Election years always bring out the fortune teller in all of us. From amateur bloggers, to professional journalists, to not-so-professional journalists, everyone who closely follows the news tries to figure out who is going to win the election. To the credit of all those I just described (maybe even Chris Matthews), most informed people who try to predict political outcomes do so by analyzing real news events and what the candidates say.
One thing that always bugged me during election years comes from the types who seriously believe that a Presidential election really hinges upon things like the last Packers game before the election or which hemline length is in fashion. With that in mind, I was pleased to see that the Anchoress posted on this very topic.
My favorite part of the post was when she ridiculed astrologers generally as well as the recent batch of astrologers who boldly predicted an Obama victory while simultaneously backpedalling by acknowledging the fact that anything can happen:
Well, there is a reason why “things turn on a dime” is a cliche. It’s because things turn on a dime and anything can happen. I don’t even know if any of the three stooges currently dominating the process will be on the ballot in November, and I have as much chance of being right about that as these folks do. I know the astrologers all predicted John Kerry would win in ‘04. That didn’t work out. One did - I recall - suggest that the 2000 election would be “confused” but then again, everyone was doing spooky-twilight-zone music in 2000, for the start of the millennium in 2001.
The Anchoress’ post sums up my thoughts on this topic, but much more eloquently than I would have put it. It’s a worth a read.
I just read thisPolitico piece by John Feehery on the Republican Party’s relationship with McCain. His take is that Bush stalwarts like Hastert, Lott, and Delay are no longer on the scene and McCain, ever the frustrating maverick, is now the presumptive GOP nominee. Hence, the maverick becomes the savior in lieu of the Republican’s crushing Congressional defeats of late.
My take is simple: whenever the Republican Party gets wimpy and vague, it is going to lose. After seventy years of playing identity/socialist politics, the Dems have the (undeserved) reputation of being the “nice” ones. Republicans don’t have that reputation because ever since FDR, Americans have elected Republicans to do the dirty work of cleaning up Democrat messes (Ike was elected to fix the Korean War, Nixon was elected to fix Vietnam, Reagan was elected to fix everything Carter did, Dubya was elected to fix our image after BJ). So if we’re going to run a campaign with pale pastels against the Dems, the folks go with the trusty nice people: the Dems. Ugh. Running to the middle has been our problem because the American people see no differences or alternatives: hence an animus towards the Party in the White House… us!
It’s not that conservatism has failed, it’s that the potential practitioners wussed out before doing enough great or significant things, falling victim to the Washington big-government=power/popularity culture. The pale pastel approach will lead to serious electoral disaster this Fall, as it has in those three districts, especially with a potentially jazzed Obama base with a tested 50-state organization, ready to pound McCain and the Republican brand name into serious minority status.
Doctors have identified “a malignant glioma in the left parietal lobe” as the cause of Senator Kennedy’s seizure over the weekend. This kind of cancer affects roughly 9000 Americans per year and early diagnosis and a non-aggressive type can lead to about five more years.
But it’ll be a tough slog. Kennedy’s cancer is inoperable and will require chemo and other harsh treatments. To reiterate a previous post: despite our political beliefs, we here nonetheless hope that Kennedy can recover, even though the prognosis is very dark.
Barack Obama and the Democrats love to talk about how they look forward to debating John McCain and highlighting the differences between the two parties. The trouble is, the only kind debate the Democrats are interested in is the kind where they make their case and their Republicans aren’t allowed to respond.
We saw this a few days ago when President Bush invoked history’s lesson that appeasing evil is folly. Rather than defending the presumptive Democrat nominee Barack Obama’s policy of doing just that, Democrats responded by attempting to prevent Republicans from criticizing Obama’s thoughts on the subject ever again.
What this demonstrated was that despite their claims to the contrary, Democrats can’t debate their proposals, that is at least if debate involves a give and take. As this brief transcript from the Rush Limbaugh Show makes clear, the spat of Bush’s Knesset speech was the first time and certainly won’t be the last time that Obama tries to force his unique definition of the word “debate” on the upcoming campaign. According to the Democrats, they can slander the current President, lie about McCain’s “100 years” comment, dismiss grandma as just a “typical white person,” and attack people for clinging to their religion that doesn’t involve a pastor damning America and “rich white people.” We just can’t respond, because apparently that is what crosses the line.
