A Modest Proposal to End Global Warming (With thanks to Jonathan Swift)
Mother Earth is heating up; the Polar Ice Caps are melting. Record heat and drought are striking the planet. Global Warming is upon us.
The prophet Al Gore has shown us the way with An Inconvenient Truth. We shall worship at the Altar of Global Warming. The Global Warming Truth shall set us free as we worship Mother Earth. Indeed, we shall enter into a Holy War against Global Warming. We cannot lose this Total War. We shall Google Global Warming to death. We are all soldiers in the war against Global Warming. No conscientious objectors or 4F’s in this crusade. Onward Christian Soldiers into the Global Warming hell of fire and brimstone. We shall go where no man, not even Nostradamus, has gone before. Catholic theology shall view it as a just war, and Jihadists can earn credit to meet 72 carbonless virgins in Heaven.
All of us earthy sinners can receive absolution by genuflecting and receiving carbon credits at the Holy Church of the Carbon Redeemer.
We must reduce our carbon footprint for it is the cause of global warming. Let us eliminate henceforth all carbon-based fuels, such as oil, gas, and coal. Energy gluttons can repent at the shrine of zero carbon energy. We must switch to solar, wind, hydro, thermo climes, and nuclear. Only electric, solar or hydrogen cars will be allowable. Walking, jogging, biking, skating, canoes, row boats, and sailing vessels will still be permissible means of transportation, but not camels, donkeys, mules, or horses because of their carbon based road apples. No more horse and carriage rides in Central Park or New Orleans.
We can start by deleting carbon from the carbon free periodic table. No more carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, or carbon tetrachloride.
We have to choose between mottos though:
Live carbon free or die
or
Carbon free or carbon tax
No cows for food because of methane emissions. Hold your burps! Composting is out. Neither wood burning in the fireplace to warm our houses at night nor in a stove; only solar heating can cook our food and dry our clothes. We must avoid burnt carbon emissions. If you live in the Frost Belt, then move to the Sun Belt.
What if that doesn’t reverse global warming? Then we as soldiers must be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. We shall have no choice but to end the carbon footprint of all carbon-based life forms by eliminating all carbon-based life forms, starting with Homo sapiens, then all mammals, fish, plants, bacteria, and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Even the ultimate survivors, Castro, cock roaches and coyotes, must be terminated with extreme prejudice. We must defer to the wisdom of Pogo: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
All other “isms” will disappear in a flash flood: atheism, capitalism (sorry Ayn Rand), communism, deism, fascism, hedonism, monotheism, nationalism, Nihilism, sado-masochism, socialism, social Darwinism, sophism, theism. Certainly no pacifism! No one can be agnostic about global warming although transcendental meditation and yoga will help.
Think of the blessings.
Viruses, including computer viruses, will no longer form a threat to carbon based life forms.
No further debate between global warming and an oncoming ice age.
Confused about the dynamics of carbon offsets? No problem if we “off” carbon-based life forms.
Air pollution, water pollution, and toxic pollution will be solved.
Forget about pro life/pro choice, big box stores, blow-dried liberals, border security, budget deficits, Detroit, endangered species, gas guzzling SUV’s, gender gaps, Hamas, Hezbollah, HMO’s, Iran, Iraq, judicial appointments, mass transit, Microsoft, the Mideast, Midwest, North Korea, paparazzi, political correctness, pop tarts, porn, Radical Islam, right wing wacko nut jobs, Santa Anas, Scientology and Tom Cruise, starvation and malnutrition, stem cell research, Taliban, talk radio, taxes, The Donald, trial lawyers, U. S. News & World Reports, Universal Health Insurance, Universal Soldiers, and even the Green Revolution.
No more NIMBY’s because global warming is universally in everyone’s back yard.
No more debate over free trade because globalization has triumphed.
The Anti-Christ, anti-Semitism, antitrust, anti-war, anti-mites and antidisestablishmentarianism will disappear.
Think of the benefits for all.
Partisanship will be no more for we are all in the same carbon sump.
Bias will no longer exist. No gender bias, no genetic bias, no media bias, no liberal bias, no racial bias for we are all equal.
No more prescription drugs beginning with the letter “V”: Valium, Viagra, Vioxx, Vicodan, and Vytorin.
No more endless debates at the UN or in faculty meetings.
No more books about Who Shot JFK, J.R., or Florida 2000. No more digging for Blackbeard”s Treasure, deciphering the mysteries of DNA, or carbon dating the Shroud of Turin. The human genome project will be moot. Henry Ford will be proven right; “History is bunk.”
Finally an end to Rambo, Rocky (and Bullwinkle).
Most important of all. No more listening to “it’s a Small, Small World After All,” for it is now a global, global warming world after all. And an end to the three most pernicious words in the English language: “No assembly required.”
Of course, we must sacrifice. Thus, no more Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, Miss Hawaiian Tropic, the Swedish Bikini Team, and the Really Desperate Housewives of Orange County, not to mention Borat.
What if we’re wrong? What if Chicken Little is wrong about the sky falling and the temperature rising?
Then we’ll never know unless we settle a possibly carbonless space.
Let’s get serious.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
Lessons From california
Immigration is not a defining issue for Republicans – not in California, not in Arizona.
White males may now vote for a person of color.
The public believes in term limits for legislators.
Political endorsements work to a point, but the Kennedys could not deliver either
California or Massachusetts to Obama, but they may have cut the margin of victory.
The “non-conservative” conservative, John McCain, won the conservative vote in California. He carried all but two Congressional districts, and all 6 of the Orange County Congressional Districts. Orange County is the bedrock of Republican conservatism. Senator Barry Goldwater’s 1964 Presidential campaign got its genesis in Orange County, which then became the political base for Ronald Reagan. The County was also the birthplace of Richard Nixon.
