Weekly Wednesday Presidential Politics - 12/19/07
Here is one sentence on each Republican candidate that should get you up to speed if your temporary residence this month has been next door to a megadrile.
Rudy Giuliani - He's giving up on all of the early states to concentrate on Florida, which would set up Super Tuesday, reminding us of an adage regarding eggs and a solitary basket.
Mike Huckabee - Contrarily to Giuliani, Huckabee is putting nearly all his efforts into the early primaries, counting on the momentum to roll over into Florida and Super Tuesday, reminding us of an old adage about a hare.
Duncan Hunter - Hunter reminds us of a tortoise, the reason for which has nothing to do with an old adage.
John McCain - McCain has temporarily taken the headline wars from Huckabee, earning numerous newspaper significant endorsements as well as one from party-crossing Joe Lieberman, which should excite independents who can vote in the Republican primary.
Ron Paul - He picks up about a point every month, which means if this election is held in 2047... he has a shot.
Mitt Romney - Romney's starting to throw some jabs at Huckabee, but if Romney doesn't make up ground by the end of the week, expect to see some right hooks starting on December 26th, Boxer Day. (Even I was taken aback at my cleverness there.)
Tom Tancredo - Speaking of Romney, if he doesn't win Iowa, he can still win New Hampshire, which keeps him alive to fight until Super Tuesday.
Fred Thompson - Wouldn't making Die Hard 5 be more fun?
(Note: I'm writing a post every workday over at Presidential Politics for America.)
Showing posts with label Rudy Giuliani. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rudy Giuliani. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Dirt
Dirt
As we sort the dirty items in the Democratic laundry bin this week, we suddenly learn that there’s far more to consider than meets the eye. Sure, there might be some mud here and grease marks there, but there’s a whole lot of other dirt that gets missed at first glance.
Let’s not forget, folks, that our last President, ol’ Billy Boy, went up (or down, if you prefer) in flames due to a “genetically-stained” dress. That episode alone, and not an illegally prosecuted war, almost cost him his presidency. An even scarier truth that many Democrats want to avoid: the Republicans know that Americans love dirt and are thus far better at sorting, managing, and dry-cleaning their “dirty laundry” than Democrats will ever be. Whether it’s Mudslinging, Willie Horton-i-n-g, or Swiftboating, team Red knows how to smear and scare voters into a false sense of pandemic Obssessive-Compulsive-Disorder that yields them votes and wins.
Take this week, for example. I’m stunned by the ineptitude of the Clinton campaign’s utter transparency in bulldozing dirt—and snow-plowing some “trim”—into the Obama laundry basket. Geeze, this campaign of “tested experience” makes a high-school rumor mill look like a well-oiled, sophisticated organization; hey, if Team Clinton is reading this blog, I could recommend a student or two to help you all out for a bargain price. That Mark Penn and folks didn’t or couldn’t anticipate that the idiots in the mainstream media wouldn’t sniff that one out spells T-R-O-U-B-L-E. Whatever will they do should they get to the general election with cross-dressing, flip-flopping, out-right lying and adulterating, DIRTY Rudey, who’s managed to make most of America BELIEVE he’s America’s clean, stain-tested mayor?
What’s even more troubling is how many people are NOW downplaying and dismissing dirty politics. This laundry list includes key Democrats and the many idiots in the Mainstream Media, who remained paralyzed during the Donna Ricing of Gary Hart, who allowed Bill Clinton to be “genetically” impeached, who permitted war hero Kerry to be swiftboated, and who resigned Dan Rather to reap the benefits of the AARP sooner than expected. You folks doth protest too much, methinks.
The fact is that ALL is FEAR in love, politics, and war, and, like it or not, there’s a kernel of truth in what the Clinton campaign hideously fumbled this week: the Republicans will NO DOUBT go after Barack or any Democratic candidate for past, present, and potentially future indiscretions. Unless the Democratic Party takes a crash course from a Republican strategist or two or from the industrial strength approach of Servicemaster to manage dirt, then we will once again have great difficulty achieving a clean win in November.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Republican YouTube Debate Live Blog!
Weekly Presidential Politics - 11/28/07
7:52 PM - We're coming to you live from the IC condo in Groton, CT, ready to bring live coverage of tonight's CNN/YouTube Republican debate. There's been a plethora of debates in 2007, but I don't think any have been this anticipated. Finally, the American people get a shot at a floundering Republican Party.
I have no idea how the live blog will go. I've done a couple in the past, but they are almost always too verbose. I'll have to limit either the length or number of posts. Feel free to leave comments throughout the debate! The record is 63 comments. The low is 0.
Stay tuned!
7:58 - Three things I expect tonight: 1) First-tier candidates taking a shot at Huckabee's record as governor of Arkansas. 2) Five candidates claim they're like Ronald Reagan. 3) Tom Tancredo will find an immigrant in the audience and kill him with his bare hands.
8:03 - Governor Crist (R-Fl) just had the first audition for the VP slot on the Republican ticket!
8:05 - Anderson Cooper is the Ryan Seacrest of politics, am I right? Frankly, I don't know which one I just insulted.
8:12 - First question and Giuliani gets hit on immigration. Mayor Rudy and Presidential Candidate Rudy are verrrry far apart from each other on immigration. About as far apart as New York City and El Paso.
8:16 - Yes! Romney and Giuliani are going at it during the first question! These guys will be the last two standing in February folks. Pay attention. The best part is they're both spinning and perpetuating an issue that makes both of them look bad. Ladies and gentlemen... your Republican frontrunners!
8:18 - Fred Thompson just got an absolute softball on immigration to smack out of the park and he did so.
8:19 - Okay, I'm giddy here. Thompson just took a shot at Romney AND Giuliani in 20 seconds. Is this setting the tone for the debate? This could be phenomenal.
8:22 - John McCain has never looked better. Wait, did I say better? I meant older. Did I really think this guy was the favorite a year ago?
8:24 - Prediction: Tom Tancredo drops out in December, now that his pet issue - immigration - is front and center. He was never in it to win it.
8:26 - Did Hunter just compare the San Diego-Tijuana border with the Arizona/New Mexico/Texas-Mexico border???
8:29 - Okay, Romney has three enemies on stage (Huckabee, Giuliani, Thompson) and those are the three guys directly below him in Iowa polls. Not a good spot for Mitt.
8:34 - I don't know if Ron Paul is right about the potentially budding North American Union, but he was right with his historical example of the EU. It started as murmurs and bloomed fifty years later.
8:40 - It's fun to hear a bunch of Republicans hoot and holler the destruction of the IRS like school kids hearing they might get rid of homework.
8:42 - McCain just took on Ron Paul! It's like Sylvester Stallone and Carl Weathers doing Rocky XVII!
8:45 - So the left side of the stage would sign a pledge and the right side wouldn't? Sounds to me that after Thompson got the cajones to say "No," everyone else did, too. Not that I expected any different response from McCain and Ron Paul.
8:54 - In responding to the Fred Thompson YouTube add, I honestly think Mitt just put the abortion issue in the rearview mirror. Huckabee's tribulations, however, have just begun.
8:55 - First commercial break. Ranking: 1) Fred Thompson; 2) Ron Paul; 3) Huckabee; 4) Romney; 5) Tancredo; 6) McCain; 7) Giuliani; 8) Hunter.
9:04 - Okay, I gotta do a quick diatribe on the second amendment. It's easily the most brutalized amendment in the U.S. Constitution. It does not simply say, "The right to bear arms." It does not. What's continually dismissed is the premise of the amendment. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Is a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free State anymore? That's the issue that needs to be debated first. And I'd love someone to make the case that a militia is not an archaic institution that has been unnecessary since Taft.
9:05 - Hey, this is fun! Let's hear about the amount of guns our Presidential candidates own!
9:10 - Ron Paul can always fall back on one answer - let the states decide! Man, let's just get a prime minister and forget the office of the President altogether! Hmmm... More on that to come in the future.
9:14 - The death penalty: What would Jesus do? Ladies and gentlemen, the question of the night. And we all know the answer, don't we?
9:16 - Bible questions! We should have an entire debate on that subject alone.
9:17 - Giuliani just called the Bible the greatest book ever written. Sorry, I gotta go with McCullough's John Adams. By the way, this question was in Huckabee's wheelhouse and there's not even a close second.
9:22 - It's becoming clear that they'll close with the economy and then Iraq. Talk about a grand finale!
9:26 - Has anyone ever explained why Giuliani will be stronger on terror or be tougher in foreign policy than McCain? The guy was a mayor of a city that got attacked! That's it!
9:30 - John McCain is absolutely right about the water boarding issue. Absolutely right. I don't think he's said anything dishonest tonight, joining only Tancredo and Paul. Meanwhile, Romney still can't get out of his own way tonight.
9:35 - I love Ron Paul and Iraq questions. They're my favorite part of every debate.
9:38 - Islam takes such a beating during the Republican debates. Of course, the Muslim countries don't have debates to bash Christians...
