by bert
A throng of republicans are right now turning their doleful eyes upward to right-wing radio sages for help. These people need to know why they should loathe Barack Obama.
So far, that help has been unsatisfactory.
The best thrust the right wing can orchestrate at the moment against Obama is that he is empty. This is obviously the talking point. Obama offers no specifics, they tell us. He is “content free”.
I don’t think that’s going to work, though. I was struck, after attending a Mike Huckabee rally last Wednesday for the heck of it, that Huckabee’s speech was no more full of “content” than a speech I heard Obama deliver last year at a rally in an Iowa gym.
It’s okay for Huckabee to stir applause and “amens” with wispy code words about “respect for life”. (I don’t even recall that he used the word “abortion” at this speech.) But apparently Obama needs to deliver a powerpoint lecture to the good people of Waterloo-Cedar Falls on his future trade policy with Azerbaijan. Otherwise, he’s a rock star and an empty suit.
It is laughable to hear Charlie Sykes dutifully talk this Obama point this week on his radio show. As a matter of fact, today Charlie again said Obama is “content free.”
It’s naïve for me to ask this, but why doesn’t Charlie have Obama on his radio station, as he has had Republicans like Huckabee this week, and ask Obama to give some content? If Charlie thinks it is a problem that people don’t know enough about Obama, Charlie and his transmitter possess a solution.
Like I said, naive question. Of course the right wing’s real problem is not what they say it is. Their honest-to-goodness problem is that their project to destroy Obama is not getting traction, yet.
Showing posts with label 2008 Republican Primary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Republican Primary. Show all posts
Friday, February 15, 2008
Friday, January 04, 2008
I was not entirely wrong
by folkbum
A few weeks ago, back when it was still 2007 and I could still eat solid food (yesterday I ate soup!), I made a few predictions about Iowa.
If Obama can turn out independents the way he did students in Iowa, then this is over--two for two is going to be the media's definition of de facto winning, even though there could be time for Clinton to catch up.
Everyone is loving on McCain--he didn't campaign in Iowa but still did as well as people who did--but will it be enough to win him Hew Hampshire over Romney? We'll see.
Thompson's finish means the odds are about 50-50, I think, that Sean Hackbarth will really need a couch to sleep on next week. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have already dropped out on the Democrats' side, and Republican Duncan Hunter will also find the exit soon.
In any case, I still don't see how our votes here on February 19 will matter much. In fact, most of the Milwaukee area won't even have reason to turn out and vote in local races that day--though I will have two primaries to vote in.
Here's the best news I've read, though:
A few weeks ago, back when it was still 2007 and I could still eat solid food (yesterday I ate soup!), I made a few predictions about Iowa.
If I had to bet--and I don't think I would, because there is no clear frontrunner in Iowa on either side right now, but if someone gave me two quarters and said, "Here, bet these"--if I had to bet, I would bet on Hillary Clinton and Willard "Mitt" Romney.I missed that, but hedged enough, I think, that I'm in the clear. Look, it was close, particularly for the Democrats. When you look at the totals, in fact, you see that Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are estimated to receive 16, 15, and 14 of Iowa's delegates to the convention--aside from a three-way tie, that's really as close as you can get to even.
Even if Clinton comes in second--I have a hard time seeing her third--the other two will have to work hard to stop her.That "I have a hard time . . ." aside is where I most blew it, because, despite the fact that she's being estimated to receive one delegate more than Edwards, she lost to him by about a quarter of a percent. In real terms, that's negligible. In rhetorical terms, that huge for Edwards. He's still the longest shot of the three, of course, but those few hundred extra caucusers are a big get for him.
If Obama can turn out independents the way he did students in Iowa, then this is over--two for two is going to be the media's definition of de facto winning, even though there could be time for Clinton to catch up.
So, Romney-Huckabee-McCain (probably) or Huckabee-Romney-McCainThe second of those two was right. Fred Thompson made a better showing than I expected, tying McCain for third--beating him, actually, by a couple hundred votes, though the full totals still aren't in for the GOP. Although for both McCain and Thompson, that's kind of academic, as they were a full 20% behind front-runner Huckabee, and more than 10% behind Romney.
Everyone is loving on McCain--he didn't campaign in Iowa but still did as well as people who did--but will it be enough to win him Hew Hampshire over Romney? We'll see.
Thompson's finish means the odds are about 50-50, I think, that Sean Hackbarth will really need a couch to sleep on next week. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have already dropped out on the Democrats' side, and Republican Duncan Hunter will also find the exit soon.
In any case, I still don't see how our votes here on February 19 will matter much. In fact, most of the Milwaukee area won't even have reason to turn out and vote in local races that day--though I will have two primaries to vote in.
Here's the best news I've read, though:
Total Voter Turnout (approximate): 356,000Democrats are as fired up this year as we were in 2006. That's a very good sign.
Percentage of total vote
24.5% Obama (D)
20.5% Edwards (D)
19.8% Clinton (D)
11.4% Huckabee (R)
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Sean Hackbarth may need to borrow your couch
by folkbum
It's Politico, so, you know, take it for what it's worth:
It's Politico, so, you know, take it for what it's worth:
Several Republican officials close to Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign said they expect the candidate will drop out of the race within days if he finishes poorly in Thursday’s Iowa caucus. [. . .]When Sean Hackbarth comes back from DC next week, he may need a place to crash. Hope someone can hook him up . . .
