Note to Hillary: As the song goes, “big girls don’t cry.” Apparently, she didn’t get the memo. The voters in New Hampshire didn’t, either. There is nothing that a dyed-in-the-wool, bleeding heart liberal likes more than a good cry. It just tugs at the old heart strings, you know? New Hampshire is full of those kinds of folks. Hence, Hillary’s primary victory last night.
Not to take anything away from “the smartest woman in the world”—because I actually forecast her victory up there in the Granite State, despite democratic presidential rival Barack Obama’s recent momentum from Iowa—but Hillary’s labile moment the other day couldn’t have been timed any better. Fresh in the voters’ minds Tuesday was the New York senator’s apparent sincerity of words during her recent tear session. It would not surprise me at all if Hillary received a few hundred—or even thousand—sympathy votes in response to her well-timed cry.
Media pundits have debated since then as to whether or not Hillary’s tears were genuine or staged. The truth lies somewhere in between. I believe Mrs. Clinton’s tears were real; after all, she is not as good an actor as her husband is. But I also think “the cry” was a calculated risk that Hillary was willing to take. She understood the mindset of New Hampshire voters as similar to those she won over twice in New York. Whip up a few tears and the bleeding hearts will gush with love for you.
But I digress: As timely and calculated as it was, there was something real and genuine about the cry, too. Dismayed by her recent third-place finish in Iowa and all of the attention shifting to Obama, I opine Hillary’s tears were those of frustration, rather than concern for the country. I think Hillary is concerned—about her campaign to occupy the highest seat of power in the world. After Iowa, it became painfully clear that the democratic presidential nomination was not hers exclusively. She learned, perhaps humbly, that maybe she is not a candidate of destiny, but rather a candidate of fate like the rest of the field. Welcome to reality.
Frankly, a little humble pie never hurt anyone. In Hillary’s case, a steady diet of it may actually help her to secure the party nomination and perhaps the White House.
The same goes for Obama, who may have taken his Iowa victory and subsequent momentum for granted. He is riding a wave of popularity right now that seems to transcend primary voting. Maybe all of this positive attention has gone to his head a little bit. New Hampshire ought to serve as a reality check for the “O Factor” that popularity alone will not get him elected president. There is a process to it, and one must master the process to win. Fortunately for “Obamania,” New Hampshire happened early in the presidential primary season. There are still 47 more states to go (less Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire) and a half-year until the Democratic National Convention.
What the democrats have now is a bonafide race for the White House. The candidate with the most grit will win in the end. Questions in my mind are thus: Does Hillary have the emotional armor to weather the coming storms of the primary season? Or, will she break down again after another loss? If the latter happens, then it’s over. Traditional bleeding hearts aside, the moderate and more conservative democrats do not want a fragile presidential candidate; neither do the undecided swing voters. They want someone with the grit to stand in, take the punches and still make the tough decisions. If Hillary cries again, it will be a clear signal to the country and the world that she is not ready to handle the stresses and pressures of the office of President of the United States.
As for Obama, I only wonder whether he is a sprinter or a distance runner? The former wins primaries, while the latter wins races.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Beware of the “Obasm”
Somebody throw water on Barack Obama, because he’s on fire.
The junior senator from Illinois and 2008 democratic presidential candidate has hit a hot streak in the early primary voting season. His popularity has reached such heights that the response among voters is almost, dare I say, “Obasmic,” to coin a term.
Yes, he is refreshing compared with a lot of the same-old-things among the field of contenders. Yes, his charisma, personality and photogenics are attractive. Yes, his life story is inspiring. Yes, even his name is catchy. These “Obasms” are admittedly contagious—even to those of us who are ideologically 180 degrees the other way.
There is no doubt that “Obamania” has taken America by storm this presidential election season. But do not mistake a few moments of idealistic nirvana for reality.
The hard-line traditional conservative that I am, even I dared to believe in all of the hype.
Unfortunately for voters—and even Obama himself—hype is all that an “Obasm” amounts to.
Remember H. Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, and even former Minnesota Governor and retired professional wrestler Jesse Ventura? All were fresh, popular and full of energy. Each was considered a maverick bringing a positive message of change different from the mainstream candidates. And yet, none made successful bids for the White House. The “noise” generated by their respective campaigns was all but reduced to a quiet whimper by the time the general elections came around.
But all were hyped to the hilt.
Obama runs the risk of becoming an over-hyped “flavor of the month,” rather than a serious heavyweight contender for the title.
To keep his campaign from losing steam, Obama will need to turn his reputation from fad to fashion. For “Obamania” to last, it needs to become a household name—which is to say, a lasting and dependable product—rather than a nifty, one-shot gimmick. He can ill afford to let the media paint him into a corner as some sort of wunderkind. To win the democratic presidential nomination and perhaps even the White House, flash just won’t get it done. He will need grit, and lots of it.
As with anything else short-lived, the “Obasm” will eventually fade and the young senator will not be able to rely on it. Sure, there are the multi-Obasmic voters who will stick with their candidate as long as he continues to feed into their pleasure centers. But many more voters are fickle, skeptical, cynical and pessimistic. While refreshing now, Obama’s optimism can quickly turn on him as voters often grow weary of somebody who seems to be wrapped up in idealism, instead of grounded in reality.
So, don’t let these “Obasms” fool you: They are nothing more than a few short moments of pleasure. They’ll pass.
The junior senator from Illinois and 2008 democratic presidential candidate has hit a hot streak in the early primary voting season. His popularity has reached such heights that the response among voters is almost, dare I say, “Obasmic,” to coin a term.
Yes, he is refreshing compared with a lot of the same-old-things among the field of contenders. Yes, his charisma, personality and photogenics are attractive. Yes, his life story is inspiring. Yes, even his name is catchy. These “Obasms” are admittedly contagious—even to those of us who are ideologically 180 degrees the other way.
There is no doubt that “Obamania” has taken America by storm this presidential election season. But do not mistake a few moments of idealistic nirvana for reality.
The hard-line traditional conservative that I am, even I dared to believe in all of the hype.
Unfortunately for voters—and even Obama himself—hype is all that an “Obasm” amounts to.
