Moreover, her candidacy reminds voters of how the Clintons in effect looted the White House of expensive china, furniture, and other items when they left in January, 2001. And, if that weren't enough, they set up a gift registry to furnish their new home in New York.There is a reason it seems most Republican pundits would prefer Hillary be the nominee.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Reminder of Clinton Scandals Past
The Toledo Blade has endorsed Barack Obama in Tuesday’s Ohio primary. In the editorial they not only sing the praises of Obama but make this criticism of Hillary.
Hillary Clinton Endorses McCain?
I am willing to bet most people would answer this question John McCain. I think Hillary is getting desperate
Angelina Jolie May Be Kicked Out of Hollywood
I didn't notice this until this morning, but Angelina Jolie wrote in the New York Times yesterday that we should stay in Iraq to help with the humanitarian crisis of refugees. About the the surge she writes:
Now if only Harry Reid and Nacy Pelosi would agree.
As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.
Now if only Harry Reid and Nacy Pelosi would agree.
Happy Leap Day
John McCain turns 72 on August 29. Come to think of it, it’s a good thing he wasn’t born on February 29. Because then the New York Times might wish him a Happy 18th Birthday and argue he wasn’t eligible to be president because he was too young.
Consumer Preferences
Nader says his reason for running is that he spent over 40 years as a consumer advocate. I think after 40 years of studying consumers' wants, he'd realize consumers don't want him." --Jay Leno
Actually there are lots of people that wanted Nader to run for president again. They are all Republicans of course.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Homeland Security Toys for Tots
Here one:
I was a little disappointed when I first bought this item, because the functionality is limited. My 5 year old son pointed out that the passenger's shoes cannot be removed. Then, we placed a deadly fingernail file underneath the passenger's scarf, and neither the detector doorway nor the security wand picked it up. My son said "that's the worst security ever!". But it turned out to be okay, because when the passenger got on the Playmobil B757 and tried to hijack it, she was mobbed by a couple of other heroic passengers, who only sustained minor injuries in the scuffle, which were treated at the Playmobil Hospital.
I was a little disappointed when I first bought this item, because the functionality is limited. My 5 year old son pointed out that the passenger's shoes cannot be removed. Then, we placed a deadly fingernail file underneath the passenger's scarf, and neither the detector doorway nor the security wand picked it up. My son said "that's the worst security ever!". But it turned out to be okay, because when the passenger got on the Playmobil B757 and tried to hijack it, she was mobbed by a couple of other heroic passengers, who only sustained minor injuries in the scuffle, which were treated at the Playmobil Hospital.
The Times Goofs Again
Jim Geraghty of National Review’s Campaign Spot points out how the Times inadvertently seems to argue Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president either. Neither is anyone else born in Alaska or Hawaii.
I also note the inane opening sentence: "The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president?"Uh, if there's an issue of being outside the continental United States (a blatant misreading of the Constitution) what does that say about the likely Democratic nominee who was born in Hawaii? (Merriam-Webster definition: being the part of the United States on the North American continent; also : being the part of the United States comprising the lower 48 states.)So does this mean it’s going to be Hillary versus Huckabee?
There They Go Again
Well the New York Times is at it again. No, they are not reporting on rumored infidelity this time. Instead they are asking whether John McCain is eligible to be president. The Constitution states that only a “natural-born citizen” is eligible to be President of the United States. This is why Arnold Schwarzenegger, an immigrant from Austria, could not run for president absent a Constitutional Amendment. McCain however, is not an immigrant. He was born on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone, where his father who was serving in the navy was stationed. As it happens, I was also born on a military base, though that base was in Missouri, not Central America. Therefore I am a natural born citizen regardless. Governor Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, is a naturalized citizen, because he legally became a citizen after birth.
The crux of the Times argument that this is a legitimate question is that there has never been a Supreme Court decision defining a natural born citizen. I am flashing back to Al Gore’s claim of “no controlling legal authority” to prevent him from making fundraising calls from his government office and phone. But since the Constitution forbids advisory opinions, the Supreme Court will never define natural-born citizen unless it has a case in front of it where this is an issue. According to Matthew J. Franck of National Review’s Bench Memos blog, it is an issue that should properly never come before the Supreme Court because it is a political question.
The crux of the Times argument that this is a legitimate question is that there has never been a Supreme Court decision defining a natural born citizen. I am flashing back to Al Gore’s claim of “no controlling legal authority” to prevent him from making fundraising calls from his government office and phone. But since the Constitution forbids advisory opinions, the Supreme Court will never define natural-born citizen unless it has a case in front of it where this is an issue. According to Matthew J. Franck of National Review’s Bench Memos blog, it is an issue that should properly never come before the Supreme Court because it is a political question.
The Times article contains a fair amount of handwringing over the fact that there has been no authoritative Supreme Court ruling on this presidential eligibility issue—though near the end it recognizes the difficulty of determining who might have "legal standing" to raise the issue in a court of law. This is the simplest question of all. No one has standing. This is a quintessentially political question, to be settled outside the judiciary by the constitutional authorities responsible for choosing presidents. If, next January, the joint session of Congress, presided over by Vice President Cheney, determines that John McCain is to be president by virtue of a victory in the electoral college, and either assumes silently or addresses openly (in case of a member's objection) the question of McCain's U.S. citizenship eligibility and holds in his favor, that will be an authoritative settlement of the matter—at least as far as McCain is concerned. No court of law could possibly have authority to gainsay such a decision. It never ceases to amaze me, though, how many otherwise sharp legal analysts consider constitutional questions to be unsettled until the Supreme Court has something to say on them.
Constitutional arguments aside, the United States is at war and our troops are stationed around the world, often with their families along (though obviously not in Iraq or Afghanistan). Are we really going to say to American service members that because of their service to this country, their sons or daughters can never aspire to grow up to be President of the United States? That would be absurd on its face.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
RIP William F. Buckley Jr. (1925-2008)
According to Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online, William F. Buckley Jr., passed away this mornig in his study in Stamford, CT. He will be sorely missed.
Behind the Scenes At the Times
The Nose on your Face has an exclusive transcript of a New York Times’ brainstorming session following the McCain-Iseman Scandal
Read it here.
Here’s an excerpt
Read it here.
Here’s an excerpt
Bill Keller, NY Times Editor: Can we verify any of this?In case it’s not obvious it’s a parody.
Paul Krugman: Well, it depends on how you’re defining “verify.” If it’s the antiquated “prove” definition, not exactly. However, when you take “verify” in its modern, more progressive definition, we feel pretty comfortable that its true.
Keller: Well, we are progressive.
Krugman: With a capital “P,”chief.
The Global Cooling Crisis
It may mean nothing, but average global temperatures actually fell last year by 0.6405°C. That is apparently almost the same amount temperatures have risen over the last 100 years. Does that mean global warming is over and we need to start getting ready for the new ice age that was being predicted in the 1970’s? Not so fast, but it will be interesting to hear theories explaining it.
Is global warming real? The evidence (last year’s anomaly aside) is that the planet is getting warmer. What is less clear to me is that this warming is due primarily to human activities. The global warming theory is that Co2 released by human activity has permeated the upper atmosphere and encircled the earth in a warming blanket. (I know because David Letterman explained it on his show last night.) This theory has almost reached the level of religious dogma and scientists that disagree are treated as blasphemers. But there are other theories, including for instance, that solar activity is the primary cause of climate fluctuation on Earth. According to this theory human activity might affect global temperatures, but only as a rounding error.
I am not qualified to tell you which theory is correct. But one thing does seem certain. As long as there has been climate on Earth, that climate has been changing. This was true long before there were homo sapiens using fire, much less building Cadillac Escalades. The real question is what can we do about it?
Economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. In, other words, there is not enough stuff in the world for everyone to have as much as they could ever possibly want. (Think of it this way, if they were selling 60” LCD HDTV’s at the 99 Cents store, how many would you buy?) So life is about choices. How and where do we spend money? There is also opportunity cost. For every choice we make there is another choice (or choices) we must pass up. Caps on Co2 emissions are not free. For instance, they make energy and automobiles more expensive. Requiring higher average fuel efficiency can also cost lives. One way to raise mileage is to make cars lighter, making them less safe in the event of an accident than a similarly safety featured vehicle with greater mass. There may be reasons other than global warming to put these mandates in place. But the recommendation of Al Gore and other leaders of the church of global warming will be expensive. As expensive as ruining the earth? Well no, certainly not.
But is that the real choice? Will adopting the Kyoto protocols end the threat of global disaster? No one can really say. But they would hurt our economy, cost us jobs and they may not have any measurable affect on global temperatures. The economic question is more properly this: Does it make more sense to spend money to attempt to freeze (pun unintended) climate change or to ADAPT to it.
How’s that for blasphemy?
Is global warming real? The evidence (last year’s anomaly aside) is that the planet is getting warmer. What is less clear to me is that this warming is due primarily to human activities. The global warming theory is that Co2 released by human activity has permeated the upper atmosphere and encircled the earth in a warming blanket. (I know because David Letterman explained it on his show last night.) This theory has almost reached the level of religious dogma and scientists that disagree are treated as blasphemers. But there are other theories, including for instance, that solar activity is the primary cause of climate fluctuation on Earth. According to this theory human activity might affect global temperatures, but only as a rounding error.
I am not qualified to tell you which theory is correct. But one thing does seem certain. As long as there has been climate on Earth, that climate has been changing. This was true long before there were homo sapiens using fire, much less building Cadillac Escalades. The real question is what can we do about it?
Economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. In, other words, there is not enough stuff in the world for everyone to have as much as they could ever possibly want. (Think of it this way, if they were selling 60” LCD HDTV’s at the 99 Cents store, how many would you buy?) So life is about choices. How and where do we spend money? There is also opportunity cost. For every choice we make there is another choice (or choices) we must pass up. Caps on Co2 emissions are not free. For instance, they make energy and automobiles more expensive. Requiring higher average fuel efficiency can also cost lives. One way to raise mileage is to make cars lighter, making them less safe in the event of an accident than a similarly safety featured vehicle with greater mass. There may be reasons other than global warming to put these mandates in place. But the recommendation of Al Gore and other leaders of the church of global warming will be expensive. As expensive as ruining the earth? Well no, certainly not.
But is that the real choice? Will adopting the Kyoto protocols end the threat of global disaster? No one can really say. But they would hurt our economy, cost us jobs and they may not have any measurable affect on global temperatures. The economic question is more properly this: Does it make more sense to spend money to attempt to freeze (pun unintended) climate change or to ADAPT to it.
How’s that for blasphemy?
Should McCain be the Favorite?
The conventional wisdom seems to be that 2008 will be the Democrats year and whether it's Barack Obama or Barack Obama (sorry Hillary) that wins the Democratic nomination; Barack Obama will be the favorite come November.
However a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found John McCain leading both Obama and Clinton.
However a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found John McCain leading both Obama and Clinton.
Ok, it’s within the margin of error, but it’s a good sign for McCain. I came across an interesting quote from McCain yesterday in an Arizona Republic article from last March about his early years in Arizona. It goes back to his first run for Congress when he was in a Republican primary against two experienced legislators. The fact that he had bought a house in the district specifically to run for the open congressional seat became an issue and he was accused of being a carpetbagger. Someone raised the issue at a candidate’s forum "for the thousandth time" and McCain “snapped” (McCain’s words)In head-to-head contests, the poll found, McCain leads Clinton by 6 percentage points (46% to 40%) and Obama by 2 points (44% to 42%). Neither lead is commanding given that the survey, conducted Feb. 21-25, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
"Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the first district of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi."
That response apparently won him the election and the straight talk express was born. From the same article I found this other really interesting story about that election. Mack was one of McCain’s primary opponents.
Mack contacted McCain's former wife Carol in hopes of digging up dirt on McCain. An offended Carol gave McCain a heads-up about the telephone call. (She also discussed the conversation with Kolbe, who ripped Mack in a Gazette column.) McCain confronted Mack after a subsequent campaign event.McCain recounts in his book: "When the debate ended, I walked over to the opponent who had attempted to mine some little nasty opposition research from my failed marriage and told him with as much steel as I'm capable of demonstrating, 'If you ever try to hurt anyone in my family again, I will personally beat the shit out of you.'"McCain has a reputation for a fiery temper, something not normally seen as an asset. But sometimes at the right time it can work for you.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Jane Fonda versus Dexter Morgan
I may be a lot of things, but I am not a prude. Bad language and adult content do not offend me. I saw a piece in the paper the other day asking if we should allow bad language on TV and I watched the broadcast of Dexter on CBS the other night. I am huge fan of both the Showtime series and the books by Jeff Lindsay. I thought it was pretty funny to hear Doakes call Dexter a “mother-lover.” They used a different word when it was on cable. Would it have been terrible to air the original profanity after 10:00 pm? Probably not, especially in these days of V chips people can use to block content that might offend them or which they do not want their children to watch.
Jane Fonda’s use of the “C-Word” is a different story however. Fonda was on the Today show talking about the 10th Anniversary of the Vagina Monologues. Just an aside I saw that years ago off Broadway and I have never seen a shorter line for the men’s room at an intermission. I thought the show was amusing. I laughed a few times, but the women in the audience laughed so hard some had trouble breathing. Anyway, back to Jane Fonda. She said that she was given a monologue called “C*nt” except she forgot the asterisk and the show didn’t bleep her. Ok mistakes happen, but I was surprised when neither Fonda nor Meredith Viera reacted to the mistake immediately. When Diane Keaton used the F-Word on Good Morning America she immediately apologized. Viera apologized after the commercial break.
It was a discussion of the Vagina Monologues, but as I seem to recall they discuss in the play itself, there is probably no word that is more offensive, particularly to women. I think that very few people would have expected such language on a morning new show. That’s the difference between Fonda and Dexter. People might expect that a drama about a serial killer might have adult language, and particularly if there are adult content warnings, they really have no right to be offended if they choose to tune in.
When Janet Jackson had her wardrobe malfunction at the Super Bowl a few years ago, I initially thought the reaction was overblown. Is a nipple really that big a deal, even if it is pierced? But after some reflection, I changed my mind. The thing is that people, particularly people with children, had no reason to expect nudity in the broadcast. TV networks in a war for ratings are constantly trying to push the envelope to get attention. While I still don’t think a nipple is a big deal, a line needed to be drawn. Because if it hadn’t been for a public outcry and some FCC intervention, next time it would have gone further.
With the HBO’s and Showtime’s of the world there may not be a need for adult content on broadcast TV. But if a station or a network wants to air adult content in the evening with appropriate warnings, I have no problem with it. Just make those shows good and worth watching. But be respectful of the audience and be careful not to offend, at least not without warning.
Jane Fonda’s use of the “C-Word” is a different story however. Fonda was on the Today show talking about the 10th Anniversary of the Vagina Monologues. Just an aside I saw that years ago off Broadway and I have never seen a shorter line for the men’s room at an intermission. I thought the show was amusing. I laughed a few times, but the women in the audience laughed so hard some had trouble breathing. Anyway, back to Jane Fonda. She said that she was given a monologue called “C*nt” except she forgot the asterisk and the show didn’t bleep her. Ok mistakes happen, but I was surprised when neither Fonda nor Meredith Viera reacted to the mistake immediately. When Diane Keaton used the F-Word on Good Morning America she immediately apologized. Viera apologized after the commercial break.
