Well it's been a while again, but life happens sometimes and the political world has been, well, dull lately. Okay, maybe not to some of you who care about things like "Health Care" or "Haiti" but for me, they just aren't the same as a good Energy Policy debate or a really interesting election.
For those of you who don't remember, I wrote a bit back in 2008 about why Democrats lose in Massachusetts. If you don't, well, I gave you a link, go read, I'll wait.
Done? Good. (Spoiler alert, that isn't what happened this time.)
So there was a special election to fill the empty seat of Ted Kennedy in the Senate. You've probably heard about it in the vast amounts of news. I was home a week or so before the election, just when the national news started to pay attention and asked around a bit to see what was going on. There was a general lack of concern. Everyone was generally dismissive of Scott Brown's chances, regardless of what the polls said.
Now that he's won the media is scrambling all over itself to explain why this happened and are grasping at reasons. I haven't heard anyone get it right yet. They call it a "national referendum" and a "judgment on Obama" and other high and mighty things.
The truth is (as I've mentioned briefly in the past) Massachusetts is a contrarian state. It was bad enough when Coakley acted like she was a sure thing and didn't even need to bother convincing anyone. That, probably, could've been forgiven. But when the national media started paying attention because it could change the "critical vote" on Health Care and wrote Brown off as a convincing, but likely unelectable underdog... that was when Coakley lost.
To the rest of the country this was an election about health care reform and partisan politics. In Massachusetts, this was a big ol' middle finger to the rest of the country. It's not that we from the Bay State don't like the rest of you or want you to have health care reform, we just hate being told what to do and REALLY hate being told why to do it.
Massachusetts already has progressive health care. They didn't need to elect someone to the senate for that. The rest of the country decided that was the issue Massachusetts was voting on, but the reality is that it wouldn't have really affected them. Massachusetts was voting on all of the other issues they disagree with Scott Brown on, but mostly they were voting to prove that they don't have to do what everyone else thinks they'll do.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Friday, January 22, 2010
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Well at Least They're Safe...
Right, so it's been a few months since I've written anything and I'm sorry about that, but the elections got boring. For the first time in my memory we had two nominees who won on moderate platforms. Both McCain and Obama had independents to thank for their early wins. Granted their moderate platforms were very different. Obama was running on a platform of change and hope while McCain ran on what I can only describe as curmudgeony experience.
Sadly they are still boring. I had high hopes for the VP choices. They really could have woken up the moderate center of America that is tired of far left/far right politics. They could have made a real effort at reuniting the country. They decided not to.
Obama, candidate of change, hope, and vague idealism. His VP choice: Joe Biden, epitome of Washington Establishmentism. I have nothing against Biden really, but he doesn't fit with a platform of change. He's been in the Senate for 35 years. The only interesting part of his selection as VP is watching the liberal media outlets bend over backwards to paint him as a "Washington Outsider". Apparently going home regularly (he lives a whole 2 hours away) is enough to keep you "outside" in Washington.
Meanwhile over in McCain land we witness the candidate of EXPERIENCE (said in a loud booming voice). His VP choice: Sarah Palin the first term governor of Alaska. Apparently she's some kind of darling for the social conservatives, but again, she doesn't fit with a platform of experience. She's been Governor of Alaska for 2 years. Before that she was mayor of a town about half the size of my college for 6 years. Again, however, it is entertaining to watch the conservative media outlets bend over backwards to paint her as experienced. Apparently she's better than Obama or Biden because two years is more than either of them (or McCain) has in the executive branch. Also, it's apparently worth noting that since Alaska is so close to Russia, she has foreign policy experience, in much the same way that everyone living next to the ocean is an Olympic Swimmer.
In conclusion, I'm still utterly disappointed in the candidates. Maybe one of them will excite me by November... but I doubt it.
Sadly they are still boring. I had high hopes for the VP choices. They really could have woken up the moderate center of America that is tired of far left/far right politics. They could have made a real effort at reuniting the country. They decided not to.
