’08 Election

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Republicans

frum’s unconventional idea

David Frum wrote an article last week for Opinion Journal that is worthy of discussion regarding the party conventions of the Democrats and Republicans  — he suggests that they would be more useful and interesting if we got rid of the media circus and the two major presidential candidates.

He says:

But what if the journalists were absent? Not because they were banned, but because they did not bother to show up?

Party conventions could then discover a new purpose as showcases for emerging talent. With the candidate speaking in front of Mount Rushmore or wherever, the party’s next generation and second-tier figures could regain the convention microphones that have been progressively removed from them over the past three decades.

Sitting governors could be given platforms to detail their records in their states. Promising younger officials could participate in panel discussions and debates — and take questions from party members across the country. Right now, the parties are too busy staging a show for the whole country to tolerate any risk that some second-tier political figure might bore the audience or stumble into some off-message mistake. But with the press voluntarily absent and the voting public’s attention fixed elsewhere, mistakes would become less disastrous.

There is one main reason why I believe this could be a good idea.  I can’t speak for the Democratic side of things, but the Republican farm team has been stuck in Single A ball.  We haven’t done enough development of promising local talent, and rising regional stars like Governors Jindal and Palin need more exposure to the rest of the party as well as bulking up their resumes / achievements for future stardom.  That’s why we are stuck with the presidential / vice presidential prospects we have.   There aren’t many quality conservative prospects out there who are willing to take on the challenge of running for president. If we start now with our recruiting and training process, maybe in 4-8 years we will have someone that conservatives AND the rest of the party can support. It’s alarming how much better the Democrats have become at recruiting good young talent in local races to take seats from the Republican incumbents.  We need to match and exceed their efforts to keep our party competitive for the long term.

It’s a shame this would never happen, because the media loves having something big to talk about, and the two political parties don’t have much of an incentive to avoid all the free publicity gained by these televised events.  It would be too much of a risk for the parties and the media to take, and we know how risk-adverse they both are — but maybe we can find alternative ways to achieve the same objectives.

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

barack and michelle’s excellent adventure

If you want to read Barack’s Berlin speech, go here.  No average citizen of the world gets to make that speech.  I can’t call Chancellor Merkel and book time to speak to the people of Germany in a historic place.  So it’s somewhat disingenuous of Obama to insist that he has this opportunity to speak in Berlin and that it has nothing to do with being a candidate for President. There are a few problems with what Obama had to say,  but the bigger problem I have is with his whole European tour.   The Obama campaign is taking a huge risk by keeping their candidate off of the domestic campaign trail to meet with all of these world leaders and to press the flesh with his European fans and his buddies in the media.  No doubt there is huge press that goes with a world tour, as well as much adulation from foreigners because they know he won’t be a “cowboy” like George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.  But is this the way to win an American election?

Greatness and legacy are not borrowed by copying phrases or words.  They are earned, and Barack has done nothing to claim the mantle of either Ronald Reagan or JFK.  That’s why the comparison of Barack’s speech to similar speeches made by these two men is inaccurate.  Both Reagan and JFK said stuff that was unpopular at the time, and didn’t apologize for it.  When was the last time Barack said something unpopular that he hasn’t apologized for?   He doesn’t admit mistakes very often. (Does this sound like anyone the left has consistently hammered the past 7 years or so?)  Most importantly, both men had been elected by the people of the United States to speak on their behalf and to shape the foreign policy of this country.    Barack Obama has no such mandate from us.  He hasn’t been elected yet, and he and his advisors would do well to remember this.

For the must-read of the weekend, check out Gerard Baker’s absolute skewering and mockery of Barack Obama.  It’s hilarious.

4 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

demint to obama: you’ve got mail

Have I mentioned lately how much I love Senator DeMint?

Senator Jim DeMint writes to Obama requesting hearings on Afghanistan(pdf here — h/t Sister Toldjah):

Dear Senator Obama,

In the coming days, I understand you will travel to Afghanistan for the first time and visit with a few of our European partners.  Like my travels to these regions, I trust this trip will afford you a unique opportunity to see the facts on the ground firsthand and witness the work of our brave men and women who sacrifice so much to secure our freedom.

In February, I had the privilege of visiting and talking with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  These brave Americans serve their country with incredible passion, pride and courage.  As you know, NATO’s International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) plays an integral part in the current operations and reconstruction of Afghanistan.