9:41 - Fred Thompson has this crowd eating out of the palm of his hand. He's still leading this debate, and tonight might be the night he starts to right the sinking ship.
9:45 - Third commercial break rankings: 1) Thompson [winning the crowd, winning his freedom]; 2) Paul [his niche loves him more than ever]; 3) McCain [clearly straight shootin' like the old days]; 4) Tancredo [nothing to lose with his honesty and wrongness]; 5) Romney [not as impressive as usual]; 6) Huckabee [Disappointing performance] ; 7) Giuliani [Only one good answer on the night] 8) Hunter [Completely underwhelming].
9:50 - Romney just got caught in his newest flipflop!
9:52 - Did anyone else hear some (dozens) Republican audience members booing the gay officer? Not a good job by that crowd.
9:58 - Um, "Hillary can be on the first rocket to Mars?!" Watch out for that one tomorrow. On the Mars issue: There will be an absolute outcry from this country if the first manned expedition to Mars does not have an American. International cooperation would be fine, but if there's no American involvement, it'd be the greatest ideological and technological disappointment in this country's history.
10:02 - Romney just called out John Edwards. I'LL KILL HIM! He also just lost South Carolina, but whatever.
10:05 - Giuliani and Huckabee are closing strong. I can't say the same for myself. I'm getting up in 7 and a half hours.
10:10 - Well, "huge" Red Sox fan Mitt Romney just added a year to the Red Sox former World Series drought (86, not 87). A perfect way to end a disappointing night for Romney... but still my favorite for the Republican nomination.
10:12 - Annnd scene. Sorry for the relatively week analysis tonight, but there's simply not enough time to get into all the issues and do a live blog. For analysis, check out my blog at Presidential Politics for America, as I'll be starting daily Iowa Caucus posts starting on Monday, December 3rd - one month until the Iowa Caucus in both parties.
7:52 PM - We're coming to you live from the IC condo in Groton, CT, ready to bring live coverage of tonight's CNN/YouTube Republican debate. There's been a plethora of debates in 2007, but I don't think any have been this anticipated. Finally, the American people get a shot at a floundering Republican Party.
I have no idea how the live blog will go. I've done a couple in the past, but they are almost always too verbose. I'll have to limit either the length or number of posts. Feel free to leave comments throughout the debate! The record is 63 comments. The low is 0.
Stay tuned!
7:58 - Three things I expect tonight: 1) First-tier candidates taking a shot at Huckabee's record as governor of Arkansas. 2) Five candidates claim they're like Ronald Reagan. 3) Tom Tancredo will find an immigrant in the audience and kill him with his bare hands.
8:03 - Governor Crist (R-Fl) just had the first audition for the VP slot on the Republican ticket!
8:05 - Anderson Cooper is the Ryan Seacrest of politics, am I right? Frankly, I don't know which one I just insulted.
8:12 - First question and Giuliani gets hit on immigration. Mayor Rudy and Presidential Candidate Rudy are verrrry far apart from each other on immigration. About as far apart as New York City and El Paso.
8:16 - Yes! Romney and Giuliani are going at it during the first question! These guys will be the last two standing in February folks. Pay attention. The best part is they're both spinning and perpetuating an issue that makes both of them look bad. Ladies and gentlemen... your Republican frontrunners!
8:18 - Fred Thompson just got an absolute softball on immigration to smack out of the park and he did so.
8:19 - Okay, I'm giddy here. Thompson just took a shot at Romney AND Giuliani in 20 seconds. Is this setting the tone for the debate? This could be phenomenal.
8:22 - John McCain has never looked better. Wait, did I say better? I meant older. Did I really think this guy was the favorite a year ago?
8:24 - Prediction: Tom Tancredo drops out in December, now that his pet issue - immigration - is front and center. He was never in it to win it.
8:26 - Did Hunter just compare the San Diego-Tijuana border with the Arizona/New Mexico/Texas-Mexico border???
8:29 - Okay, Romney has three enemies on stage (Huckabee, Giuliani, Thompson) and those are the three guys directly below him in Iowa polls. Not a good spot for Mitt.
8:34 - I don't know if Ron Paul is right about the potentially budding North American Union, but he was right with his historical example of the EU. It started as murmurs and bloomed fifty years later.
8:40 - It's fun to hear a bunch of Republicans hoot and holler the destruction of the IRS like school kids hearing they might get rid of homework.
8:42 - McCain just took on Ron Paul! It's like Sylvester Stallone and Carl Weathers doing Rocky XVII!
8:45 - So the left side of the stage would sign a pledge and the right side wouldn't? Sounds to me that after Thompson got the cajones to say "No," everyone else did, too. Not that I expected any different response from McCain and Ron Paul.
8:54 - In responding to the Fred Thompson YouTube add, I honestly think Mitt just put the abortion issue in the rearview mirror. Huckabee's tribulations, however, have just begun.
8:55 - First commercial break. Ranking: 1) Fred Thompson; 2) Ron Paul; 3) Huckabee; 4) Romney; 5) Tancredo; 6) McCain; 7) Giuliani; 8) Hunter.
9:04 - Okay, I gotta do a quick diatribe on the second amendment. It's easily the most brutalized amendment in the U.S. Constitution. It does not simply say, "The right to bear arms." It does not. What's continually dismissed is the premise of the amendment. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Is a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free State anymore? That's the issue that needs to be debated first. And I'd love someone to make the case that a militia is not an archaic institution that has been unnecessary since Taft.
9:05 - Hey, this is fun! Let's hear about the amount of guns our Presidential candidates own!
9:10 - Ron Paul can always fall back on one answer - let the states decide! Man, let's just get a prime minister and forget the office of the President altogether! Hmmm... More on that to come in the future.
9:14 - The death penalty: What would Jesus do? Ladies and gentlemen, the question of the night. And we all know the answer, don't we?
9:16 - Bible questions! We should have an entire debate on that subject alone.
9:17 - Giuliani just called the Bible the greatest book ever written. Sorry, I gotta go with McCullough's John Adams. By the way, this question was in Huckabee's wheelhouse and there's not even a close second.
9:22 - It's becoming clear that they'll close with the economy and then Iraq. Talk about a grand finale!
9:26 - Has anyone ever explained why Giuliani will be stronger on terror or be tougher in foreign policy than McCain? The guy was a mayor of a city that got attacked! That's it!
9:30 - John McCain is absolutely right about the water boarding issue. Absolutely right. I don't think he's said anything dishonest tonight, joining only Tancredo and Paul. Meanwhile, Romney still can't get out of his own way tonight.
9:35 - I love Ron Paul and Iraq questions. They're my favorite part of every debate.
9:38 - Islam takes such a beating during the Republican debates. Of course, the Muslim countries don't have debates to bash Christians...
9:41 - Fred Thompson has this crowd eating out of the palm of his hand. He's still leading this debate, and tonight might be the night he starts to right the sinking ship.
9:45 - Third commercial break rankings: 1) Thompson [winning the crowd, winning his freedom]; 2) Paul [his niche loves him more than ever]; 3) McCain [clearly straight shootin' like the old days]; 4) Tancredo [nothing to lose with his honesty and wrongness]; 5) Romney [not as impressive as usual]; 6) Huckabee [Disappointing performance] ; 7) Giuliani [Only one good answer on the night] 8) Hunter [Completely underwhelming].
9:50 - Romney just got caught in his newest flipflop!
9:52 - Did anyone else hear some (dozens) Republican audience members booing the gay officer? Not a good job by that crowd.
9:58 - Um, "Hillary can be on the first rocket to Mars?!" Watch out for that one tomorrow. On the Mars issue: There will be an absolute outcry from this country if the first manned expedition to Mars does not have an American. International cooperation would be fine, but if there's no American involvement, it'd be the greatest ideological and technological disappointment in this country's history.
10:02 - Romney just called out John Edwards. I'LL KILL HIM! He also just lost South Carolina, but whatever.
10:05 - Giuliani and Huckabee are closing strong. I can't say the same for myself. I'm getting up in 7 and a half hours.
10:10 - Well, "huge" Red Sox fan Mitt Romney just added a year to the Red Sox former World Series drought (86, not 87). A perfect way to end a disappointing night for Romney... but still my favorite for the Republican nomination.
10:12 - Annnd scene. Sorry for the relatively week analysis tonight, but there's simply not enough time to get into all the issues and do a live blog. For analysis, check out my blog at Presidential Politics for America, as I'll be starting daily Iowa Caucus posts starting on Monday, December 3rd - one month until the Iowa Caucus in both parties.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Huckabee Surging in Iowa
Weekly Presidential Politics - 11/21/07
As predicted by my blog after the Ames Iowa Straw Poll, Mike Huckabee is making a run at the Iowa Caucus. This just in from Real Clear Politics:
Republicans (ABCNews/Washington Post poll)
Romney 28 (+2 vs. last poll July 26-31)
Huckabee 24 (+16)
Thompson 15 (+2)
Giuliani 13 (-1)
McCain 6 (-2)
Paul 6 (+4)
Now, pundits across the country, in their classic insta-reactionary tradition, are taking Iowa away from Romney. If these prognosticators end up being right, even a second place Iowa finish effectively ends the Romney campaign.