Obama, candidate of change, hope, and vague idealism. His VP choice: Joe Biden, epitome of Washington Establishmentism. I have nothing against Biden really, but he doesn't fit with a platform of change. He's been in the Senate for 35 years. The only interesting part of his selection as VP is watching the liberal media outlets bend over backwards to paint him as a "Washington Outsider". Apparently going home regularly (he lives a whole 2 hours away) is enough to keep you "outside" in Washington.
Meanwhile over in McCain land we witness the candidate of EXPERIENCE (said in a loud booming voice). His VP choice: Sarah Palin the first term governor of Alaska. Apparently she's some kind of darling for the social conservatives, but again, she doesn't fit with a platform of experience. She's been Governor of Alaska for 2 years. Before that she was mayor of a town about half the size of my college for 6 years. Again, however, it is entertaining to watch the conservative media outlets bend over backwards to paint her as experienced. Apparently she's better than Obama or Biden because two years is more than either of them (or McCain) has in the executive branch. Also, it's apparently worth noting that since Alaska is so close to Russia, she has foreign policy experience, in much the same way that everyone living next to the ocean is an Olympic Swimmer.
In conclusion, I'm still utterly disappointed in the candidates. Maybe one of them will excite me by November... but I doubt it.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Well I was going to post something earlier today about gay marriage or abortion or some such issue (and something on those topics will come up sooner or later) but something very strange seems to have happened while I was at lunch. Apparently Mitt Romney decided to withdraw from the race. I can honestly say I'm surprised. I thought he was much too stubborn to bow out before the convention, partly because he always said he would be sticking it out until the convention as recently as Tuesday.
On the one hand, strategically it was his best move, on the other hand I was really hoping the Republicans would get dragged into a slugging match up through the convention the way the Democrats are still set up to do. At this point McCain really can start shifting over to appeal to moderates. Sure Huckabee and Paul are still technically running, but Huckabee never capitalized on his Iowa win the way he could have, and let's face it, Paul is almost entirely unelectable. Unless something goes horribly wrong (e.g. huge scandal, McCain dies, etc.) McCain will be the Republican nominee in a few months.
The interesting question now is: Who will his VP candidate be?
For obvious reasons right now both Romney and Huckabee are being speculated about. Other names that are being bandied about in forums and speculative news articles include Lieberman, Pawlenty, Ridge, Powell, Guilianni, and about 2 dozen other Governors and Senators. As to what McCain has planned I can only guess.
Romney and Huckabee both have obvious benefits and drawbacks. Romney can help make the northeast and the west competitive in ways they haven't been in years. Huckabee shores up the religious conservative credentials that McCain is lacking which will help in Florida and pretty much lock the south. On the down side they've both been fighting McCain for the last 3 months and not pulling punches so they'd have to sway the public on their change of heart, but I think they're both charismatic enough to pull it off. Guilianni falls into the same category, helping in much the same way as Romney but without exciting the conservative base at all so he's probably out of the running.
Lieberman would certainly be an interesting (if highly unlikely) choice. The Democrats would be hard pressed to beat them on a message of post partisanship and change. It's hard to argue that you're less partisan than an ostensibly cross-party ticket. (I should admit now that I really don't like Lieberman. 8 years ago I did, but I lost respect for him when he abandoned the Democratic party after he lost his last primary in Connecticut.) A McCain / Lieberman ticket could plausibly sweep the entire country, it probably wouldn't if only because Massachusetts is a bit contrarian but it's conceivable which is more than anyone has been able to say in many years.
Colin Powell would be another interesting choice, he's still widely respected even after the incidents while he was Secretary of State. He's still an unlikely choice though, he doesn't bring much to the ticket. He's a socially moderate, ex military septuagenarian and the ticket already has one of those. He might be moderate enough to carry the center but Lieberman is better for that route.