The polls continue to be bumpkus this year. The only polls that matter are the votes of the voters in the voting booth. Even exit polls, especially early exit polls, can be erroneous.
The closing polls which showed Obama in the lead and Romney overtaking McCain were wrong.
Polls showing such a last minute surge in popularity cannot overcome the inertia of 2 million previously cast absentee ballots, which locked themselves in too early in a volatile election.
Talk show hosts and blogs play a significant role in determining the political future, but may not be decisive (See McCain).
As usual, the youth vote was Democratic.
Asian Americans and Latinos are increasingly registered and voting.
Voters support increased state revenues from Indian casinos.
Voters will approve tax increases, especially when presented in a disingenuous manner. Courts had struck down a 10% Los Angeles phone tax, meaning it should be 0. The City repackaged it as a tax cut from 10% to 9% that would support police and fire. It was also advertised as a way to cut corporate tax loopholes. In fact, the tax was extended to apply to cell phone calls as well as land lines. It helps that no organized opposition existed to the tax increase.
Even peace loving San Franciscans can draw a line. They rejected a proposal to turn Alcatraz into a Peace Center
White males may now vote for a person of color.
The public believes in term limits for legislators.
Political endorsements work to a point, but the Kennedys could not deliver either
California or Massachusetts to Obama, but they may have cut the margin of victory.
The “non-conservative” conservative, John McCain, won the conservative vote in California. He carried all but two Congressional districts, and all 6 of the Orange County Congressional Districts. Orange County is the bedrock of Republican conservatism. Senator Barry Goldwater’s 1964 Presidential campaign got its genesis in Orange County, which then became the political base for Ronald Reagan. The County was also the birthplace of Richard Nixon.
The polls continue to be bumpkus this year. The only polls that matter are the votes of the voters in the voting booth. Even exit polls, especially early exit polls, can be erroneous.
The closing polls which showed Obama in the lead and Romney overtaking McCain were wrong.
Polls showing such a last minute surge in popularity cannot overcome the inertia of 2 million previously cast absentee ballots, which locked themselves in too early in a volatile election.
Talk show hosts and blogs play a significant role in determining the political future, but may not be decisive (See McCain).
As usual, the youth vote was Democratic.
Asian Americans and Latinos are increasingly registered and voting.
Voters support increased state revenues from Indian casinos.
Voters will approve tax increases, especially when presented in a disingenuous manner. Courts had struck down a 10% Los Angeles phone tax, meaning it should be 0. The City repackaged it as a tax cut from 10% to 9% that would support police and fire. It was also advertised as a way to cut corporate tax loopholes. In fact, the tax was extended to apply to cell phone calls as well as land lines. It helps that no organized opposition existed to the tax increase.
Even peace loving San Franciscans can draw a line. They rejected a proposal to turn Alcatraz into a Peace Center
Monday, February 4, 2008
It's the Delegates, Stupid
Forget Super Tuesday. Primary Season will extend through the spring, perhaps all the way into the Conventions.
Super Tuesday may be tomorrow, but it may not decide the nominees for November. Both the Democrats and Republicans are entering Super Tuesday with two strong candidates for their party’s nomination. Iowa, New Hampshire and the other early primaries and caucuses performed their role of winnowing out the field.
The country learnt in 2000 that the key to the Presidency is the Electoral College and not the popular vote. Similarly, the delegates control the nominating process – not the popular vote. The count of delegates proceeds state by state, not always under uniform rules.
We must also understand that the Media does not want the process to end this soon. Suspense and lengthy nomination process add excitement, not to mention circulation and viewership, to the contest. Clinched nominations at the beginning of February create a large void, indeed a news vacuum, between now and the summer.
Only if one of the candidates in each party receives total victory on Tuesday might the nominations be closed, but that is almost mathematically impossible.
The Democrats select 2064 delegates on Tuesday, out of the 2065 needed for the nomination. However, no state selects delegates on a “winner take all” formula in the Democratic Party. The delegates are apportioned proportionately, based upon votes in the state, sometimes under convoluted formulas. For example, Hillary won Nevada, but Barack received one more delegate from the state.
We can assume that neither Barack nor Hillary will win an overwhelming majority of the Democratic delegates on Tuesday, and that both have the financial resources and backing to carry on through the spring.
If though either Barack or Hillary receive an overwhelming percent of the delegates selected tomorrow, then the other might see the light and gracefully withdraw.
Just as conceivable though is that if Barack pulls an upset, then Hillary’s people may decide to wait out this tidal wave of enthusiasm for Barack, assuming that it is in fact such a wave of euphoria that will recede before the Convention.
If Hillary pulls through with a large percent of the votes and delegates tomorrow, then Barack may still reason that the voters increasingly perceive him as the candidate of change for the future. The more voters see of Barack, the more they like him.
The Republicans will select 1081 delegates on Tuesday, but 1191 are needed for the nomination. Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Missouri, New Jersey, and New York are winner take all states, presumably pledging all their delegates to McCain. However, most states select their delegates by Congressional District. Thus, simply winning a majority of the vote may not necessarily result in a majority of the state’s delegates if the weaker candidate wins most of the Congressional Districts, as might happen in California.
Once again, even if McCain as the favorite wins most of the votes on Tuesday, Romney may reap sufficient delegates to continue through to the Convention. He also has the resources, and backing of many conservatives, to stay in the race. Will he? As a highly successful business man, at some point he knows how to cut his losses. Let’s see how super Super Tuesday is for McCain and Romney.
Quite possibly, for the first time in living memory, not just one, but both parties may not have selected their nominee before the Convention, resulting in an Open Convention. The Media will love it. The suspense is building. That will be exciting.