Remember H. Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, and even former Minnesota Governor and retired professional wrestler Jesse Ventura? All were fresh, popular and full of energy. Each was considered a maverick bringing a positive message of change different from the mainstream candidates. And yet, none made successful bids for the White House. The “noise” generated by their respective campaigns was all but reduced to a quiet whimper by the time the general elections came around.
But all were hyped to the hilt.
Obama runs the risk of becoming an over-hyped “flavor of the month,” rather than a serious heavyweight contender for the title.
To keep his campaign from losing steam, Obama will need to turn his reputation from fad to fashion. For “Obamania” to last, it needs to become a household name—which is to say, a lasting and dependable product—rather than a nifty, one-shot gimmick. He can ill afford to let the media paint him into a corner as some sort of wunderkind. To win the democratic presidential nomination and perhaps even the White House, flash just won’t get it done. He will need grit, and lots of it.
As with anything else short-lived, the “Obasm” will eventually fade and the young senator will not be able to rely on it. Sure, there are the multi-Obasmic voters who will stick with their candidate as long as he continues to feed into their pleasure centers. But many more voters are fickle, skeptical, cynical and pessimistic. While refreshing now, Obama’s optimism can quickly turn on him as voters often grow weary of somebody who seems to be wrapped up in idealism, instead of grounded in reality.
So, don’t let these “Obasms” fool you: They are nothing more than a few short moments of pleasure. They’ll pass.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Iowa votes have been reaped
Congratulations to Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee, who won their respective party caucuses in Iowa yesterday. They’ve cleared the first hurdle and rounded the first turn of the race with the momentum and the lead. But this race is a long one—and far from over. There are many more hurdles yet to be cleared, millions more votes to get and 49 more states to win.
While an Iowa victory is indeed an impressive feather in the cap, it is not equivalent to securing the party nomination. The presidential primary season is a long one, and the national conventions are still about seven months away; meaning that there is plenty of time for Obama and Huckabee to fade in the race and give up the lead down the stretch.
The morning after Iowa, the future looks bright for Obama and Huckabee, who have media prognosticators abuzz with their forecasts for New Hampshire, South Carolina, and other primaries. All of a sudden, Obama can beat Hillary, while Huckabee is a heavyweight contender.
But I say again: We have only seen the opening series of the first quarter, the top of the first inning, and the first leg of the race. There is still a lot of ballgame left and a long way to go to the finish line. I continue to stand by my earlier predictions that Hillary and either Giuliani or Romney will be the party nominees, because they have the political machines behind them. The Democratic and Republican national committees have already settled on their candidates. The primaries are mere formalities.
Some pundits are saying that Huckabee’s Iowa victory will open the door for John McCain to become the republican front-runner, because he apparently holds a sizable poll lead in New Hampshire, the primary for which is just days away. The prognosticators are also suggesting that McCain could wrestle Michigan away from Mitt Romney and win South Carolina, Florida and Nevada. At this point, only South Carolina appears to be favorable ground for Huckabee, because it is part of America’s “Bible Belt.” The former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister probably won’t do as well in the more liberal and secular Northeast, Florida, and the industrial Great Lakes region. Nevada, being more libertarian, is not really Huckabee country, either. And don’t get me started on the “progressive” Pacific Northwest.
I think Mike Huckabee had better savor his Iowa victory as long as he can, because he won’t get many more.
But I’m not ready to jump on the McCain bandwagon. At 72, the white-haired and balding former Vietnam POW and longtime U.S. Senator is representative of the old republican stereotype of stuffed shirt, country club types. He’s a senate dinosaur who is probably making his last attempt at the presidency. His maverick ways have led him astray of the party at times, and as a result, has hurt his standing among the Grand Old Party leadership. Bob Dole was given the nod in 1996 because he remained faithful to the party through thick and thin during his long tenure in the senate. McCain does not enjoy the same favor.
Furthermore, McCain lacks the poise, charisma and savvy needed to defeat neither the Clinton Machine, nor the “O Factor.” These are virtues that both Romney and Giuliani possess. One must become a fox to catch a fox.
The Obama Factor is much more realistic for the democrats than Huckabee is for the republicans. The junior senator from Illinois smote Hillary Clinton in Iowa by nearly 10 percentage points. Even John Edwards received more votes than “the smartest woman in the world.”
Unlike Huckabee, Obama enjoys a growing and widespread appeal across party lines and among undecided swing voters. He appeals to secular as well as religious voters. His energy, youth, enthusiasm and inspirational style could realistically throw a wrench into the Clinton Machine’s plans for a return to the White House. Unlike Hillary, Obama represents real change from the status quo, which for the past 20 years has either been a Bush or a Clinton. Furthermore, he is fresh, likable and personable—three things that Hillary just is not. Her husband, on the other hand, possessed these qualities in 1992. And just look back at what happened.
But the one “X factor” that the “O Factor” needs to be weary of is the effective reach of the Clinton Machine. Can enough dirt be dug up on Obama to create doubt and/or discontent among current supporters and remaining voters that would put Hillary back in the driver’s seat? Right now, Obama is at the wheel and Hillary is having to just go along for the ride.
New Hampshire will be key for Hillary, who has strong support in her Northeast home state of New York. She should win New Hampshire by a mile. But will she? Is the “O Factor” really catching fire so quickly that it could snatch the Northeast right out from under Hillary’s nose? I guess we will know in a few days.
If Hillary loses New Hampshire, then I believe she will lose the party nomination—unless the “O Factor” really screws up or the Clinton Machine is successful in screwing him over. South Carolina, traditionally conservative even among democrats, will not support Hillary. This primary will go to either Obama or Edwards, who should also win Michigan due to his union endorsements. This is assuming Edwards hangs in the race that long. For all I know, he could cash in his chips after New Hampshire, at which he will probably come in a distant third.
Hillary may win Nevada, Florida and California. But by the time these come around, will it really matter?
In spite of all this analysis, though, I still believe the Machines will prevail. Romney and Hillary are my predictions for New Hampshire.