There are concerns about the imbalance between some European nations, their level of commitment to the fight in Afghanistan, and caveats these nations place on their forces in theater.  I trust you will become well acquainted with these issues.  The Bush Administration has worked hard to maintain and increase the level of forces our European allies have committed to the fight.

However, despite these successes, I am concerned our Subcommittee has not held any hearings on these issues over the last two years.  With oversight of NATO relations and its role in Afghanistan, I believe it is time for us to focus closely on these issues. As Ranking Member of your Subcommittee on European Affairs, I would welcome a chance to hold a hearing on NATO’s mission in Afghanistan upon your return.

The success of Afghanistan is critical to the future of NATO and vital to our efforts to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban.  As the situation in Afghanistan grows more tense, it is time for us to hold a hearing on the mission there. I look forward to working with you to schedule this hearing.

While it’s nice to see that Senator Obama recognizes the importance of sending more troops in to stabilize Afghanistan, it’s also fair to point out that he hasn’t exactly made Afghanistan a top priority until now. Senator DeMint draws attention to this without being nasty about it, and the indirect reply to DeMint’s letter is that his letter was “politically motivated“.   If DeMint is on McCain’s VP shortlist, that’s news to all of us.  (I wish that this was true, but it’s probably not.)  He raises a legitimate question and Obama should give a straight answer to it.  I can buy the argument that Obama’s subcommittee might not be the most appropriate venue for Afghanistan hearings, but why not just say that, instead of taking a shot at DeMint?

Senator Joe Biden attempts to rescue Obama by pointing that out, and he is unsuccessful. As Sister Toldjah points out in her post,  Senator Biden’s defense of Obama falls flat because Biden himself had previously criticized Obama for not holding hearings on Afghanistan. Oops.

Biden does deserve some credit here — he has been consistent in requesting a “surge” of troops for Afghanistan.  That’s one thing that the press release quoted by Politico brings into sharp focus.  I’m surprised that Joe Biden hasn’t brought this up very often.  Why are Barack Obama and the rest of the Democrats so convinced that adding additional military personnel in Afghanistan would achieve the desired objective?  After all, they aren’t even sure that that the Bush-Petraeus-McCain strategy of sending additional troops worked in Iraq.  Afghanistan is far less stable than Iraq.  Might they want to focus more on the all-important political objectives before sending in the brute force?  It’s a puzzler.

9 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

bad advice

Republicans would be wise to ignore the advice of Dick Morris, who sometimes appears to be a sleeper agent for the opposition. When he’s wrong about something — such as the Condi-Hillary matchup he wrote a book about — he is SPECTACULARLY wrong.  He tries to make the case against Mitt Romney as a VP choice, and this part makes some degree of sense to me.  But the alternatives he presents are completely unacceptable to conservatives — including Mike Huckabee.  Morris thinks that he understands what conservatives want, when in fact he is absolutely clueless about that.   He continues to hype Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Joe Lieberman as VP choices, presumably because this demonstrates McCain’s bipartisanship or something.  This would only serve to remind conservatives of something we see as a McCain weakness. Yeah…that’s a winner of an idea.

All of these options would be more of a mistake than choosing Mitt Romney.    He says that choosing Powell or Rice would give the choice a “WOW” factor.  “WOW” factors are just as overrated as most of Morris’ advice.  If McCain really cares about what conservatives want (and there isn’t much indication that he does), then he needs to look outside of Morris’ preferred circle of VP options, and disregard most of the media’s shortlist as well.

Who’s my pick?  If we rule out Palin and Jindal (and we have to, since they aren’t credible as the next in line to the Presidency just yet),  I have to echo the suggestion of some other conservative blogs and throw former Congresscritter and FNC guest host John Kasich into the mix.   If we must pick someone from Ohio, why not someone most conservatives already know from TV?  He’s a solid fiscal conservative and an effective defender of our worldview, and I would love to see him mix it up with Obama’s VP pick.  That debate would be very watchable.  Picking a relative unknown like Rob Portman doesn’t deliver Ohio for McCain.  Not that picking Kasich would necessarily accomplish that, but it certainly would have more of Morris’ famed “WOW” factor for conservatives than a Portman pick would.