Open conventions, with the image of smoked filled rooms and brokered conventions, are a distinct possibility, absent the cigarettes and cigars. The wheeling and dealing, the exercises of raw political power, the promises demanded and made, often in secrecy, may set democracy back a century.
If every delegate is critical, imagine what a delegate from West Podunk can demand for a vote. On the bright side, a brokered convention gave the nation Woodrow Wilson on the 46th ballot of the 1912 Democratic Convention.
On the negative side in national elections, the disputed 1876 Presidential election resulted in a compromise whereby the Southern Democrats supported the Republican candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, on condition the Republicans pull the Union Army out of the South, thereby ending Reconstruction and ushering in a century of segregation.
797 delegates to the Democratic Convention, about 20% of the total, are “super delegates’ unelected by the voters, but appointed by virtue of their political positions. They are unpledged and can vote for whoever they wish at the Convention. The pressure on them by the “Party” will be overwhelming. Obviously, they will like the nominee to be decided before the Convention. If not, they may control, and then the fun begins.
The 1968 Democratic primaries showed the power of the anti-war Senator Eugene McCarthy. President Johnson used his political powers to secure the nomination for his Vice-President, Hubert Humphrey. The result was to elect Richard Nixon in November.
The super delegates gave the nomination to Walter Mondale in 1984 over Senator Gary Hart, although it probably made no difference in the November reelection of President Reagan.
If the Democratic nominee is not chosen before the Convention, then a critical subplot will be the role of Michigan and Florida. The Party refused to seat their delegates because they voted at an earlier date than the Party wished. All the Democratic Candidates, with the exception of Hillary, honored a pledge not to campaign in the two states. She won both handily and is now asking their delegates to be seated at the Convention. If the Convention votes to seat them, then Hillary will almost certainly be the nominee
The real problem for America is that the compression of the primary season has resulted in much of America not getting a good look at the candidates. The citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire, and to a lesser extent, South Carolina and Florida, did, often to the point of “face to face”, but the rest of us have not.
Decisions are all too often being made on the basis of momentum, 15 second impressions, advertising, and endorsements rather than analysis and solid information. In theory, everything is available on the internet today, but one needs time to analyze all the information..
Super Tuesday may be tomorrow, but it may not decide the nominees for November. Both the Democrats and Republicans are entering Super Tuesday with two strong candidates for their party’s nomination. Iowa, New Hampshire and the other early primaries and caucuses performed their role of winnowing out the field.
The country learnt in 2000 that the key to the Presidency is the Electoral College and not the popular vote. Similarly, the delegates control the nominating process – not the popular vote. The count of delegates proceeds state by state, not always under uniform rules.
We must also understand that the Media does not want the process to end this soon. Suspense and lengthy nomination process add excitement, not to mention circulation and viewership, to the contest. Clinched nominations at the beginning of February create a large void, indeed a news vacuum, between now and the summer.
Only if one of the candidates in each party receives total victory on Tuesday might the nominations be closed, but that is almost mathematically impossible.
The Democrats select 2064 delegates on Tuesday, out of the 2065 needed for the nomination. However, no state selects delegates on a “winner take all” formula in the Democratic Party. The delegates are apportioned proportionately, based upon votes in the state, sometimes under convoluted formulas. For example, Hillary won Nevada, but Barack received one more delegate from the state.
We can assume that neither Barack nor Hillary will win an overwhelming majority of the Democratic delegates on Tuesday, and that both have the financial resources and backing to carry on through the spring.
If though either Barack or Hillary receive an overwhelming percent of the delegates selected tomorrow, then the other might see the light and gracefully withdraw.
Just as conceivable though is that if Barack pulls an upset, then Hillary’s people may decide to wait out this tidal wave of enthusiasm for Barack, assuming that it is in fact such a wave of euphoria that will recede before the Convention.
If Hillary pulls through with a large percent of the votes and delegates tomorrow, then Barack may still reason that the voters increasingly perceive him as the candidate of change for the future. The more voters see of Barack, the more they like him.
The Republicans will select 1081 delegates on Tuesday, but 1191 are needed for the nomination. Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Missouri, New Jersey, and New York are winner take all states, presumably pledging all their delegates to McCain. However, most states select their delegates by Congressional District. Thus, simply winning a majority of the vote may not necessarily result in a majority of the state’s delegates if the weaker candidate wins most of the Congressional Districts, as might happen in California.
Once again, even if McCain as the favorite wins most of the votes on Tuesday, Romney may reap sufficient delegates to continue through to the Convention. He also has the resources, and backing of many conservatives, to stay in the race. Will he? As a highly successful business man, at some point he knows how to cut his losses. Let’s see how super Super Tuesday is for McCain and Romney.
Quite possibly, for the first time in living memory, not just one, but both parties may not have selected their nominee before the Convention, resulting in an Open Convention. The Media will love it. The suspense is building. That will be exciting.
Open conventions, with the image of smoked filled rooms and brokered conventions, are a distinct possibility, absent the cigarettes and cigars. The wheeling and dealing, the exercises of raw political power, the promises demanded and made, often in secrecy, may set democracy back a century.
If every delegate is critical, imagine what a delegate from West Podunk can demand for a vote. On the bright side, a brokered convention gave the nation Woodrow Wilson on the 46th ballot of the 1912 Democratic Convention.
On the negative side in national elections, the disputed 1876 Presidential election resulted in a compromise whereby the Southern Democrats supported the Republican candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, on condition the Republicans pull the Union Army out of the South, thereby ending Reconstruction and ushering in a century of segregation.