While an Iowa victory is indeed an impressive feather in the cap, it is not equivalent to securing the party nomination. The presidential primary season is a long one, and the national conventions are still about seven months away; meaning that there is plenty of time for Obama and Huckabee to fade in the race and give up the lead down the stretch.
The morning after Iowa, the future looks bright for Obama and Huckabee, who have media prognosticators abuzz with their forecasts for New Hampshire, South Carolina, and other primaries. All of a sudden, Obama can beat Hillary, while Huckabee is a heavyweight contender.
But I say again: We have only seen the opening series of the first quarter, the top of the first inning, and the first leg of the race. There is still a lot of ballgame left and a long way to go to the finish line. I continue to stand by my earlier predictions that Hillary and either Giuliani or Romney will be the party nominees, because they have the political machines behind them. The Democratic and Republican national committees have already settled on their candidates. The primaries are mere formalities.
Some pundits are saying that Huckabee’s Iowa victory will open the door for John McCain to become the republican front-runner, because he apparently holds a sizable poll lead in New Hampshire, the primary for which is just days away. The prognosticators are also suggesting that McCain could wrestle Michigan away from Mitt Romney and win South Carolina, Florida and Nevada. At this point, only South Carolina appears to be favorable ground for Huckabee, because it is part of America’s “Bible Belt.” The former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister probably won’t do as well in the more liberal and secular Northeast, Florida, and the industrial Great Lakes region. Nevada, being more libertarian, is not really Huckabee country, either. And don’t get me started on the “progressive” Pacific Northwest.
I think Mike Huckabee had better savor his Iowa victory as long as he can, because he won’t get many more.
But I’m not ready to jump on the McCain bandwagon. At 72, the white-haired and balding former Vietnam POW and longtime U.S. Senator is representative of the old republican stereotype of stuffed shirt, country club types. He’s a senate dinosaur who is probably making his last attempt at the presidency. His maverick ways have led him astray of the party at times, and as a result, has hurt his standing among the Grand Old Party leadership. Bob Dole was given the nod in 1996 because he remained faithful to the party through thick and thin during his long tenure in the senate. McCain does not enjoy the same favor.
Furthermore, McCain lacks the poise, charisma and savvy needed to defeat neither the Clinton Machine, nor the “O Factor.” These are virtues that both Romney and Giuliani possess. One must become a fox to catch a fox.
The Obama Factor is much more realistic for the democrats than Huckabee is for the republicans. The junior senator from Illinois smote Hillary Clinton in Iowa by nearly 10 percentage points. Even John Edwards received more votes than “the smartest woman in the world.”
Unlike Huckabee, Obama enjoys a growing and widespread appeal across party lines and among undecided swing voters. He appeals to secular as well as religious voters. His energy, youth, enthusiasm and inspirational style could realistically throw a wrench into the Clinton Machine’s plans for a return to the White House. Unlike Hillary, Obama represents real change from the status quo, which for the past 20 years has either been a Bush or a Clinton. Furthermore, he is fresh, likable and personable—three things that Hillary just is not. Her husband, on the other hand, possessed these qualities in 1992. And just look back at what happened.
But the one “X factor” that the “O Factor” needs to be weary of is the effective reach of the Clinton Machine. Can enough dirt be dug up on Obama to create doubt and/or discontent among current supporters and remaining voters that would put Hillary back in the driver’s seat? Right now, Obama is at the wheel and Hillary is having to just go along for the ride.
New Hampshire will be key for Hillary, who has strong support in her Northeast home state of New York. She should win New Hampshire by a mile. But will she? Is the “O Factor” really catching fire so quickly that it could snatch the Northeast right out from under Hillary’s nose? I guess we will know in a few days.
If Hillary loses New Hampshire, then I believe she will lose the party nomination—unless the “O Factor” really screws up or the Clinton Machine is successful in screwing him over. South Carolina, traditionally conservative even among democrats, will not support Hillary. This primary will go to either Obama or Edwards, who should also win Michigan due to his union endorsements. This is assuming Edwards hangs in the race that long. For all I know, he could cash in his chips after New Hampshire, at which he will probably come in a distant third.
Hillary may win Nevada, Florida and California. But by the time these come around, will it really matter?
In spite of all this analysis, though, I still believe the Machines will prevail. Romney and Hillary are my predictions for New Hampshire.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Ninety feet from the White House
I’ve thought about this often, ever since her husband won the presidency in 1992. Anyone half-way between reality and dreamland could see the ambition written on her face. When Hillary Rodham Clinton began holding closed-door hearings on proposed health-care reform as First Lady in 1993, I knew then as a 19-year-old college student that it was she who wanted to be president and not her husband. All Bill really wanted was a private office from which to conduct his, um, affairs. Anyone who proposes to convert one-seventh of the U.S. economy to public domain, and who does not hold government office to do it with, must either be crazy or extremely ambitious. The jury is still out on whether it is one, the other or both.
Nevertheless, it was common knowledge inside and outside the Beltway that Bill was a puppet and Hillary was his marionette; she governed through him. The fact that Bill could become president with his political credentials and she could not motivated Hillary to keep their happy home, in spite of Bill’s well-known infidelity. She tolerated the affairs because power was more important to her than loyalty. She wanted the White House more than anything else in the world and nothing or nobody, not even her philanderer husband, was going to keep her from it. First Base.
So, during Bill’s final year in the White House, Hillary decided to make her move. She established a residence in New York State and registered as a candidate for U.S. Senate there. Why New York instead of, say, Arkansas? While I dispute the notion that Hillary is the “smartest woman in the world,” I also concede that she is intelligent, calculating and shrewd. She understands Beltway politics very well. There was a snowball’s chance in hell that a junior U.S. Senator from a backwater state like Arkansas would be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. However, a junior U.S. Senator from New York—one of the most prestigious, power and influential political districts in the entire country—could make a serious run. Furthermore, it was less likely that Hillary would have even been able to secure a House or Senate seat in her home state, considering Arkansas' conservative base.
In a nutshell, Hillary played the averages and decided that the New York senate seat was in her best political interest to run for and win. As a result, she packed her carpet bags for the Empire State, simply establishing residence and never bothering to live there.
Consequently, Hillary succeeded in fooling the voters of New York and got herself elected to the U.S. Senate. Second Base.