It was a discussion of the Vagina Monologues, but as I seem to recall they discuss in the play itself, there is probably no word that is more offensive, particularly to women. I think that very few people would have expected such language on a morning new show. That’s the difference between Fonda and Dexter. People might expect that a drama about a serial killer might have adult language, and particularly if there are adult content warnings, they really have no right to be offended if they choose to tune in.
When Janet Jackson had her wardrobe malfunction at the Super Bowl a few years ago, I initially thought the reaction was overblown. Is a nipple really that big a deal, even if it is pierced? But after some reflection, I changed my mind. The thing is that people, particularly people with children, had no reason to expect nudity in the broadcast. TV networks in a war for ratings are constantly trying to push the envelope to get attention. While I still don’t think a nipple is a big deal, a line needed to be drawn. Because if it hadn’t been for a public outcry and some FCC intervention, next time it would have gone further.
With the HBO’s and Showtime’s of the world there may not be a need for adult content on broadcast TV. But if a station or a network wants to air adult content in the evening with appropriate warnings, I have no problem with it. Just make those shows good and worth watching. But be respectful of the audience and be careful not to offend, at least not without warning.
Top 10 Things Overheard at the Academy Awards
My two favorites:
#2 "No Miss Fonda, it's no COUNTRY for Old Men." and #9 "Another refill, Mr. Busey?" I think Jennifer Garner may take out a restraining order. If you didn't see him attack Garner on the red carpet, click here
#2 "No Miss Fonda, it's no COUNTRY for Old Men." and #9 "Another refill, Mr. Busey?" I think Jennifer Garner may take out a restraining order. If you didn't see him attack Garner on the red carpet, click here
Monday, February 25, 2008
Reagan’s Line Won’t Work
"Hillary's speeches may not be exciting, but, by God, every tired, clichéd, coma-inducing word is original. Except that they're not, that's the thing. You know, politicians, they all steal. ... In her closing statement, she ripped off something that Bill Clinton used to say, and he got it from Kennedy, who got it from FDR, who got it from Lincoln ... who got it from John McCain." --Bill Maher
I just read this joke and it made me think that McCain needs to follow in Ronald Reagan’s footsteps and use humor to try and defuse the age issue. Back in 1984, Reagan had this exchange during a debate with Walter Mondale.
MODERATOR: Mr. Trewhitt, your question to President Reagan?
REPORTER: Mr. President, I want to raise an issue that I think has been lurking out there for two or three weeks, and cast it specifically in national security terms. You already are the oldest President in history, and some of your staff say you were tired after your most recent encounter with Mr. Mondale. I recall, yes, that President Kennedy, who had to go for days on end with very little sleep during the Cuba missile crisis. Is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances?
REAGAN: Not at all, Mr. Trewhitt and I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience.
It was a brilliant line. It got a huge laugh, in large part because former Vice-President Mondale was hardly inexperienced and was youthful only in comparison to Reagan. But it also eliminated the age issue. Reagan’s age was never really an issue, at least that I remember. But McCain can hardly steal this line. Not just because plagiarism is suddenly an issue but because Obama really is young and inexperienced and McCain is going to make that an issue.
Perhaps he should say something like “With apologies to the Gipper, and I want 
you to know that I WILL make age an issue of this campaign. I AM going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience.” If that doesn’t work maybe he can do a TV commercial where a CGI Clara Peller asks a CGI Barak Obama “Where’s the Beef?”
Or maybe I am just listening to too much Sirius Big 80’s
Stop That And (Hopefully) You'll Go Blind
Heather McDonald has done her normal bang up job in her latest piece for the City Journal entitled “Elites to Anti-Affirmative-Action Voters: Drop Dead” Heather looks at how the University of California has spent 10 years trying circumvent Propsition 209 which prohibits any race or gender preferences in government or education.
I spent three years teaching social studies in the South Bronx. Almost all my students were black or Hispanic. Some of my students were very bright and aspired to go to a college like Harvard. I tried to encourage them to work hard toward that goal and gave what I thought was practical advice (if it was at all possible financially) to take a Kaplan or Princeton Review SAT prep class. But where I think I failed these students was in not really challenging them enough academically. That was probably in large part my failing as a teacher, but it was also because even in honors classes so few students were prepared to be challenged the way kids at suburban high schools were challenged.
As a former legal head-hunter in New York City, I understand the value of an elite degree, the opportunities such a degree offers. I really want my former students to have those opportunities. A few times in a class discussion one of my students would talk about whether or not they should check the (minority) “box” on a college application. I encouraged them to do what they thought was right, but that I thought they should take every advantage they could get. I still think that.
But despite this, or perhaps because of this, I think racial preferences are wrong. I don’t resent them personally. But I truly believe that we as a society should be moving towards color blindness. I understand we are nowhere near that yet. But we are a heck of a lot closer to it today then we were when I was born 40 years ago. To me, the question is: what is the best course to get to a color blind society? I think first and foremost the government should treat everyone equally as an individual, not as a representative of an ethnic group. Universities should drop race as a consideration and seek out real diversity of experience, culture, and opinion. Do you think the admissions office has ever asked itself if there is a lack of NASCAR fans at Harvard? Of Republicans? Of students whose parents didn’t go to college?
As for my former students, I say keep working for your goals. No matter where you go to college there will be opportunities. How hard you work can be just as, if not more, important than where you go to college. Don’t complain about discrimination, work harder and you can overcome it. But if someone wants to give you an advantage because of your ethnicity, I say take it. Maybe that’s hypocritical, but just because someone is a hypocrite doesn’t mean they are wrong. My Dad after all told me not to smoke even though he smoked nearly his whole life. Didn’t make him wrong.
I spent three years teaching social studies in the South Bronx. Almost all my students were black or Hispanic. Some of my students were very bright and aspired to go to a college like Harvard. I tried to encourage them to work hard toward that goal and gave what I thought was practical advice (if it was at all possible financially) to take a Kaplan or Princeton Review SAT prep class. But where I think I failed these students was in not really challenging them enough academically. That was probably in large part my failing as a teacher, but it was also because even in honors classes so few students were prepared to be challenged the way kids at suburban high schools were challenged.
As a former legal head-hunter in New York City, I understand the value of an elite degree, the opportunities such a degree offers. I really want my former students to have those opportunities. A few times in a class discussion one of my students would talk about whether or not they should check the (minority) “box” on a college application. I encouraged them to do what they thought was right, but that I thought they should take every advantage they could get. I still think that.
But despite this, or perhaps because of this, I think racial preferences are wrong. I don’t resent them personally. But I truly believe that we as a society should be moving towards color blindness. I understand we are nowhere near that yet. But we are a heck of a lot closer to it today then we were when I was born 40 years ago. To me, the question is: what is the best course to get to a color blind society? I think first and foremost the government should treat everyone equally as an individual, not as a representative of an ethnic group. Universities should drop race as a consideration and seek out real diversity of experience, culture, and opinion. Do you think the admissions office has ever asked itself if there is a lack of NASCAR fans at Harvard? Of Republicans? Of students whose parents didn’t go to college?
As for my former students, I say keep working for your goals. No matter where you go to college there will be opportunities. How hard you work can be just as, if not more, important than where you go to college. Don’t complain about discrimination, work harder and you can overcome it. But if someone wants to give you an advantage because of your ethnicity, I say take it. Maybe that’s hypocritical, but just because someone is a hypocrite doesn’t mean they are wrong. My Dad after all told me not to smoke even though he smoked nearly his whole life. Didn’t make him wrong.