797 delegates to the Democratic Convention, about 20% of the total, are “super delegates’ unelected by the voters, but appointed by virtue of their political positions. They are unpledged and can vote for whoever they wish at the Convention. The pressure on them by the “Party” will be overwhelming. Obviously, they will like the nominee to be decided before the Convention. If not, they may control, and then the fun begins.
The 1968 Democratic primaries showed the power of the anti-war Senator Eugene McCarthy. President Johnson used his political powers to secure the nomination for his Vice-President, Hubert Humphrey. The result was to elect Richard Nixon in November.
The super delegates gave the nomination to Walter Mondale in 1984 over Senator Gary Hart, although it probably made no difference in the November reelection of President Reagan.
If the Democratic nominee is not chosen before the Convention, then a critical subplot will be the role of Michigan and Florida. The Party refused to seat their delegates because they voted at an earlier date than the Party wished. All the Democratic Candidates, with the exception of Hillary, honored a pledge not to campaign in the two states. She won both handily and is now asking their delegates to be seated at the Convention. If the Convention votes to seat them, then Hillary will almost certainly be the nominee
The real problem for America is that the compression of the primary season has resulted in much of America not getting a good look at the candidates. The citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire, and to a lesser extent, South Carolina and Florida, did, often to the point of “face to face”, but the rest of us have not.
Decisions are all too often being made on the basis of momentum, 15 second impressions, advertising, and endorsements rather than analysis and solid information. In theory, everything is available on the internet today, but one needs time to analyze all the information..
Monday, January 28, 2008
Hillary- Divorce Bill After the Election
Hillary,
You must divorce Bill right after the election. Don’t even think twice about it; don’t hesitate. Just do it! You know it’s the right thing to do.
Cynical, yes, but the American people will understand
If you win the Presidency, you don’t need him anymore. If you lose the Presidency, you clearly won’t need him anymore.
If you are elected, you cannot afford to have him in the same room, The White House, Washington, D. C., or even anyway in America. Harlem cannot contain him. Even if you appoint him Ambassador to Kazakhstan, he’s still here. Just like Jack Nicholson in The Shining: “He’s baaaaack.”
Give him the house in Chappaqua. You have the White House. Let him have the Presidential Library in Little Rock. You have the Presidency. Give him the office in Harlem; just keep him out of the Oval Office. You can never be truly liberated until you liberate Bill. Let Election Day become Independence Day as you Free Willy.
You know that if he comes anyway near your Presidency, he will suck the oxygen out of the air. He cannot control himself. Bill Clinton is a lovable, irrepressible, egomaniacal lothario. They once said: “Let Reagan Be Reagan.” Never “Let Bill be Bill”, or he most assuredly will embarrass you and your Presidency. His mere presence will serve as a dangerous distraction.
Any indication of a co-Presidency will doom yours. As a symbol to the women of America, you must stand tall in your own right.
Don’t worry about the reaction. Most women will approve your dumping the scoundrel who betrayed and humiliated you too many times.
You must establish yourself as a strong, decisive President. Reagan did it by firing the air traffic controllers. You can do it by dumping Bill right after the election.
That’s if you win the election. Your problem in November is Chronic Clinton Fatigue Syndrome. While some of it is directed at you, the reality is that your husband hurt you in Iowa and South Carolina.
I had lunch a few days ago with five women. Two were liberal Democrats and two Republicans. The two Democrats said they could not support you. The reason was Bill. The ABC’s of politics came into view: “Anyone but Clinton.”
His presence might be your biggest handicap in November. The public, rightly or wrongly, currently wants a change from Bush, but that does not mean they want a Clinton Restoration.
You know that while Bill was the first full two-term, albeit not two-timing, Democrat President since FDR, he never won the popular vote in either election.
Al Gore ran an excellent campaign in 2000, but we know that his candidacy was doomed by the specter of Clinton. It wasn’t Florida, the Supreme Court, Tennessee, West Virginia, or Elian Gonzalez, that cost Gore the Presidency. It was your husband. He could do it again – this time to you.
In a 60 Minutes interview in 1992 you said “I’m not sitting here as some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette.” You stood by him in raising Chelsea and through all the Bimbo eruptions. You helped him achieve the Presidency. You experienced the World and the World Stage. Now it’s your turn to fulfill the destiny you laid out at Wellesley.
You don’t need him. Give Bill the walking papers after the election.
You must divorce Bill right after the election. Don’t even think twice about it; don’t hesitate. Just do it! You know it’s the right thing to do.
Cynical, yes, but the American people will understand
If you win the Presidency, you don’t need him anymore. If you lose the Presidency, you clearly won’t need him anymore.
If you are elected, you cannot afford to have him in the same room, The White House, Washington, D. C., or even anyway in America. Harlem cannot contain him. Even if you appoint him Ambassador to Kazakhstan, he’s still here. Just like Jack Nicholson in The Shining: “He’s baaaaack.”
Give him the house in Chappaqua. You have the White House. Let him have the Presidential Library in Little Rock. You have the Presidency. Give him the office in Harlem; just keep him out of the Oval Office. You can never be truly liberated until you liberate Bill. Let Election Day become Independence Day as you Free Willy.
You know that if he comes anyway near your Presidency, he will suck the oxygen out of the air. He cannot control himself. Bill Clinton is a lovable, irrepressible, egomaniacal lothario. They once said: “Let Reagan Be Reagan.” Never “Let Bill be Bill”, or he most assuredly will embarrass you and your Presidency. His mere presence will serve as a dangerous distraction.
Any indication of a co-Presidency will doom yours. As a symbol to the women of America, you must stand tall in your own right.
Don’t worry about the reaction. Most women will approve your dumping the scoundrel who betrayed and humiliated you too many times.