A Thompson campaign source said there is “a strong likelihood” that if Thompson comes in a distant third in Iowa, with less than 15 percent of the vote, he would drop out soon—most likely before this weekend’s New Hampshire presidential debates.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Why Ron Paul is like Howard Dean
by folkbum
One sad lesson I learned (of many) from the Dean campaign of 2004 is that most candidates have a lot of people who will show their support by giving money, and exponentially more people who show up to vote--or caucus as the case may be. That was not true for Howard Dean, and it will not prove true for Ron Paul.
Dean raised a lot of money from a lot of people, and I'm willing to be that pretty much every single one of those people showed up to vote, but not many more. John Kerry had poor fundraising but made up for it in, you know, actual voters.
Ron Paul's supporters (often willingly blind and deaf to the candidate's racist past, and his otherwise general nuttiness) certainly can raise the money. And I have no doubt that everyone who gives will show up to caucus/ vote/ participate. But Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney aren't raising that kind of cash and will far out-poll Paul everywhere, starting tomorrow in Iowa.
Ron Paul supporters everywhere will learn the same thing in the next few weeks that I learned in 2004.
One sad lesson I learned (of many) from the Dean campaign of 2004 is that most candidates have a lot of people who will show their support by giving money, and exponentially more people who show up to vote--or caucus as the case may be. That was not true for Howard Dean, and it will not prove true for Ron Paul.
Dean raised a lot of money from a lot of people, and I'm willing to be that pretty much every single one of those people showed up to vote, but not many more. John Kerry had poor fundraising but made up for it in, you know, actual voters.
Ron Paul's supporters (often willingly blind and deaf to the candidate's racist past, and his otherwise general nuttiness) certainly can raise the money. And I have no doubt that everyone who gives will show up to caucus/ vote/ participate. But Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney aren't raising that kind of cash and will far out-poll Paul everywhere, starting tomorrow in Iowa.
Ron Paul supporters everywhere will learn the same thing in the next few weeks that I learned in 2004.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Holy Crap, There's an Election Soon
by folkbum
Hard to believe, but the Iowa caucuses are less than two weeks away. It's hard to believe in part because I just haven't gotten myself into the presidential race the way I did four years ago. I started blogging in 2003 because of Howard Dean (and have kept it up because of a lack of anything better to do), but this year I have not campaigned for a candidate, endorsed a candidate, given money to a candidate, or anything of the sort.
So it's kind of weird to think that, here we are, just moments away from the thing already. It seems to have snuck up on us, sprung up from behind a snow bank or something. And now we have to deal with it.
At any rate, I would like to offer my brief predictions and thoughts, for what they are worth.
Winners: If I had to bet--and I don't think I would, because there is no clear frontrunner in Iowa on either side right now, but if someone gave me two quarters and said, "Here, bet these"--if I had to bet, I would bet on Hillary Clinton and Willard "Mitt" Romney. I would bet on them just simply on the theory that, all else being equal, the candidate with the most money usually wins.
Democrats: There is tremendous pressure on the three leaders, all of whom have a real chance at winning. Clinton is a monolith: She has the money, a well-oiled machine, and deep support; she led in the polls for much of the fall, after all. Barack Obama will do well if the traditionally unreliable youth vote actually gets to the caucuses--but they traditionally don't, which will be his weakness. John Edwards is in year six of his campaign in Iowa, and has probably the best ground game.
The pressure comes from this: If Clinton wins, the game is pretty much over; she will run the rest of the table. Even if Clinton comes in second--I have a hard time seeing her third--the other two will have to work hard to stop her. Obama must come in first if he wants a chance at New Hampshire voters' confidence that he's a closer. A second-place finish won't kill him, but it will make his chances of winning anything before February 5 much slimmer. Obama in third, though, means the end of that campaign. Edwards must finish first or he will have to drop out--he's not got the support in any of the other early states and needs the momentum.
As I said, any of the three could win. And I will happily support any of those three in the general election come November. On February 19, when I actually get to vote, the nominee will probably be long since decided.
Republicans: The top two will be Romney and Mike Huckabee. Someone recently asked--I think it was the Recess Supervisor, though now I can't find the post--who could have predicted Huckabee's rise to frontrunner status. Well, not to brag or anything, but I did, a year ago. Huckabee's got a natural constituency among the religious conservatives who always, always go to the caucuses in Iowa. (They are the ones who stayed home in 2006 and allowed Democrats to make gains there--they were getting tired of faux-Christian Bush and the faux-Christian Republicans in Congress.) Romney is throwing around money in Iowa like Mardi Gras beads. John McCain will probably finish third, just because he's a better second choice for the Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani supporters; McCain lacks the constituency of Huckabee and the walking-around money of Romney, and so cannot win. Thompson's fizzled, Ron Paul's counting on even less predictable caucusers than Obama is, and no one else is even registering in the polls. (Did anyone even notice Tom Tancredo's exit?)
So, Romney-Huckabee-McCain (probably) or Huckabee-Romney-McCain. Either of which sets up an interesting run at the next few primaries: Huckabee cannot win New Hampshire, and Romney probably cannot win South Carolina. Huckabee is leading in Florida and Romney's got family history in Michigan. Republicans may well get to February 5 with two candidates having won three contests each. Pass the popcorn, I say, because the Democrats' primary will probably be over by then.
