Month: November 2007

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

mr. irrelevant makes a threat.

Joe Biden threatens to call for impeachment for President Bush and Vice President Cheney if they bomb Iran without Congressional approval. Surely this will be the strategy that gets his poll numbers all the way up to 5%. Brilliant. He has to know the President would never do this, and that he will never have to follow through with this threat. I guess I was wrong in assuming he was above pandering to the lefty netroots. If you want to be different from the rest of the Democratic field, why follow their playbook? Nothing will make any difference for Biden right now, but I’m disappointed that he has to resort to playing the scary Bush card. He has more to offer as a candidate than a promise of change from Dubya’s policies.

Tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election

hard to defend

I hear the argument that Republicans need to increase their reach online so that we can get our message out to more people. I agree with that. There is an undeniable benefit to the organization of the lefty netroots community that has been translating into real votes for their Democratic candidates. We saw some of this in the 2006 election. However, these CNN/YouTube debates are not the best way for Republican candidates to achieve this goal. Those of us who are plugged in to conservative blogs and other alternative media recognize CNN’s bias for what it is. The average American may not get how slanted CNN has made these debates. It is damaging CNN’s credibility even further when they do not take the time to check if those asking questions have an agenda to push, or whether they are even undecided voters. There’s nothing wrong with Democrats asking questions of the Republicans. The format allowed for people from both parties to ask them questions. CNN should have allowed more questions from Republicans than Democrats, since we are the ones who will pick our nominee. That’s not what happened here.

CNN never hesitated to name the affliation of Grover Norquist (who is hardly an impartial observer in this debate) to his Americans for Tax Reform. With just a little homework on their part, they could have found out about the Democrats asking questions without any disclosure of their affliations with Hillary, Obama, and someone belonging to a union supporting John Edwards. This is a joke. A bad joke. If the Republicans decide to boycott CNN from now on, I would support that completely.

As for the debate itself, I don’t know who won. The fireworks between Romney and Giuliani was quite entertaining. But I’ve stopped keeping score. There were no winners in the audience, because CNN totally abdicated its responsibility to run an honest debate for the Republicans.

Tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Republicans

low expectations

The best argument for Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani is that Hillary (or Rudy) would be the candidate most likely to beat the other in a general election matchup…at least you would think so from the press coverage they get. Republicans are told that Giuliani is the only Republican candidate who might possibly be able to beat HER.  Because of this “fact”, we shouldn’t care about his lack of social conservative credentials or his messy personal life, or that being mayor of NYC doesn’t automatically qualify him to be president of the United States.  We might be giving up a whole bunch of red states to (maybe) gain a few blue ones if Giuliani is our candidate.  That’s ok with us, as long as we have a chance to beat Hillary, right?

There is no great love for Hillary out there as the Democrats’ preferred candidate. The netroots gravitate toward Edwards, or one of the other “no chance” candidates.  Those disenchanted with the status quo or Washington insiders have their guy in Obama.  But until that debate where we saw Hillary stumble just a little bit, many of us bought into Hillary’s inevitability as the Dem nominee. It’s still difficult to see how Obama can gain enough ground to knock her off, but several wins in early primary states, such as Iowa, can throw a monkey wrench into Hillary’s coronation plans. 

Obama does have the opportunity to pull this off as Democrats start to doubt that Hillary is their strongest possible nominee. That’s the whole point of all these increasingly sharp attacks on Hillary’s experience (or lack thereof) — to make them doubt her viability.  Maybe it will work.  Maybe not.  Hillary has experience where it counts with Democrats — successfully fending off Republican attacks.  This should be enough to get her to the Democratic nomination.

Is this the kind of contest we want?  Would we be satisfied with a contest between two candidates each party nominates by default?  Wouldn’t we rather nominate candidates with the best vision for the country, and the two people who we feel have the best ideas to solve the country’s problems?  Hillary and Rudy may be those two candidates.  But we don’t seem to care much about vision and ideas, just as long as our candidate is the most electable. It’s the most practical way to look at the election, but there’s no joy in the choice.

Jason Zengerle explores the electability argument further in New York Magazine.

