Let's face it: the Grand Old Party ain't so grand anymore. Basically the Republicans found a way to squander their 9/11 political capital in the form of both houses of Congress and the White house in the span of 4 to 6 years.
And as someone who is a leftover States' Rights Dixiecrat, I say the GOP, which rode to power on the limited government Contract-with-America platform in 1994, got the thumping they deserved.
A lot of people think George W. Bush was a conservative. He was certainly very rightist, but I am hard pressed to call him a conservative. Certainly he was not a conservative in the limited government Libertarian sense (see: Patriot Act, Gitmo, Iraq war, et al.,) nor was he a fiscal conservative (see: massive federal spending, 10 trillion dollar federal debt, 700 Billion Wallstreet Bailout, et al.,).
Perhaps he might be thought of as a social conservative, as he did tend to come up with things like anti-stem cell research, privatizing social security, and theoretically anti-abortion (though he never much touched this issue), and he was largely voted into office both times by massive religious New Right voters.
But, at least in terms of what I perceived the GOP to be about in the wake of Reaganism, I have been unhappy with what the GOP has been doing on the federal level for some time. I think, perhaps, the smacking that the GOP just received in the Novemeber 2008 elections might force them to get back to their own principles that brought them back to power in the first place. The Republicans have lost their way, and some time in the wilderness to get their priorities and politics straight might do them a world of good in the long term.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Friday, September 05, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
And the winner is...
And the winner of the Obama VP sweepstakes is...wait, it hasn't been announced.
And I don't care.
It's just a soap opera that they think people care about.
And I don't care.
It's just a soap opera that they think people care about.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Unhappy with both candidates
I have to say I am unhappy with both candidates for the Presidency. I have never cared for Obama and his "Jesus Christ-Politicalstar" routine. Looking at his voting record, I find him to be one of the most partisan voters in the senate. So I find his claim that he is going to try to change the tone in Washington to be ludicrous on its face, especially considering all of the potential VP candidates being bantered about as his running mate. I mean, if he wins, I hope he can do what he is promising because Washington is about worthless these days, and more power to him if he pulls it off. I remain, shall we say, highly skeptical.
If McCain would stick to his moderate roots, I would be in favor of him, but he seems to be morphing into Bush-lite as fast as he can, even using some of Bush's political machine tactics, which I find disturbing. I think it will come down to whom McCain picks as a running mate. If he picks Romney, I refuse to vote for him.
I am seriously considering at this point throwing my vote away and voting for a 3rd party candidate like Bob Barr of the Libertarians. We shall see what the VEEP-stakes brings.
If McCain would stick to his moderate roots, I would be in favor of him, but he seems to be morphing into Bush-lite as fast as he can, even using some of Bush's political machine tactics, which I find disturbing. I think it will come down to whom McCain picks as a running mate. If he picks Romney, I refuse to vote for him.
I am seriously considering at this point throwing my vote away and voting for a 3rd party candidate like Bob Barr of the Libertarians. We shall see what the VEEP-stakes brings.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Perhaps its over...
or, maybe not. Who knows...and at this point who cares?
Last night, in the latest in the Democratic presidential nomination soap opera, Barack Obama won decisively in North Carolina and barely lost the Indiana primary by only 2% of the vote, despite being down 5 to 10% in the polls leading up to the Indiana primary. Indiana was much closer than anyone predicted.
Though technically a stalemate, I would characterize this round of the never ending Democratic primary as a poor showing for Clinton. If she could not close the deal here, given the near state of crisis that the Obama campaign was in over the tempest in a teapot Rev. Wright/Gas Tax Holiday brouhaha, I would guess it is basically about over for the S.S. Hillary juggernaut.
Many of the so-called superdelegates have apparently already made up their minds, but were just waiting to see how the wind was blowing in last nights primaries in North Carolina and Indiana. I imagine there will be in house pressure now for superdelegates to commit, get off the fence, and end this charade before the DNC further self destructs their 2008 White House bid.
But, as I said, who knows? The Clintons are not known for going down without a fight to the bitter end, and they are also notorious for doing things out of sheer spite. The soap opera may continue on, at least until the final primary in South Dakota on June 3rd. I think that is probably the realistic worst case scenario for the Democrats right now.