The most interesting thing that could happen: Hillary wins big in Iowa, convincing New Hampshire independents--currently about 3-2 planning to vote in the Democratic primary--to vote in the Republican primary instead. That could only help McCain. What Obama or Edwards voter would support Huckabee or Romney? If McCain can win New Hampshire, we might hit February 5 with three Republicans winning two contests each (McCain won Michigan in 2000). Mm, mm, juicy fightin' goodness. (Watch, though--the media story, even as the Republican fight gets nasty, will be that Democrats are divided over Hillary.)
Hard to believe, but the Iowa caucuses are less than two weeks away. It's hard to believe in part because I just haven't gotten myself into the presidential race the way I did four years ago. I started blogging in 2003 because of Howard Dean (and have kept it up because of a lack of anything better to do), but this year I have not campaigned for a candidate, endorsed a candidate, given money to a candidate, or anything of the sort.
So it's kind of weird to think that, here we are, just moments away from the thing already. It seems to have snuck up on us, sprung up from behind a snow bank or something. And now we have to deal with it.
At any rate, I would like to offer my brief predictions and thoughts, for what they are worth.
Winners: If I had to bet--and I don't think I would, because there is no clear frontrunner in Iowa on either side right now, but if someone gave me two quarters and said, "Here, bet these"--if I had to bet, I would bet on Hillary Clinton and Willard "Mitt" Romney. I would bet on them just simply on the theory that, all else being equal, the candidate with the most money usually wins.
Democrats: There is tremendous pressure on the three leaders, all of whom have a real chance at winning. Clinton is a monolith: She has the money, a well-oiled machine, and deep support; she led in the polls for much of the fall, after all. Barack Obama will do well if the traditionally unreliable youth vote actually gets to the caucuses--but they traditionally don't, which will be his weakness. John Edwards is in year six of his campaign in Iowa, and has probably the best ground game.
The pressure comes from this: If Clinton wins, the game is pretty much over; she will run the rest of the table. Even if Clinton comes in second--I have a hard time seeing her third--the other two will have to work hard to stop her. Obama must come in first if he wants a chance at New Hampshire voters' confidence that he's a closer. A second-place finish won't kill him, but it will make his chances of winning anything before February 5 much slimmer. Obama in third, though, means the end of that campaign. Edwards must finish first or he will have to drop out--he's not got the support in any of the other early states and needs the momentum.
As I said, any of the three could win. And I will happily support any of those three in the general election come November. On February 19, when I actually get to vote, the nominee will probably be long since decided.
Republicans: The top two will be Romney and Mike Huckabee. Someone recently asked--I think it was the Recess Supervisor, though now I can't find the post--who could have predicted Huckabee's rise to frontrunner status. Well, not to brag or anything, but I did, a year ago. Huckabee's got a natural constituency among the religious conservatives who always, always go to the caucuses in Iowa. (They are the ones who stayed home in 2006 and allowed Democrats to make gains there--they were getting tired of faux-Christian Bush and the faux-Christian Republicans in Congress.) Romney is throwing around money in Iowa like Mardi Gras beads. John McCain will probably finish third, just because he's a better second choice for the Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani supporters; McCain lacks the constituency of Huckabee and the walking-around money of Romney, and so cannot win. Thompson's fizzled, Ron Paul's counting on even less predictable caucusers than Obama is, and no one else is even registering in the polls. (Did anyone even notice Tom Tancredo's exit?)
So, Romney-Huckabee-McCain (probably) or Huckabee-Romney-McCain. Either of which sets up an interesting run at the next few primaries: Huckabee cannot win New Hampshire, and Romney probably cannot win South Carolina. Huckabee is leading in Florida and Romney's got family history in Michigan. Republicans may well get to February 5 with two candidates having won three contests each. Pass the popcorn, I say, because the Democrats' primary will probably be over by then.
The most interesting thing that could happen: Hillary wins big in Iowa, convincing New Hampshire independents--currently about 3-2 planning to vote in the Democratic primary--to vote in the Republican primary instead. That could only help McCain. What Obama or Edwards voter would support Huckabee or Romney? If McCain can win New Hampshire, we might hit February 5 with three Republicans winning two contests each (McCain won Michigan in 2000). Mm, mm, juicy fightin' goodness. (Watch, though--the media story, even as the Republican fight gets nasty, will be that Democrats are divided over Hillary.)
Thursday, November 22, 2007
The Conservative Thanksgiving Day Hypocrisy Parade™
by folkbumYes, it's that time of year when we blow conservative talking (or typing) heads full of helium and march them through the streets so the kids can point and laugh. My only regret is that I lack, say, Al Roker to provide his inimitable off-beat commentary as we watch the gasbags roll by. So instead, I will sometimes rely on members of the Cheddarsphere to offer their comments. Anyway, let's start the Hypocrisy Parade™!