White House counsel Ed Gillespie had some tough words for NBC after they disingenuously edited an interview with President Bush which indicated that the President accepted a negative premise on the appeasement issue when the President did not.
But what I love about the letter sent to NBC is Gillespie’s memory of two years ago when NBC was the first to declare Iraq’s sectarian strife a civil war. Gillespie’s take: so does NBC still believe Iraq is in a civil war or has that civil war ended?
Nice! Way to call ‘em on it! I love how a basic memory and facts really miff the MSM sometimes. I wish Dubya and his crowd had been doing this for seven years rather than so intermittently.
I just got back from viewing The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspianat a new movie-viewing location near my new place. So, let me get right to it without ruining the plot for those who haven’t seen it:
I like C.S. Lewis, for both his fantasy novels and his philosophical works. Part 1 (or Book 2 if you’re a purist) The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobewas a good movie adaptation because it effectively used tons of religious allegory to tell a mythical coming of age story about four kids sent up North during the Blitz of 1940 who stumbled into a mysterious land. It was full of mystery and wonder and brought us into a new world in which the “Sons of Adam” and “Daughters of Eve” were delivered in order to make things right.
Prince Caspian does a similar kind of thing, but in my opinion with much less allegory and heart. There were moments of struggle, choice, doubt, belief and introspection, but much of the wonder was gone, replaced by more battle scenes with little depth. I liked the increased action, and on the surface it was a better movie than the first one, yet something was missing. I read LWW, but never read Prince Caspian (which is technically Book Four of the series), so I’m not sure how it translated to film. I just had the sense that some of the magic in the first movie was not here. Maybe I needed more of an explanation, maybe I needed more Aslan, maybe I needed more back-story, but something’s leaving me unsatisfied.
I’d give the movie a “B.” Great action, good story, but it left me wanting more — not in a good “I can’t wait for the sequel” kind of way, but rather a “Did I miss something?” sort of way. I’m going to have to read the book now.
Whereas sometimes we at AOR like to poke fun at Ted Kennedy, in times like this it is not appropriate. He’s human, and we are not just fallible beings, we’re mortal beings who must deal with what life hands us sometimes.
It’s reported at this early hour that the 76-year-old Kennedy was hospitalized with symptoms of a stroke. We hope he gets better and continues to engage the Right on the issues when this is over. We may not agree with his politics, but during this episode he’s a fellow human being, not a political dartboard.
Oscar Pistorius, a man who needed part of his legs amputated as a young child, has been cleared by the IAAF to compete in the Beijing Olympics. This point is controversial because some believe that his prosthetic limbs could indicate an unfair advantage against non-bionic opponents, and the “Paralympics” is an existing competitive body for those like Pistorius.
I’ll be honest: I’d love to see this guy compete out of curiosity. Prosthetic technology has innovated leaps and bounds (no pun intended) over the last decade. What if Oscar defeats his opponents by a wide margin? Will fairness be an issue? Will some crazy competitive psycho lop his own legs off to gain a competitive advantage, if an advantage is shown to exist, for the 2012 games? Um… probably not, but Oscar will get the chance to shine (or at least compete) in Beijing.
If McCain nor Congressional Republicans won’t jazz up the conservative base, this should! Marriage issues, cultural issues, judicial activism, court appointments, etc. are all at play here.
President Bush was giving a speech to the Israeli Knesset commemorating the 60th birthday of Israel. One of the most traumatic events in the history of the Jews and an integral part of the history of the state of Israel was the Holocaust, which only happened because of the horrors of World War II. That war began as a result of years of appeasement towards Hitler and the Nazis. “Never again” has been the mantra from the Israelis and Jews all over the world ever since.
“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
Somehow, Obama thought this was a swipe at Obama.
The campaign and the national Dems subsequently flipped out in an amazing knee-jerk fashion: calling these remarks a ”false political attack,” (Obama), ”bullsh*t” (from the intellectual Joe Biden), an “embarrassment to our country” (Dean), “outrageous and offensive” (She Who Must Not Be Named), and that “serious” people would distance themselves from the remarks (Pelosi), and so forth.
Jumping on the Dems’ knee-jerk reaction, here’s how McCain responded:
“I think Barack Obama needs to sit down and explain why he wants to talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terror, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, who wants to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust. That is what I think that Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people….