Now, after just one and one-sixth terms in the U.S. Senate, Hillary is running for president of the United States and vying for the democratic nomination. She is fixing her power-hungry gaze once again on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Only this time, she’ll be the legal Commander-In-Chief instead of de facto. Third Base.
Hillary is just 90 feet from home plate and in scoring position. She was walked to first, stole second and bunted to third. She is the front-runner for the democratic presidential nomination and is considered by many political pundits to be the one to beat from either party.
So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume Hillary is elected President of the United States—the first female chief executive. In this day and age, I don’t think too many people would oppose the idea of a woman president—provided she’s the right person for the job. But Hillary’s gender is moot when it comes to what makes an effective commander-in-chief. Frankly, I think her motivations alone disqualify her from seeking the office. Her entire political career has been nothing but a power grab. She has positioned herself over the years for this one moment in time when she can seize for herself the highest seat of power and claim it as her own. She couldn’t do that as a first lady to a governor or a president. She couldn’t even do it as a senator, because her power is only as great as her one vote in the chamber. But the President of the United States is the most powerful office in the entire world, and that is why Hillary wants to be elected to it so badly.
If the state of New York and the people in that district were really important to Hillary, then why is she trying so hard to leave her U.S. Senate seat for a better one in the oval office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? If the people of New York were good enough for Hillary, then perhaps she would stay longer and fight harder than she has for them so far. But the truth is that the people of New York aren’t good enough for Hillary. Of course, neither are the American people, for that matter; but they will have to do in order to get elected President of the United States. No, New York served its purpose. Now, Hillary is in search of much bigger fish to fry. She played New Yorkers like a harp, told them what they wanted to hear, and paid lip service to her constituents long enough to set herself up for a presidential run. Now, what matters to Hillary are Iowa, New Hampshire, California and about 46 other states besides New York.
One question to New Yorkers who voted Hillary into the U.S. Senate: Did she move to New York just to get elected and make a run for the presidency, or did she move there because she really cared about you and the issues of your state? I think it is clear Hillary wanted to represent you about as much as she wants to place second in a presidential election.
The reality is that Hillary used the state of New York for her own selfish purposes. No doubt she wants to use the American people for the same reason.
In the movie “Gladiator,” Marcus Aurelius (played by Richard Harris) urges Maximus (Russell Crowe) to accept anointment as Rome’s next emperor. When Maximus declines the honor, the emperor notes emphatically, “That is why it must be you!” This is because Maximus was not after power. He just wanted to return home to his family, live in peace and be content with what he had. The emperor’s son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), on the other hand, craved the throne and could not wait to seize power. Those of us who watched the movie saw how Commodus ruled the empire once he took power. While the movie itself is popular fiction, it contains an important message to those of us who still have the power to choose our leaders: Those most fit for public office are not the ambitious and certainly not the zealous; rather, they are the humble and the meek.
The candidate who will make the best president is the one who does not seek the office for his or her personal gain, but rather out of citizen duty to and love of country. The best president is one who does not want the office for all its power, glory and potential; but instead accepts it as a responsibility, the heaviness of which could not in good conscience be wished upon anyone.
By all accounts, facts and evidence, Hillary’s road to the White House is wrought with zealousness and ambition—the very traits we ought not entrust to our nation’s highest ranking representative.
Nevertheless, it was common knowledge inside and outside the Beltway that Bill was a puppet and Hillary was his marionette; she governed through him. The fact that Bill could become president with his political credentials and she could not motivated Hillary to keep their happy home, in spite of Bill’s well-known infidelity. She tolerated the affairs because power was more important to her than loyalty. She wanted the White House more than anything else in the world and nothing or nobody, not even her philanderer husband, was going to keep her from it. First Base.
So, during Bill’s final year in the White House, Hillary decided to make her move. She established a residence in New York State and registered as a candidate for U.S. Senate there. Why New York instead of, say, Arkansas? While I dispute the notion that Hillary is the “smartest woman in the world,” I also concede that she is intelligent, calculating and shrewd. She understands Beltway politics very well. There was a snowball’s chance in hell that a junior U.S. Senator from a backwater state like Arkansas would be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. However, a junior U.S. Senator from New York—one of the most prestigious, power and influential political districts in the entire country—could make a serious run. Furthermore, it was less likely that Hillary would have even been able to secure a House or Senate seat in her home state, considering Arkansas' conservative base.
In a nutshell, Hillary played the averages and decided that the New York senate seat was in her best political interest to run for and win. As a result, she packed her carpet bags for the Empire State, simply establishing residence and never bothering to live there.
Consequently, Hillary succeeded in fooling the voters of New York and got herself elected to the U.S. Senate. Second Base.
Now, after just one and one-sixth terms in the U.S. Senate, Hillary is running for president of the United States and vying for the democratic nomination. She is fixing her power-hungry gaze once again on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Only this time, she’ll be the legal Commander-In-Chief instead of de facto. Third Base.
Hillary is just 90 feet from home plate and in scoring position. She was walked to first, stole second and bunted to third. She is the front-runner for the democratic presidential nomination and is considered by many political pundits to be the one to beat from either party.
So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume Hillary is elected President of the United States—the first female chief executive. In this day and age, I don’t think too many people would oppose the idea of a woman president—provided she’s the right person for the job. But Hillary’s gender is moot when it comes to what makes an effective commander-in-chief. Frankly, I think her motivations alone disqualify her from seeking the office. Her entire political career has been nothing but a power grab. She has positioned herself over the years for this one moment in time when she can seize for herself the highest seat of power and claim it as her own. She couldn’t do that as a first lady to a governor or a president. She couldn’t even do it as a senator, because her power is only as great as her one vote in the chamber. But the President of the United States is the most powerful office in the entire world, and that is why Hillary wants to be elected to it so badly.