Which is why it's not going to happen.
Romney will spend every last nickel of his billions of nickels to win the Iowa Caucus. If polls are still close by the end of December, Iowans can expect a blitzkrieg of ad-buys and "paid volunteers" unlike any in political history, and it'll be courtesy of Mitt Romney.
What's most interesting about the latest poll is not that Mitt Romney is losing control of Iowa polls, but rather that a Huckabee bump has meant national Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has slipped to fourth in the country's opening caucus. FOURTH. Fickle voters in New Hampshire and beyond will need to be very sure of their Giuliani vote to support a candidate that showed so poorly in a classic benchmark state, especially when the story on every cable news network will be sinking their claws into (remember - insta-reactionary) is about a reeling Giuliani campaign. Every social conservative who barely convinced themselves to support Giuliani will run to the closest conservative competitor.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee will both be spinning the heck out of their top finishes and can ride the resulting free coverage, momentum, and huge added influx of money into the other primaries.
December will be a fascinating month, which is why I'm doing this.
As predicted by my blog after the Ames Iowa Straw Poll, Mike Huckabee is making a run at the Iowa Caucus. This just in from Real Clear Politics:
Republicans (ABCNews/Washington Post poll)
Romney 28 (+2 vs. last poll July 26-31)
Huckabee 24 (+16)
Thompson 15 (+2)
Giuliani 13 (-1)
McCain 6 (-2)
Paul 6 (+4)
Now, pundits across the country, in their classic insta-reactionary tradition, are taking Iowa away from Romney. If these prognosticators end up being right, even a second place Iowa finish effectively ends the Romney campaign.
Which is why it's not going to happen.
Romney will spend every last nickel of his billions of nickels to win the Iowa Caucus. If polls are still close by the end of December, Iowans can expect a blitzkrieg of ad-buys and "paid volunteers" unlike any in political history, and it'll be courtesy of Mitt Romney.
What's most interesting about the latest poll is not that Mitt Romney is losing control of Iowa polls, but rather that a Huckabee bump has meant national Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has slipped to fourth in the country's opening caucus. FOURTH. Fickle voters in New Hampshire and beyond will need to be very sure of their Giuliani vote to support a candidate that showed so poorly in a classic benchmark state, especially when the story on every cable news network will be sinking their claws into (remember - insta-reactionary) is about a reeling Giuliani campaign. Every social conservative who barely convinced themselves to support Giuliani will run to the closest conservative competitor.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee will both be spinning the heck out of their top finishes and can ride the resulting free coverage, momentum, and huge added influx of money into the other primaries.
December will be a fascinating month, which is why I'm doing this.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
IF YOU'RE HAPPY AND YOU KNOW IT, CLAP YOUR HANDS
IF YOU’RE HAPPY AND YOU KNOW IT, CLAP YOUR HANDSChris Matthews should re-name Hardball “Herball.” Night after night, Matthews’ Hillary fixation gets more and more ridiculous and blatantly psychotic. It’s Hillary’s laugh. It’s Hillary’s husband. It’s Hillary’s gender card. It’s Hillary’s dynamic with Barack…John…her parsing…her cleavage in the Senate…her treatment—boohoo—of Tim Russert. Geeze. Could Chris be more obvious about his castration fear disorder? Truth be told, many of us have fears about Hillary but let’s not go nuts—pun intended.
Tonight, for instance, Matthews, known in some corners of the blogosphere as Tweety, had yet another segment on Hillary—there’s a shocker—in which he prompted his “round table” to analyze why the dame doth clap so much at her rallies. I KID YOU NOT.
Meanwhile, there’s tons of other news, say, about:
A. Iraq
B. Iran
C. Pakistan
D. Afghanistan
E. Rudy’s Scary Resemblance to Nosferatu
F. All of the Above
I’m going with F—All of the Above.
Rest assured: if you do the MSNBC thing on weeknights, you will quickly learn that what once—in a mainstream galaxy far, far away—was known as “Hardball” has suddenly morphed into “Herball.” It seems that things, including serious news segments, aren’t as, well, hard as they should be.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Fatigue
Fatigue '08
Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker wrote about Democrats and the overall 2008 saturation recently, and I think many Americans would agree: enough parsing, enough news, enough already. Yeah, we need to know about these candidates and their positions. Yes, we would like them to be more frank in their responses. Sure, we want to know whether or not they are representing the best interests of the people—yeah, whatever. But how many more debates, stump speeches, polls, thrusts and parries, and lies must we endure in this off election year? Sorry, Republicans, but Nosferatu Giuliani’s latest, ah, “exaggeration” about how much time he spent at the WTC clean-up handedly wins the Emmy for best performance of legend in one’s own mind. And The New York Times wins the award for best new drama for The Days & Conflicts of Martha’s Vineyard, starring the Clinton and Obama supporters.
What’s even more amazing is that we have over a year to go. Meanwhile, there is some “real” disturbing news on the electoral front that seldom registers on the front pages or in the American psyche, right, left or center. Take, for instance, this unsolved controversy over paper trail-less electronic voting and how “easy” it is to tamper with results. And what about how the Republicans in California would like to change how the electoral votes in the state are distributed? Yes, I’m being totally partisan—and a bit conspiratorial—but what about the corollary involving certain Secretaries of State, political parties, and voting outcomes? Sorry, I haven’t recovered from the 2000 cake-up of Kathleen Harris.
Indeed, we (and I mean everybody) are interested in 2008; we’ve all been terrorized enough by Bush and company. But instead of being over-saturated with nano-second news on which state will out-mojo the next for "the" primary date, porn-star named Mitt Romney’s family of boys, Hillary’s cleavage, and Johnny’s sexy hair, I think we could all focus on more pressing issues related to and not related to the election to avoid '08 fatigue.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Sunday Morning Horror Show
SUNDAY MORNING HORROR SHOW
On Sundays we wake up with the children. We have breakfast and many cups of coffee, of course. We try to read the papers while keeping the kids busy; N. likes his trains and The Backyardigans; C. likes anything to chew on because she’s teething. We usually take a peek at the Sunday morning political shows, just to see what’s cooking. Later in the morning, we may or may not get to mass; hey man, we’re Catholic, so allow us our confessions.
I was actually anticipating watching the Republican debate on This Week with Georgey S. Thus far, though, it’s been a flipping horror show. I started to get worried when “I want to re-write the constitution” nutbag Sam Brownback pontificated about abortion and porn-star named Mitt Romney’s multiple stances on that issue and many others. I got real worried when Nosferatu Giuliani started the frat-boy gang-bang of the Democratic candidates because---I swear he said this—none of them said the 1 word “Islamic Terrorism” in their debates. I panicked when porn-star named Slick Romney pounced on Senator Barack Obama’s suggestion to meet with world leaders like Chavez and Castro. My coffee almost went flying from my mouth in “Linda Blair” pea soup fashion when many of them played the typical game of hiding behind the “soldiers” to defend Chimpy’s War of Error in Iraq.
I’m going to continue watching this horror show, though, because Ron Paul does seem--from time to time--to make sense; maybe he and other sensible, Goldwater Republicans can rescue their party from the hijackers who seem to destroy it.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Summer Series - Fred Thomson
Weekly Presidential Politics - 8/1/07
The ’07 Seven Candidates of Summer Series
Fred Thomson
What I wrote on the 7th of June this year: "He has conservatives abuzz as possibly the first viable true conservative. Until he gets in the race, however, I don't it can be argued that he's viable or a true conservative. Still, the mere fact that a candidate potentially fits the bill goes to show you how desperate the GOP is for that candidate."
This has never been more true. The Republican primary is a mess. The two top contenders, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, are a Mormon and a social liberal, respectively. The previous frontrunner, John McCain, reported less money than second-tier-at-best Ron Paul in the second fiscal quarter. True conservatives and religious beloveds, Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee, rarely register in Republican polls and have serious problems fundraising with the big boys.
Simply, there is a vacuum of power in the Republican primary. The potential to fill that vacuum remains. Two Republicans have the ability to fill that void: Newt Gingrich and Fred Thomson. The former may not run, while the latter is about a month away from announcing, therefore it is the latter that has the most potential to be a player in this race.
What makes the Thomson candidacy very interesting is that he's doing great in the polls without even being an official candidate yet! For example, in the latest Rasmussen Poll, taken during the week of July 22, Fred Thomson was tied with Rudy Giuliani in first place in national Republican polls with 25%. Other polls consistently have Thomson polling in the top 3 both in national polls and in all-important primary states Iowa and South Carolina. And Thomson hasn't even started spending money yet!
His success before he even gets started is a direct result of the two factors already discussed: the displeasure of most Republicans with their leading candidates and Thompson's potential to be a true conservative. Therefore, before Thompson enters the race, because Thompson hasn't entered the race, he is still the conservatives' dream candidate. There is nothing wrong with him like all the other candidates.