First up is my BFF, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Patrick McIlheran. Nick describes the balloon as it wafts past our cameras:
Wow... this takes a lot of [helium] for Patrick McIlheran to say:For anyone interested in a different description of that balloon, you can check out capper at Whallah! or Mike Mathias.Milwaukee School Board member Jennifer Morales wants the schools, for benefits purposes, to treat people who are shacking up as if they were married -- "domestic partner" benefits, it's called.That would be the same guy who wrote pretty passionately to pass the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Wisconsin, and then wrote about how such a ban wouldn't affect benefits for same sex couples, so they need not worry. Ummm... yeah... right. It especially takes a lot of [helium] to use the phrase "shacking up", and then immediately talk about about Owen and Morales. So first Patrick fights to prevent committed couples like Owen and Morales from getting married... and the criticizes them because they're not married... saying they're just "shacking up"... and aren't deserving of the benefits that any other married couple might receive. That's not just arrogant on his part, but insulting.
It's supposed to be the epitome of progress. Morales says it's a matter of fairness: "Fairness for employees is fairness for employees," she told the Journal Sentinel. "It's not about me, it's not about Tina."
Tina would be the woman to whom Morales says she's married. If the schools approve this deal, Morales and Tina Owen, who works at an MPS charter school, would be considered spouses for benefits purposes.
Next up is one I've been looking forward to for months. Former Wisconsinite Kevin Binversie moved to
Republican Party leaders [. . .] recommended punishing five states for shifting their nomination contests earlier, moving to strip New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina, Michigan and Wyoming of half their delegates.The ropes of apologies unposted are dangling from Kevin's balloon. I sure hope the marching band walking behind him doesn't trip over them!
"It's very important that our party uphold and enforce the rules that we unanimously voted into place at the Republican National Convention in 2004," said Mike Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee. The rules ban holding votes before Feb. 5.
And bringing up, aptly, the rear of our Hypocrisy Parade™ is the biggest gasbag of all, Charlie Sykes--not that his head needs any additional inflation for the holiday! Sykes is always good for outrage, and when the Catholic League yelled "jump," Charlie opened his valves and flew into the air. See, Miller Brewing Company put its mug (get it? mug?) on a poster advertising a street fetish fair in open-minded San Francisco, and Charlie Sykes led the Cheddarshpere's outrage parade. (The outrage parade, by the way, is not affiliated with this Hypocrisy Parade™.)
In the end, Miller buckled like a spaghetti bridge built by the kids insulted in this post by squeaky-clean Owen Robinson, who next year might get his very own balloon (keep reaching for the sky, Owen!). Miller's logo came off the poster, the Catholic League notched another victory into its bedpost, and Sykes was triumphant.
But when the Milwaukee Interfaith Conference complained about something Sykes had posted on his own website--a "parody" of the now-common "Coexist" bumper sticker that, among other things, replaced the Star of David with a Swastika--Sykes did not lead any kind of parade, outraged or not. Now, there's a difference between the Catholic League and the Interfaith Conference. The New York-based CL has basically become a front group for Republicans, and the IC is made up of actual and real church, synagogue, mosque, and temple leaders from around the Milwaukee area--so it doesn't take a genius to figure out which Sykes will align himself with.
So, long story short, Sykes spewed his noxious gas right back at the IC, claiming that he was drawing a "line" in defense of free speech and artistic expression. I know! It's the funniest balloon out here! Brawler, what do you think?
It's a Sykesian masterpiece of taking a principled stand on free speech while at the same time denying accountability for controversial implications of said speech. Which is classic Sykes -- and is the antithesis of Journalism 101.Paul Noonan has some thoughts on the matter. Oh, and Jim Rowen, what make you of this cartoon balloon?
Charlie is framing the issue as one of free speech. His free speech. And I've got no complaint with that. I want him to have free speech, but to exercise caution, like we all do, so we do not commit libel, slander, or needlessly poison the public debate.And, briefly, we can roll the film on some historical footage from Bill Christofferson of Charlie Sykes's "free speech for me but not for thee" attitude.
What's the point, even if it's profitable, wins ratings, notoriety, celebrity? It's a drag on the community. What's wrong with a little effort to be uplifting? To be a real uniter, not a 50,000-watt divider.
Well, every Thanksgiving Day Hypocrisy Parade™ has to end, and the 2007 version has now finally gone past. Thanks to all who participated, whose hard work makes all of this possible. Great job, everybody! See you next year!
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Our First Annual Thanksgiving Coloring Contest
by folkbum
Hey, hey, kids! Clip and color this collection of Thanksgiving turkeys, and you could win fabulous prizes!
Hey, hey, kids! Clip and color this collection of Thanksgiving turkeys, and you could win fabulous prizes!
Friday, October 26, 2007
Paul's Pot
By Keith Schmitz
I love libertarians. When it gets down to politics they are the most fun to get into it. And for the most part they have an actual idea why they believe what they believe. There is a lovable innocence about them.
That's why Ron Paul is the most fun out of all of the fine folks running for president, certainly more than those cartoons from the 50's that he is debating with on the GOP side. He has the unpolitical knack of saying what's on our minds.
So now it comes out that campaign cash is flowing into Paul's pockets. He just wrapped up the last quarter with his campaign $5 million richer, no doubt some of that siphoned from the other GOP candidates. That will pay for $1.1 million worth of commercials in New Hampshire. Rudy Giuliani is yet to go on air.
He is polling fourth in some states primaries right now, and regardless how he actually does Paul has engendered enough of a following that he can continue to raise those irritating points about Iraq in debate after debate. He certainly is not running a spendthrift campaign.
With his viewpoints spoiling the party for his party, the GOP will no doubt rue Paul.