If the state of New York and the people in that district were really important to Hillary, then why is she trying so hard to leave her U.S. Senate seat for a better one in the oval office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? If the people of New York were good enough for Hillary, then perhaps she would stay longer and fight harder than she has for them so far. But the truth is that the people of New York aren’t good enough for Hillary. Of course, neither are the American people, for that matter; but they will have to do in order to get elected President of the United States. No, New York served its purpose. Now, Hillary is in search of much bigger fish to fry. She played New Yorkers like a harp, told them what they wanted to hear, and paid lip service to her constituents long enough to set herself up for a presidential run. Now, what matters to Hillary are Iowa, New Hampshire, California and about 46 other states besides New York.
One question to New Yorkers who voted Hillary into the U.S. Senate: Did she move to New York just to get elected and make a run for the presidency, or did she move there because she really cared about you and the issues of your state? I think it is clear Hillary wanted to represent you about as much as she wants to place second in a presidential election.
The reality is that Hillary used the state of New York for her own selfish purposes. No doubt she wants to use the American people for the same reason.
In the movie “Gladiator,” Marcus Aurelius (played by Richard Harris) urges Maximus (Russell Crowe) to accept anointment as Rome’s next emperor. When Maximus declines the honor, the emperor notes emphatically, “That is why it must be you!” This is because Maximus was not after power. He just wanted to return home to his family, live in peace and be content with what he had. The emperor’s son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), on the other hand, craved the throne and could not wait to seize power. Those of us who watched the movie saw how Commodus ruled the empire once he took power. While the movie itself is popular fiction, it contains an important message to those of us who still have the power to choose our leaders: Those most fit for public office are not the ambitious and certainly not the zealous; rather, they are the humble and the meek.
The candidate who will make the best president is the one who does not seek the office for his or her personal gain, but rather out of citizen duty to and love of country. The best president is one who does not want the office for all its power, glory and potential; but instead accepts it as a responsibility, the heaviness of which could not in good conscience be wished upon anyone.
By all accounts, facts and evidence, Hillary’s road to the White House is wrought with zealousness and ambition—the very traits we ought not entrust to our nation’s highest ranking representative.
Donkey v. Elephant: The Spread
I usually shy away from predictions and forecasts for the simple reason that most things in life cannot be predicted or accurately forecast. Presidential elections are no exception to this rule. However, with the 2008 presidential election season just days away from kicking off with caucuses, I thought it would be kind of fun to put my predictions down in writing and then come back to them in November of next year when the dust has settled.
All debates aside and in spite of formal primary voting, I believe the democrat and republican machines have already chosen their candidates. These two political machines ultimately fingered their candidates before the primary season has even had a chance to begin. This time around, the candidates were anointed right after the 2006 mid-term elections.
Although Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, is generating a great deal of fervor in the democratic party, the donkey will ultimately nominate New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has had the Democratic National Committee in her back pocket since hubby Bill won his first of two elections in 1992. The only way for Obama to steal the nomination would be for Hillary to screw up royally. This, of course, is a possibility—albeit a remote one. Then again, if the Obama camp can find enough Hillary flip-flops, he may just score enough late in the game to beat the buzzer and win the nod. Bill Richardson is the dark-horse candidate here. We won’t really know how well he fares in the race, much less what his chances are, until caucus results start coming in and the primary season is in full swing. As he stands right now, Richardson has little to no chance, given the fact that he is still a relatively obscure candidate who has not gone out and gotten the exposure that Hillary and Obama have. Yet, Richardson may serve a greater purpose than viable candidate: He could give Obama the nod, especially if he is able to take votes from key states like Nevada, California and Iowa away from Hillary. With his Hispanic background, Richardson could easily take latino votes that might have otherwise gone to Hillary.
Nonetheless, despite all the drama building up to Iowa and New Hampshire, I believe Hillary will weather the storms—not because she has the strength to, but because the DNC wants her to. The democratic ticket for 2008 will either be Clinton-Obama or Clinton-Richardson. All nastiness will be put aside for the good of the party.
When it comes to the republicans, the choices seem to be this empty suit, that empty suit or the other empty suit. Between Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee, there is an awful lot of lip service being paid to the republican base and not enough substance to back up their boasts. All seem to give very scripted, political responses to tough issues. Rhetoric is what we get in return for demanding answers to the tough questions: abortion, illegal immigration, the war on terror, fuel, trade and taxes. More thought seems to be put into how something is said, rather than on what is said. There is flip-flopping and flop-flipping going on to an annoying degree in a vain effort to cover the broadest range of voters. The only republican candidates not paying lip service to the base are guys like Dr. Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter, who state their views very plainly and do not sugar-coat them. And their votes in Congress reflect these views. Unfortunately, they will not win the republican nomination for president; neither will Thompson, Huckabee or McCain, for that matter—albeit for different reasons.
As with the democrats, the republican machine has already narrowed its list down to two candidates: Giuliani and Romney. One has celebrity (Giuliani), while the other has the look and swagger (Romney) of a presidential candidate. The rest of the field can and will try in vain to secure the nod, but in the end, the machine has its man: Rudy Giuliani. Romney is a very close second; but he will only be second. The reason I believe Rudy will get the nomination over Romney is because of the latter’s religious affiliation and the fact that he displays it proudly. There is a very negative perception about Mormons within mainstream America. We hear the jokes all the time. When it is all said and done, few will take Romney seriously simply because he is a practicing Mormon. If not for that one major detail, I’d say Romney would pummel the rest of the field in a landslide; this includes Giuliani. Don’t get me wrong: the race will be very close out west and in the northeast. But Iowa is key: If Huckabee takes Iowa, then whoever wins New Hampshire’s caucus wins the nomination. That will not be Huckabee. Rather, it will come down to Giuliani and Romney, who will probably win out west. But again, I believe the Republican National Committee feels that it owes the nomination to Rudy, who has hung tough against the democrats in a heavily democratic region. Besides, who best to defeat Sen. Hillary Clinton in New York than the most popular NYC mayor in recent history? Giuliani also would give Hillary a run for her money out in California, considering his “progressive” views on gay marriage (San Fran, anyone?) and illegal immigration (the largest per capita population of which resides in the Golden State). However, should Romney somehow win in Iowa and keep control of the west, all the votes in New Hampshire and the northeast may not be enough to give Rudy the nod.