“It is a serious error on the part of Senator Obama that shows naiveté and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country who says that Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of Israel. My question is what does he want to talk about?”
Here’s the catch, though, which makes McCain’s point. This is quoted directlyfrom Obama’s website under the section “Renewing American Diplomacy”:
“Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs.”
Um. Right. That’s modern appeasement and naivete articulated perfectly. As if talking to radical jihadists will get them to suddenly stop hating Jews, they’d take off the suicide belt, and they’d stop planning to annihilate Israel in the name of Allah. Wow! That was easy!
Now I get it — the Dems are scared to death that people are going to pay attention to an actual policy position Obama has, couching it in “President Bush is bad and McCain should condemn him,” even though the real story here is not Bush (as the Dems would like), it’s Obama’s knee-jerk reaction which seems to have hit a nerve!
Not that we needed any more proof that the race for the Democrat Party nomination is over, but if this doesn’t scare She Who Must Not Be Named’s death eaters into thinking that she can’t win this year, then nothing will. For months now, Democrats have wondered which candidate John Edwards would endorse despite the fact the answer was obvious. He was waiting for the race to be over in name only, so he could endorse whoever won; and now he has.
First Dennis Hastert’s seat in Illinois, then two seats in the Deep South over the past two weeks. Three House seats historically and reliably Republican have fallen to conservative Dems (Blue Dogs) who have no business winning seats in these historically Republican districts.
Yet, the Dems are winning them. Mississippi Republican Greg Davis lost to Democrat Travis Childers 54-46% in a special election for a district considered reliably Republican. Eight points is a lot to lose by in this case. One election can be a fluke, but three in just the last few weeks and months portends a tough slog this November.
And with McCain keeping many conservatives lethargic, who will be passionate enough with a solid agenda to lead the Republicans to victory in the Fall? Is Congressional victory even possible?
Where’s Newt when you need to storm the castle? That’s right, he’s been warning of this for a while now, being lowered to lecturing the milquetoast John Boehner on how to design a winning campaign! The Blue Dogs were supposed to be a one-term phenomenon, but could signal a campaign strategy to trailblaze a Congressional mandate in an (shudder) Obama Administration.
I’m feeling a little vindictive right now. Since this song has been stuck in my head for about two and a half days now, I think you need to hear it too.
Tonight’s victory actually sheds more light on media bias than it does on the Democrat horse race. Just a few days ago, AFP “reported” on the “fractured” state of the Republican Party, citing primary results showing approximately 25% of Republicans voting for candidates other than McCain as evidence. But that actually begs the question doesn’t it.
If the presumptive Republican candidate winning primaries with 75% of the vote is evidence of a fractured GOP, what does it say about AFP’s favorite party if their presumptive nominee is actually losing primaries even though their race is over? And keep in mind that not only is the Empty Suit still losing primaries despite being the obvious nominee, as of this moment, he’s losing tonight’s primary by the slim margin of 37 points! Yet somehow the narrative is that the GOP is divided. Nice try AFP.
As a wounded Patriots fan, more tapes mean more pain, however I was elated to hear that no Super Bowl tapes were part of Walsh’s collection. That would have permanently tainted the Brady-era for myself, most sensible fans and foes.
I’d like to think that all of this is mostly behind us now as a dark moment in Pats history, but every single game played in New York is going to have spirited chants mocking the Pats, from easy ones like “Cheaters Never Win” to “18-1″ to a host of other things I’m sure that Jets fans will concoct.
I just moved into a better, swankier place so I was AWOL for a while. My Internet was messed up and my new and exciting digital cable was all pixelated and unclear until about thirty minutes ago. But now all is well.
I think it’s a sad day for She Who Must Not Be Named when two of the three SNL spoof’s arguments for her to stay in the race are accurate. It’s a funny day for us however.
It’s funny how bias can work. Back when Tony Blair was a slick socialist in the mode of Bill Clinton posing a threat to John Major, I thought Cherie Blair was an insufferable *itch. After what Tony Blair did for the U.S. and the civilized world against a terrorist-harboring regime however, I now find Cherie to be delightful. At least I admit my bias though.
A little upset at the prospect of a President McCain not living up to conservative expectations (or worse, a President Obama targeting capitalism harder than the jihadists), I thankfully found this link from the Heritage Foundation called “What Would Reagan Do?” It has clips of President Reagan’s most important speeches. How refreshing and relevant Reagan still is today!