It could go all the way to the August Convention, but I really do not see the powers that be in the Democratic party letting this fester until then, unless they are completely insane. Then again, I have marveled for years at how inept Democrats are at running Presidential campaigns, especially now that the Clintons are likely to be out of the picture.
Personally, I think its a simple case of follow the money. Hillary announced that she had to loan herself 6.4 million dollars for her campaign. That does not bode well for the candidate that was well-and-away the frontrunner going into this race.
Last night, in the latest in the Democratic presidential nomination soap opera, Barack Obama won decisively in North Carolina and barely lost the Indiana primary by only 2% of the vote, despite being down 5 to 10% in the polls leading up to the Indiana primary. Indiana was much closer than anyone predicted.
Though technically a stalemate, I would characterize this round of the never ending Democratic primary as a poor showing for Clinton. If she could not close the deal here, given the near state of crisis that the Obama campaign was in over the tempest in a teapot Rev. Wright/Gas Tax Holiday brouhaha, I would guess it is basically about over for the S.S. Hillary juggernaut.
Many of the so-called superdelegates have apparently already made up their minds, but were just waiting to see how the wind was blowing in last nights primaries in North Carolina and Indiana. I imagine there will be in house pressure now for superdelegates to commit, get off the fence, and end this charade before the DNC further self destructs their 2008 White House bid.
But, as I said, who knows? The Clintons are not known for going down without a fight to the bitter end, and they are also notorious for doing things out of sheer spite. The soap opera may continue on, at least until the final primary in South Dakota on June 3rd. I think that is probably the realistic worst case scenario for the Democrats right now.
It could go all the way to the August Convention, but I really do not see the powers that be in the Democratic party letting this fester until then, unless they are completely insane. Then again, I have marveled for years at how inept Democrats are at running Presidential campaigns, especially now that the Clintons are likely to be out of the picture.
Personally, I think its a simple case of follow the money. Hillary announced that she had to loan herself 6.4 million dollars for her campaign. That does not bode well for the candidate that was well-and-away the frontrunner going into this race.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Useless Debates
So Hillabama had another debate last night, heh...if you can call it that. The "first" in Pennsylvania. I didn't watch it live because I have a life. I watched parts of it on YouTube this morning (thank goodness for the forwarding option), which is about the only way I can stomach any more of these pseudo-debates.
As far I could tell, there was no question of substance asked *at all* during the first 40 or so minutes of the debate. Not one question was asked about Iraq exit strategy or how to fix the sub-prime loan mess. It was just stupid stuff about lapel pins and what the definition of "bitter" is with commercials that seemed to come every 30 seconds. It got so bad that people were booing the moderators at the end. I don't recall ever seeing that on a televised debate before.
And who won this "debate"? John McCain...hands down. He didn't even have to make an appearance. You want some news, Tim Russert? I got your news right here: We've hit rock bottom. Film at 11!
As far I could tell, there was no question of substance asked *at all* during the first 40 or so minutes of the debate. Not one question was asked about Iraq exit strategy or how to fix the sub-prime loan mess. It was just stupid stuff about lapel pins and what the definition of "bitter" is with commercials that seemed to come every 30 seconds. It got so bad that people were booing the moderators at the end. I don't recall ever seeing that on a televised debate before.
Gimme a break...enough already. If you are going to waste the time, money, and effort to hold a debate, at least ask some semblance of substantive questions. Granted, you probably are not going to get much substance in your answers other than a good three second sound byte that can be replayed ad nauseum on the evening news.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The final debate
I finally sat down and watched the final democratic debate from Ohio last night. I have heretofore watched snippets of those debates, but my wife was out of the house yesterday evening (somebody has to work). There was nothing better on, and my Netflix choice failed to appear in the mail. I figured, "what the hey?"
I am, I hate to admit this, a political junkie. This is ironic because I really don't care for politics in general, but I like to be informed on what is going on in campaigns. As a person who wrote some political speeches for a member of the US House of Representatives some years ago, I do have a morbid fascination with the tiresomely perpetual election cycle that has befallen America.