But Iowa, full of Midwest protestants, is more likely to vote for Huckabee, a Baptist minister. Huckabee and Iowa are the functional reasons why I believe Giuliani wins the nomination. But the real reason is because it is Rudy’s time and the RNC owes it to him. Look for a Giuliani-McCain or Giuliani-Huckabee ticket for the general election.
Now that we have the horse race down to two candidates, a fair assessment of their chances is warranted.
Hillary will win Illinois, especially with Obama as her running mate. She also will likely win Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Washington, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Colorado. She may take Louisiana and Tennessee in the south. If her running mate is Richardson, she will probably control much of the southwest, except for the Lone Star State. Just because she is Hillary and a democrat, Texas belongs to Giuliani.
The key states, however, in this year’s race are New York and California. Flip a coin and call it: that will probably determine who wins either state and the electoral votes needed to secure the presidency. Personally, I think it could go either way in both states. If Giuliani can woo enough gay and latino voters by maintaining progressive stands on issues important to these groups, he could snatch California out from under Hillary’s nose. His appeal in New York City is probably less questionable than throughout all of New York State. But win NYC and you probably win the state. Yet, Hillary proved how easily NY voters could be duped (after all, they voted in a carpet-bagger for U.S. Senate, didn’t they?) and manipulated into doing her will.
So, all this speculation leads up to my prediction….drum roll.
The next President of the United States will be….Rudy Giuliani. I think he will defeat Hillary narrowly by virtue of winning California. He will get a boost and endorsement from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who may end up receiving a cabinet post in the Giuliani Administration for his support.
Giuliani will also carry the southwest, including Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. California will be the next Florida, in terms of controversy as allegations of helping illegals to vote at the polls will be leveled against the winning candidate.
In the end, many of the smaller states out west, in the south and in the midwest—whose electoral votes helped Bush obtain and retain the White House—are not ready for a woman president. Therefore, the republicans win yet another close presidential election.
But wait: There may be a wild card in play here. In every presidential election since 1992, there has been a third-party candidate, whose votes have meant the difference between winning and losing for the two major political parties. In 1992, H. Ross Perot and his Reform Party garnered 11 percent of the popular vote to award democrat William Jefferson Clinton the White House and deny President George H.W. Bush a second term. In 1996, Perot’s votes also cost Sen. Bob Dole a possible upset of Clinton. Recall that in 1992 and 1996, neither of Clinton’s victories was considered a landslide, despite the third party votes. In 2000, it was Ralph Nader and his Green Party that took away precious votes in key states like Tennessee and Florida from former Vice President Al Gore. Even though the blame was placed on the U.S. Supreme Court for ruling in favor of George W. Bush, the culprit was likely the three percent of the popular vote that Nader denied Gore. And in 2004, Nader supporters further denied Sen. John F. Kerry votes in key states like Nevada and Ohio. This resulted in a Bush re-election.
Look for a third party to arise from either the left, right or both. A four-party race would indeed make this an interesting election season. Suddenly, the fringe elements would be critical to a democrat or republican success or failure. Nader sounds like he may enter the fray again, so beware democrats. And if Ron Paul’s supporters convince their candidate to separate himself from the Republican Party, then I would predict a likely democratic victory in November. Why? Because right-sided third parties tend to generate more votes than the left-sided ones historically.
Provided there is no third party to spoil the republican candidate’s chances, then Rudy should win by a nose. As for Hillary, well, let’s just say she’s not even close to her husband.
All debates aside and in spite of formal primary voting, I believe the democrat and republican machines have already chosen their candidates. These two political machines ultimately fingered their candidates before the primary season has even had a chance to begin. This time around, the candidates were anointed right after the 2006 mid-term elections.
Although Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, is generating a great deal of fervor in the democratic party, the donkey will ultimately nominate New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has had the Democratic National Committee in her back pocket since hubby Bill won his first of two elections in 1992. The only way for Obama to steal the nomination would be for Hillary to screw up royally. This, of course, is a possibility—albeit a remote one. Then again, if the Obama camp can find enough Hillary flip-flops, he may just score enough late in the game to beat the buzzer and win the nod. Bill Richardson is the dark-horse candidate here. We won’t really know how well he fares in the race, much less what his chances are, until caucus results start coming in and the primary season is in full swing. As he stands right now, Richardson has little to no chance, given the fact that he is still a relatively obscure candidate who has not gone out and gotten the exposure that Hillary and Obama have. Yet, Richardson may serve a greater purpose than viable candidate: He could give Obama the nod, especially if he is able to take votes from key states like Nevada, California and Iowa away from Hillary. With his Hispanic background, Richardson could easily take latino votes that might have otherwise gone to Hillary.
Nonetheless, despite all the drama building up to Iowa and New Hampshire, I believe Hillary will weather the storms—not because she has the strength to, but because the DNC wants her to. The democratic ticket for 2008 will either be Clinton-Obama or Clinton-Richardson. All nastiness will be put aside for the good of the party.
When it comes to the republicans, the choices seem to be this empty suit, that empty suit or the other empty suit. Between Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee, there is an awful lot of lip service being paid to the republican base and not enough substance to back up their boasts. All seem to give very scripted, political responses to tough issues. Rhetoric is what we get in return for demanding answers to the tough questions: abortion, illegal immigration, the war on terror, fuel, trade and taxes. More thought seems to be put into how something is said, rather than on what is said. There is flip-flopping and flop-flipping going on to an annoying degree in a vain effort to cover the broadest range of voters. The only republican candidates not paying lip service to the base are guys like Dr. Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter, who state their views very plainly and do not sugar-coat them. And their votes in Congress reflect these views. Unfortunately, they will not win the republican nomination for president; neither will Thompson, Huckabee or McCain, for that matter—albeit for different reasons.