I love libertarians. When it gets down to politics they are the most fun to get into it. And for the most part they have an actual idea why they believe what they believe. There is a lovable innocence about them.
That's why Ron Paul is the most fun out of all of the fine folks running for president, certainly more than those cartoons from the 50's that he is debating with on the GOP side. He has the unpolitical knack of saying what's on our minds.
So now it comes out that campaign cash is flowing into Paul's pockets. He just wrapped up the last quarter with his campaign $5 million richer, no doubt some of that siphoned from the other GOP candidates. That will pay for $1.1 million worth of commercials in New Hampshire. Rudy Giuliani is yet to go on air.
He is polling fourth in some states primaries right now, and regardless how he actually does Paul has engendered enough of a following that he can continue to raise those irritating points about Iraq in debate after debate. He certainly is not running a spendthrift campaign.
With his viewpoints spoiling the party for his party, the GOP will no doubt rue Paul.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Most Republican candidates losing . . . to Obama . . . among Republicans
by folkbum
I picked this up via Steve Benen, who points out a University of Iowa poll released just ahead of the olympian Ames Straw Poll. Just watch:
I'm still not making up my mind--I still believe all the Democrats are good, and I still believe my February 19th vote will be pointless--so I probably shouldn't point out the poll's "undecided" number, which is at 35% among Iowa Republicans. That means, if you're counting, nearly half of Iowa Republicans either can't commit to a Republican candidate or prefer a Democrat instead.
(On the flipside, not a single Republican gets more than 1% support from the Democratic sample in the poll. Only 23% of Dems are undecided.)
(UPDATE: The same good people who bring you WisPolitics.com bring you IowaPolitics.com, including a poll watch feature, so you can keep up on all the fun news like this.)
I picked this up via Steve Benen, who points out a University of Iowa poll released just ahead of the olympian Ames Straw Poll. Just watch:
Statewide Registered Republican VotersIowa Republicans prefer, in order, Romney, Giuliani, Obama. All the other Republicans--including both Thompsons, Tommy! and ImWIthFred--are losing to Barack Obama. Add in the results for Clinton and Richardson (.pdf) in that poll, and you've got more than 10% of Iowa Republicans supporting Democrats.
The changes among Republican voters since March are dramatic. Romney is now the preferred candidate at 21.8 percent--double his March support.
Giuliani's support, 10 percent, decreased by almost 8.5 percent. McCain's support has collapsed in Iowa. His support among registered Republicans dropped from 14.4 percent in March to 1.8 percent in July-August. UI political scientists note that McCain has been passed in popularity not only by former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., who earned 5.2 percent support, but also by a Democratic challenger, Obama, who is supported by 6.7 percent of Republicans. No other candidate received more than 3 percent support.
I'm still not making up my mind--I still believe all the Democrats are good, and I still believe my February 19th vote will be pointless--so I probably shouldn't point out the poll's "undecided" number, which is at 35% among Iowa Republicans. That means, if you're counting, nearly half of Iowa Republicans either can't commit to a Republican candidate or prefer a Democrat instead.
(On the flipside, not a single Republican gets more than 1% support from the Democratic sample in the poll. Only 23% of Dems are undecided.)
(UPDATE: The same good people who bring you WisPolitics.com bring you IowaPolitics.com, including a poll watch feature, so you can keep up on all the fun news like this.)
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Tommy!, the littlest Pez dispenser
At least that's what it looks like to me.
And, seriously, if someone offered you a Pez from a giant Wolf Blitzer, would you eat it?
And, seriously, if someone offered you a Pez from a giant Wolf Blitzer, would you eat it?
The GOP debate Talk Clock, once again curtesy of the Dodd people.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Two Related Updates on My Thompson Post
One, Glenn Greenwald's been tracking the way conservatives are now desperately backpedalling over Bush, perhaps to let the candidates like Thompson run to Bush's right:
Two, Dad29 kicked off the comments thread to that Fred Thompson post with this:
Dad29 seems to think Thompson is above partisanship. I suppose there are two possible readings of that sentence. The first is that Fred is someone who engages his opponents and finds common ground to move the country forward. This does not describe Fred Thompson: As I noted in response, Fred's talking the fringe talk (despite his history) on immigration, the Iraq war, health care, gay rights, and more. He doesn't seem inclined to move to the center on any of them.
A second reading, which, for all I know, is what Dad29 meant, is that Fred doesn't deign to engage the debate, talk to anyone who disagrees with him, bother with compromise. After all, Thompson's most significant campaign move to date is making a YouTube video where he tells Michael Moore to go check into an insane asylum unstead of engaging the filmmaker over the challenges of the US health care system.
And the conservatives ate that up. In part, I bet, because the rightroots hate Michael Moore. And in part because they love that mine-is-bigger-than-yours-ism (for Fred, a cigar is not just a cigar), that I-can't-hear-you-ism, that stay-the-course-in-the-face-of-disaster-ism.
That's why it's ironic that the conservative chattering classes are turning on Bush and turned on by Thompson: If the latter paraphrase of Dad29's statement is the more accurate one, Fred Thompson is George W. Bush.
This fraud is as transparent as it is dishonest, yet there are signs that the media is nonetheless beginning to adopt this theme that there is some sort of epic and long-standing "Bush-conservative schism." But very little effort is required to see what a fraud that storyline is.An excerpt does not do it justice. The facts in this case are merciless. Please read the whole thing.