You must establish yourself as a strong, decisive President. Reagan did it by firing the air traffic controllers. You can do it by dumping Bill right after the election.
That’s if you win the election. Your problem in November is Chronic Clinton Fatigue Syndrome. While some of it is directed at you, the reality is that your husband hurt you in Iowa and South Carolina.
I had lunch a few days ago with five women. Two were liberal Democrats and two Republicans. The two Democrats said they could not support you. The reason was Bill. The ABC’s of politics came into view: “Anyone but Clinton.”
His presence might be your biggest handicap in November. The public, rightly or wrongly, currently wants a change from Bush, but that does not mean they want a Clinton Restoration.
You know that while Bill was the first full two-term, albeit not two-timing, Democrat President since FDR, he never won the popular vote in either election.
Al Gore ran an excellent campaign in 2000, but we know that his candidacy was doomed by the specter of Clinton. It wasn’t Florida, the Supreme Court, Tennessee, West Virginia, or Elian Gonzalez, that cost Gore the Presidency. It was your husband. He could do it again – this time to you.
In a 60 Minutes interview in 1992 you said “I’m not sitting here as some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette.” You stood by him in raising Chelsea and through all the Bimbo eruptions. You helped him achieve the Presidency. You experienced the World and the World Stage. Now it’s your turn to fulfill the destiny you laid out at Wellesley.
You don’t need him. Give Bill the walking papers after the election.
Friday, January 25, 2008
The 2008 Presidential Election of Change - Or Not
Change is the buzz word of the Presidential election cycle
The conundrum for the Republicans is that it’s difficult to be the party of change when you are the governing party. The problem for the Democrats is that they all come from the Senate. No problem though for politicians to claim change
The most consistent change is in their talking points as they watch which way the wind is blowing in their focus groups
For example, if Iraq seems a quagmire, then the roar of negativity is deafening, but with the Surge a success, all we hear are the Sounds of Silence
How can the Democrats claim to be for change when they still fail to use the “L” word, Liberal, in describing themselves
Change is a code word for anyone but Bush, but the change is that Bush is not on the ballot
Obama is the Agent of Change, but then again, so are Clinton, Edwards, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, and all the Democrats and all the Republicans
Obama’s cry for a gentler, kinder bi-partisan Washington echoes that of Bush 8 years ago
Obama: The change is one of style and rhetoric, but not of substance. His politics are those of the mainstream of the Democratic Party: peace and appeasement, high taxes, socialized medicine, and the rise of the Nanny State
Style can be a decisive factor as shown by JFK in 1960. America fell in love with his style
Change to Harvard after three Yale Presidents
Hillary: Change means return to Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton
Edwards has the most genuine call for change even if it comes from a skillful trial attorney owning a mansion. His populist call for change is to return the Democratic Party to the working class roots from the Professional Class it is increasingly responding to
Romney: Change in both his policies and change in how much of his own change he can spend
McCain: No change in his straight-talking, but plenty of tacking in his positions
Giuliani: Change in campaign strategy, ignoring Iowa, New Hampshire and other early contests
The American voters almost always want change
1920 Warren G. Harding and the return to Normalcy
1932 FDR and the New Deal in the depths of The Great Depression
1968 Richard Nixon and Vietnam
1976 Jimmy Carter and Watergate
1980 Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter’s incompetence, malaise, 20% interest
rates, 12% inflation and Iran’s humiliation the United States
1992 Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush’s breach of the “No New Taxes”
Covenant
2000 George W. Bush and Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes and breaches of the public
trust
The American voters instinctively know that change usually comes from outside the Beltway.
The last sitting Senator to be elected President was JFK in 1960. Prior to that it was Warren G. Harding in 1920
Senators Goldwater, McGovern, Dole and Kerry have received their party nominations since then, but all lost in November
Governors Reagan, Carter, Clinton and Bush were elected. Dukakis was defeated. Coolidge and FDR were also Governors. Hoover was a humanitarian and Ike a general
No one can remember when the last sitting Congressman, much less a Mayor, was elected President
The Democrats will nominate either Clinton or Obama. If the Republicans nominate McCain, then the change will be to a sitting Senator after 44 years
If the Republicans nominate Romney, the next President will either be a sitting Senator or a Mormon
If the Republicans nominate Giuliani, then the next President will be either a sitting Senator or a Mayor, first Italian and only the second Catholic
If the Democrats win, then the next President will be an African-American or a woman. Either marks a tidal change in American politics and culture. If the Republicans prevail in November, the Democratic nominee will still be a major turning point in American history
Will the change result in a Carter or a Reagan? None of these changes tell us anything about whether the winner will be a competent leader of the American people
The conundrum for the Republicans is that it’s difficult to be the party of change when you are the governing party. The problem for the Democrats is that they all come from the Senate. No problem though for politicians to claim change
The most consistent change is in their talking points as they watch which way the wind is blowing in their focus groups
For example, if Iraq seems a quagmire, then the roar of negativity is deafening, but with the Surge a success, all we hear are the Sounds of Silence
How can the Democrats claim to be for change when they still fail to use the “L” word, Liberal, in describing themselves
Change is a code word for anyone but Bush, but the change is that Bush is not on the ballot
Obama is the Agent of Change, but then again, so are Clinton, Edwards, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, and all the Democrats and all the Republicans
Obama’s cry for a gentler, kinder bi-partisan Washington echoes that of Bush 8 years ago
Obama: The change is one of style and rhetoric, but not of substance. His politics are those of the mainstream of the Democratic Party: peace and appeasement, high taxes, socialized medicine, and the rise of the Nanny State
Style can be a decisive factor as shown by JFK in 1960. America fell in love with his style
Change to Harvard after three Yale Presidents
Hillary: Change means return to Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton
Edwards has the most genuine call for change even if it comes from a skillful trial attorney owning a mansion. His populist call for change is to return the Democratic Party to the working class roots from the Professional Class it is increasingly responding to
Romney: Change in both his policies and change in how much of his own change he can spend
McCain: No change in his straight-talking, but plenty of tacking in his positions
Giuliani: Change in campaign strategy, ignoring Iowa, New Hampshire and other early contests
The American voters almost always want change
1920 Warren G. Harding and the return to Normalcy
1932 FDR and the New Deal in the depths of The Great Depression
1968 Richard Nixon and Vietnam
1976 Jimmy Carter and Watergate
1980 Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter’s incompetence, malaise, 20% interest
rates, 12% inflation and Iran’s humiliation the United States
1992 Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush’s breach of the “No New Taxes”
Covenant
2000 George W. Bush and Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes and breaches of the public
trust
The American voters instinctively know that change usually comes from outside the Beltway.
