personal whims really cleans Sen. Obama's clock in tonight's debate.
Miscellaneous Musings on Threads of Interest:
Just a few bits as time allows for it...
Popular anger puts fat cat CEOs on the run (Breitbart.com)
Well let me give a hearty "amen" to that!!! I have said already in places other than this blog{1} that those who are responsible for this mess deserve not financial recompense but jail time. Moving on we come to this tidbit...
Obama campaign cracks down on misleading TV ads
Let me get this straight, the Obama campaign can dish it out but not take it??? This talk of a "Truth Squad" sounds a lot to me like the "Ministry of Truth" from Orwell's 1984. Nice to know "Chancellor Obama" susbscribes to an "all are entitled to free speech but some are more entitled to it than others" outlook. For all the talk of moonbat leftists about so-called "right wing fascism"{2} they sure love to implement such tactics themselves without concern for the blatant hypocrisy involved.
Notes:
{1} I will probably blog some of that stuff in the coming days.
{2} On the Logical Fallacy of the "Communist/Fascist" So-Called "Ideological Spectrum" (circa July 16, 2004)
Just a few bits as time allows for it...
Popular anger puts fat cat CEOs on the run (Breitbart.com)
Well let me give a hearty "amen" to that!!! I have said already in places other than this blog{1} that those who are responsible for this mess deserve not financial recompense but jail time. Moving on we come to this tidbit...
Obama campaign cracks down on misleading TV ads
Let me get this straight, the Obama campaign can dish it out but not take it??? This talk of a "Truth Squad" sounds a lot to me like the "Ministry of Truth" from Orwell's 1984. Nice to know "Chancellor Obama" susbscribes to an "all are entitled to free speech but some are more entitled to it than others" outlook. For all the talk of moonbat leftists about so-called "right wing fascism"{2} they sure love to implement such tactics themselves without concern for the blatant hypocrisy involved.
Notes:
{1} I will probably blog some of that stuff in the coming days.
{2} On the Logical Fallacy of the "Communist/Fascist" So-Called "Ideological Spectrum" (circa July 16, 2004)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)