The Academy Awards
For many years I have had this goal of seeing all 5 films nominated for Best Picture before the Oscars. I have never managed to see more than 4. I haven’t seen a lot of movies lately and this year I had only seen one, “No Country for Old Men.” It was a great film so I can’t argue with it winning. But I was rooting for Ellen Page and Juno. It’s a film I never got around to seeing. (I will be waiting for the DVD at this point.) But I have been really impressed with Ellen Paige since seeing her in Hard Candy.
As for the ceremony itself, my favorite Jon Stewart joke was:
As for the ceremony itself, my favorite Jon Stewart joke was:
You have to give Barack Obama credit, he's overcome a great deal. Not just he's an African-American. Barack Hussein Obama is his name. His middle name is the last name of Iraq's former tyrant. His last name rhymes with Osama. That's not easy to overcome. I think we all remember the ill-fated 1944 presidential campaign of Gaydolf Titler. It's just a shame, Titler had so many good ideas. We just couldn't get past the name. And the moustacheWhile I wasn’t old enough to vote (or even alive) in 1944, I couldn’t have supported Gaydolf Titler because I heard he plagiarized speeches from Menito Bussolini.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Even their “Readers Representative” Says the Times Goofed
Clark Hoyt is the "Public Editor" of the New York Times. As the Times puts it: “The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own.”
In his column in today’s Times Hoyt looks at last Thursday’s controversial McCain story about a possible extra-marital affair. I previously commented here. Hoyt takes issue with story, stating that the Times should not have included the allegation of an extramarital affair without more substantive proof. Hoyt asked Times Editor Bill Keller why he ran the story without a smoking gun. Keller replied:
In his column in today’s Times Hoyt looks at last Thursday’s controversial McCain story about a possible extra-marital affair. I previously commented here. Hoyt takes issue with story, stating that the Times should not have included the allegation of an extramarital affair without more substantive proof. Hoyt asked Times Editor Bill Keller why he ran the story without a smoking gun. Keller replied:
“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”But Hoyt disagreed.
I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.I have to agree.
Barak Obama in the Conservative Interest?
John O’Sullivan has an interesting discussion on National Review Online about whether conservatives and Republicans would be better served by losing the presidency in November. He cites various historical examples and then says:
I think he makes some very fair points here. But I am still voting for McCain.
In addition to conservative parties and conservative principles, there is a third consideration: what might be called “the conservative interest.” A political event is in the conservative interest if it strengthens and stabilizes the country. At times that greater strength may be to the disadvantage of the conservative party or come at some (temporary) cost in conservative principles. But when the smoke of battle clears, conservatives will see, sometimes with surprise, that the nation is better for the change from a conservative standpoint.He goes on to explain how an Obama victory might serve this Conservative interest:
It seems possible and even likely that a victory by Barack Obama would be the climax of this long policy of fully integrating black and minority America into the nation and putting the querulous politics of race behind us. As I have argued elsewhere, the mere fact of a President Obama would strengthen and stabilize America just as a Polish pope undermined Soviet rule in Eastern Europe. Black and minority America would be fully integrated into the nation as the British working class was fully integrated into the British political nation by George V. Americans would feel better about themselves and the world would feel very differently about America. The conservative interest, as defined above, would therefore smile upon a vote for Obama.
I think he makes some very fair points here. But I am still voting for McCain.
I don't have a problem with it, but Cindy McCain might.
"I don't know if anything happened or not, but I think the rule of thumb should be every year you're in a Vietnamese prison camp, you should be allowed one extramarital affair." --Jimmy Kimmel
Saturday, February 23, 2008
In Honor Of The Return Of SNL
SNL is back live tonight. Here is the opening from the last show. Watch for the guy playing Barak Obama at the end. By the way, Mike Huckabee is going to be appearing on SNL tonight.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Yes, There Is Urgency
A Protect America Act reminder from House Republicans. Listen at the end where Democrat House Majority leader Steny Hoyer says there is no urgency. To read my thoughts on the Protect America Act click here
The Times is Cliff Huxtable!!!
On January 25, 2008, The New York Times endorsed John McCain for the Republican Presidential nomination. Last night, they may have tried to torpedo his campaign. I am reminded of a line from the first episode of the Cosby show. Cliff Huxtable (Cosby) says to his son Theo: "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out."
John McCain has for a long time been the Republican that liberals, independents, and the mainstream approve of. This has usually been because he was doing something to annoy other Republicans. McCain’s middle name is after all Maverick. I am surprised he wasn’t cast as a fifth Maverick brother (ok technically Roger Moore was a cousin). Although it would have been interesting if he had the Tom Cruise role in Top Gun as he really was a fighter jet flying war hero. Anyway I digress…
I think a part of the reason conservatives aren’t enthusiastic about McCain is that they really hate the New York Times. The friend of my enemy is my enemy? So maybe this wasn’t an attempt to torpedo McCain but to help him unite the GOP base. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and just about all of the right wing media have come to McCain’s defense to bash the Times. The New York Times story may well help McCain instead of hurting him.
Of course maybe that’s just what they want us to think. If they get Rush Limbaugh on McCain’s side, that might hurt him with independents. Ha Ha I have uncovered the true plot!!! (Just kidding)
As for the Times story itself, I don’t think very much of it as journalism. The “scandal” boils down to a 9 year old allegation that two McCain staffers thought McCain’s relationship with a young pretty lobbyist MIGHT have been romantic. That is hardly Gary Hart being caught red handed with Donna Rice on his yacht Monkey Business after challenging the press to follow him. There is no evidence beyond a decade old innuendo.
The timing of the story is interesting too. Mike Barnicle said on MSNBC this morning that he first heard of this story from a NYT reporter in New Hampshire in December. That reporter wasn’t working on the story, he just knew the Times was working on it. That means of course that the times had this story when they endorsed John McCain. What does that say about what the Times thinks of the story?
John McCain has for a long time been the Republican that liberals, independents, and the mainstream approve of. This has usually been because he was doing something to annoy other Republicans. McCain’s middle name is after all Maverick. I am surprised he wasn’t cast as a fifth Maverick brother (ok technically Roger Moore was a cousin). Although it would have been interesting if he had the Tom Cruise role in Top Gun as he really was a fighter jet flying war hero. Anyway I digress…
I think a part of the reason conservatives aren’t enthusiastic about McCain is that they really hate the New York Times. The friend of my enemy is my enemy? So maybe this wasn’t an attempt to torpedo McCain but to help him unite the GOP base. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and just about all of the right wing media have come to McCain’s defense to bash the Times. The New York Times story may well help McCain instead of hurting him.
Of course maybe that’s just what they want us to think. If they get Rush Limbaugh on McCain’s side, that might hurt him with independents. Ha Ha I have uncovered the true plot!!! (Just kidding)
As for the Times story itself, I don’t think very much of it as journalism. The “scandal” boils down to a 9 year old allegation that two McCain staffers thought McCain’s relationship with a young pretty lobbyist MIGHT have been romantic. That is hardly Gary Hart being caught red handed with Donna Rice on his yacht Monkey Business after challenging the press to follow him. There is no evidence beyond a decade old innuendo.
The timing of the story is interesting too. Mike Barnicle said on MSNBC this morning that he first heard of this story from a NYT reporter in New Hampshire in December. That reporter wasn’t working on the story, he just knew the Times was working on it. That means of course that the times had this story when they endorsed John McCain. What does that say about what the Times thinks of the story?
I May Have To Move To Canada
No, that's not far enough. Australia, that might be far enough.