The last sitting Senator to be elected President was JFK in 1960. Prior to that it was Warren G. Harding in 1920
Senators Goldwater, McGovern, Dole and Kerry have received their party nominations since then, but all lost in November
Governors Reagan, Carter, Clinton and Bush were elected. Dukakis was defeated. Coolidge and FDR were also Governors. Hoover was a humanitarian and Ike a general
No one can remember when the last sitting Congressman, much less a Mayor, was elected President
The Democrats will nominate either Clinton or Obama. If the Republicans nominate McCain, then the change will be to a sitting Senator after 44 years
If the Republicans nominate Romney, the next President will either be a sitting Senator or a Mormon
If the Republicans nominate Giuliani, then the next President will be either a sitting Senator or a Mayor, first Italian and only the second Catholic
If the Democrats win, then the next President will be an African-American or a woman. Either marks a tidal change in American politics and culture. If the Republicans prevail in November, the Democratic nominee will still be a major turning point in American history
Will the change result in a Carter or a Reagan? None of these changes tell us anything about whether the winner will be a competent leader of the American people
Change is the buzz word of the Presidential election cycle
The conundrum for the Republicans is that it’s difficult to be the party of change when you are the governing party. The problem for the Democrats is that they all come from the Senate. No problem though for politicians to claim change
The most consistent change is in their talking points as they watch which way the wind is blowing in their focus groups
For example, if Iraq seems a quagmire, then the roar of negativity is deafening, but with the Surge a success, all we hear are the Sounds of Silence
How can the Democrats claim to be for change when they still fail to use the “L” word, Liberal, in describing themselves
Change is a code word for anyone but Bush, but the change is that Bush is not on the ballot
Obama is the Agent of Change, but then again, so are Clinton, Edwards, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, and all the Democrats and all the Republicans
Obama’s cry for a gentler, kinder bi-partisan Washington echoes that of Bush 8 years ago
Obama: The change is one of style and rhetoric, but not of substance. His politics are those of the mainstream of the Democratic Party: peace and appeasement, high taxes, socialized medicine, and the rise of the Nanny State
Style can be a decisive factor as shown by JFK in 1960. America fell in love with his style
Change to Harvard after three Yale Presidents
Hillary: Change means return to Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton
Edwards has the most genuine call for change even if it comes from a skillful trial attorney owning a mansion. His populist call for change is to return the Democratic Party to the working class roots from the Professional Class it is increasingly responding to
Romney: Change in both his policies and change in how much of his own change he can spend
McCain: No change in his straight-talking, but plenty of tacking in his positions
Giuliani: Change in campaign strategy, ignoring Iowa, New Hampshire and other early contests
The American voters almost always want change
1920 Warren G. Harding and the return to Normalcy
1932 FDR and the New Deal in the depths of The Great Depression
1968 Richard Nixon and Vietnam
1976 Jimmy Carter and Watergate
1980 Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter’s incompetence, malaise, 20% interest
rates, 12% inflation and Iran’s humiliation the United States
1992 Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush’s breach of the “No New Taxes”
Covenant
2000 George W. Bush and Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes and breaches of the public
trust
The American voters instinctively know that change usually comes from outside the Beltway.