Pawlenty and Ridge I admittedly know much less about. I vaguely remember Ridge from the 2000 campaign but that's about it so I had to pull a little bit about them from wikipedia. Ridge is decidedly less likely than Pawlenty in my opinion. His time as Secretary of Homeland Security might hurt his otherwise moderate and northeastern credentials. Pawlenty seems to be in many ways a foil to McCain. He's a young, charismatic, moderate conservative from a moderately democratic state that could swing with him.
Ultimately its hard to guess who he'll pick. If he decides he wants a conservative Republican ticket it'll probably be Romney with Huckabee being the second best choice. If he wants a moderate Republican ticket expect Pawlenty with a slim chance of Guiliani. If he takes the leap of faith for a real campaign of change and moderation it'll have to be Lieberman or Powell if Lieberman declines.
On the one hand, strategically it was his best move, on the other hand I was really hoping the Republicans would get dragged into a slugging match up through the convention the way the Democrats are still set up to do. At this point McCain really can start shifting over to appeal to moderates. Sure Huckabee and Paul are still technically running, but Huckabee never capitalized on his Iowa win the way he could have, and let's face it, Paul is almost entirely unelectable. Unless something goes horribly wrong (e.g. huge scandal, McCain dies, etc.) McCain will be the Republican nominee in a few months.
The interesting question now is: Who will his VP candidate be?
For obvious reasons right now both Romney and Huckabee are being speculated about. Other names that are being bandied about in forums and speculative news articles include Lieberman, Pawlenty, Ridge, Powell, Guilianni, and about 2 dozen other Governors and Senators. As to what McCain has planned I can only guess.
Romney and Huckabee both have obvious benefits and drawbacks. Romney can help make the northeast and the west competitive in ways they haven't been in years. Huckabee shores up the religious conservative credentials that McCain is lacking which will help in Florida and pretty much lock the south. On the down side they've both been fighting McCain for the last 3 months and not pulling punches so they'd have to sway the public on their change of heart, but I think they're both charismatic enough to pull it off. Guilianni falls into the same category, helping in much the same way as Romney but without exciting the conservative base at all so he's probably out of the running.
Lieberman would certainly be an interesting (if highly unlikely) choice. The Democrats would be hard pressed to beat them on a message of post partisanship and change. It's hard to argue that you're less partisan than an ostensibly cross-party ticket. (I should admit now that I really don't like Lieberman. 8 years ago I did, but I lost respect for him when he abandoned the Democratic party after he lost his last primary in Connecticut.) A McCain / Lieberman ticket could plausibly sweep the entire country, it probably wouldn't if only because Massachusetts is a bit contrarian but it's conceivable which is more than anyone has been able to say in many years.
Colin Powell would be another interesting choice, he's still widely respected even after the incidents while he was Secretary of State. He's still an unlikely choice though, he doesn't bring much to the ticket. He's a socially moderate, ex military septuagenarian and the ticket already has one of those. He might be moderate enough to carry the center but Lieberman is better for that route.
Pawlenty and Ridge I admittedly know much less about. I vaguely remember Ridge from the 2000 campaign but that's about it so I had to pull a little bit about them from wikipedia. Ridge is decidedly less likely than Pawlenty in my opinion. His time as Secretary of Homeland Security might hurt his otherwise moderate and northeastern credentials. Pawlenty seems to be in many ways a foil to McCain. He's a young, charismatic, moderate conservative from a moderately democratic state that could swing with him.
Ultimately its hard to guess who he'll pick. If he decides he wants a conservative Republican ticket it'll probably be Romney with Huckabee being the second best choice. If he wants a moderate Republican ticket expect Pawlenty with a slim chance of Guiliani. If he takes the leap of faith for a real campaign of change and moderation it'll have to be Lieberman or Powell if Lieberman declines.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Huckabee
Dear God, please don't let Huckabee become president. (For the record that is a prayer not a case of taking His name in vain.)
