electoral politics

Oct 052008
 

For a few weeks I thought I might vote for John McCain despite McCain-Feingold. But his behavior on the Big Bailout makes that unlikely.

One thing I’ve never liked about McCain is his adoption of Theodore Roosevelt as a role model. I consider Roosevelt an attractive personality but a terrible president.

I’ve read several biographies of TR and have some of them on my bookshelf. But George Will tells a few things about him that I hadn’t known before. Somehow I had not known that his ideology was so collectivist. Will describes it thusly:

TR wanted the body politic to be one body, whose head was the president. He disregarded civil society — the institutions that mediate between individuals and the state, insulating them from dependence and coercion. He had a Rousseauan notion that the individual could become free only through immersion in the collective.

He doesn’t use the word “fascist,” but one can see that proto-fascism was already in the air in the decades before the actual thing arrived.

Will points out that one thing that might save McCain from being as bad as TR is his lack of brain wattage:

He is a kindred spirit of the impulsive Rough Rider, but the visceral McCain is rescued from some of TR’s excesses by not having TR’s overflowing cupboard of ideas.

It’s not that Obama isn’t even worse than McCain. But here’s what will be better than electing Obama’s opponent:

Let Obama become president, but also work to defeat those Republicans in Congress who would be likely to vote with him. Republicans can do more to stop his brand of fascism by standing firm and united in saying no. The left will not enact sweeping collectivist proposals if they don’t have bipartisan support. They know their ideas will fail, and they need Republican sponsors so they will have someone on whom to blame those failures (as is now happening with the failures of the financial system). A principled, committed minority — selected in large part from those who stood firm against the Big Bailout — will do more to stop our country’s descent into oppression than would the election of McCain as a mild alternative to Obama’s extremism.

Don’t believe it? Then look at what a minority of Congresspersons did to stop Hillary’s health care plan.

Sep 172008
 

Last night Google News was flogging the story about Carla Fiorina and Sarah Palin. It was giving prominent place to headlines telling us that Fiorina said Palin was not ready to run a major corporation.

My immediate thought was that none of the candidates in this campaign is ready to run a major corporation.

Then, if one looked further into the news articles, the truth came out. That’s exactly what Fiorina had said. Somebody with Palin on the mind had asked Fiorina about Palin, and she answered the question truthfully. But that person had not even asked Fiorina about the other candidates. Fiorina had to take it upon herself to bring that up. But that didn’t make it into the headlines. No, the news media are obsessed with anything that can be spun against Palin, no matter how contradictatory they have to be about it.

There are reasons for serious concern about Palin’s candidacy, e.g. on foreign policy — reasons that might keep me and others from voting for McCain-Palin. And I’m not talking about her level of experience.

But if you believe the news coming out of the opposition research teams, you’d conclude that Palin was probably the only one of the four candidates who would come close to making money for you at the head of a major corporation. Put Obama in charge, especially of a corporation that needed to remove the deadwood, and you could say goodbye to whatever money you invested. He’s never once bucked the corrupt Chicago machine. McCain would be too busy finding ways to annoy people to focus on his job. Biden just doesn’t have the chops. But if we believe the opposition research, Palin would get things done. She would be ruthless enough to make heads roll and get the people she needs in place, people who would be motivated to focus on the company’s mission. She would have just the right balance between focusing on the big picture and paying attention to the details.

It’s not necessarily the way a government should operate, so it doesn’t tell us much about her suitability to be Vice President. (Think about Ross Perot, a successful businessman who had ideas of being President.) But run a corporation? Most of us would pick Sarah Palin far ahead of any of the other three to quickly get up to speed and make money for us.

Sep 092008
 

One thing I absolutely don’t like about the McCain/Palin campaign is that she isn’t taking questions from the press.  Yes, they would be hostile, but it would be a way to showcase the fact that she is different from Obama, who mostly gets softball questions.    The fact that she hasn’t held any press interviews so far doesn’t bother me.   I’m sure she and McCain need a little time to coordinate their messages.  But it doesn’t look like it’s going to change much.  That ABC interview that’s coming up hardly counts.  There should be live interviews, unedited, with hostile interviewers.    She needs to answer questions about the trooper firings, which would have the added value of contrasting how the press handled the Clintons with kid gloves.