The last sitting Senator to be elected President was JFK in 1960. Prior to that it was Warren G. Harding in 1920
Senators Goldwater, McGovern, Dole and Kerry have received their party nominations since then, but all lost in November
Governors Reagan, Carter, Clinton and Bush were elected. Dukakis was defeated. Coolidge and FDR were also Governors. Hoover was a humanitarian and Ike a general
No one can remember when the last sitting Congressman, much less a Mayor, was elected President
The Democrats will nominate either Clinton or Obama. If the Republicans nominate McCain, then the change will be to a sitting Senator after 44 years
If the Republicans nominate Romney, the next President will either be a sitting Senator or a Mormon
If the Republicans nominate Giuliani, then the next President will be either a sitting Senator or a Mayor, first Italian and only the second Catholic
If the Democrats win, then the next President will be an African-American or a woman. Either marks a tidal change in American politics and culture. If the Republicans prevail in November, the Democratic nominee will still be a major turning point in American history
Will the change result in a Carter or a Reagan? None of these changes tell us anything about whether the winner will be a competent leader of the American people
The conundrum for the Republicans is that it’s difficult to be the party of change when you are the governing party. The problem for the Democrats is that they all come from the Senate. No problem though for politicians to claim change
The most consistent change is in their talking points as they watch which way the wind is blowing in their focus groups
For example, if Iraq seems a quagmire, then the roar of negativity is deafening, but with the Surge a success, all we hear are the Sounds of Silence
How can the Democrats claim to be for change when they still fail to use the “L” word, Liberal, in describing themselves
Change is a code word for anyone but Bush, but the change is that Bush is not on the ballot
Obama is the Agent of Change, but then again, so are Clinton, Edwards, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, and all the Democrats and all the Republicans
Obama’s cry for a gentler, kinder bi-partisan Washington echoes that of Bush 8 years ago
Obama: The change is one of style and rhetoric, but not of substance. His politics are those of the mainstream of the Democratic Party: peace and appeasement, high taxes, socialized medicine, and the rise of the Nanny State
Style can be a decisive factor as shown by JFK in 1960. America fell in love with his style
Change to Harvard after three Yale Presidents
Hillary: Change means return to Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton
Edwards has the most genuine call for change even if it comes from a skillful trial attorney owning a mansion. His populist call for change is to return the Democratic Party to the working class roots from the Professional Class it is increasingly responding to
Romney: Change in both his policies and change in how much of his own change he can spend
McCain: No change in his straight-talking, but plenty of tacking in his positions
Giuliani: Change in campaign strategy, ignoring Iowa, New Hampshire and other early contests
The American voters almost always want change
1920 Warren G. Harding and the return to Normalcy
1932 FDR and the New Deal in the depths of The Great Depression
1968 Richard Nixon and Vietnam
1976 Jimmy Carter and Watergate
1980 Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter’s incompetence, malaise, 20% interest
rates, 12% inflation and Iran’s humiliation the United States
1992 Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush’s breach of the “No New Taxes”
Covenant
2000 George W. Bush and Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes and breaches of the public
trust
The American voters instinctively know that change usually comes from outside the Beltway.
The last sitting Senator to be elected President was JFK in 1960. Prior to that it was Warren G. Harding in 1920
Senators Goldwater, McGovern, Dole and Kerry have received their party nominations since then, but all lost in November
Governors Reagan, Carter, Clinton and Bush were elected. Dukakis was defeated. Coolidge and FDR were also Governors. Hoover was a humanitarian and Ike a general
No one can remember when the last sitting Congressman, much less a Mayor, was elected President
The Democrats will nominate either Clinton or Obama. If the Republicans nominate McCain, then the change will be to a sitting Senator after 44 years
If the Republicans nominate Romney, the next President will either be a sitting Senator or a Mormon
If the Republicans nominate Giuliani, then the next President will be either a sitting Senator or a Mayor, first Italian and only the second Catholic
If the Democrats win, then the next President will be an African-American or a woman. Either marks a tidal change in American politics and culture. If the Republicans prevail in November, the Democratic nominee will still be a major turning point in American history
Will the change result in a Carter or a Reagan? None of these changes tell us anything about whether the winner will be a competent leader of the American people
Thursday, January 24, 2008
The Republican Conundrum
Michigan has spoken. It has voted for its Native Son, Mitt Romney, for President in the Republican primary. Thus, Huckabee won Iowa, McCain New Hampshire and South Carolina, and Romney Wyoming, Nevada and Michigan. The general assumption is that the Republicans will lose in November, but Republicans do not want to nominate a candidate who will lead to a landslide defeat.
The problem is not that the Republicans have failed to coalesce on a candidate unlike recent elections in which an anointed candidate usually won the nomination. The problem is that none of the current candidates offer a broad appeal to the Republican base.
All have claimed the conservative mantra of Reagan. The more one claims to be Reagan’s successor, the less likely that is the reality. Reagan’s unique Presidency ended a generation ago.
I lived in Massachusetts for 18 years. A conservative Republican, adhering to the core Republican tenets, cannot get elected to statewide office. Thus, Mitt Romney ran for Governor of Massachusetts as a pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-gun control, gay rights Republican. He then had an epiphany, not to be confused with a flip-flop, when he decided to run for President.
He also comes across as a preppie. It’s ok to be a preppie in Massachusetts, but the style does not necessarily connect with the voters of America. The secret of both Reagan and Clinton is that they touched the average American.
Senator John McCain is a war hero steadfast in his support of the Iraq War. He is genuine; his views do not shift with the wind, although he has been doing a lot of tacking recently. Unfortunately, with the exception of Iraq, his core values are mainly out of the mainstream of the Republican Party. His name is on the reviled McCain-Feingold abridgment of free speech. He supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, opposed the Bush tax cuts, and sold out the party with the Gang of 14 on judicial appointments. His views may appeal to independent and Democratic voters, as in New Hampshire and South Carolina, but not the Republican stalwarts. If he receives the nomination, then many Republicans will stay home on Election Day.
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a former Democrat, was elected Mayor of New York as a moderate, law and order Republican. He also has a checkered personal history, and is irregular with Church attendance, but he clearly is the leader in a time of crisis. Giuliani understands that leadership consists of keeping your cool when everyone else is losing theirs. Unlike Romney, he has not wholeheartedly changed his positions. He also cleaned up New York and made it safe to take the subway again. Such a feat exhibits true leadership.
His strategy though is interesting, defying conventional wisdom. He wrote off Iowa and New Hampshire, hoping to gain momentum from Florida and the tri-state primaries. No one can remember the last time a candidate was elected President of the United States by ignoring the early caucuses and primaries.
Senator Fred Thompson was the media’s favorite candidate until he formally entered the race. His candidacy shifted into reverse at precisely that nanosecond, and was abandoned on January 22.
Governor Mike Huckebee is an evangelical Christian, thereby appealing to the Christian base of the GOP. He is very articulate and intelligent and can be a compelling campaigner. He is though on most issues a populist more in tune with the left in America, and was endorsed by the Teachers Union. The GOP may offer a big tent, but it does not cover teacher unions. Huckabee’s populism is as popular with Republicans as Edwards with the Democrats.