As with the democrats, the republican machine has already narrowed its list down to two candidates: Giuliani and Romney. One has celebrity (Giuliani), while the other has the look and swagger (Romney) of a presidential candidate. The rest of the field can and will try in vain to secure the nod, but in the end, the machine has its man: Rudy Giuliani. Romney is a very close second; but he will only be second. The reason I believe Rudy will get the nomination over Romney is because of the latter’s religious affiliation and the fact that he displays it proudly. There is a very negative perception about Mormons within mainstream America. We hear the jokes all the time. When it is all said and done, few will take Romney seriously simply because he is a practicing Mormon. If not for that one major detail, I’d say Romney would pummel the rest of the field in a landslide; this includes Giuliani. Don’t get me wrong: the race will be very close out west and in the northeast. But Iowa is key: If Huckabee takes Iowa, then whoever wins New Hampshire’s caucus wins the nomination. That will not be Huckabee. Rather, it will come down to Giuliani and Romney, who will probably win out west. But again, I believe the Republican National Committee feels that it owes the nomination to Rudy, who has hung tough against the democrats in a heavily democratic region. Besides, who best to defeat Sen. Hillary Clinton in New York than the most popular NYC mayor in recent history? Giuliani also would give Hillary a run for her money out in California, considering his “progressive” views on gay marriage (San Fran, anyone?) and illegal immigration (the largest per capita population of which resides in the Golden State). However, should Romney somehow win in Iowa and keep control of the west, all the votes in New Hampshire and the northeast may not be enough to give Rudy the nod.
But Iowa, full of Midwest protestants, is more likely to vote for Huckabee, a Baptist minister. Huckabee and Iowa are the functional reasons why I believe Giuliani wins the nomination. But the real reason is because it is Rudy’s time and the RNC owes it to him. Look for a Giuliani-McCain or Giuliani-Huckabee ticket for the general election.
Now that we have the horse race down to two candidates, a fair assessment of their chances is warranted.
Hillary will win Illinois, especially with Obama as her running mate. She also will likely win Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Washington, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Colorado. She may take Louisiana and Tennessee in the south. If her running mate is Richardson, she will probably control much of the southwest, except for the Lone Star State. Just because she is Hillary and a democrat, Texas belongs to Giuliani.
The key states, however, in this year’s race are New York and California. Flip a coin and call it: that will probably determine who wins either state and the electoral votes needed to secure the presidency. Personally, I think it could go either way in both states. If Giuliani can woo enough gay and latino voters by maintaining progressive stands on issues important to these groups, he could snatch California out from under Hillary’s nose. His appeal in New York City is probably less questionable than throughout all of New York State. But win NYC and you probably win the state. Yet, Hillary proved how easily NY voters could be duped (after all, they voted in a carpet-bagger for U.S. Senate, didn’t they?) and manipulated into doing her will.
So, all this speculation leads up to my prediction….drum roll.
The next President of the United States will be….Rudy Giuliani. I think he will defeat Hillary narrowly by virtue of winning California. He will get a boost and endorsement from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who may end up receiving a cabinet post in the Giuliani Administration for his support.
Giuliani will also carry the southwest, including Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. California will be the next Florida, in terms of controversy as allegations of helping illegals to vote at the polls will be leveled against the winning candidate.
In the end, many of the smaller states out west, in the south and in the midwest—whose electoral votes helped Bush obtain and retain the White House—are not ready for a woman president. Therefore, the republicans win yet another close presidential election.
But wait: There may be a wild card in play here. In every presidential election since 1992, there has been a third-party candidate, whose votes have meant the difference between winning and losing for the two major political parties. In 1992, H. Ross Perot and his Reform Party garnered 11 percent of the popular vote to award democrat William Jefferson Clinton the White House and deny President George H.W. Bush a second term. In 1996, Perot’s votes also cost Sen. Bob Dole a possible upset of Clinton. Recall that in 1992 and 1996, neither of Clinton’s victories was considered a landslide, despite the third party votes. In 2000, it was Ralph Nader and his Green Party that took away precious votes in key states like Tennessee and Florida from former Vice President Al Gore. Even though the blame was placed on the U.S. Supreme Court for ruling in favor of George W. Bush, the culprit was likely the three percent of the popular vote that Nader denied Gore. And in 2004, Nader supporters further denied Sen. John F. Kerry votes in key states like Nevada and Ohio. This resulted in a Bush re-election.
Look for a third party to arise from either the left, right or both. A four-party race would indeed make this an interesting election season. Suddenly, the fringe elements would be critical to a democrat or republican success or failure. Nader sounds like he may enter the fray again, so beware democrats. And if Ron Paul’s supporters convince their candidate to separate himself from the Republican Party, then I would predict a likely democratic victory in November. Why? Because right-sided third parties tend to generate more votes than the left-sided ones historically.
Provided there is no third party to spoil the republican candidate’s chances, then Rudy should win by a nose. As for Hillary, well, let’s just say she’s not even close to her husband.
Don’t feel too sorry for Jamie Lynn
The announcement by Jamie Lynn Spears that she was pregnant has headlined newspapers, magazines, broadcast news, gossip columns and internet blogs for the past several days. The news has given the Hollywood paparazzi the fodder it hungers for on a daily basis. Miss Spears and her mother can pat themselves on the back now for a job well done. The heat on Jamie Lynn’s older sister, Britney, has been diverted for about the next nine months or so. No doubt the paparazzi will be more interested in the development of Jamie Lynn’s baby bump than it will in anything Britney may say or do. Remember the up-to-the-minute coverage the Hollywood press provided during Katie Holmes’ pregnancy? How about the orgasm the gossip media suffered during Brangelina’s gestation period? It seems like every time a Hollywood starlet or couple has one in the oven these days, it makes the lead story for weeks on end until the baby is born. Once the little tike pops out, though, the drama is over. After all, you probably won’t find too many paparazzi photos of entertainers nursing their newborns in public. The reality is that as soon as the child pops out and is spanked, he/she is placed in the capable hands of a professional 24-hour nanny, who is more like a surrogate mother than an employee.
Jamie Lynn may be a kid having a kid, but she won’t have near the obstacles that the average 16-year-old pregnant girl faces. She won’t need to finish school, because as a celebrity, she is probably tutored at home. Besides that, she already has more money than most people can even dream of seeing in their lifetimes. Child care won’t be a problem, because she can afford to pay for round-the-clock nursing services with her money. She won’t need a job to support herself or her baby, because she is getting plenty from Nickelodeon for her television show, which will welcome her back once the child is born. She also will receive royalties for photo-shoots, product endorsements, book deals and appearances on afternoon talk shows. And as for social disapproval, Jamie Lynn is sheltered by the patronizing tolerance of Hollywood. She will never have to worry about being shunned by family, friends and neighbors. She will not have to be held accountable for her actions and she does not have to accept responsibility, either. That has been taken care of by her mother and Hollywood.