Sure, we’re not battling double-digit inflation, the Soviet Union, or the obscene growth of government nowadays, but Reaganism reminds us that we should keep this nation capitalist, we should defeat the radical jihadists who threaten our way of life, and that we should worry about the growth of government at the expense of individual liberty.
Some have suggested that Republicans and Conservatives “let go” and get over Reagan. However, the legacy of President Reagan is not that he was saying anything new, but he was reaffirming principles what we, as Americans, have running through our bloodstream: an optimistic, can-do spirit that played to our better angels in confronting our tasks with a clear mind and determination. He spoke of principles, ideals and pathways, not gloom, doom, and defeat.
In 2008 I believe that America would embrace that message and a conservative candidate that is willing to tackle the challenges of today’s world with a little dose of that can-do spirit with the government getting out of the way. We’re not looking for Ronald Reagan, just a politician ready to meet today’s challenges with Reagan’s time-tested measures and principles. Is that really so hard for our politicians to embrace?
Yes, my friends, 17-Electoral-Vote-getting George McGovern has made it known that he doesn’t think SWMNBN can win the Dem nomination and should back out for the sake of the party. She split yesterday, taking Indiana by 1.7% and losing North Carolina by a heart-breaking 14 percentage points!
All that’s fine though (McGovern’s entitled to his opinion), but in the tongue-in-cheek spirit of “Operation Chaos“, it was the party that produced these candidates and the people that have given SWMNBN two of the last three contests and narrowed the nation popular vote totals in contests after the Reverend Wright fiasco occurred. It was also the party that denied Michigan and Florida a place in this race.
That’s why I think SWMNBN is staying in despite what the insiders and spider-web crowd her to do. Who are they to dictate before all the votes are cast (I’m still tongue-in-cheek)? If the party forces SWMNBN out before June 3 and makes a huge spectacle of it, SWMNBN might just ask John McCain to be his running mate! … That’s not funny (shudder).
Well, since the issue is a Voter ID law making it harder for Democrats to cheat by forcing voters to prove they are who they say they are, for today only the AP has decided that Catholic nuns are to be viewed as sympathetic figures who should be respected. I’ll keep that in mind the next time the AP decides to cover what Catholic nuns have to say on the issues of abortion and gay marriage.
Russia inaugurates its new President, Dmitry Medvedev tomorrow, and no one is really sure whether Russia will turn toward democracy as they did under Yeltsin. Many argue that despite Medvedev’s constitutional role, the real power will continue to rest with the puppet-master Vladimir Putin, the soon to be Prime Minister. If this is turns out to be the case, Russian democracy will continue to whither.
New York’s best newspaper printed an interesting overview by the Washington Compost’s Anne Applebaum on this very question. Applebaum overstates (slightly, and I place heavy emphasis on that word) the current state of Russian democracy.
Although Russia sometimes looks like a democracy, it is not a democracy. Elections aren’t merely rigged, they are carefully programmed in advance. Voters aren’t just coerced, they are never given any real choice at all.
I disagree with the use of the term “rigged.” Russia’s political system is corrupt and undemocratic. The media is state-controlled. Opposition assembly is technically allowed, but with severe restrictions. Political opponents seem to literally be dropping - like - flies. Some will argue that this constitutes rigging and I think that position is reasonable, but we should be careful here because words mean things. It’s undemocratic, dangerous, and sick, just not rigging. People are still technically free to vote as they please. Nevertheless, Applebaum’s point is well taken. Russia has turned away from democracy under Putin and will continue to do so if he turns out to be the one pulling the strings after tomorrow.
No one can be certain about what happens next. Many predict a puppet situation, but I predict a power struggle. Putin currently has standing and political capital. Medvedev will have institutional power. Neither man will want to be the other’s puppet. Struggle is inevitable. That’s just my hunch and could be total crap. In any event, Russia is about to get interesting.
Newt Gingrich issued this “wake up call” to national Republicans in an attempt to prevent electoral disaster this Fall. Newt makes a series of great points in this article (even a shout-out to Boris Johnson!) about the impending train-wreck, but also offers 9 solutions to the Republican conundrum facing the party this Fall.