One of the few propositions on which Bush supporters and critics agree is that George Bush does not change and has not changed at all over the last six years. He is exactly the same.
And none of the supposed grounds for conservative discontent -- especially Bush's immigration position -- is even remotely new. Bush's immigration views have been well-known since before he was first elected in 2000, yet conservatives have devoted to him virtually cult-like loyalty and support. Just logically speaking, Bush's immigration views cannot be the cause of the flamboyant conservative "rebellion" against Bush since those views long co-existed with intense conservative devotion to Bush.
There is really only one thing that has changed about George W. Bush from the 2002-2004 era when conservatives hailed him as the Great Conservative Leader, and now. Whereas Bush was a wildly popular leader then, which made conservatives eager to claim him as their Standard-Bearer, he is now one of the most despised presidents in U.S. history, and conservatives are thus desperate to disassociate themselves from the President for whom they are solely responsible. It is painfully obvious there is nothing noble, substantive or principled driving this right-wing outburst; it is a pure act of self-preservation.
Two, Dad29 kicked off the comments thread to that Fred Thompson post with this:
The main reason is that Thompson, just like Obama, sees the political situation as one which is deteriorating rapidly into a "tit/tat" partisan steaming pile of crap.I pulled it out because I think it--and (humbly speaking) my response--deserves a little bit more light.
Dad29 seems to think Thompson is above partisanship. I suppose there are two possible readings of that sentence. The first is that Fred is someone who engages his opponents and finds common ground to move the country forward. This does not describe Fred Thompson: As I noted in response, Fred's talking the fringe talk (despite his history) on immigration, the Iraq war, health care, gay rights, and more. He doesn't seem inclined to move to the center on any of them.
A second reading, which, for all I know, is what Dad29 meant, is that Fred doesn't deign to engage the debate, talk to anyone who disagrees with him, bother with compromise. After all, Thompson's most significant campaign move to date is making a YouTube video where he tells Michael Moore to go check into an insane asylum unstead of engaging the filmmaker over the challenges of the US health care system.
And the conservatives ate that up. In part, I bet, because the rightroots hate Michael Moore. And in part because they love that mine-is-bigger-than-yours-ism (for Fred, a cigar is not just a cigar), that I-can't-hear-you-ism, that stay-the-course-in-the-face-of-disaster-ism.
That's why it's ironic that the conservative chattering classes are turning on Bush and turned on by Thompson: If the latter paraphrase of Dad29's statement is the more accurate one, Fred Thompson is George W. Bush.
And that, my friends and neighbors, is a scary, scary prospect.
"I'm not a folksy tough guy, but I play one on TV"
by folkbumI'm not following the Democratic primary all that closely, because, frankly, I think I will be happy to support any of the top three or five candidates as they stand right now. There are things I like more or less about each candidate, but on balance, they are people I can get behind and who, I think, are eminently electable. (And adding: My February 19th vote here in Wisconsin is essentially worthless.)
The Republican primary, on the other hand--now that's where the show is. It's fascinating not for who will necessarily come out on top, but rather because it offers a good window into the messy apartment that is the Republican base.
This whole Fred Thompson phenomenon is a good example of it. While it's true that some Democrats keep holding out for Clark to get in the race (there is, for example, a near-daily "My Wesley will come for me!" diary at dKos), and many pollsters are still including Al Gore in their polls, I think the Dem field is set. And we like our candidates.
But for Republicans, something was missing. As much as their top-tier candidates have tried to out-Jack-Bauer each other, all of them had some fatal flaw: Giuliani wasn't pro-life enough, McCain wasn't anti-immigration enough, Romney wasn't Christian enough. So enter Fred Thompson who, in fact, seems to have all three of those flaws (abortion, immigration, religion). But, you know, he was the one everyone demanded.
And I can't, for the life of me, understand why. (Well, I can, but I need a minute to get there.) Aside from one term in the US Senate, Thompson has had three careers: attorney, lobbyist, and Hollywood actor. These are not occupations that necessarily win praise from conservatives. Thompson is reputed to be "folksy," but it's just the accent, I think, since he certainly hasn't shown himself to be anything like you or me--whether it's renting a pick-up truck as a prop while driving a luxury sedan or sleeping through the starlets in search of a trophy wife. "Folksy" is a character he plays on TV, not who he is.
Ben Brothers imagines what would happen if Thompson were a Democrat, and concludes that a Dem-equivalent Draft Thompson movement would show us in utter disarray. But that kind of hypocrisy is par for the course. The "pick-up truck" link above takes you to a Jamison Foser essay at Media Matters where he notes that John Edwards gets reamed for being Edwards:
The rich trial lawyer/lobbyist who rents a red pickup, not to drive, but to use as a prop? The media tell us he's folksy and authentic. And the rich former trial lawyer who doesn't hide his good fortune? He's a phony.More important, though is what Glenn Greenwald points out:
This folksy, down-home, regular guy has spent his entire adult life as a lawyer and lobbyist in Washington, except when he was an actor in Hollywood.In other words, the Republicans see Thompson as the only one who can provide real strength, real leadership. And it's entirely because he does that on TV.