It’s doubtful that America wants another ethically charged, huckster Governor from Hope, Arkansas. He has the potential to revive the Goldwater debacle of 1964, especially with his national sales tax proposal of 25%. He can explain it anyway he wishes, but it’s still a regressive 25% sales tax, which disproportionately falls on lower income Americans. He also wants creationism taught in schools alongside evolution. Did anyone say “Scopes Monkey Trial?”
Ron Paul expresses the courage of his convictions, a rarity among politicians, but has the same popular resonance as Barry Goldwater 44 years ago.
Candidates such as Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter never had a chance.
The problem for the Republican Party is that it has several base constituencies: economic and Main Street conservatives, Wall Street, Christian conservatives, blue collar workers, law and order/national security Americans, and libertarians. Only a masterful politician, like Reagan, can hold them together.
Wall Street, as much of the professional class, has been defecting to Democrats in recent years. Wall Street was also the core constituency of the first President Bush. His betrayal of his “No New Taxes” covenant with the American public may have played well on Wall Street, but gave us Clinton as President. Bush’s conversion from pro-choice to pro-life to secure his Presidency was not trusted by the party regulars. Neither are Romney’s nor McCain’s.
President Nixon pursued the Southern strategy, which moved the geographic base of the GOP from the Northeast to the Sun Belt. President Reagan reached out to the working class. The current candidates are doing their best to shrink the base.
President Reagan and the current President Bush were able to balance the bases of the Republican Party.
No current candidate has similar appeal for the Republican voters.
The problem is not that the Republicans have failed to coalesce on a candidate unlike recent elections in which an anointed candidate usually won the nomination. The problem is that none of the current candidates offer a broad appeal to the Republican base.
All have claimed the conservative mantra of Reagan. The more one claims to be Reagan’s successor, the less likely that is the reality. Reagan’s unique Presidency ended a generation ago.
I lived in Massachusetts for 18 years. A conservative Republican, adhering to the core Republican tenets, cannot get elected to statewide office. Thus, Mitt Romney ran for Governor of Massachusetts as a pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-gun control, gay rights Republican. He then had an epiphany, not to be confused with a flip-flop, when he decided to run for President.
He also comes across as a preppie. It’s ok to be a preppie in Massachusetts, but the style does not necessarily connect with the voters of America. The secret of both Reagan and Clinton is that they touched the average American.
Senator John McCain is a war hero steadfast in his support of the Iraq War. He is genuine; his views do not shift with the wind, although he has been doing a lot of tacking recently. Unfortunately, with the exception of Iraq, his core values are mainly out of the mainstream of the Republican Party. His name is on the reviled McCain-Feingold abridgment of free speech. He supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, opposed the Bush tax cuts, and sold out the party with the Gang of 14 on judicial appointments. His views may appeal to independent and Democratic voters, as in New Hampshire and South Carolina, but not the Republican stalwarts. If he receives the nomination, then many Republicans will stay home on Election Day.
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a former Democrat, was elected Mayor of New York as a moderate, law and order Republican. He also has a checkered personal history, and is irregular with Church attendance, but he clearly is the leader in a time of crisis. Giuliani understands that leadership consists of keeping your cool when everyone else is losing theirs. Unlike Romney, he has not wholeheartedly changed his positions. He also cleaned up New York and made it safe to take the subway again. Such a feat exhibits true leadership.
His strategy though is interesting, defying conventional wisdom. He wrote off Iowa and New Hampshire, hoping to gain momentum from Florida and the tri-state primaries. No one can remember the last time a candidate was elected President of the United States by ignoring the early caucuses and primaries.
Senator Fred Thompson was the media’s favorite candidate until he formally entered the race. His candidacy shifted into reverse at precisely that nanosecond, and was abandoned on January 22.
Governor Mike Huckebee is an evangelical Christian, thereby appealing to the Christian base of the GOP. He is very articulate and intelligent and can be a compelling campaigner. He is though on most issues a populist more in tune with the left in America, and was endorsed by the Teachers Union. The GOP may offer a big tent, but it does not cover teacher unions. Huckabee’s populism is as popular with Republicans as Edwards with the Democrats.
It’s doubtful that America wants another ethically charged, huckster Governor from Hope, Arkansas. He has the potential to revive the Goldwater debacle of 1964, especially with his national sales tax proposal of 25%. He can explain it anyway he wishes, but it’s still a regressive 25% sales tax, which disproportionately falls on lower income Americans. He also wants creationism taught in schools alongside evolution. Did anyone say “Scopes Monkey Trial?”
Ron Paul expresses the courage of his convictions, a rarity among politicians, but has the same popular resonance as Barry Goldwater 44 years ago.
Candidates such as Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter never had a chance.
The problem for the Republican Party is that it has several base constituencies: economic and Main Street conservatives, Wall Street, Christian conservatives, blue collar workers, law and order/national security Americans, and libertarians. Only a masterful politician, like Reagan, can hold them together.
Wall Street, as much of the professional class, has been defecting to Democrats in recent years. Wall Street was also the core constituency of the first President Bush. His betrayal of his “No New Taxes” covenant with the American public may have played well on Wall Street, but gave us Clinton as President. Bush’s conversion from pro-choice to pro-life to secure his Presidency was not trusted by the party regulars. Neither are Romney’s nor McCain’s.
President Nixon pursued the Southern strategy, which moved the geographic base of the GOP from the Northeast to the Sun Belt. President Reagan reached out to the working class. The current candidates are doing their best to shrink the base.
President Reagan and the current President Bush were able to balance the bases of the Republican Party.
No current candidate has similar appeal for the Republican voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)