This man scares me. I don't like Bush but Bush never scared me. Huckabee scares me. I'm not going to lie and say "if he gets elected I'll leave the country" because I wouldn't. I'd be a bit paranoid for 4 or 8 years, but I wouldn't leave the country, he may be crazy but there's only so much he can do without congress behind him, and congress is too slow to let him cause too much damage.
He's pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-guns, generally pro-death all around. Except for abortion of course. Killing is only okay after they're capable of conscious thought. Also no stem-cell research, because the elderly aren't really doing anything for us anyway.
He's also opposed to killing gay people just for being gay. So I guess that's good. Now, none of the candidates (Republican or Democrat [except for Kucinich but he's a loon]) support gay marriage, so that's kind of a wash, but he also opposes civil unions, gays in the military, gay adoption, and thinks gay marriage, if not directly responsible for, is directly correlated with the downfall of civilizations.
He does have an environmental streak, wanting to leave the Earth cleaner than we found it, but not much of a record on it one way or the other. On other science fronts, he's been known to think AIDS patients should be quarantined and recently claimed ignorance of the issue when he made that statement without actually apologizing or contradicting it. He also doesn't believe in evolution which probably isn't terribly important for a president unless he starts meddling in education policy.
Now for the part that really scares me. Tax policy. He wants to abolish the IRS and the income tax and put in a Fair Tax (aka. consumption tax, national sales tax, really F'ing bad idea...) I tried to argue in favor of it once for a political science class. The general consensus is that, while it's a great way to start a tax system, replacing the current system would cause widespread recession and hurt the lower class the most.
Anyway I'd say he has maybe a 10% chance of winning the nomination but even that's going to need a strong showing in Florida.
This man scares me. I don't like Bush but Bush never scared me. Huckabee scares me. I'm not going to lie and say "if he gets elected I'll leave the country" because I wouldn't. I'd be a bit paranoid for 4 or 8 years, but I wouldn't leave the country, he may be crazy but there's only so much he can do without congress behind him, and congress is too slow to let him cause too much damage.
He's pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-guns, generally pro-death all around. Except for abortion of course. Killing is only okay after they're capable of conscious thought. Also no stem-cell research, because the elderly aren't really doing anything for us anyway.
He's also opposed to killing gay people just for being gay. So I guess that's good. Now, none of the candidates (Republican or Democrat [except for Kucinich but he's a loon]) support gay marriage, so that's kind of a wash, but he also opposes civil unions, gays in the military, gay adoption, and thinks gay marriage, if not directly responsible for, is directly correlated with the downfall of civilizations.
He does have an environmental streak, wanting to leave the Earth cleaner than we found it, but not much of a record on it one way or the other. On other science fronts, he's been known to think AIDS patients should be quarantined and recently claimed ignorance of the issue when he made that statement without actually apologizing or contradicting it. He also doesn't believe in evolution which probably isn't terribly important for a president unless he starts meddling in education policy.
Now for the part that really scares me. Tax policy. He wants to abolish the IRS and the income tax and put in a Fair Tax (aka. consumption tax, national sales tax, really F'ing bad idea...) I tried to argue in favor of it once for a political science class. The general consensus is that, while it's a great way to start a tax system, replacing the current system would cause widespread recession and hurt the lower class the most.
Anyway I'd say he has maybe a 10% chance of winning the nomination but even that's going to need a strong showing in Florida.
Romney
Oh Romney... ye of many faces. I like Romney, but he's held more positions than the Kama Sutra. He can't even seem to decide where he lives. It's Massachusetts... or is it Michigan... or Utah? I've lost track.
To be fair, Romney was governor of Massachusetts and Massachusetts is a terrible state to try to win an election in. As a state we're incredibly stubborn and disagreeable. If the entire country decides one way, you can almost guarantee that Massachusetts will go the other way. The other side of this fierce independence is that elected officials have to be nimble about their positions or they'll lose their seat as fast as they got it. They don't have to directly contradict their views, they just have to bend them and spin it to look like they do.