And -- like the vast, vast majority of Republican "tough guys" who play-act the role so arousingly for our media stars, from Rudy Giuliani to Newt Gingrich -- Thompson has no military service despite having been of prime fighting age during the Vietnam War (Thompson turned 20 in 1962, Gingrich in 1963, Giuliani in 1964). He was active in Republican politics as early as the mid-1960s, which means he almost certainly supported the war in which he did not fight. [. . .]
The only thing that makes Thompson a "tough guy" is that he pretends to be one; he play-acts as one. There is nothing real about it. But in the same way that George Bush's ranch and fighter pilot costumes (along with his war advocacy) sent media stars swooning over his masculinity and "toughness," [. . .] the Bush followers in need of a new authoritarian Leader[] are so intensely hungry for this faux masculine power that the illusion, the absurd play-acting, is infinitely more valuable to them than any reality, than any genuine attributes of "toughness."
I said before, the other candidates were trying to out-Jack-Bauer each other (Romney, for example, wants to double the size of Guantanamo Bay). But Thompson's already played that kind of role. Heck, he's already been president. On TV. The Republicans want to elect a fictional man to be our President.
I can't help but think that Bush is trying to give the current candidates the opening they need to run against him and his 28% support--by running to Bush's right. To those of us who actually are liberals, this is both amusing and a disturbing continuation of the tendency of the right to define the center as the left, and views held by majorities as fringe.
There is, of course, one issue for which Bush is not leaving openings to his right: Iraq. And ten of the now-eleven candidates have done nothing but pledge to keep up what Bush has begun there, including Fred Thompson. Some, like our own Tommy!, talk around the issue in different language, but Ron Paul seems to be the only one who assesses Iraq with any kind of rational basis in reality. In fact, one question I've had about Fred Thompson is which side of what I would call the Ron Paul Line he falls. We know Thompson's answer about what he would do differently in Iraq (which is nothing). But does Thompson have anything like a more realistic picture of the world and why we are in the situation we're in than do his counterparts? I don't know.
Regardless, the White House seems to be playing a strategy that allows all the candidates, including Thompson, a chance to run against Bush. Indeed, Thompson is even now wowing audiences and xenophobic bloggers with his tough-guy, anti-Bush immigration talk.
However, if 2006 is any guide, this is a losing strategy. Conservatives like to think that they lost in 2006 because they abandoned core conservative values, but they did not (kudos to Michael King on this excellent essay yesterday). The hard-right base voted for Republicans as they usually do; moderates [corrected spelling] did not. I think there's a reason that, despite his flaws, Rudy Giuliani is still winning the Republican primary polls. It's not because, as some pundits point out, Rudy looked tough on 9/11. It's because Rudy's not a hard-right conservative.
Rudy's moderateness will not help him win the primary in the end, as any primary favors candidates who play to the base. But as pollsters ask Republicans in general whom they could vote for, Giuliani is the one who appeals to them the most. I imagine that if Rudy were to cross to the Ron Paul side of the Ron Paul Line, he could walk away with the general election. But because the Republican base is looking for someone to Bush's right, but who still conveys the same image of a though-guy commander in chief, a candidate like Fred Thompson--or, rather, the candidate he plays on TV--will win the primary.
photo by Greg at The Talent Show
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Are You Implying Right-Wingers Are Inconsistent Here?
by bert
GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said this yesterday in Iowa:
GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said this yesterday in Iowa:
‘‘If you said during Bill Clinton’s tenure that his personal behavior mattered and his character mattered and his activities in office and all of those things, if that mattered, you can’t come along now and say it doesn’t matter to Republicans in 2008.’’
Monday, February 26, 2007
Iraq, In Convenient Chart Form
by folkbum
Although I tend to agree with those who say that a candidate's ideas about Iraq right now are not all that relevant (really, even their ideas a year from now will be woefully out of date by the time a new president takes office in 2009), the New York Times has the rundown of where all the major party candidates stood in 2002, where they are on the "surge," and what they think about withdrawal, all in convenient chart form. It's worth a look.
Although I tend to agree with those who say that a candidate's ideas about Iraq right now are not all that relevant (really, even their ideas a year from now will be woefully out of date by the time a new president takes office in 2009), the New York Times has the rundown of where all the major party candidates stood in 2002, where they are on the "surge," and what they think about withdrawal, all in convenient chart form. It's worth a look.
Monday, January 22, 2007
2008 Thoughts
by folkbum
Katherine Skiba's got another big wet sloppy kiss for Tommy Thompson in this morning's paper, prompted in part, I'm sure, by the 2008 field's expansion over the weekend. (By the way, Kathy, it's not news that "Thompson likes his prospects." It would be news if "Thompson admits he's running a vanity campaign." Remember, you're looking for a man-bites-dog story.) Anyway, that story's prompted some thoughts from me about 2008. Let's start with Republicans.
I've said before--and will keep saying it until someone proves me wrong--that the Republican to be reckoned with is Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor. I say this for two reasons. First, aside from Huckabee, here's what the Republican field looks like right now:
In short, he scares the crap out of me.
On the Democrats' side, I will repeat what I've said before about Hillary: I really, really, really want to have an election sometime in my lifetime without someone named Bush or Clinton on the ballot. Please. (Technically, 1976 was "in my lifetime," but I obviously couldn't vote then.) We don't--we shouldn't--have an aristocracy in this country; another eight years of a Clinton would make it feel uncomfortably like we do.