Brian Williams, the NBC evening news guy, was the chair of the debate. That was one of the reasons I watched. Brian Williams is sort of an old school newscaster who tries not to editorialize and be a mere talking head. Even though I think the American news media is largely asinine, I do respect Brian Williams as a news anchor. He also does not seem to be an incredibly assertive personality, which I like in a newscaster because the news is not about the newscaster, so I was curious if he could handle two testy political opponents. I do not think he was too judicious about cutting off either candidate if they were in mid-windbag speech, although he did become more dominant as the performance went on.
I characterize it as a performance, because largely, post-modern political debates are just that. They are all canned and rehearsed. Being the 20th debate, I figured all responses would be mechanical by this point. My first impressions were that this particular debate (thanks to some hardball questions from co-anchor Tim Russert) was not your run of the mill glitz and glamour dog and pony show. That is probably the only reason I watched in its entirety. If it was more of the same old hooey rehashed, I would have flipped it off, so to speak.
I think because the content of the questions actually had some substance behind them, I think both candidates had to adapt to a your-canned-answers-aren't-going-to-cut-it theme. The first reads of other commentators that I have read this morning (the debate was last night as of this writing) were largely of the opinion that Obama, and to a somewhat lesser extent Hillary as well, looked a little off their game, but neither side really "won" the debate.
I found Hillary's answers mostly still from her largely canned (and frankly stale) stockpile of political rhetoric. I thought her little "woe is me because I always get asked the questions first" in the debates early on made her come off looking like a crybaby, especially since she was the one who has been clamoring for more debates. I agree Obama was not as sharp on camera as he has been in the past (but then after 20 such debates, who would be?). I do have to admit he was asked a few odd questions, especially about his pastor in Chicago's relationship with Louis Farrakhan, that I am not sure how anyone under the gun could have responded to in a polished manner.
In her defense, Hillary did get pitched a curveball about the heir apparent to Putin in Russian politics. I will give her the benefit of the doubt on that one because I doubt Obama would have been able to answer it either. But, for the most part, I thought she tanked on the other Foreign Policy questions, which surprised me because if anyone can knock Obama, its on his lack of foreign policy experience. Obama was enunciating clearly thoughtout point-by-point policy ideas and Hillary was largely either attacking his credibility on the issue or touting her own (or, more precisely her husband, Bill's) foriegn policy strengths. I think she missed her chance to match his actual policy statements with her own by playing up her resume on foreign policy. He came off like the one with actual ideas on that issue.
As for the healthcare issue, I think both candidates could have made better arguments. That was the first 15 minutes of the debate, and I think there was still the tense "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" speech laundry that needed to be aired. I think that tainted the Universal Health Care debate in terms of substance because both candidates were more about pointing fingers at the other over the political mailings flap. I was interested that during the poignant exchange about that, Hillary was going off about it, but never actually looking in Obama's direction. If you have issues with someone, you look them in the eye, you don't pander to the cameras or the audience. That may have just been camera angle, but I thought Hillary looked particularly bad in that exchange in my opinion. Rehearsed outbursts might work on Oprah or Jerry Springer, but this is the real world.
In terms of substance on the universal healthcare issue though, I think it was largely a stalemate due to lack of actual substance. They were debating finite plan points like competeing insurance salesmen, and not the larger issue of how to avoid a fiasco if the government, which can't balance a budget or a war to save its life, is going to somehow wave the magic federal wand and make the complex issue of healthcare better and not worse. I still remain firmly unconvinced that Washington has the wisdom to fix the healthcare system.
Overall, I have to give the overall edge to Obama. Hillary just looked wooden and was largely giving canned speeches. I think she was too rehearsed. Obama could have been better, but at least he was trying to answer the questions with thought and not just misuse his time on a question to go off on tangents not really related, which Hillary did in abundance. The Clintons are really masters of blowing off questions and talking about what they want instead of answering the actual questions. That's a reality in running for office; I understand. But if you keep clamoring for debates and then you get one and don't make the best of it, you should not complain that your campaign is listing out of control.
Anyway, that's my impression of the debate. It didn't really change my opinion on either of those candidates. I am not a democrat; I am an independent. Take it for what its worth.
I am, I hate to admit this, a political junkie. This is ironic because I really don't care for politics in general, but I like to be informed on what is going on in campaigns. As a person who wrote some political speeches for a member of the US House of Representatives some years ago, I do have a morbid fascination with the tiresomely perpetual election cycle that has befallen America.