Warning! Click at your own risk
Warning! Click at your own risk
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Payback for "Pimping" Chelsea?
I just read that on Monday night, while discussing Barak Obama on Chris Matthews' Hardball, someone at MSNBC mistakenly flashed a picture of Osama Bin Laden. Maybe they were trying to make up for David Shuster saying the Clinton campaign was "pimping" Chelsea?
But seriously, it is an easy mistake to make. I will admit I have said Osama once or twice meaning to say Obama. I have also found myself. when glancing quickly at a headline, seeing "Osama" when "Obama" is written. I didn't mean to do it any more than I intended to call my then girlfriend Melinda by my ex-girlfriend's name (Melissa). Trust me, I REALLY didn't want to do that. What is really unfortunate is that this coincedental similarity in names just makes it easier for unscrupulous people to spread false rumors that Barak Obama is an Islamic Manchurian Candidate, a secret muslim that will deliver us to our enemies from the Oval Office.
Much as I do NOT want Obama to be president, I do not want him to lose as a result of prejudice and racism. I think McCain will win an honest campaign with a true debate on issues. But that rarely if ever seems to be how things play out.
But seriously, it is an easy mistake to make. I will admit I have said Osama once or twice meaning to say Obama. I have also found myself. when glancing quickly at a headline, seeing "Osama" when "Obama" is written. I didn't mean to do it any more than I intended to call my then girlfriend Melinda by my ex-girlfriend's name (Melissa). Trust me, I REALLY didn't want to do that. What is really unfortunate is that this coincedental similarity in names just makes it easier for unscrupulous people to spread false rumors that Barak Obama is an Islamic Manchurian Candidate, a secret muslim that will deliver us to our enemies from the Oval Office.
Much as I do NOT want Obama to be president, I do not want him to lose as a result of prejudice and racism. I think McCain will win an honest campaign with a true debate on issues. But that rarely if ever seems to be how things play out.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Thoughts on Gun Control
There is an idea for a reform of gun control laws that has been percolating in my brain for some time. I think it’s about time I throw it out there in case anyone else thinks it would be an improvement over our current system. However, I strongly suspect that both the NRA and gun control advocates would have a problem with it.
I will describe my idea first, than go into detail about my rational.
The Federal Government should preempt all state and local gun control laws. All firearms must be registered with the Federal Government and guns may be sold only to persons with a Federal permit. All gun sales must be recorded with the Federal Government. Anyone transferring a firearm without following these requirements is civilly and criminally liable if the firearm is used illegally.
Any citizen of at least 21 years of age, without a criminal record or history of mental illness, may carry a concealed firearm provided they pass a gun training and safety course.
It might seem, contradictory that the states with the strictest gun control laws tend to have more violent crime than states where it is easier to own and carry a gun legally. The District of Columbia has the strictest gun control laws in the country and is one of the most violent cities. Criminals have no trouble getting a gun in D.C. A huge reason for this is because Virginia has some of the least strict gun laws. People legally allowed to purchase guns in Virginia, buy them and sell them to people who are not allowed to buy guns. Because guns can practically, if not legally, flow easily over state lines, any gun control regime needs to be national in order to be effective.
Many gun rights supporters object to a national gun registry. They believe, perhaps correctly, that the Second Amendment was placed in the Constitution so that an oppressive national government could not disarm the people and that the people could therefore overthrow an oppressive government. Whether you agree with this analysis or not, clearly many people object to a national gun registry. But these people would certainly approve of law abiding citizens being able to carry a gun in New York City or Washington, D.C.
The argument against making it easier for people to own and carry guns is that people who have guns are more likely to use them. Domestic violence is more likely to lead to homicide if a gun is in the house. A traffic accident could lead to a gunfight in the street. It will easier for a young person to get access to weapons for a Columbine/Virginia Tech/Illinois State University type spree.
The argument on the other side is the experience of states like Texas and Florida where a fender bender does not normally devolve into the gunfight at the Ok Corral. It is also argued that concealed carry laws protect people from violent crime, even if they themselves do not carry a weapon. Because criminals will not know who is carrying a concealed weapon, they may be less likely to prey on anyone.
As for spree shooters, who do often obtain weapons legally, it is argued that spree shooters would be stopped sooner by armed civilians. This was the case with the Appalachian Law School Shootings where two students used their personal weapons to subdue the shooter and the Colorado Church shootings where the gunman was stopped when he was wounded by a volunteer security guard.
Whether you agree with this argument or not, what I ask you is this: Would the system I propose be superior to the system we have today?
I will describe my idea first, than go into detail about my rational.
The Federal Government should preempt all state and local gun control laws. All firearms must be registered with the Federal Government and guns may be sold only to persons with a Federal permit. All gun sales must be recorded with the Federal Government. Anyone transferring a firearm without following these requirements is civilly and criminally liable if the firearm is used illegally.
Any citizen of at least 21 years of age, without a criminal record or history of mental illness, may carry a concealed firearm provided they pass a gun training and safety course.
It might seem, contradictory that the states with the strictest gun control laws tend to have more violent crime than states where it is easier to own and carry a gun legally. The District of Columbia has the strictest gun control laws in the country and is one of the most violent cities. Criminals have no trouble getting a gun in D.C. A huge reason for this is because Virginia has some of the least strict gun laws. People legally allowed to purchase guns in Virginia, buy them and sell them to people who are not allowed to buy guns. Because guns can practically, if not legally, flow easily over state lines, any gun control regime needs to be national in order to be effective.
Many gun rights supporters object to a national gun registry. They believe, perhaps correctly, that the Second Amendment was placed in the Constitution so that an oppressive national government could not disarm the people and that the people could therefore overthrow an oppressive government. Whether you agree with this analysis or not, clearly many people object to a national gun registry. But these people would certainly approve of law abiding citizens being able to carry a gun in New York City or Washington, D.C.
The argument against making it easier for people to own and carry guns is that people who have guns are more likely to use them. Domestic violence is more likely to lead to homicide if a gun is in the house. A traffic accident could lead to a gunfight in the street. It will easier for a young person to get access to weapons for a Columbine/Virginia Tech/Illinois State University type spree.
The argument on the other side is the experience of states like Texas and Florida where a fender bender does not normally devolve into the gunfight at the Ok Corral. It is also argued that concealed carry laws protect people from violent crime, even if they themselves do not carry a weapon. Because criminals will not know who is carrying a concealed weapon, they may be less likely to prey on anyone.
As for spree shooters, who do often obtain weapons legally, it is argued that spree shooters would be stopped sooner by armed civilians. This was the case with the Appalachian Law School Shootings where two students used their personal weapons to subdue the shooter and the Colorado Church shootings where the gunman was stopped when he was wounded by a volunteer security guard.
Whether you agree with this argument or not, what I ask you is this: Would the system I propose be superior to the system we have today?
Monday, February 18, 2008
Is Joe Lieberman the only grown up in the Democratic Party?
The Protect America Act expired last Friday evening at midnight. This modification of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA ) allowed the government to conduct surveillance on foreign enemies of the United States without obtaining a probable-cause warrant from a Federal Judge.
It is dumfounding, ridiculous, and outrageous that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would allow this act to expire, rather than allow a vote on bill that received overwhelming approval in the Senate. The idea that with the nation at war and with troops in harms way, we will need to make a warrant application to a magistrate before we can intercept an Al Qaeda e-mail scares me. That House Democrats would allow this situation sickens me.
Robert Novak in the Washington Post says that the bill was killed as a boon to trial lawyers that fear telecom immunity might cost them money. That doesn’t make me feel better.
The 4th Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” This is a right the government may not violate. But the government also has a responsibility to protect us from other people, organizations, or governments that may seek to deprive us of our rights, including the right not to be murdered.