Yet.
See, Thompson is too good to be true for the GOP, I promise you. As soon as this guy gets into the frey, his weaknesses will show, most specifically his role as conservative savior of the 2008 Republicans. Frankly, that just can't be his role to claim. For proof, here's Newsweek, the Washington Times, and a stinging editorial from a conservative author.
So while Thompson looks golden from afar, it's not until the Republican voters see him up close that they realize the 64-year-old (65 in two weeks) actor-turned-Senator-turned-actor actually has some blemishes on that balding head of his. (And yes, that was a blatant reminder that he's pretty old. Just imagine when he has to start debating Mitt Romney. Can you say Nixon-Kennedy 1960?)
Yes, right now, Fred Thompson looks golden to the GOP, and many believe that there is no more accurate application of the term "fool's gold."
The ’07 Seven Candidates of Summer Series
Fred Thomson
What I wrote on the 7th of June this year: "He has conservatives abuzz as possibly the first viable true conservative. Until he gets in the race, however, I don't it can be argued that he's viable or a true conservative. Still, the mere fact that a candidate potentially fits the bill goes to show you how desperate the GOP is for that candidate."
This has never been more true. The Republican primary is a mess. The two top contenders, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, are a Mormon and a social liberal, respectively. The previous frontrunner, John McCain, reported less money than second-tier-at-best Ron Paul in the second fiscal quarter. True conservatives and religious beloveds, Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee, rarely register in Republican polls and have serious problems fundraising with the big boys.
Simply, there is a vacuum of power in the Republican primary. The potential to fill that vacuum remains. Two Republicans have the ability to fill that void: Newt Gingrich and Fred Thomson. The former may not run, while the latter is about a month away from announcing, therefore it is the latter that has the most potential to be a player in this race.
What makes the Thomson candidacy very interesting is that he's doing great in the polls without even being an official candidate yet! For example, in the latest Rasmussen Poll, taken during the week of July 22, Fred Thomson was tied with Rudy Giuliani in first place in national Republican polls with 25%. Other polls consistently have Thomson polling in the top 3 both in national polls and in all-important primary states Iowa and South Carolina. And Thomson hasn't even started spending money yet!
His success before he even gets started is a direct result of the two factors already discussed: the displeasure of most Republicans with their leading candidates and Thompson's potential to be a true conservative. Therefore, before Thompson enters the race, because Thompson hasn't entered the race, he is still the conservatives' dream candidate. There is nothing wrong with him like all the other candidates.
Yet.
See, Thompson is too good to be true for the GOP, I promise you. As soon as this guy gets into the frey, his weaknesses will show, most specifically his role as conservative savior of the 2008 Republicans. Frankly, that just can't be his role to claim. For proof, here's Newsweek, the Washington Times, and a stinging editorial from a conservative author.
So while Thompson looks golden from afar, it's not until the Republican voters see him up close that they realize the 64-year-old (65 in two weeks) actor-turned-Senator-turned-actor actually has some blemishes on that balding head of his. (And yes, that was a blatant reminder that he's pretty old. Just imagine when he has to start debating Mitt Romney. Can you say Nixon-Kennedy 1960?)
Yes, right now, Fred Thompson looks golden to the GOP, and many believe that there is no more accurate application of the term "fool's gold."
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Summer Series - John McCain
Weekly Presidential Politics - 7/11/07
The ’07 Seven Candidates of Summer Series
Barack Obama John McCain
(Preface: Originally, my plan was to tackle Barack Obama today, in an effort to rotate Democrats and Republicans throughout the summer, but recent developments make an analysis of the John McCain candidacy imperative... while it still exists.)
Okay, perhaps the preface was a bit over the top. John McCain's candidacy is not within a week of death, but let's be honest, it's on life support, and there are many who think the plug should be pulled.
McCain's Hell Week '07 began on Monday morning when it was learned that second-tier-at-best candidate Ron Paul had more cash on hand than the senior Senator from Arizona. This was followed by Monday afternoon and Tuesday's overreactions of what this meant, but the overreactions themselves had ramifications, dragging down the McCain campaign further. (Nothing hurts a candidate like pessimism. Except maybe bullets.)
Then of course came yesterday's news that two of McCain's top advisors, and soon lesser advisors, were acrimoniously departing the sinking ship.
This week, I have received no less than a half dozen emails asking me my thoughts on these developments. After all, I predicted John McCain as the eventual Republican nominee. So here's the question that must be asked: What the hell has happened to the John McCain campaign?
Well, where to begin? The top five reasons the McCain candidacy is underperforming:
1. There is never any good news out of Iraq to which he can attach himself. This kills him in a general election.
No news here. He's been President Bush's greatest ally in the war in Iraq, with the possible exception of Dick Cheney and Laura Bush. And while this stance was never popular, it has never been MORE unpopular than it is now. The Iraq War grows more unpopular by the month. Even key Republicans (see: Luger, Dick) are deserting the President. At one point, unequivocal support of the war in Iraq was not political suicide. Now, it just might be.
2. His stance on immigration greatly alienated the Republican base. This kills him in a primary election.
John McCain's immigration stance is an example of him legislating his beliefs instead of what is popular with his party, similar to the famous McCain-Feingold bill. Note to McCain: Teaming up with Russ Feingold or, in the case of the Immigration Bill, Ted Kennedy, on any bipartisan bill will not be looked on kindly by the Republican Party.
3. His strategy of being openly honest and straight-forward, hoping his dedication to unpopular issues because he believed in them would resonate with the voters.
Numbers one and two play a role here. His principled positions on issues he cares about are admirable only in the regard that they are, in fact, principled. He passionately believes in them, and hoped that eventually this facet of his character, seemingly incongruous with his fellow politicians, would set him apart from the pack. Of course, the problem is, voters disagree with these key issues, and because they know he means what he says, they cannot vote for him. Do'h!
4. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.
These two men have run terrific campaigns. Rudy Giuliani is on top of most polls despite being out of step with social conservatives. Frankly, it's been a brilliant campaign to date, though this blogger still questions his potential to win the nomination when Republican voters further educate themselves on the issues, especially in Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina. Mitt Romney has taken single-digit polling numbers last year and turned them into strong favorable numbers, and many call him the odds on favorite to win the Republican nomination. In comparison, McCain has ran a very weak campaign. Last year, he was polling ahead of both of these other frontrunners. It was McCain's nomination to lose and he lost it. Can he get it back?
5. A combination of the above has led to an enormous shortfall in fundraising.
No one wants to throw money onto a sinking ship. This perpetuates the mediocrity of the campaign. Without proper funds, John McCain will have a very difficult time pulling himself out of this rut. Indeed, one of the reasons McCain parted ways with two of his top advisors was because McCain expected to have and be raising a LOT more money at this stage of the campaign.
Undeniably, the John McCain campaign is underperforming, and without a John Kerry-like resurgence, he might not make it to Iowa.
The ’07 Seven Candidates of Summer Series
(Preface: Originally, my plan was to tackle Barack Obama today, in an effort to rotate Democrats and Republicans throughout the summer, but recent developments make an analysis of the John McCain candidacy imperative... while it still exists.)
Okay, perhaps the preface was a bit over the top. John McCain's candidacy is not within a week of death, but let's be honest, it's on life support, and there are many who think the plug should be pulled.
McCain's Hell Week '07 began on Monday morning when it was learned that second-tier-at-best candidate Ron Paul had more cash on hand than the senior Senator from Arizona. This was followed by Monday afternoon and Tuesday's overreactions of what this meant, but the overreactions themselves had ramifications, dragging down the McCain campaign further. (Nothing hurts a candidate like pessimism. Except maybe bullets.)
Then of course came yesterday's news that two of McCain's top advisors, and soon lesser advisors, were acrimoniously departing the sinking ship.
This week, I have received no less than a half dozen emails asking me my thoughts on these developments. After all, I predicted John McCain as the eventual Republican nominee. So here's the question that must be asked: What the hell has happened to the John McCain campaign?
Well, where to begin? The top five reasons the McCain candidacy is underperforming:
1. There is never any good news out of Iraq to which he can attach himself. This kills him in a general election.
No news here. He's been President Bush's greatest ally in the war in Iraq, with the possible exception of Dick Cheney and Laura Bush. And while this stance was never popular, it has never been MORE unpopular than it is now. The Iraq War grows more unpopular by the month. Even key Republicans (see: Luger, Dick) are deserting the President. At one point, unequivocal support of the war in Iraq was not political suicide. Now, it just might be.
2. His stance on immigration greatly alienated the Republican base. This kills him in a primary election.
John McCain's immigration stance is an example of him legislating his beliefs instead of what is popular with his party, similar to the famous McCain-Feingold bill. Note to McCain: Teaming up with Russ Feingold or, in the case of the Immigration Bill, Ted Kennedy, on any bipartisan bill will not be looked on kindly by the Republican Party.
3. His strategy of being openly honest and straight-forward, hoping his dedication to unpopular issues because he believed in them would resonate with the voters.