Maybe someone will tell me that what Palin is doing isn’t all that different from how other vice presidential candidates have been handled.  If so, now would be a good time to do something different.

Sep 052008
 

More mindreading from the nation’s press:

Headline: “Heart Duo Furious Over Republicans’ Use of ‘Barracuda'”

From the article: “But the Wilsons are furious their song has been linked in with the McCain campaign trail, and are demanding the track is scrapped from further promotional duties.”

How do the writers of that article know these Wilson people are “furious”? We can know that they sent a cease and desist letter. We can know that they criticized the McCain-Palin campaign for using their song. But we have no way of knowing that they are furious about it. They might be acting furious, I suppose, but we’d need to see some evidence even of that. As to whether they are actually furious, we have no way of knowing. They might be claiming to be furious, but if that’s the case, the headline should read: “Heart Duo Claim to be Furious over Republicans’ Use of ‘Barracuda’.”

BTW, I have no idea what that song is like.

Sep 042008
 

Headline in today’s Rupert Murdoch newspaper: “Focus Turns to Palin Record

Oh, yeah? And just how would our intrepid news reporters know about a thing like that? Do they have a direct quote from Mr. or Mrs. Focus? Do they have statistical data that reports on The Focus?

Or are they just telling us about the inner workings of their own minds.

FWIW, I did a google search on “Focus Turns to Palin Record” and got 608 hits. Substitute the word Obama for Palin, and I got no hits unless I remove the quotes. Same for McCain or Biden.

Aug 202008
 

The McCain campaign is reaching new lows. “Clinton strategy working for McCain,” CNN tells us. One wonders what Machiavellian strategy McCain has latched on to this time.

Here it is, according to a CNN senior analyst (whatever that is): “The McCain campaign believes that some of Hillary Clinton’s tactics, especially questioning whether Obama is ready to lead, can be a real winner.”

That IS a low blow. Where will it all end? Will he stop there, at calling attention to his opponent’s inexperience? What next? Kissing babies? Making campaign promises? Raising money from cronies?

Won’t Americans realize that McCain is being just like a Clinton when he does that?

Aug 012008
 

I had almost forgotten about this. After Barry Goldwater won the Republican nomination in 1964 Pat Brown said, “The stench of fascism is in the air.” We conservatives used to put up with that kind of talk a lot, and learned to just let it roll off.

But now watch what happens when you point out that the leftwing fascists are acting like fascists. We get lectures about how we shouldn’t throw the fascist label around so casually.

Jul 292008
 

According to Gary Kasparov, Barak Obama said this in Berlin:

“[W]e must reject the Cold War mindset of the past and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must.”

Did he really say that? If so, which Cold War mindset does he mean? There were lots of mindsets during the Cold War, some of them vehemently opposed to each other. Were they all so wrong? Every last one of them?

And what kind of talk is that about standing up for our values when we must? When we must? Must? Why not do it when we can? Why not do it even when it’s difficult? I like the idea of working with Russia at every opportunity where we can, but Obama’s wording leads one to think he’d be willing to do it at the expense of our own values.

Without all the campaign money he has, shouldn’t he be able to hire a speechwriter who could check these things before he says them aloud?

Jul 182008
 

I hate it when somebody else makes these calls before I think of them, but this one I missed.

CNN some time back:  “Sen. Barack Obama’s victory Thursday in critical Democratic Iowa caucuses indicate voters saw him as a candidate of change

Richard H. Collins (whoever he is) at townhall.com:  “Barack Obama is running on a platform of Hope and Change™ but the only clear change seems to be in his policy positions.”

Jul 142008
 

 

PHILADELPHIA (AP) – Former President Bill Clinton warned Saturday that the country is becoming increasingly polarized despite the historic nature of the Democratic primary.

URL here

This from the guy who has never missed a chance to bash his Republican opponents and question their motives. Example here