Brian Williams, the NBC evening news guy, was the chair of the debate. That was one of the reasons I watched. Brian Williams is sort of an old school newscaster who tries not to editorialize and be a mere talking head. Even though I think the American news media is largely asinine, I do respect Brian Williams as a news anchor. He also does not seem to be an incredibly assertive personality, which I like in a newscaster because the news is not about the newscaster, so I was curious if he could handle two testy political opponents. I do not think he was too judicious about cutting off either candidate if they were in mid-windbag speech, although he did become more dominant as the performance went on.
I characterize it as a performance, because largely, post-modern political debates are just that. They are all canned and rehearsed. Being the 20th debate, I figured all responses would be mechanical by this point. My first impressions were that this particular debate (thanks to some hardball questions from co-anchor Tim Russert) was not your run of the mill glitz and glamour dog and pony show. That is probably the only reason I watched in its entirety. If it was more of the same old hooey rehashed, I would have flipped it off, so to speak.
I think because the content of the questions actually had some substance behind them, I think both candidates had to adapt to a your-canned-answers-aren't-going-to-cut-it theme. The first reads of other commentators that I have read this morning (the debate was last night as of this writing) were largely of the opinion that Obama, and to a somewhat lesser extent Hillary as well, looked a little off their game, but neither side really "won" the debate.
I found Hillary's answers mostly still from her largely canned (and frankly stale) stockpile of political rhetoric. I thought her little "woe is me because I always get asked the questions first" in the debates early on made her come off looking like a crybaby, especially since she was the one who has been clamoring for more debates. I agree Obama was not as sharp on camera as he has been in the past (but then after 20 such debates, who would be?). I do have to admit he was asked a few odd questions, especially about his pastor in Chicago's relationship with Louis Farrakhan, that I am not sure how anyone under the gun could have responded to in a polished manner.
In her defense, Hillary did get pitched a curveball about the heir apparent to Putin in Russian politics. I will give her the benefit of the doubt on that one because I doubt Obama would have been able to answer it either. But, for the most part, I thought she tanked on the other Foreign Policy questions, which surprised me because if anyone can knock Obama, its on his lack of foreign policy experience. Obama was enunciating clearly thoughtout point-by-point policy ideas and Hillary was largely either attacking his credibility on the issue or touting her own (or, more precisely her husband, Bill's) foriegn policy strengths. I think she missed her chance to match his actual policy statements with her own by playing up her resume on foreign policy. He came off like the one with actual ideas on that issue.
As for the healthcare issue, I think both candidates could have made better arguments. That was the first 15 minutes of the debate, and I think there was still the tense "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" speech laundry that needed to be aired. I think that tainted the Universal Health Care debate in terms of substance because both candidates were more about pointing fingers at the other over the political mailings flap. I was interested that during the poignant exchange about that, Hillary was going off about it, but never actually looking in Obama's direction. If you have issues with someone, you look them in the eye, you don't pander to the cameras or the audience. That may have just been camera angle, but I thought Hillary looked particularly bad in that exchange in my opinion. Rehearsed outbursts might work on Oprah or Jerry Springer, but this is the real world.
In terms of substance on the universal healthcare issue though, I think it was largely a stalemate due to lack of actual substance. They were debating finite plan points like competeing insurance salesmen, and not the larger issue of how to avoid a fiasco if the government, which can't balance a budget or a war to save its life, is going to somehow wave the magic federal wand and make the complex issue of healthcare better and not worse. I still remain firmly unconvinced that Washington has the wisdom to fix the healthcare system.
Overall, I have to give the overall edge to Obama. Hillary just looked wooden and was largely giving canned speeches. I think she was too rehearsed. Obama could have been better, but at least he was trying to answer the questions with thought and not just misuse his time on a question to go off on tangents not really related, which Hillary did in abundance. The Clintons are really masters of blowing off questions and talking about what they want instead of answering the actual questions. That's a reality in running for office; I understand. But if you keep clamoring for debates and then you get one and don't make the best of it, you should not complain that your campaign is listing out of control.
Anyway, that's my impression of the debate. It didn't really change my opinion on either of those candidates. I am not a democrat; I am an independent. Take it for what its worth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