Numbers one and two play a role here. His principled positions on issues he cares about are admirable only in the regard that they are, in fact, principled. He passionately believes in them, and hoped that eventually this facet of his character, seemingly incongruous with his fellow politicians, would set him apart from the pack. Of course, the problem is, voters disagree with these key issues, and because they know he means what he says, they cannot vote for him. Do'h!
4. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.
These two men have run terrific campaigns. Rudy Giuliani is on top of most polls despite being out of step with social conservatives. Frankly, it's been a brilliant campaign to date, though this blogger still questions his potential to win the nomination when Republican voters further educate themselves on the issues, especially in Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina. Mitt Romney has taken single-digit polling numbers last year and turned them into strong favorable numbers, and many call him the odds on favorite to win the Republican nomination. In comparison, McCain has ran a very weak campaign. Last year, he was polling ahead of both of these other frontrunners. It was McCain's nomination to lose and he lost it. Can he get it back?
5. A combination of the above has led to an enormous shortfall in fundraising.
No one wants to throw money onto a sinking ship. This perpetuates the mediocrity of the campaign. Without proper funds, John McCain will have a very difficult time pulling himself out of this rut. Indeed, one of the reasons McCain parted ways with two of his top advisors was because McCain expected to have and be raising a LOT more money at this stage of the campaign.
Undeniably, the John McCain campaign is underperforming, and without a John Kerry-like resurgence, he might not make it to Iowa.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Summer Series - Rudy Giuliani
Weekly Presidential Politics - 7/4/07
The ’07 Seven Candidates of Summer Series
Rudy Giuliani
Of the seven candidates that have a chance to be President, it’s former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani who consistently has the biggest leads in a party's national polls. It’s Republican Rudy Giuliani who most successfully matches up with Democrats in hypothetical head-to-head match ups. It’s cross-dressin’ Rudy Giuliani who has positioned himself as the Republican with most crossover appeal come November 2008.
Yet, of the seven candidates that have a chance to be President, Rudy Giuliani is the least likely to garner his party’s nomination.
How much longer can his lack of conservative values possibly survive the Republican Primary vetting process? Is the conservative base ever going to feel comfortable voting for a guy who is liberal or neutral on core conservative issues like gay marriage, abortion, and gun control? In a party that touts morals and values as central tenets of its ideology, will the candidate with the most troubled family life and personal history be able to overcome this reputation to be the Republican survivor?
It’s unlikely.
Radio host and author James Dobson, who holds significant power over a sizeable conservative coalition, with evangelical influence greater than that of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson at their peak, is on the record as saying that he, “cannot and will not support Giuliani under any circumstances.” This is not only trouble for a Giuliani nomination, it also means that should Giuliani survive the primary, there is a possibility that a third-party conservative would emerge to the right of both candidates in the general election. Clearly, this would cut into the Republican base, allowing a Democratic walkover, regardless of the candidate, in November.
It’s also uncertain how much longer Giuliani can scare the American people into thinking that he’s the guy that will keep them safe. A spotty security record as a mayor of a city is typically not as great of a security blanket as say, a four-term Senator from Arizona with military experience and tenure on military committees. It’s generally understood that Rudy Giuliani must keep the focus on terrorism and national security if he has any chance to win this thing, but a seemingly capable security candidate in John McCain, one who is undoubtedly more conservative and proven than Giuliani, would seem to be the better bet for Republicans.
No, the GOP will not nominate Rudy Giuliani. If you ask me, they’re just waiting for the alternative to emerge. No one wants to come out and support a McCain or a Thomson or a Romney if they’re just going to fade come primary time. As soon as one of conservative alternatives clearly emerge as the chief competitor to Giuliani, the base will flock to that alternative. Like James Dobson, most conservatives simply cannot support a Giuliani candidacy.
Finally, perhaps the most important hindrance to a Rudy Giuliani nomination are the early primary states. Iowa is not a Rudy Giuliani state. He’s also behind in Nevada and New Hampshire. Long story short, if he doesn’t find a way to win the early primaries, he’ll have a lot of trouble making up that ground down the stretch. He cannot afford to wait until SuperDuper Tuesday on February 5th to make his move. If he’s not doing well heading into that day, Republicans will have yet another reason to not support him. And they won’t.
The ’07 Seven Candidates of Summer Series
Rudy Giuliani
Of the seven candidates that have a chance to be President, it’s former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani who consistently has the biggest leads in a party's national polls. It’s Republican Rudy Giuliani who most successfully matches up with Democrats in hypothetical head-to-head match ups. It’s cross-dressin’ Rudy Giuliani who has positioned himself as the Republican with most crossover appeal come November 2008.
Yet, of the seven candidates that have a chance to be President, Rudy Giuliani is the least likely to garner his party’s nomination.
How much longer can his lack of conservative values possibly survive the Republican Primary vetting process? Is the conservative base ever going to feel comfortable voting for a guy who is liberal or neutral on core conservative issues like gay marriage, abortion, and gun control? In a party that touts morals and values as central tenets of its ideology, will the candidate with the most troubled family life and personal history be able to overcome this reputation to be the Republican survivor?
It’s unlikely.
Radio host and author James Dobson, who holds significant power over a sizeable conservative coalition, with evangelical influence greater than that of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson at their peak, is on the record as saying that he, “cannot and will not support Giuliani under any circumstances.” This is not only trouble for a Giuliani nomination, it also means that should Giuliani survive the primary, there is a possibility that a third-party conservative would emerge to the right of both candidates in the general election. Clearly, this would cut into the Republican base, allowing a Democratic walkover, regardless of the candidate, in November.
It’s also uncertain how much longer Giuliani can scare the American people into thinking that he’s the guy that will keep them safe. A spotty security record as a mayor of a city is typically not as great of a security blanket as say, a four-term Senator from Arizona with military experience and tenure on military committees. It’s generally understood that Rudy Giuliani must keep the focus on terrorism and national security if he has any chance to win this thing, but a seemingly capable security candidate in John McCain, one who is undoubtedly more conservative and proven than Giuliani, would seem to be the better bet for Republicans.
No, the GOP will not nominate Rudy Giuliani. If you ask me, they’re just waiting for the alternative to emerge. No one wants to come out and support a McCain or a Thomson or a Romney if they’re just going to fade come primary time. As soon as one of conservative alternatives clearly emerge as the chief competitor to Giuliani, the base will flock to that alternative. Like James Dobson, most conservatives simply cannot support a Giuliani candidacy.
Finally, perhaps the most important hindrance to a Rudy Giuliani nomination are the early primary states. Iowa is not a Rudy Giuliani state. He’s also behind in Nevada and New Hampshire. Long story short, if he doesn’t find a way to win the early primaries, he’ll have a lot of trouble making up that ground down the stretch. He cannot afford to wait until SuperDuper Tuesday on February 5th to make his move. If he’s not doing well heading into that day, Republicans will have yet another reason to not support him. And they won’t.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Handicapping the Republican Field
Weekly Presidential Politics - 6/6/07
Someone made a crack at me in the last week, reminding me that there was another political party that has candidates running for President. It is true - I have been concentrating more on the Democrats of late. The reason for this is simple. You may not see it yet, but John McCain is going to win the nomination. I have yet, however, determined the eventual Democratic nominee, therefore I spend more time breaking that race down. I consider it wide open among three (four with Gore) candidates, which I have stated ad nauseum.
However, since I've been called out on my affinity towards Democratic Primary blog posts, I will throw the Republican readers a bone and do a general overview of the GOP candidates. This, of course, is taking advantage of the recent buzz surrounding both the Fred Thomson candidacy as well as last night's Republican debate.
Here are the thirteen (thirteen!) possible candidates for the Republican nomination, listed in likelihood to win the nomination, and in reverse order for dramatic effect.
13.Joe Lieber, whoops, sorry.
13. James Gilmore - The first quarter of 2007 saw Gilmore raise $174,790, which is approximately how much money Hillary Clinton made when she brushed her teeth this morning. Gilmore has no national name recognition and little money to change that.
12. Duncan Hunter - Like Gilmore and at least six other Republicans on this list, Hunter is billing himself as the only true conservative in the pack. (Isn't that funny?) I guess that's what happens when you don't trust the top tier candidates.
11. Tom Tancredo - Beware illegal immigrants, I think he's passing out leaflets trying to rally support for your mass execution. That way, you'll be dead...just like his campaign.
10. Tommy Thomson - Two weeks ago, Tommy Thomson offered a campaign stump speech to a town in New Hampshire. Seven people showed up. Moving on...
9. Ron Paul - The most libertarian candidate of either major party. You have to respect his consistency across the board. He wants to keep the government out of our pockets. Cut taxes, but cut spending, too. He was against the war from the beginning. The amount spent on a failed policy angers Paul, and it angers many conservatives. Unfortunately for the Congressman, he lacks the funds and recognition to make a run.