In the back of many people’s minds is the fear that our government might go too far, become too much like Big Brother, and take away our most precious freedoms. One of these freedoms is the right to criticize the government. The fear that intelligence resources will be used to spy, not on the nation’s enemies, but on the President’s is legitimate. Richard Nixon’s administration was proof of that. But the need to spy on our nation’s enemies is just as legitimate and arguably more urgent.
Where to draw the line? Should we allow unlimited electronic surveillance to give us maximum protection from terrorists? The potential for abuse there would be huge of course. But giving an unfettered right to use electronic surveillance outside U.S. does not have the same potential. While there might be an occasional political enemy of the president making a call overseas; that seems a negligible problem. To be truly oppressive would require domestic surveillance. Just because an e-mail from one overseas computer to another passes through a server physically located in the U.S. does not make that e-mail domestic.
The Democrats accuse President Bush and the Republicans of fear mongering. The problem with that argument is the danger we are being warned about is all too real. FDR said that all we have to fear is fear itself. He was talking about a crisis of confidence in our banking system and economy. Nancy Pelosi says the same thing about Islamic Fascists that have already succeeded in killing thousands of Americans and want to kill millions more. Take a trip down to lower Manhattan or ask a NYC Fireman if all we have to fear is fear itself. In the meantime, stop playing politics and give the government the power it needs to protect us.
It is dumfounding, ridiculous, and outrageous that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would allow this act to expire, rather than allow a vote on bill that received overwhelming approval in the Senate. The idea that with the nation at war and with troops in harms way, we will need to make a warrant application to a magistrate before we can intercept an Al Qaeda e-mail scares me. That House Democrats would allow this situation sickens me.
Robert Novak in the Washington Post says that the bill was killed as a boon to trial lawyers that fear telecom immunity might cost them money. That doesn’t make me feel better.
The 4th Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” This is a right the government may not violate. But the government also has a responsibility to protect us from other people, organizations, or governments that may seek to deprive us of our rights, including the right not to be murdered.
In the back of many people’s minds is the fear that our government might go too far, become too much like Big Brother, and take away our most precious freedoms. One of these freedoms is the right to criticize the government. The fear that intelligence resources will be used to spy, not on the nation’s enemies, but on the President’s is legitimate. Richard Nixon’s administration was proof of that. But the need to spy on our nation’s enemies is just as legitimate and arguably more urgent.
Where to draw the line? Should we allow unlimited electronic surveillance to give us maximum protection from terrorists? The potential for abuse there would be huge of course. But giving an unfettered right to use electronic surveillance outside U.S. does not have the same potential. While there might be an occasional political enemy of the president making a call overseas; that seems a negligible problem. To be truly oppressive would require domestic surveillance. Just because an e-mail from one overseas computer to another passes through a server physically located in the U.S. does not make that e-mail domestic.
The Democrats accuse President Bush and the Republicans of fear mongering. The problem with that argument is the danger we are being warned about is all too real. FDR said that all we have to fear is fear itself. He was talking about a crisis of confidence in our banking system and economy. Nancy Pelosi says the same thing about Islamic Fascists that have already succeeded in killing thousands of Americans and want to kill millions more. Take a trip down to lower Manhattan or ask a NYC Fireman if all we have to fear is fear itself. In the meantime, stop playing politics and give the government the power it needs to protect us.
The Best Baseball Practical Joke ever?
Phillies' pitcher Kyle Kendrick was tricked by his manager, GM, teammates and the press into believing he been traded to the Yomiuri Giants in Japan. One of the best practocal jokes I have seen. The guy he was traded for is the Coney Island hot dog eating champ...
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Anyone want to bet on the election?
It has been 48 years since a sitting United States Senator was elected president. But I am so confident in John McCain being elected, I am willing to put big money on the line that a sitting U.S. Senator will be elected in November. I don’t even ask for long odds despite this 48 year trend.
Of course the odds of my winning such a bet have never been better because two sitting United States Senators have never faced off in a general election for President before. Whether its Obama or Clinton that faces McCain, we will have yet another historic first.
Ok, who is going to take my bet?
Of course the odds of my winning such a bet have never been better because two sitting United States Senators have never faced off in a general election for President before. Whether its Obama or Clinton that faces McCain, we will have yet another historic first.
Ok, who is going to take my bet?
Obama Amongst Blacks and Whites
My favorite political columnist is without a doubt Jonah Goldberg who writes for National Review and NRO. He has a really intriguing column here. He notes how Obama does (not surprisingly) very well among African-Americans and also well amongst whites in states with small African-American populations (e.g. Iowa, Maine). Hillary has done much better amongst whites in states that have large African-American populations. He suggests a possible reason:
Interesting I thought.
Meanwhile, for working-class white liberals who live in places such as Iowa or Maine, it’s easy to see our racial divide in almost purely theoretical terms and therefore believe that purely rhetorical responses are sufficient; Obama says the right words, and that’s all we need. But for much of the rest of the country, people are more skeptical that high-flying talk about diversity and unity, married to fairly conventional liberal policies on affirmative action, immigration, and the like, will do much to solve the real problems we face. They may have never heard such rhetoric delivered so well. But they’ve certainly heard it before.
Interesting I thought.
McCain or Clinton/Obama
There are many conservatives, particularly those that work in talk radio that are throwing out the idea that a second President Clinton or a first President Obama would be better for the conservative movement than a President McCain. Not that it would necessarily be better for the GOP, just that it would be in the better long term interests of the conservative moment and (if you are a conservative in your opinion) better for the country as a whole.
The argument, I believe, harkens back to the early of Bill Clinton’s first term. He came in to office with a far too liberal agenda (gays in the military, nationalizing health care etc) and became deeply unpopular. More importantly the conservatives in particular and the GOP in general were united in opposition to President Clinton. That unity lead to the Contract With America, the 1994 election, and conservatives taking over Congress for the first time in 40 years. Well the GOP anyway, those 1952 era Republicans might not have had much in common with Newt Gingrich.
Conservatives will be more united in opposition to a Democratic president, I will agree than they will be in support of a President McCain. But to throw the Whitehouse to Democrats for the next four to eight years is hardly in the best interest of America.
First and most importantly, is the war on terror and the war in Iraq. The only way the United States will lose in Iraq is if we give up. We can’t afford to lose. Losing means a failed state in Iraq, a breeding and training ground for Al Qaeda, and Iran becoming a Middle Eastern super power. President John McCain would enter office determined to win. President Hillary Clinton would enter office trying not to lose, but also trying to retain the support of the liberal base of the Democratic Party. President Barak Obama would enter office determined to pull out at the earliest opportunity. President McCain is better for America for this reason alone.
There is the economy. McCain may be a late convert to Bush’s tax cuts, but they are far more likely to be made permanent (or at the very least extended) during a McCain administration than a Clinton or Obama one. McCain is also far more likely to enforce budget discipline and reform earmarks.
Then there is the Supreme Court. John Paul Stevens is almost as old as Methuselah, and the next President will get at least one and perhaps several appointments to the Supreme Court. There are also the very important lower courts. McCain has pledged to appoint judges in the intellectual vain of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, in that they will see their job is to interpret and enforce the law, not rewrite to suit their personal preferences. But lets say he disappoints us. Let’s say that instead of a Scalia we get an O’Conner. That instead of a Thomas we get a Kennedy. A lost opportunity sure, but wouldn’t such appointments be infinitely superior to the types of judges President Obama might appoint? Remember, Obama has the most liberal voting record of anyone currently in the Senate.