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

yes

Tony Blankley asks this question:

“Is the national media actually going to accept without even a murmur of skepticism Hillary Clinton’s claim to possess all the experience gained by her husband as president?”

Yes they are. It’s easier to ignore that little detail when Hillary’s chief rivals for the Democratic nomination don’t challenge her on taking credit for the work of the Clinton administration. Barack Obama and John Edwards don’t want to get into a discussion about experience, since they both have less then she does, even if you don’t count her time as co-president. Now if Joe Biden and Chris Dodd continue to bring the subject up, perhaps she will be forced to address it. We need to know what qualifications she has, other than being an inconsequential junior senator from New York whose husband used to be President of the United States.

This kind of resume by osmosis doesn’t usually happen in the business world. How many spouses of CEOs have acquired the knowledge to replace their husbands when they step down or retire? I would say — not very many. So why is it Hillary gets any credit for the Clinton years? We had only one (official) President during the Clinton administration. The person who was elected to that post was Hillary’s husband.

If she takes credit for Bill’s accomplishments, will she also take the blame for his failures? Inquiring minds want to know.

Tags: ,

Posted on College Football, Michigan Wolverines, Ohio State Buckeyes

hail to the victors?

WTNPICIQSARUYRO.20071117214133.jpg

(original photo at ohiostatebuckeyes.com)
Not this year. Ohio State wins again — 14-3 over that team up north. Give Chad Henne and Mike Hart a lot of credit for trying to play in this game, but their injuries clearly affected their play, and without those two going full speed it was going to be a tough day for the Wolverines. It would also have helped them if their receivers had caught a couple long passes thrown by Henne when the game was still in doubt. (That doesn’t mean that I’m any less happy that the Buckeyes won again, but it wasn’t really a fair fight this time.) There are reports that Lloyd Carr might retire as Michigan’s head coach, and I’m glad that it’s going to be his choice. His overall Michigan record is solid, and the Wolverines’ fans were lucky to have him, even if he only beat Tressel once.

Tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

unarmed combat

If you read most of the press on last night’s Democratic presidential debate, you will learn that Hillary managed to rebound from her uneven performance in the previous debate (and the paralyzed reaction to the question about illegal alien driver’s licenses). If you actually watched the debate, you might have a different reaction to what you saw Thursday night. Obama and Edwards were right to call her out on her sketchy answer to the illegal immigration question. The problem is that Wolf Blitzer and Barack Obama allowed her to recover from that by allowing her to change her mind yet again with a one-word answer. (Her current view is that no, they shouldn’t get driver’s licenses. I doubt this position will change.) Obama seems to be intent on shooting himself in the foot. When criticizing an opponent for not giving straight answers, it’s important to give them yourself, especially on a question guaranteed to be asked in this debate. Obama didn’t do this. It took him forever to finally say that yes, he’s for illegals getting driver’s licenses (but only for public safety purposes). This blows my mind. Richardson gave a better defense than Obama did, and he has no shot of winning the nomination. Maybe that’s the reason he was willing to defend his “yes” answer.

Will Hillary get a better fight from the Republican nominee than she’s getting from Obama, Edwards, and all the rest??? I sure hope so. At least Wolf pretended to ask hard questions.

I continue to like some of the things I’m hearing from Biden and Dodd. They make more sense on foreign policy than any of the rest except Hillary. I also give Dodd credit for trying to explain to the other candidates why giving driver’s licenses to people who are here illegally is a bad idea. Domestic policy is another story. I don’t trust any Democrat on that topic.

Kucinich will always be Kucinich, God bless him. He’s still not convincing anybody that he’s presidential material.

As it turns out, CNN is not above screening questions for this debate, and telling questioners which one to ask. The crowd was unquestionably pro-Hillary. It was a very hostile environment for Obama and Edwards, and we shouldn’t have expected anything less this late in the race. I’m not going to blame CNN for the crowd. Who knows how the Hillary campaign might have stacked the deck in her favor by bringing in all those favorable audience members? But I don’t think Wolf Blitzer treated Obama and Edwards the same way he treated Hillary. Whether the bias was conscious or unconscious,  the sentiments of the crowd and of the moderators were obvious. I’m not surprised by it. That’s the way CNN is. They are just as biased for Dems as Fox News is for Republicans.