8. Chuck Hagel - Draft Hagel! One of only two (with Paul) anti-war Republicans in the race (Note: Hagel has yet to enter). He's been a harsh critic of the current administration, and fits a perfect niche out there - Republicans who are proud of their party but dislike President Bush.
7. Mike Huckabee - His authenticity impresses me. He seems genuine, he seems bright, he seems southern, he seems religious, he seems conservative, and he speaks articulately and honestly. Indeed, he seems like a great candidate for the GOP. So why isn't he higher? The man can't fundraise, finishing way back with only half a mil in the first quarter.
6. Fred Thomson - He has conservatives abuzz as possibly the first viable true conservative. Until he gets in the race, however, I don't it can be argued that he's viable or a true conservative. Still, the mere fact that a candidate potentially fits the bill goes to show you how desperate the GOP is for that candidate.
5. Newt Gingrich - Unbeknownst to most, this is the unannounced Republican candidate to keep your eye on. He's not nearly as likely to announce as Thomson, and if he does announce it'll be in the fall like Gore, but I don't think there's a smarter Republican in the field. I've never come across a man I disagree with more while at the same time being awed at his intelligence and ability to articulate a point. What I would do to have an ideological debate with him and get my ass handed to me.
4. Sam Brownback - I'd wager that if you ask the educated conservative, this is who they would vote for if it wasn't considered a lost cause. Ask around. It is this potential why I rank him directly after The Big Three.
3. Rudy Giuliani - Yes, he's been the leader in the polls and I've dropped him to #3. He just doesn't have the gas in the tank, folks. The guy's a Red Giant - burns bright for a while, but with a much shorter shelf life. Each debate will hurt him every time a non-national security issue comes up, and even his strength on national security is a house of cards. If I were his campaign manager (he should be so lucky), he needs to get a specific issue on the table as soon as possible: Who can beat the Democrats in November? Even then, this next guy might be the best answer to that question.
2. Mitt Romney - Romney more than ever has me questioning my confidence in a McCain nomination. I expect Romney to come on very strong. He wows me at every debate, every appearance. In fact, if it wasn't for his Mormonism and yet unabated flip-flopper moniker, I'd probably make him the favorite. And never forget the very real aesthetic issue: He looks the part.
1. John McCain - I'm sticking with him.
Someone made a crack at me in the last week, reminding me that there was another political party that has candidates running for President. It is true - I have been concentrating more on the Democrats of late. The reason for this is simple. You may not see it yet, but John McCain is going to win the nomination. I have yet, however, determined the eventual Democratic nominee, therefore I spend more time breaking that race down. I consider it wide open among three (four with Gore) candidates, which I have stated ad nauseum.
However, since I've been called out on my affinity towards Democratic Primary blog posts, I will throw the Republican readers a bone and do a general overview of the GOP candidates. This, of course, is taking advantage of the recent buzz surrounding both the Fred Thomson candidacy as well as last night's Republican debate.
Here are the thirteen (thirteen!) possible candidates for the Republican nomination, listed in likelihood to win the nomination, and in reverse order for dramatic effect.
13.
13. James Gilmore - The first quarter of 2007 saw Gilmore raise $174,790, which is approximately how much money Hillary Clinton made when she brushed her teeth this morning. Gilmore has no national name recognition and little money to change that.
12. Duncan Hunter - Like Gilmore and at least six other Republicans on this list, Hunter is billing himself as the only true conservative in the pack. (Isn't that funny?) I guess that's what happens when you don't trust the top tier candidates.
11. Tom Tancredo - Beware illegal immigrants, I think he's passing out leaflets trying to rally support for your mass execution. That way, you'll be dead...just like his campaign.
10. Tommy Thomson - Two weeks ago, Tommy Thomson offered a campaign stump speech to a town in New Hampshire. Seven people showed up. Moving on...
9. Ron Paul - The most libertarian candidate of either major party. You have to respect his consistency across the board. He wants to keep the government out of our pockets. Cut taxes, but cut spending, too. He was against the war from the beginning. The amount spent on a failed policy angers Paul, and it angers many conservatives. Unfortunately for the Congressman, he lacks the funds and recognition to make a run.
8. Chuck Hagel - Draft Hagel! One of only two (with Paul) anti-war Republicans in the race (Note: Hagel has yet to enter). He's been a harsh critic of the current administration, and fits a perfect niche out there - Republicans who are proud of their party but dislike President Bush.
7. Mike Huckabee - His authenticity impresses me. He seems genuine, he seems bright, he seems southern, he seems religious, he seems conservative, and he speaks articulately and honestly. Indeed, he seems like a great candidate for the GOP. So why isn't he higher? The man can't fundraise, finishing way back with only half a mil in the first quarter.
6. Fred Thomson - He has conservatives abuzz as possibly the first viable true conservative. Until he gets in the race, however, I don't it can be argued that he's viable or a true conservative. Still, the mere fact that a candidate potentially fits the bill goes to show you how desperate the GOP is for that candidate.
5. Newt Gingrich - Unbeknownst to most, this is the unannounced Republican candidate to keep your eye on. He's not nearly as likely to announce as Thomson, and if he does announce it'll be in the fall like Gore, but I don't think there's a smarter Republican in the field. I've never come across a man I disagree with more while at the same time being awed at his intelligence and ability to articulate a point. What I would do to have an ideological debate with him and get my ass handed to me.
4. Sam Brownback - I'd wager that if you ask the educated conservative, this is who they would vote for if it wasn't considered a lost cause. Ask around. It is this potential why I rank him directly after The Big Three.
3. Rudy Giuliani - Yes, he's been the leader in the polls and I've dropped him to #3. He just doesn't have the gas in the tank, folks. The guy's a Red Giant - burns bright for a while, but with a much shorter shelf life. Each debate will hurt him every time a non-national security issue comes up, and even his strength on national security is a house of cards. If I were his campaign manager (he should be so lucky), he needs to get a specific issue on the table as soon as possible: Who can beat the Democrats in November? Even then, this next guy might be the best answer to that question.
2. Mitt Romney - Romney more than ever has me questioning my confidence in a McCain nomination. I expect Romney to come on very strong. He wows me at every debate, every appearance. In fact, if it wasn't for his Mormonism and yet unabated flip-flopper moniker, I'd probably make him the favorite. And never forget the very real aesthetic issue: He looks the part.
1. John McCain - I'm sticking with him.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
ABH: Hillary Clinton Unites the Right
Weekly Presidential Politics - 5/16/07
Have Democrats hit their head on something hard? Have they had a temporary loss of memory? Why does it feel as if the voters of the Democratic Party have been looking for reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton? This column is neither a critique of her policies nor an evaluation of her odds to win the Democratic nomination (If you want to get my thoughts on odds, check out The Line on the left hand sidebar). This column has one simple goal in mind: Have Democrats forgotten that she can't win the general election??
One can understand why this might happen. She did a terrific job at the debate. She made herself palatable to many Democrats with her candor on the war, as well as her ability to appear tough on terror. For the length of this campaign cycle, she's kept a clear lead over the Democratic field in all national polls. She has the largest campaign war chest in the history of the primaries. She's the most experienced of the Democrats' Big Three. If you're a Democrat, there are a lot of reasons to support Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary.
However, there's an overwhelming reason not to. It seems Democrats are starting to forget the cause for their previous feeling of trepidation. More than any other candidate on the side of the Dems, Hillary Clinton will get Republicans to show at the polls in November. Surely it's clear to see how significant that is.
As of now, the Republican 2008 field is in trouble. President Bush's heir apparent, John McCain, is getting coupled with an unsuccessful war. Rudy Giuliani's social issues give many Republicans pause. Mitt Romney will never have a chance to be a trustworthy conservative (oxymoron?) until he gets elected to a position outside of Governor of Massachusetts. The rest of the field, like truer conservatives like Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee and the rest, are long shots to garner the GOP's nomination. Ultimately, come general election time, we might not see a full contingent of Republicans at the polls. They won't vote for the Democrat, but they might not vote for their guy either. Clearly, the unmotivated Republicans are running the risk of losing another branch of the United States government.
There is one thing, however, that could rally all Republicans to the polls on November 4, 2008...the idea of the Clintons back in the White House. Some Republicans might stay home if it's Edwards vs. Giuliani or McCain. They might stay home if it's Obama vs. McCain or Romney. They will NOT stay home if it's Hillary Clinton vs. ANYone. A Hillary Clinton nomination unites the right. The entire Republican electorate would mobilize to vote for their nominee, regardless of who it is - Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Andrew Johnson, Darth Sidious, Satan... ANYONE. Their motto, in fact, will be ABH: Anyone But Hillary.
And if the Democrats are smart, that should be their motto, too.
Have Democrats hit their head on something hard? Have they had a temporary loss of memory? Why does it feel as if the voters of the Democratic Party have been looking for reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton? This column is neither a critique of her policies nor an evaluation of her odds to win the Democratic nomination (If you want to get my thoughts on odds, check out The Line on the left hand sidebar). This column has one simple goal in mind: Have Democrats forgotten that she can't win the general election??