I have little doubt that Hillary would make a good president--and I think she can, indeed, win--so I will vote for/ volunteer for/ get excited about her candidacy should she be the nominee. But I don't think I'll be connecting the arrow next to her name.
As for Barack Obama, I will again repeat myself: I think so few people know much about about him, except his rock-star vibe, that they are projecting onto him what they want in a candidate, which is not necessarily what he has. On the other hand, being a rock star is a big part of the battle--there is little question that he's got the genuine charisma that catapulted Bill Clinton to the top in 1992. And, from what little I do know about him, I think I will also be quite pleased to be talking about a President Obama someday.
John Edwards is at least a better-known quantity than Obama, and he's been making a lot of good moves so far in terms of talking about his issue--poverty. There is no question that Edwards's "Two Americas" frame is perhaps the most powerful one out there. And I really appreciate that he's been calling Bush's Iraq troop surge the "McCain Doctrine."
I really, really like Bill Richardson, though. He is, without question, the single most qualified candidate to have announced, from either party. He's been both a Congressman and an executive; he has cabinet-level experience; he has by far the best foreign-policiy credentials of anyone to run for president since, well, ever (he just brokered a peace agreement in Darfur, for example). He may be the only candidate that, were he to call me, I would pack up and move for. But he lacks Obama's charisma, Edwards's money, and Hillary's, er, Hillaryness. That makes it hard for him to shine among those other three.
As for the rest of the field--Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Tom Vilsack, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel (Gore and Clark probably aren't running)--they will be inconsequential. Even if Vilsack does win Iowa--a big if--it will be dismissed as home-field advantage, and everyone will instead watch Nevada.
Perhaps the most interesting news is that California is looking to move its primary up to be second after New Hampshire. This helps both Hillary (she has the money to run there and everywhere else at once) and Richardson (if he can mobilize the Hispanic voters).
So those are my thoughts, with a little less than a year until Iowa gets us started. Any questions?
Katherine Skiba's got another big wet sloppy kiss for Tommy Thompson in this morning's paper, prompted in part, I'm sure, by the 2008 field's expansion over the weekend. (By the way, Kathy, it's not news that "Thompson likes his prospects." It would be news if "Thompson admits he's running a vanity campaign." Remember, you're looking for a man-bites-dog story.) Anyway, that story's prompted some thoughts from me about 2008. Let's start with Republicans.I've said before--and will keep saying it until someone proves me wrong--that the Republican to be reckoned with is Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor. I say this for two reasons. First, aside from Huckabee, here's what the Republican field looks like right now:
- The Desert Flip-Flopper
- The Yankee Adulterer
- The Mormon Flip-Flopper
- The Southern Adulterer
- Kansas's Second Least-Popular Senator
- The Texas Libertarian
- Tommy!
- Duncan Hunter
In short, he scares the crap out of me.
On the Democrats' side, I will repeat what I've said before about Hillary: I really, really, really want to have an election sometime in my lifetime without someone named Bush or Clinton on the ballot. Please. (Technically, 1976 was "in my lifetime," but I obviously couldn't vote then.) We don't--we shouldn't--have an aristocracy in this country; another eight years of a Clinton would make it feel uncomfortably like we do.
I have little doubt that Hillary would make a good president--and I think she can, indeed, win--so I will vote for/ volunteer for/ get excited about her candidacy should she be the nominee. But I don't think I'll be connecting the arrow next to her name.
As for Barack Obama, I will again repeat myself: I think so few people know much about about him, except his rock-star vibe, that they are projecting onto him what they want in a candidate, which is not necessarily what he has. On the other hand, being a rock star is a big part of the battle--there is little question that he's got the genuine charisma that catapulted Bill Clinton to the top in 1992. And, from what little I do know about him, I think I will also be quite pleased to be talking about a President Obama someday.
John Edwards is at least a better-known quantity than Obama, and he's been making a lot of good moves so far in terms of talking about his issue--poverty. There is no question that Edwards's "Two Americas" frame is perhaps the most powerful one out there. And I really appreciate that he's been calling Bush's Iraq troop surge the "McCain Doctrine."
I really, really like Bill Richardson, though. He is, without question, the single most qualified candidate to have announced, from either party. He's been both a Congressman and an executive; he has cabinet-level experience; he has by far the best foreign-policiy credentials of anyone to run for president since, well, ever (he just brokered a peace agreement in Darfur, for example). He may be the only candidate that, were he to call me, I would pack up and move for. But he lacks Obama's charisma, Edwards's money, and Hillary's, er, Hillaryness. That makes it hard for him to shine among those other three.
As for the rest of the field--Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Tom Vilsack, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel (Gore and Clark probably aren't running)--they will be inconsequential. Even if Vilsack does win Iowa--a big if--it will be dismissed as home-field advantage, and everyone will instead watch Nevada.
Perhaps the most interesting news is that California is looking to move its primary up to be second after New Hampshire. This helps both Hillary (she has the money to run there and everywhere else at once) and Richardson (if he can mobilize the Hispanic voters).
So those are my thoughts, with a little less than a year until Iowa gets us started. Any questions?
Friday, December 15, 2006
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Tommy!
I think it is the solemn duty of every single Democrat in the state of Wisconsin to encourage Tommy Thompson to run for president. After all, George W. Bush has set the precedent of a less capable brother gunning for the big show, right?
We have to get Tommy! the nomination--by any means necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)