If you want to read the transcript, go here.

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

bush the second

There’s another compassionate conservative who wants to claim the title of the new and improved version of George W. Bush — Mike Huckabee. Huckabee has those valuable social conservative credentials. He’s pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family. He’s also very personable. People like him…and why not? What’s not to like about a Southern Baptist minister with a gift for gab and enough folksy sayings to fill a daily calendar? I have no doubt that he would put a high priority on originalist SCOTUS picks and that he would push for a Federal Marriage Amendment. Unfortunately, those with the view of government’s role in our lives that Dubya and Mike Huckabee share can’t possibly commit to responsible spending or small government. The reason I don’t trust Huckabee on spending is not just because the Club for Growth and CATO panned his Arkansas record.

Jennifer Rubin(NRO)(emphasis mine):

He was not the poster child for smaller government. During his tenure, the number of state government workers in Arkansas increased over 20 percent. Under Governor Huckabee’s watch, state spending increased a whopping 65.3 percent from 1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation, and the state’s general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion. As Grover Norquist quipped, “We like chubby governors and skinny budgets. Not the other way around.” The massive increase in government spending is due in part to the number of new health programs and expansion of existing ones, including ARKids First, a state program to provide health coverage for 70,000 Arkansas children. Spending on ARKids alone increased 69 percent over a five-year period. Huckabee says it is worth it. He proudly states: “ARKids First is without a doubt, the program I am most proud of. This provides health insurance to tens of thousands of children who didn’t have access to health care before. Instead of a total government approach, this requires deductibles and copays and therefore some personal responsibility. Children can’t learn if they are sitting in class with a toothache, fever, or they can’t see the chalkboard.”

Those are some scary numbers for fiscal conservatives who have been disappointed in President Bush’s recklessness on government spending. Bush seems to be getting the message too late, but at least he’s going in the right direction now. With Huckabee, you don’t really know which Huckabee you will get as President — the one who cut taxes and who was named a “friend of the taxpayer” in his first term, or the one who massively increased government spending and the number of state workers. That’s something to think when trying to decide whether Huckabee is the right guy to put in charge of the bloated federal bureaucracy we already have in D.C.

The similarities with Bush don’t stop with spending. Huckabee is also sympathetic to illegal immigration, just like our President. He is saying all the right things about securing the borders, no amnesty, etc…but when he defends giving in-state college tuition to illegals with good grades, that’s something that might raise a few eyebrows with those opposed to any kind of benefits for non-citizens, even if it was the parent, not the student, who broke the law. He says that his proposal asked those students to apply and become citizens in order to get the tuition reduction, but it’s not clear whether this was a requirement or simply a request. I’m not saying that any of the other presidential candidates are much more solid on illegal immigration. I’m just surprised that so many social conservatives who also care about illegal immigration choose to gloss over Huck’s conflicting views on the subject.

If you liked the Bush presidency, then Huckabee’s your guy. It’s all a question of priorities, I guess, because there isn’t one candidate out there who can make us all happy.

Tags: , , ,

Posted on Random Musings

site update

Just wanted to let everyone know that the site is now up and running again after some hosting-related server problems.  Regular posting will resume in the next day or so.  Stay tuned.

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

get over it

If you want to read about how all those mean ol’ men beat up on poor defenseless Hillary,  feel free to read what Margaret Carlson and the NYT’s Gail Collins had to say about that last debate. If you want to hear whining about how unfair they are being when Russert dares to ask her tough questions and when Edwards, Obama, and Dodd call her on her inability to give a straight answer to those questions  — it won’t be difficult for you to find articles about that either. This strategy may have worked with Rick Lazio.  It’s not going to work this time.  If Hillary can’t answer tough questions, if she can’t make tough decisions without waffling a few times, and if she can’t take a principled stand on any important issue facing our country today, maybe she would be better off staying in the kitchen and baking cookies (or doing whatever feminists do when they are not running for office).  Her problem is not that she is female.  It’s certainly not that she can’t handle whatever abuse she gets, whether it’s because she’s a woman, or because she is the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential race.   She can handle it because she has the Clinton machine behind her spinning valid criticisms into personal attacks.