I believe that if Republicans do not heed the call, we could be looking at 1974 (in Congressional races) and 1976 (in the presidential race) all in one cycle! OK, those elections gave us Jimmah Carter and hurt the Dems in the long-run… however, American still got a Jimmah Carter and had to dredge through those horrible times. Obama (the likely nominee for the Dems) is potentially the new Jimmah Carter for this nation (he’s practically running on the same shallow populist bilge).
If we had a formula to avoid it in 1976, I think the Republicans would have taken it. Newt’s ideas are bold, positive and immediately doable; we might just have a formula for victory this Fall!
Some other chickens have come home to roost, so to speak. One undercurrent about John Kerry’s run in 2004 was how sins of the past, when everybody was doing crazy things in the 1960s and 1970s, would come back to haunt some of those idiots.
The “Swift Vets and POWs For Truth” were a perfect example of this: if you lied about your military experience and run for President on your military experience, people will (and have the right to) call you out on it. Despite the MSM’s point of view, being “Swift Boated” means someone called you on your attempt to white-wash an important time in your life when you did something stupid that could hurt your current political ambitions.
Both Obama and She Who Must Not Be Named have connections to this time period: Obama’s got Bill Ayers and SWMNBN has her own radical statements and activism. This article from the Arizona Republic draws attention to this phenomenon in the current election cycle. And, by the way, what was John McCain doing back then? Oh, that’s right, he was being degraded, beaten, and tortured in a POW camp in Vietnam. Hence, as the article mentions, that’s is why he’s immune from the attacks about bad youth behavior.
Liberal New York Times Opinion Editorial Columnist Frank Rich wrote this piece, trying to play “gotcha” with John McCain over John Hagee, a radical white preacher who has endorsed McCain. Where Rich’s argument collapses is about when Rich says: “It boils down to this: Mr. McCain was not a parishioner for 20 years at Mr. Hagee’s church.” Well, that’s that — that is what makes all the difference!
There are plenty of crazies that are going to endorse whoever they are going to endorse in the course of this campaign. It happens every year! Rich’s disclaimer makes the point as to why most Americans have reacted so sharply towards Obama and Wright. There isn’t a double standard: Obama is a relative unknown who wants the most important job in the world. Hence the scrutiny that should have occurred earlier in Obama’s career is happening now — early in his career.
But, oh no, that’s not enough for Rich! He declares open season on John McCain as a clearly transparent attempt to numb the pain Barack Obama is feeling over his crazy Reverend by essentially saying “you too.” He also plays “nyah nyah” by essentially inferring towards the end of this piece that since there are so many Hispanics in America, it doesn’t matter what happens to this Republican “double standard” because Republicans are doomed.
Nice try, but I don’t think this will stick, despite the MSM’s best efforts. He’s not the only one to bring this up over the last eight weeks and surely won’t be the last. I can’t wait for Wright’s book tour this Fall just to see how MSM shills like Rich react to the continuing damage done Obama towards election day.
Our British friends went to the polls in a series of local elections in England and Wales on Friday and the results were an unmitigated disaster for Gordon Brown’s Labour Party. In fact, it was the Conservatives’ best election result in years. The icing on the cake however, was that Boris Johnson defeated Red Ken Livingstone to become Mayor of London.
Although he was recently placed under the Imperius Curse, I’ve always been a Boris Johnson fan. He’s right of center, intelligent, amusing, and will not suffer from the same kind of anti-all-that-is-right-with-the- world diarrhea of the mouth that plagued Mr. Livingstone.
I’m not one of those people who laugh at every video invoking Star Wars, but this one is pretty good. Obama might not be Luke, but Operation Chaos/Uncivil War fans will probably like it. Enjoy.
Stemming the conversation away from Obama and the Democ-”Rat” Race has been tough lately, but this was too good to pass up!
Scott Rasmussen released a poll today which attempted to gauge the political fallout from the recent remarks on Obama’s old Reverend Wright debacle. A whopping 58% of respondents believe that Obama condemning Wright this week out of “political convenience,” rather than pure outrage!
Well, duh!
I think this is significant, not because Obama had any new damage done to him, but this poll increases the sense that the damage Reverend Wright has done to Obama’s campaign, image, and chances is deep, lingering, if not permanent.
What’s a superdelegate to do if this holds into the Fall, right about the time Obama’s Reverend releases his book? All Wright has to do is say that Barack was there during one of those classic tirades Obama said he knew nothing about and all bets are off.