One can understand why this might happen. She did a terrific job at the debate. She made herself palatable to many Democrats with her candor on the war, as well as her ability to appear tough on terror. For the length of this campaign cycle, she's kept a clear lead over the Democratic field in all national polls. She has the largest campaign war chest in the history of the primaries. She's the most experienced of the Democrats' Big Three. If you're a Democrat, there are a lot of reasons to support Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary.
However, there's an overwhelming reason not to. It seems Democrats are starting to forget the cause for their previous feeling of trepidation. More than any other candidate on the side of the Dems, Hillary Clinton will get Republicans to show at the polls in November. Surely it's clear to see how significant that is.
As of now, the Republican 2008 field is in trouble. President Bush's heir apparent, John McCain, is getting coupled with an unsuccessful war. Rudy Giuliani's social issues give many Republicans pause. Mitt Romney will never have a chance to be a trustworthy conservative (oxymoron?) until he gets elected to a position outside of Governor of Massachusetts. The rest of the field, like truer conservatives like Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee and the rest, are long shots to garner the GOP's nomination. Ultimately, come general election time, we might not see a full contingent of Republicans at the polls. They won't vote for the Democrat, but they might not vote for their guy either. Clearly, the unmotivated Republicans are running the risk of losing another branch of the United States government.
There is one thing, however, that could rally all Republicans to the polls on November 4, 2008...the idea of the Clintons back in the White House. Some Republicans might stay home if it's Edwards vs. Giuliani or McCain. They might stay home if it's Obama vs. McCain or Romney. They will NOT stay home if it's Hillary Clinton vs. ANYone. A Hillary Clinton nomination unites the right. The entire Republican electorate would mobilize to vote for their nominee, regardless of who it is - Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Andrew Johnson, Darth Sidious, Satan... ANYONE. Their motto, in fact, will be ABH: Anyone But Hillary.
And if the Democrats are smart, that should be their motto, too.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
PARALLEL UNIVERSE
Parallel UniverseMy wife and I are big fans of Lost. Two of our colleagues, the bloggers—ballsy femme fatale and conservative & proud kindel, got us hooked last fall. And we are addicted. So are countless others—pun intended.
My “magnum” brother-in-law, a quasi-conservative whom I had to practically bang over the head with a drumstick last Thanksgiving—he was trying to defend narcissistic Oedipus Lieberman, shortly before Oedipus morphed into Captain Lieberman—tells us that there’s a “parallel universe” theory circulating the blogsophere, which would partly explain the events and phenomena of Lost; I’ve got nothin’ but “penny” love for you, JT. My “Lost” experts, though, insist that that’s not the case.
The jury might still be out on the parallel universe theory on Lost; however, the jury is in on the parallel universe in America: there are TWO AMERICAS. While some of us yearn to remain grounded in reality, OTHERS are being sucked via a wormhole into a fake-news universe, including most of the GOP Presidential contenders and the Republican Party.
Thursday night’s debate was a freak show and an utter disgrace to the dignity and statesmanship of what President Ronald Reagan represented—appreciate him or not. It’s too bad that these contenders desperately invoked his name countless times, a subliminal admission, a haunting refrain conveying that the Republican Party has LOST its way and much of America. Aside from the good Congressman Ron Paul, who was the only rational one of the bunch and the only Republican on-stage sincerely attempting to evoke the spirits of Reagan and conservative patriarch Senator Barry Goldwater, these contenders insulted—directly or indirectly—most Americans, including fellow Republicans.
From Nosferatu Giuliani’s flip-flopping on everything from abortion to national security, to porn-star named Mitt Romney’s Aldous Huxley segue into science-fiction and cloning, masking his own flip-flopping on issues and his latent contempt for Hillary Clinton’s hair colorist, from McCain’s pathetic, Viagra-induced charge that he would follow Osama-Bin-Gone to the “gates of hell,” to the non-log cabin homophobia and vehement contempt towards science (didn’t they look to see Nancy Reagan and Governor Terminator in the front row?), these candidates—with the exception of Paul—have boldly shown that the GOP has LOST its way.
This is not the party of my maternal grandmother—bless her soul. This is not the party of many conservatives and Republicans whom I know and respect, who believe in fiscal responsibility, limited government, PRIVACY, morals and values, and dignity. This is not the party of Reagan and Goldwater, conservative torchbearers with some sort of conscience and vision.
In this parallel universe of no real news, no conscience, no dignity—that many of them blatantly insulted a living, out-of-office president—President Clinton—was pathetic, no acknowledgment of reality here, there, or any where—in Iraq, in the middle class, or in the 21st Century for that matter, no clear understanding of what it means to be a conservative, Republican, Democrat—yes, we have our pull-down menu of identity problems, liberal, moderate, it’s obvious that as a nation we are certainly LOST. The question is, though: how do we jettison ourselves out of this parallel universe without getting stuck in a…wormhole?
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
ELE-101: How to Win An Election
Weekly Presidential Politics - 4/18/07
Quick housekeeping note: Over at my Presidential Politics for America website, I've been using the nine days off during April Vacation to write one post a day, each post dedicated to a possible general election showdown. (Examples: McCain vs. Edwards, Giuliani vs. Clinton, etc.) Today is day five and I will tend to a new match up in short order. Yesterday, in my Giuliani vs. Clinton preview, the terrific author of 1% More Conscious weighed in with a lengthy, well thought-out comment that deserves a response. I felt there was no better venue than on his blog.
Thanks for the comment Sptmck. I will take your points one at a time.
Hillary/Richardson ticket - On the Richardson point, I concede the high ground. Always the sucker for electoral math, I have these numbers in my head every time I sit down to write a column. I admit that Bill Richardson's presence on a ticket does attract Latino voters, and while I won't exactly genuflect at New Mexico's five electoral votes, the possibility of turning Florida blue is magnetizing.
If you recall, I paired Richardson with both Obama and Edwards in their faux battle against John McCain. I understand all the positives brought forth by having Richardson on a ticket. Therefore, perhaps he's the best choice for the #2 spot regardless of the winner. The Dems better make damn sure, however, that they win Florida, because a Hillary Clinton nomination with no true southerner (Grits and NASCAR) on the bottom half will alienate more than half the country. We're talking a guaranteed loss of the popular vote.
Hillary/Dodd ticket - Talk about alienating 80% of the country. Two Northeast Dems? Dodd could recite Cervantes while riding a unicycle and eating chiles en nogada and the Hispanic community wouldn't care any more than they did in 2004.
Hillary/Obama Ticket - At this point, it’s either all or nothing for Senator Obama. After being thrust into the spotlight like the offspring of two celebrities, he won't be swallowing his pride to accept a #2 spot. Moreover, no Presidential nominee is going to choose a running mate that will outdraw and overshadow them throughout a campaign. Still, I'd say that the #2 spot is the perfect situation for Obama. He’s young, he’s got little national experience, and frankly, he might not be able win a general election yet. In fact, my Dream Team for the Democrats has him as the Vice-Presidential nominee.
He just won't do it.
Okay, Giuliani time - Many think that winning an election is having the right answers to questions on a variety of issues. Well, it's not about the answers. It's about the questions themselves. The questions that are being asked during a Presidential campaign dictate the winner more than the scripted and tested ten-word answers to these questions.
If the primary questions during an election are regarding national security, Republicans are going to win every time. Every time. I don't care what the Democrat is saying. Republicans will win national security elections. If it were about the economy, job, health care and other domestic issues, the Democrat would win, right? Again, the questions being asked are more important than the answers.
So what will the questions be in a Giuliani-Clinton campaign? They've both already hung their hat on the war and national defense. In Rudy Giuliani, you have the classic national security candidate. No one doubts that national security is his bread and butter. He's soft on the inside (the Baggage you mentioned), but first you have to get past his exterior polarized hull plating.
One more note on Giuliani's Baggage before I sign off: My general election previews are operating under the assumption that they won the nomination of their party. If Giuliani can get through a Republican Primary with all of these problems, he might come out invincible on the other side. So minorities won't vote for him...they weren't excited about George W. Bush either, and he's staggering across the finish line of his second term.
So how do you win an election? Forget about having the right answers. Make sure the right questions are being asked. Stick to your strengths and don't wander onto your opponent's home field. Hillary Clinton has become tethered to national defense, and both John McCain and Rudy Giuliani would defeat her in a general election.
Quick housekeeping note: Over at my Presidential Politics for America website, I've been using the nine days off during April Vacation to write one post a day, each post dedicated to a possible general election showdown. (Examples: McCain vs. Edwards, Giuliani vs. Clinton, etc.) Today is day five and I will tend to a new match up in short order. Yesterday, in my Giuliani vs. Clinton preview, the terrific author of 1% More Conscious weighed in with a lengthy, well thought-out comment that deserves a response. I felt there was no better venue than on his blog.
Thanks for the comment Sptmck. I will take your points one at a time.