Hillary chose this battle.  Maybe she expected it to be an easier ride than it has been for her so far, but surely she had to know that the harder questions were coming at some point. She knew the risks involved, and she decided to take that chance anyway.  Politics is an ugly business.  She should know this better than just about anyone.  If she can’t stand up to your Democratic opponents (who weren’t all that close to mortally wounding her) and Tim Russert, that raises some serious questions in my mind.  She survived the debate without much damage inflicted from Obama and Edwards, but her uneven performance in the latter half is more her fault than theirs.  She does herself no good by blaming others for her own mistakes.  Unfortunately, this will not stop her from getting the nomination, but she can be stopped.   We have a good chance to take advantage of her mistakes in the general election.  We just need someone who knows how to do it.

Tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

not invincible

hillary.jpgHillary showed signs of weakness in Tuesday’s Democratic debate, but even though Edwards and Obama landed a few soft punches, they didn’t do any lasting damage. This could change if they keep up the pressure, because Hillary showed that she does have a breaking point, and that it was possible to throw her off of her game.

Dan Balz in the Washington Post blog:

Clinton was on the defensive from beginning to end on Tuesday, both from the moderators — Brian Williams, the NBC anchor, and Tim Russert, host of NBC’s “Meet The Press” — and from her rivals. John Edwards was the most aggressive challenger to Clinton on Tuesday, but Barack Obama and Chris Dodd made telling points against her as well.

The storyline they sought to write was of an evasive front-runner who, for reasons of political calculation, caution or lack of candor, was unwilling to say what she really believes about everything from Social Security to the release of documents from her husband’s administration to whether illegal immigrants should be eligible for drivers licenses.

At times she was typically strong in defending her positions, even if they run counter to the views of many Democratic voters. That was the case on Iran, where she explained her vote for a measure that her rivals said provided President Bush with a legislative rationale to go to war with the Iranians. At other times, however, she was defensive, evasive or both.

If Hillary wants to take credit for the accomplishments of her husband’s administration, it would be wise for her to have some evidence of what exactly her role was as First Lady. What part did she play? What policies does she deserve credit (or blame) for? These are things that we could find out if she asks Bill to unseal those Presidential records. After all, that’s part of the resume she’s pushing as her qualifications for being President. She hasn’t really distinguished herself as a Senator, and has no signature legislation to show for her time there. It is about time for her opponents to call attention to this, and I’m glad that Russert asked the question to give them the opportunity to comment on the subject.

Edwards did what he had to do, except that attacking Hillary is what he has done from the very beginning of his campaign. He is much more comfortable doing that than Barack Obama is, and it showed. That trial lawyer experience served him well here. Obama was given an opening on the very first question to criticize Clinton and to make distinctions between himself and Hillary and he passed on it. I don’t think he is all that comfortable with political combat. Unfortunately, staying above the fray may not work this year. I know Obama is trying to be a different kind of candidate, and provide a contrast to the combative Edwards, and to Hillary, but his heart doesn’t seem to be totally in this campaign.

As far as Balz’s comment on Chris Dodd is concerned, at this point he should be more worried about his own electability than about Hillary’s. He did seem to be engaged in this debate much more than in the previous one, but not enough to change his status in the race. Same goes for Kucinich, who never fails to entertain — in case you missed it, he saw a UFO, just like Shirley McLaine claimed he did. Why are we asking questions about UFOs and Halloween costumes in a Presidential debate??? Are Tim Russert and Brian Williams getting bored? Did they leave the piece of paper with their last question back in the control room? You expect this junk from Chris Matthews, not from these two. They asked enough hard questions, I guess, so I will give them both a pass on this.

This waffling on driver’s licenses for illegals will hurt Hillary, because New Yorkers do not support Governor Spitzer’s proposal. Even a large percentage of Democrats oppose it. Maybe Obama and Edwards won’t be able to take advantage of this, but the Republicans certainly will make it an issue in the general election.

Tags: , ,