So, my fellow conservatives: All I can say is get a grip, and get united behind John McCain. Focus on the positives of this truly great man. Wait until he is elected to start attacking him again. The country may never thank you for it. But it will be better off.
The argument, I believe, harkens back to the early of Bill Clinton’s first term. He came in to office with a far too liberal agenda (gays in the military, nationalizing health care etc) and became deeply unpopular. More importantly the conservatives in particular and the GOP in general were united in opposition to President Clinton. That unity lead to the Contract With America, the 1994 election, and conservatives taking over Congress for the first time in 40 years. Well the GOP anyway, those 1952 era Republicans might not have had much in common with Newt Gingrich.
Conservatives will be more united in opposition to a Democratic president, I will agree than they will be in support of a President McCain. But to throw the Whitehouse to Democrats for the next four to eight years is hardly in the best interest of America.
First and most importantly, is the war on terror and the war in Iraq. The only way the United States will lose in Iraq is if we give up. We can’t afford to lose. Losing means a failed state in Iraq, a breeding and training ground for Al Qaeda, and Iran becoming a Middle Eastern super power. President John McCain would enter office determined to win. President Hillary Clinton would enter office trying not to lose, but also trying to retain the support of the liberal base of the Democratic Party. President Barak Obama would enter office determined to pull out at the earliest opportunity. President McCain is better for America for this reason alone.
There is the economy. McCain may be a late convert to Bush’s tax cuts, but they are far more likely to be made permanent (or at the very least extended) during a McCain administration than a Clinton or Obama one. McCain is also far more likely to enforce budget discipline and reform earmarks.
Then there is the Supreme Court. John Paul Stevens is almost as old as Methuselah, and the next President will get at least one and perhaps several appointments to the Supreme Court. There are also the very important lower courts. McCain has pledged to appoint judges in the intellectual vain of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, in that they will see their job is to interpret and enforce the law, not rewrite to suit their personal preferences. But lets say he disappoints us. Let’s say that instead of a Scalia we get an O’Conner. That instead of a Thomas we get a Kennedy. A lost opportunity sure, but wouldn’t such appointments be infinitely superior to the types of judges President Obama might appoint? Remember, Obama has the most liberal voting record of anyone currently in the Senate.
So, my fellow conservatives: All I can say is get a grip, and get united behind John McCain. Focus on the positives of this truly great man. Wait until he is elected to start attacking him again. The country may never thank you for it. But it will be better off.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Picking a Candidate
I was torn for quite a while about which candidate to support for the GOP nomination. More so then in any other year, I wished that I could take pieces of several of them and stitch them into a Frankenstein Candidate. Ok, all you liberals can insert your own Cheney joke here:
____________________________________________
I am a small “L” libertarian so I did like an awful lot of what Ron Paul had to say. But he was the one GOP candidate that might make me vote for Hillary. No I don’t mean that as an Anne Coulter style hyperbole. It’s just that Paul says he will pull all our troops out of Iraq virtually immediately and I think that would be disastrous. I think Hillary would be more responsible. If you believe time traveling SciFi novels, Clinton will be "the most uncompromising wartime president in the history of the United States." Now I wouldn’t go that far, but I don’t think she would want to be accused of losing Iraq. My other major issue with Ron Paul is part of the reason he would never win. He refuses to compromise. He supports free trade, but votes against free trade bills because they are not free enough. If you want to accomplish anything you really can’t allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
I really like Mike Huckabee. He seems like a really decent guy with a great sense of humor. But I can’t vote for him for two reasons. First, he may be socially conservative, but he is not an economic conservative. He really has a populist economic message, not a conservative one. Reason 2 is that I think he is too religious to win in a general election. Even as an agnostic, I have no problem with his being religious because I don’t think he would try to impose his faith on the country. But I think a large part of the political center would be put off by his being a Minister. Add some of the positions he has taken or supported (quarantining aids patients, the duty of a wife to submit to her husband) and I think he would lose big if he was the nominee. But if he wins I will vote for him in the general election.
Chuck Norris may be supporting Mike Huckabee, but it was Fred Thompson that had a facts website, though they haven’t been updating it since he quit the race. He quit just as I had made up my mind to vote for him.
That brought me to Rudy. He was the only candidate I had met, and the only candidate for whom I had ever made dinner. He came into the pizza place I was working in just before being elected mayor. He told me my pizza was “great.” Of course he would hardly have told a registered voter it was crap, would he? But I digress. I think Rudy truly transformed NYC. Forget how he was on and after 9/11, he took a broken and deteriorating city and restored its status as the greatest city in the world. I am pro-life, but Rudy promised to appoint Alito-Roberts type judges so that wasn’t a big issue. He also seemed to do the best job in the debates of explaining why free market policies and lower taxes were best. So I decided to vote for Rudy just before he dropped out.
So that leaves McCain or Romney.
National Review endorsed Romney as the most conservative candidate that could win in the general election. I am not so sure about that. I am not completely convinced his pro-life conversion was genuine and not calculated. He struck me as too slick, too “John Edwardian.” But what convinced me not to vote for him was something my mother said. Not just what she said, but how she said it. She said she could never vote for a Mormon, and did it with real vitriol in her voice. Now I have never known my mother to be bigoted. She is a religious Catholic, but not an Opus Dei type. I have read that many Protestants have problems with Mormons, but I hadn’t heard it was an issue for Catholics. Again, I have no problem with his faith. Every Mormon I have met has been a genuinely nice person (or they faked nice really well), but I worry that anti-Mormon bigotry will hurt him in November.
I have tremendous respect for John McCain. No one can question his honor or his resolve after surviving 5 years of torture in a Vietnam POW camp, even though the North Vietnamese offered to release him. The offer came because his father was a prominent admiral. McCain refused to accept special treatment and would not accept release while other POWs remained guests at the Hanoi Hilton. I have tremendous respect for John McCain. But I don’t like him.
McCain can be surly. He has a nasty temper, and if reports are to be believed he tends to hold a grudge. He took principled positions contrary to mainstream conservatism, but also seemed to take great delight in jamming his finger in the eyes of his critics. Now that mutual animosity is his greatest weakness. My biggest issue is over campaign finance reform. I will explain in detail why I opposed McCain-Feingold another time, but suffice it to say I think such restrictions violate the 1st Amendment. I also have issues with him over the Bush tax cuts and immigration. So do many other conservatives. That begs the question, can McCain unite The GOP base?
Ultimately I think he can. I really don’t think the Anne Coulters of the country will vote for Hillary, certainly not in sufficient numbers to make a difference. Ultimately, McCain is a conservative, even if not as conservative as I would like. I think McCain’s appeal to the center and independents makes him the strongest general election candidate. I think he would beat Hillary comfortably. Obama on the other hand would be tougher. He has JFK charisma and McCain is 72. Hillary will ensure a united GOP base, but Obama is not detested in the same way by the Right. Time will tell who the Dems pick, but it seems the GOP has decided. Now they need to remember Reagan’s 11th Commandment and unite around McCain.
I voted for John McCain this week. I will vote for him again in November.
____________________________________________
I am a small “L” libertarian so I did like an awful lot of what Ron Paul had to say. But he was the one GOP candidate that might make me vote for Hillary. No I don’t mean that as an Anne Coulter style hyperbole. It’s just that Paul says he will pull all our troops out of Iraq virtually immediately and I think that would be disastrous. I think Hillary would be more responsible. If you believe time traveling SciFi novels, Clinton will be "the most uncompromising wartime president in the history of the United States." Now I wouldn’t go that far, but I don’t think she would want to be accused of losing Iraq. My other major issue with Ron Paul is part of the reason he would never win. He refuses to compromise. He supports free trade, but votes against free trade bills because they are not free enough. If you want to accomplish anything you really can’t allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
I really like Mike Huckabee. He seems like a really decent guy with a great sense of humor. But I can’t vote for him for two reasons. First, he may be socially conservative, but he is not an economic conservative. He really has a populist economic message, not a conservative one. Reason 2 is that I think he is too religious to win in a general election. Even as an agnostic, I have no problem with his being religious because I don’t think he would try to impose his faith on the country. But I think a large part of the political center would be put off by his being a Minister. Add some of the positions he has taken or supported (quarantining aids patients, the duty of a wife to submit to her husband) and I think he would lose big if he was the nominee. But if he wins I will vote for him in the general election.