Hillary/Richardson ticket - On the Richardson point, I concede the high ground. Always the sucker for electoral math, I have these numbers in my head every time I sit down to write a column. I admit that Bill Richardson's presence on a ticket does attract Latino voters, and while I won't exactly genuflect at New Mexico's five electoral votes, the possibility of turning Florida blue is magnetizing.
If you recall, I paired Richardson with both Obama and Edwards in their faux battle against John McCain. I understand all the positives brought forth by having Richardson on a ticket. Therefore, perhaps he's the best choice for the #2 spot regardless of the winner. The Dems better make damn sure, however, that they win Florida, because a Hillary Clinton nomination with no true southerner (Grits and NASCAR) on the bottom half will alienate more than half the country. We're talking a guaranteed loss of the popular vote.
Hillary/Dodd ticket - Talk about alienating 80% of the country. Two Northeast Dems? Dodd could recite Cervantes while riding a unicycle and eating chiles en nogada and the Hispanic community wouldn't care any more than they did in 2004.
Hillary/Obama Ticket - At this point, it’s either all or nothing for Senator Obama. After being thrust into the spotlight like the offspring of two celebrities, he won't be swallowing his pride to accept a #2 spot. Moreover, no Presidential nominee is going to choose a running mate that will outdraw and overshadow them throughout a campaign. Still, I'd say that the #2 spot is the perfect situation for Obama. He’s young, he’s got little national experience, and frankly, he might not be able win a general election yet. In fact, my Dream Team for the Democrats has him as the Vice-Presidential nominee.
He just won't do it.
Okay, Giuliani time - Many think that winning an election is having the right answers to questions on a variety of issues. Well, it's not about the answers. It's about the questions themselves. The questions that are being asked during a Presidential campaign dictate the winner more than the scripted and tested ten-word answers to these questions.
If the primary questions during an election are regarding national security, Republicans are going to win every time. Every time. I don't care what the Democrat is saying. Republicans will win national security elections. If it were about the economy, job, health care and other domestic issues, the Democrat would win, right? Again, the questions being asked are more important than the answers.
So what will the questions be in a Giuliani-Clinton campaign? They've both already hung their hat on the war and national defense. In Rudy Giuliani, you have the classic national security candidate. No one doubts that national security is his bread and butter. He's soft on the inside (the Baggage you mentioned), but first you have to get past his exterior polarized hull plating.
One more note on Giuliani's Baggage before I sign off: My general election previews are operating under the assumption that they won the nomination of their party. If Giuliani can get through a Republican Primary with all of these problems, he might come out invincible on the other side. So minorities won't vote for him...they weren't excited about George W. Bush either, and he's staggering across the finish line of his second term.
So how do you win an election? Forget about having the right answers. Make sure the right questions are being asked. Stick to your strengths and don't wander onto your opponent's home field. Hillary Clinton has become tethered to national defense, and both John McCain and Rudy Giuliani would defeat her in a general election.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
GOP's JFK?: Why Romney Might Win
Weekly Presidential Politics - 4/4/07
Of the six major announced candidates (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, McCain, and Romney) in the race for the 2008 White House, it has seemed for some time that Romney was the least renowned. It cannot be stated strongly enough: Mitt Romney is a legitimate candidate. Do not be surprised if he is accepting the GOP's nomination at next year's Republican convention.
Here is a list of reasons as to why Mitt Romney's campaign could do very well.
1. Money. Not only does Romney, as a successful former business executive, have a large amount of personal capital, but he has two key fundraising strengths. First, he has a plethora of business contacts from his work in the private sector. Second, the two frontrunners for the Republican Party raise red flags with the conservative base. Mitt Romney's conservative platform is the right wing's best bet to get one of their own elected. Therefore, a solid chunk of conservative donors are rushing to Romney, the nearest realistic conservative winner. (Brownback and Huckabee? Please.)
The proof of Romney's fundraising capabilities was evident in the recent first quarter disclosures. Romney shattered Republican fundraising records.
2. Process of Elimination. Giuliani and McCain have other distinct disadvantages. The leader in the polls, Rudy Giuliani, is unlikely to survive the meticulous vetting process of the Republican Primary cycle. Sooner or later, his liberal stances on abortion, gay marriage, and gun control will take a chunk out of his polling numbers. Moreover, the inevitable "family values" issues that motivate so many voters will submarine his chances. He's had two messy divorces and his son doesn't speak with him.
McCain is like a hummer with its back wheels spinning in mud. This campaign has the potential to be a wrecking machine, but it just can't seem to get going. The Iraq issue has been devastating, holding a usually terrific raiser of funds like McCain to third place in the Money Primary.
3. History. Not since Kennedy in 1960 has there been a Senator elected President. The rest have been Vice-Presidents (Bush I, Nixon, Johnson), and governors (strong recent trend of Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, Carter). Of the Big Six candidates, three (Clinton, Obama, and McCain) are sitting Senators. John Edwards is a former Senator. Rudy Giuliani's highest office was mayor, a position that never vaulted anyone to the Presidency. That leaves Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts.
4. The Romney's look the part. Have you seen this family? They are good looking, athletic, great smiles, photogenic, and - tragically relevant - they’re white. Not since the Kennedy's has there been such a made-for-magazine-covers family. And with Giuliani toting his family values baggage, and the Clintons having their obvious history, and McCain being a divorcee himself who cheated on an ailing spouse, and Obama's family not looking like any family in Presidential history, that leaves only Romney and Edwards.
5. Mormonism can be worked around. The first thirty-three men to hold the office of President were all Protestants. Then came JFK (theme?). In September 1960, Democratic nominee John F. Kennedy delivered a speech where he defended his Catholicism as a personal choice that he would not push on the American people. Read the speech, it's brilliant. Now, 48 years later, Mitt Romney, the politician from Massachusetts, can make similar overtures in regards to his Mormonism.
Am I saying he’s going to win? No. I’m still leaning towards McCain, but would not be surprised by a Romney victory. It's a legitimate three-way race in both parties. That’s what makes this so fun!
Addendum: Extended this piece over at my blog, Presidential Politics for America.
Of the six major announced candidates (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, McCain, and Romney) in the race for the 2008 White House, it has seemed for some time that Romney was the least renowned. It cannot be stated strongly enough: Mitt Romney is a legitimate candidate. Do not be surprised if he is accepting the GOP's nomination at next year's Republican convention.
Here is a list of reasons as to why Mitt Romney's campaign could do very well.
1. Money. Not only does Romney, as a successful former business executive, have a large amount of personal capital, but he has two key fundraising strengths. First, he has a plethora of business contacts from his work in the private sector. Second, the two frontrunners for the Republican Party raise red flags with the conservative base. Mitt Romney's conservative platform is the right wing's best bet to get one of their own elected. Therefore, a solid chunk of conservative donors are rushing to Romney, the nearest realistic conservative winner. (Brownback and Huckabee? Please.)
The proof of Romney's fundraising capabilities was evident in the recent first quarter disclosures. Romney shattered Republican fundraising records.
2. Process of Elimination. Giuliani and McCain have other distinct disadvantages. The leader in the polls, Rudy Giuliani, is unlikely to survive the meticulous vetting process of the Republican Primary cycle. Sooner or later, his liberal stances on abortion, gay marriage, and gun control will take a chunk out of his polling numbers. Moreover, the inevitable "family values" issues that motivate so many voters will submarine his chances. He's had two messy divorces and his son doesn't speak with him.
McCain is like a hummer with its back wheels spinning in mud. This campaign has the potential to be a wrecking machine, but it just can't seem to get going. The Iraq issue has been devastating, holding a usually terrific raiser of funds like McCain to third place in the Money Primary.
3. History. Not since Kennedy in 1960 has there been a Senator elected President. The rest have been Vice-Presidents (Bush I, Nixon, Johnson), and governors (strong recent trend of Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, Carter). Of the Big Six candidates, three (Clinton, Obama, and McCain) are sitting Senators. John Edwards is a former Senator. Rudy Giuliani's highest office was mayor, a position that never vaulted anyone to the Presidency. That leaves Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts.
4. The Romney's look the part. Have you seen this family? They are good looking, athletic, great smiles, photogenic, and - tragically relevant - they’re white. Not since the Kennedy's has there been such a made-for-magazine-covers family. And with Giuliani toting his family values baggage, and the Clintons having their obvious history, and McCain being a divorcee himself who cheated on an ailing spouse, and Obama's family not looking like any family in Presidential history, that leaves only Romney and Edwards.
5. Mormonism can be worked around. The first thirty-three men to hold the office of President were all Protestants. Then came JFK (theme?). In September 1960, Democratic nominee John F. Kennedy delivered a speech where he defended his Catholicism as a personal choice that he would not push on the American people. Read the speech, it's brilliant. Now, 48 years later, Mitt Romney, the politician from Massachusetts, can make similar overtures in regards to his Mormonism.
Am I saying he’s going to win? No. I’m still leaning towards McCain, but would not be surprised by a Romney victory. It's a legitimate three-way race in both parties. That’s what makes this so fun!
Addendum: Extended this piece over at my blog, Presidential Politics for America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