I’m pessimistic about McCain’s inclination to pick someone who thrills conservatives, but I can settle for his choice — as long as he ignores Dick Morris’ picks and doesn’t pick his BFF Lindsey Graham.  Nobody really knows what McCain will do with his VP pick, so the best approach right now is to ignore most of the speculation, and wait to see what happens.

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Republicans

stubborn

I’ve said from the very beginning that I don’t believe that John McCain ever changed his mind about comprehensive immigration reform, so Byron York’s column in The Hill doesn’t surprise me.  McCain is quoted as saying that he learned his lesson from the immigration fight.  On the other hand, he still says that he’s glad he proposed the reform and would do it again.  We should be perfectly clear where McCain stands on this because he still believes that he was right on this issue.  Don’t be fooled.

That said, Barack Obama might want to reconsider attacking McCain on this issue. There’s no way Barack can say he’s to the right of McCain on illegal immigration — although he might be able to claim credit for not writing any comprehensive immigration reform bills. He hasn’t demonstrated any ability to improve upon McCain’s sad record, and at one point even supported driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.  In addition to that, he voted for McCain-Kennedy before he supported some “poison pill” amendments to kill it.  Any discussion of McCain’s record on immigration would bring counter-attacks from the McCain camp about Barack’s record — and he might not want to go there.  John McCain and Barack Obama sometimes say the right things about securing the borders first, but I don’t believe either one of them, and there’s no reason to, based on their record in the Senate.

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Random Musings

misdirection

We all want to believe in something greater than ourselves.  That’s a natural human desire.  When we see the imperfect world around us, and the struggles we face as Americans, we want to believe that it can be resolved in the striving of mere human effort — by electing politicians who share our desire to improve this country.  This is where the myth of Barack Obama started — that he wasn’t just any other politician.   We were asked to believe that Barack Obama, in addition to being a historical transformative figure as the Democratic nominee, was some kind of savior.   Who could forget Michelle Obama’s comment about our souls being broken, and her solution to those broken souls being her husband Barack?  Senator Clinton was right to mock this kind of talk.  No elected official will ever be a saint, much less a savior of all of us.   It’s interesting that so many people believe that this kind of spiritual void can be filled by a politician.

In the process of a campaign, we put our faith in a human being, who is just as imperfect as the rest of us (although possibly more photogenic).  Idealism gets shattered once in a while.  That’s just the nature of the game.  It’s unfortunate, but we all need a little bit of healthy skepticism when it comes to politicians, because even the good ones disappoint us on one issue or another.  If you want someone who can represent you well on policy matters,  do your homework and vote for the best candidate.  If you want someone to fix your soul, that’s beyond the ability of human politics.

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Random Musings

oh ye of little faith

Fear not, liberals progressives.  Barack hasn’t abandoned you.  He still believes in all those progressive ideas he started out believing at the beginning of his primary campaign.  Pay no attention to the appearance of centrism you may think that you see.  The progressive Barack is the real Barack…and you can trust him on that.  For the record, I believe him. I think that all these attempts to paint Obama as a flip-flopper on Iraq are misguided, because his position has always been somewhat nuanced…except for the times he implied that he supported immediate withdrawal from Iraq.  This was the position progressives liked very much and many of them supported him over Hillary because they thought he was for immediate withdrawal.  Joke’s on them I guess.  It’s an unusual talent some of these Democrat politicians have — to convince each person that the politician actually shares their values.  Barack is especially good at doing this, and it shouldn’t come as a shock that he hasn’t been exactly what progressives expected him to be.

Those who bought into Barack’s promise of a new kind of politics must not have been around the game long enough to be cynical about promises like that.  It’s still hard to condemn the idealism that all these young voters have brought to the process.  We would all like to believe a candidate that we work for has the ability to be transformative and bring needed change to the Washington establishment.  When we find out that the guy or gal we campaign for isn’t everything we expected, it does cause some to be disallusioned with the process. But in this case, did these progressives believe that Barack was going to continue to speak their language going into the general election against John McCain?  Surely they know deep down Barack is still one of them, no matter what he’s saying right now. If not, they should believe it.  It’s far more likely that Barack will stay left once elected than it is that he will embrace some kind of new centrism that is closer to George W. Bush than it is to Bill Clinton.