Overall Romney is fairly moderate. Pro-life, anti gay marriage, but not rabidly so. He's trying to please the entire Republican base which will ultimately either be why he wins or why he loses.
His biggest flaw (aside from the flip flopping) is that he's a Mormon. Granted most of the country doesn't really care about that, but it's still hovering around just waiting to rear it's ugly head again. Personally I think it's a stupid and bigoted reason to oppose a candidate. But then again, I'm not a conservative Christian fundamentalist.
Oops did I just call Christian fundies stupid bigots? My bad...
I honestly don't care about his faith, it's his business not the country's. Besides, even if he were a polygamist, he'd probably have fewer wives than Guiliani.
All in all I'd give him about a 35% chance of taking the nomination. BUT if he can take Florida that's going to bounce up quite a bit and seriously hurt McCain's chances.
To be fair, Romney was governor of Massachusetts and Massachusetts is a terrible state to try to win an election in. As a state we're incredibly stubborn and disagreeable. If the entire country decides one way, you can almost guarantee that Massachusetts will go the other way. The other side of this fierce independence is that elected officials have to be nimble about their positions or they'll lose their seat as fast as they got it. They don't have to directly contradict their views, they just have to bend them and spin it to look like they do.
Overall Romney is fairly moderate. Pro-life, anti gay marriage, but not rabidly so. He's trying to please the entire Republican base which will ultimately either be why he wins or why he loses.
His biggest flaw (aside from the flip flopping) is that he's a Mormon. Granted most of the country doesn't really care about that, but it's still hovering around just waiting to rear it's ugly head again. Personally I think it's a stupid and bigoted reason to oppose a candidate. But then again, I'm not a conservative Christian fundamentalist.
Oops did I just call Christian fundies stupid bigots? My bad...
I honestly don't care about his faith, it's his business not the country's. Besides, even if he were a polygamist, he'd probably have fewer wives than Guiliani.
All in all I'd give him about a 35% chance of taking the nomination. BUT if he can take Florida that's going to bounce up quite a bit and seriously hurt McCain's chances.
McCain
Now for the Republicans. They're much more interesting to me this year. Not because I agree with their politics, but because their base is so divided right now that it's a genuine toss up for a change. For years the Republicans have been this weird conglomerate of war hawks, libertarians, evangelicals, and the wealthy. All of which have conflicting interests. Their only uniting factor was that they opposed the Democrats
McCain is the Republican candidate for the hawks. Veteran, POW, great American war hero. He's everything the pro-war, pro-military types love to see in a candidate. He's also going to be 72 before the general election in November and I'm fairly certain he's already on the short bus to senility.
He somehow manages to have cross-party appeal while holding no actual moderate opinions. I have to admit I respect the man and when he ran 8 years ago I was a big fan. The last 8 years have turned him from a respectable man that tells the truth even when people don't want to hear it into a borderline senile coot that wants us to believe Baghdad is safe just because no one shot him while he was surrounded by an squad of heavily armed soldiers.
All in all, he's not a bad guy and I'd say he's got about a 50% chance of winning the nomination and the Republicans could do worse in the current field... but I still think he's a crazy old man.
McCain is the Republican candidate for the hawks. Veteran, POW, great American war hero. He's everything the pro-war, pro-military types love to see in a candidate. He's also going to be 72 before the general election in November and I'm fairly certain he's already on the short bus to senility.
He somehow manages to have cross-party appeal while holding no actual moderate opinions. I have to admit I respect the man and when he ran 8 years ago I was a big fan. The last 8 years have turned him from a respectable man that tells the truth even when people don't want to hear it into a borderline senile coot that wants us to believe Baghdad is safe just because no one shot him while he was surrounded by an squad of heavily armed soldiers.
All in all, he's not a bad guy and I'd say he's got about a 50% chance of winning the nomination and the Republicans could do worse in the current field... but I still think he's a crazy old man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)