Chuck Norris may be supporting Mike Huckabee, but it was Fred Thompson that had a facts website, though they haven’t been updating it since he quit the race. He quit just as I had made up my mind to vote for him.
That brought me to Rudy. He was the only candidate I had met, and the only candidate for whom I had ever made dinner. He came into the pizza place I was working in just before being elected mayor. He told me my pizza was “great.” Of course he would hardly have told a registered voter it was crap, would he? But I digress. I think Rudy truly transformed NYC. Forget how he was on and after 9/11, he took a broken and deteriorating city and restored its status as the greatest city in the world. I am pro-life, but Rudy promised to appoint Alito-Roberts type judges so that wasn’t a big issue. He also seemed to do the best job in the debates of explaining why free market policies and lower taxes were best. So I decided to vote for Rudy just before he dropped out.
So that leaves McCain or Romney.
National Review endorsed Romney as the most conservative candidate that could win in the general election. I am not so sure about that. I am not completely convinced his pro-life conversion was genuine and not calculated. He struck me as too slick, too “John Edwardian.” But what convinced me not to vote for him was something my mother said. Not just what she said, but how she said it. She said she could never vote for a Mormon, and did it with real vitriol in her voice. Now I have never known my mother to be bigoted. She is a religious Catholic, but not an Opus Dei type. I have read that many Protestants have problems with Mormons, but I hadn’t heard it was an issue for Catholics. Again, I have no problem with his faith. Every Mormon I have met has been a genuinely nice person (or they faked nice really well), but I worry that anti-Mormon bigotry will hurt him in November.
I have tremendous respect for John McCain. No one can question his honor or his resolve after surviving 5 years of torture in a Vietnam POW camp, even though the North Vietnamese offered to release him. The offer came because his father was a prominent admiral. McCain refused to accept special treatment and would not accept release while other POWs remained guests at the Hanoi Hilton. I have tremendous respect for John McCain. But I don’t like him.
McCain can be surly. He has a nasty temper, and if reports are to be believed he tends to hold a grudge. He took principled positions contrary to mainstream conservatism, but also seemed to take great delight in jamming his finger in the eyes of his critics. Now that mutual animosity is his greatest weakness. My biggest issue is over campaign finance reform. I will explain in detail why I opposed McCain-Feingold another time, but suffice it to say I think such restrictions violate the 1st Amendment. I also have issues with him over the Bush tax cuts and immigration. So do many other conservatives. That begs the question, can McCain unite The GOP base?
Ultimately I think he can. I really don’t think the Anne Coulters of the country will vote for Hillary, certainly not in sufficient numbers to make a difference. Ultimately, McCain is a conservative, even if not as conservative as I would like. I think McCain’s appeal to the center and independents makes him the strongest general election candidate. I think he would beat Hillary comfortably. Obama on the other hand would be tougher. He has JFK charisma and McCain is 72. Hillary will ensure a united GOP base, but Obama is not detested in the same way by the Right. Time will tell who the Dems pick, but it seems the GOP has decided. Now they need to remember Reagan’s 11th Commandment and unite around McCain.
I voted for John McCain this week. I will vote for him again in November.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
A Little About Me
This Blog is entitled Mike’s Minority Opinions because my name is Mike and throughout my life my opinions have often been in the minority. I am a Republican and a Mets fan even though I live in the Bronx. The Bronx, of course, is the home of the New York Yankees. You don’t find as many Mets jerseys or caps here as you do in say Queens or Long Island. Nor do you find many Republicans living in New York City’s only mainland borough. For that matter, you don’t find many Republicans living in New York City all.
I attended college at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Albany and finished my degree at Lehman College in the Bronx. While there was a chapter of the College Republicans at SUNY Albany, conservatives definitely appeared to be in the minority. I was called a fascist on more than one occasion, once (I am proud to say) by Ralph Nader. I was one of several peaceful respectful protesters outside a NYPIRG convention where Mr. Nader was speaking. He referred to our merry band of sign holders as “Fascists children of the ruling class.” Well my parents are/were regular voters, so I guess they are/were part of the ruling class. In fact, one of the last things my Dad did before he died was vote an absentee ballot from his nursing home.
I attended law school at Washington and Lee University in Virginia. W&L has one of the most conservative student bodies in the country so it was quite a change from going to school in New York. One difference I noted though was that liberal opinions (and there were liberal students at W&L) were not shouted down the way I had seen conservative opinions treated in NY. Controversial issues such as abortion or the death penalty were debated respectfully. Through a fluke of chance, I ran for vice-president of the Federalist Society, lost, and ended up as president. (I know, W lost the popular vote and still got elected, but at least he was running for President.) Anyway, during a discussion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in my Constitutional Law class, I said something about how discrimination in public accommodations did affect interstate commerce and the 1964 Act was therefore constitutional. My professor commented: “Oh the moderate position on the commerce clause from the Federalist Society.”
Back in the Bronx, I once worked in a pizza place for a guy named Rocko. One day Rocko said to me that he thought there should be mandatory sterilization of all women on welfare. I told him I thought that was horrible and would sooner eliminate welfare before allowing such a rule. He said, “You know the problem with you Mike, you are just too damn liberal.
That’s me, a “too damn liberal moderate fascist son of the ruling class.” I suppose it all depends on where I am standing and who is standing next to me.
I attended college at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Albany and finished my degree at Lehman College in the Bronx. While there was a chapter of the College Republicans at SUNY Albany, conservatives definitely appeared to be in the minority. I was called a fascist on more than one occasion, once (I am proud to say) by Ralph Nader. I was one of several peaceful respectful protesters outside a NYPIRG convention where Mr. Nader was speaking. He referred to our merry band of sign holders as “Fascists children of the ruling class.” Well my parents are/were regular voters, so I guess they are/were part of the ruling class. In fact, one of the last things my Dad did before he died was vote an absentee ballot from his nursing home.
I attended law school at Washington and Lee University in Virginia. W&L has one of the most conservative student bodies in the country so it was quite a change from going to school in New York. One difference I noted though was that liberal opinions (and there were liberal students at W&L) were not shouted down the way I had seen conservative opinions treated in NY. Controversial issues such as abortion or the death penalty were debated respectfully. Through a fluke of chance, I ran for vice-president of the Federalist Society, lost, and ended up as president. (I know, W lost the popular vote and still got elected, but at least he was running for President.) Anyway, during a discussion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in my Constitutional Law class, I said something about how discrimination in public accommodations did affect interstate commerce and the 1964 Act was therefore constitutional. My professor commented: “Oh the moderate position on the commerce clause from the Federalist Society.”
Back in the Bronx, I once worked in a pizza place for a guy named Rocko. One day Rocko said to me that he thought there should be mandatory sterilization of all women on welfare. I told him I thought that was horrible and would sooner eliminate welfare before allowing such a rule. He said, “You know the problem with you Mike, you are just too damn liberal.
That’s me, a “too damn liberal moderate fascist son of the ruling class.” I suppose it all depends on where I am standing and who is standing next to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