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

reshuffling the deck chairs

This weekend there were several articles about new and potential additions to the McCain campaign team that could help McCain stem the pro-Obama tide and keep him from suffering a painful loss to Obama in the fall.  If only this simple thing would completely solve McCain’s problems, then I would feel a whole lot better about his chances in November.  It won’t.  There are a few things that the best strategists in the world can’t fix for McCain — although I’m sure that we will see significant improvement over the status quo.

The McCain campaign has blown the head start they had back when McCain first clinched the Republican nomination.  They had the opportunity to define Barack Obama and to explain the glaring differences between McCain and Obama.  Consider this a missed opportunity. They allowed the narrative about Obama to be more about his questionable associations than about his policy positions,  and this was a mistake.  The Jeremiah Wright association raised some questions about Barack, no question, but this by itself isn’t enough to keep voters from voting for Barack Obama.  Much of this lack of contrast should be blamed on McCain’s staff.

It would take some kind of miracle worker to transform McCain into the polished product Obama has become (at least when he’s on script).   McCain can hire all of the brilliant strategists he can afford and keep reshuffling the deck chairs on the campaign team, and maybe he can improve enough so he’s not as painful to watch.   One thing all these strategists cannot fix is that after all the tweaks and suggestions they offer — McCain is still McCain.  He will always be a drastic contrast to Barack Obama.  He is older, less personable, way too familiar with the Washington crowd, and he doesn’t really enjoy talking to people.  Even many Republicans find Barack appealing, although they may find some of his policy proposals alarming.

McCain doesn’t fare quite so well in the popularity department.  He is a bona-fide expert at losing friends and alienating people in his own party.  Some Republicans can’t stand him and they would rather roll the dice with Obama than reward McCain with the presidency.  Deep down they know what the smart decision is (at least in my view) but it will be difficult for them to follow through when their nominee disagrees with them on more than one key issue  — not only that, but he actively disparages their views while pandering to the moderates/ independents.  One thing that could save McCain is if my fellow Republicans swallow their dislike of McCain at least until after the election and vote for him in order to keep Barack Obama from being our next president.  Even then, it might not be enough to put McCain over the top in November.  Good luck to the present and future strategists tasked with saving McCain.  It won’t be easy.

5 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Republicans

silly democrats

Let me get this straight — John McCain’s military service doesn’t qualify him to be commander in chief, but John Kerry’s does?  That’s the unusual logic employed by Obama supporter, failed presidential candidate, and retired military guy General Wesley Clark.   Surely General Clark remembers his glowing comments about Senator Kerry and his war record, and let’s be absolutely clear about this — Kerry ran on that record until he was derailed by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth.  The Democrats seem conflicted about whether military service matters to presidential candidates.  Clinton = No.   Kerry=Yes.  McCain = Absolutely not.  Curious how military service only adds to your qualifications for commander-in-chief if you are a Democrat.

That’s ok though.  This is a debate I’m comfortable having with the Democrats all day long.  While it’s true that having military service doesn’t automatically qualify you to be President of the United States, McCain’s long record of public service, including serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee,  speaks to much more experience than Senator Obama has.   So Senator Obama’s surrogates like Clark want to question McCain’s experience. Ha.  Go ahead.    Do you really want to compare Obama and McCain on overall experience?  Good luck.

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

funny stuff i read today

Rich Lowry on the plight of Sens. Dodd and Conrad and their involvement with Countrywide Financial:

It’s not easy being a U.S. senator. People trick you into taking special favors you didn’t even know existed. Shame on these unscrupulous people!

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad, both Democrats, fell victim to the machinations of Countrywide Financial, which gave them breaks on mortgages as part of the “Friends of Angelo” program; the “Angelo” in question is Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo.

Of course they are just innocent bystanders in this whole thing, and totally clueless about any additional benefit they would be receiving.  Right.

Michael Graham mocks Mr. Hope and Change.

But I, for one, am hopeful that Obama will at least go through the motions of an election before he seizes power and institutes a new regime of lower tides, healed souls and 53 percent federal marginal tax rates.

Heh.   Whatever you may think of the Bush administration or the possibility of McCain continuing some of the Bush policies, it’s hard to believe that a President Obama could meet these staggeringly high expectations he and his campaign have set in front of the American people.  This difficulty is entirely Obama’s own fault.  He should start smaller and work up to the lower tides and healed souls.  Just my opinion. It also might be a good idea to stop giving the right so many easy targets.