Finally, Jamie Lynn doesn’t need to pursue child support because of her celebrity income; although I am certain that grandma will pursue it anyway, just because the more money, the merrier.
I understand that Jamie Lynn’s sob story may tug at a few heart strings. Yes, she is 16 and pregnant. Yes, she was knocked up by an older boyfriend, who is paying lip service to the Spears family and the media by stating right now that he wants to marry Jamie Lynn and become the child’s father. But he may be out of the picture by the time the baby is born. It is likely that he will be another one of these dead-beat dads whose only interest in their children is the check they are required to write every month. The guy is 18 years old. While he may be a legal adult by virtue of his age, he is essentially still an immature kid who is frightened by the prospect of parenting so early in his life. Even if the boy follows through and marries the girl, I wonder how long their union will last in spite of the child they have made together? Just look at the example that big sister Britney has given Jamie Lynn: Divorced and lost custody of her two children. Hollywood’s track record of lasting marriages has always been the pits. And the Spears’ matriarch is no role model, either. She seems to relish life as a celebrity mother and now grandmother, soaking up the fun and sun of Hollywood. Knowing the kind of moral depravity that exists in Hollywood, why would a family-oriented woman like Mrs. Spears even think of driving her girls into show business? The natural instinct of most mothers is to protect their children from exploitation; not push them into it.
Truth be told, mom may be the biggest culprit in this sinister family circle of premarital sex, pregnancies, failed marriages and custody battles. She apparently did not teach her daughters about how to handle the birds and the bees. It is one thing to sit down with your kid and explain sex, but it is another thing entirely to help a kid understand how to handle the pressures of sex. I doubt that she taught her daughters about the value of saving themselves for marriage or how important staying married is once children enter the picture. The Spears girls have no clue about the link between sexual self-respect and self-efficacy. They never learned that saying no doesn’t make them a prude and certainly doesn’t devalue their worth as human beings. Actually, saying no shows just how strong you can be. Saying no demonstrates to others that there are things more important to you than being liked, wanted or desired. It shows you are a whole person, who knows your limits and how to control your primal urges. Saying no makes you a better human being.
Sadly, the Spears girls were raised to see themselves and their bodies as objects of desire, rather than a temple to be admired and respected. They were raised to place a higher value on the physical, rather than the intangibles that make us uniquely who we are. They are clueless as to how a woman achieves esteem and confidence without using her body. Thanks, mom.
But I digress: Having said all of that, this is where my pity for Jamie Lynn Spears ends. My heart really goes out to the unborn child, whose future is weighted down with a lot of questions. What kind of mother will Jamie Lynn be, considering the examples set by Britney and grandma Spears? What kind of father, if any, will the sperm-donor be? Will the child even have its mother and father much at all in its life? Or, will mom be too busy with her celebrity lifestyle to be bothered with raising the kid? Will the child call its paid nanny “mom” instead of its birth mother? What sort of values will this child be taught? In 16 years, will the child have a child of its own, too??
There are just too many questions and not enough time to answer them all.
Jamie Lynn may be a kid having a kid, but she won’t have near the obstacles that the average 16-year-old pregnant girl faces. She won’t need to finish school, because as a celebrity, she is probably tutored at home. Besides that, she already has more money than most people can even dream of seeing in their lifetimes. Child care won’t be a problem, because she can afford to pay for round-the-clock nursing services with her money. She won’t need a job to support herself or her baby, because she is getting plenty from Nickelodeon for her television show, which will welcome her back once the child is born. She also will receive royalties for photo-shoots, product endorsements, book deals and appearances on afternoon talk shows. And as for social disapproval, Jamie Lynn is sheltered by the patronizing tolerance of Hollywood. She will never have to worry about being shunned by family, friends and neighbors. She will not have to be held accountable for her actions and she does not have to accept responsibility, either. That has been taken care of by her mother and Hollywood.
Finally, Jamie Lynn doesn’t need to pursue child support because of her celebrity income; although I am certain that grandma will pursue it anyway, just because the more money, the merrier.
I understand that Jamie Lynn’s sob story may tug at a few heart strings. Yes, she is 16 and pregnant. Yes, she was knocked up by an older boyfriend, who is paying lip service to the Spears family and the media by stating right now that he wants to marry Jamie Lynn and become the child’s father. But he may be out of the picture by the time the baby is born. It is likely that he will be another one of these dead-beat dads whose only interest in their children is the check they are required to write every month. The guy is 18 years old. While he may be a legal adult by virtue of his age, he is essentially still an immature kid who is frightened by the prospect of parenting so early in his life. Even if the boy follows through and marries the girl, I wonder how long their union will last in spite of the child they have made together? Just look at the example that big sister Britney has given Jamie Lynn: Divorced and lost custody of her two children. Hollywood’s track record of lasting marriages has always been the pits. And the Spears’ matriarch is no role model, either. She seems to relish life as a celebrity mother and now grandmother, soaking up the fun and sun of Hollywood. Knowing the kind of moral depravity that exists in Hollywood, why would a family-oriented woman like Mrs. Spears even think of driving her girls into show business? The natural instinct of most mothers is to protect their children from exploitation; not push them into it.
Truth be told, mom may be the biggest culprit in this sinister family circle of premarital sex, pregnancies, failed marriages and custody battles. She apparently did not teach her daughters about how to handle the birds and the bees. It is one thing to sit down with your kid and explain sex, but it is another thing entirely to help a kid understand how to handle the pressures of sex. I doubt that she taught her daughters about the value of saving themselves for marriage or how important staying married is once children enter the picture. The Spears girls have no clue about the link between sexual self-respect and self-efficacy. They never learned that saying no doesn’t make them a prude and certainly doesn’t devalue their worth as human beings. Actually, saying no shows just how strong you can be. Saying no demonstrates to others that there are things more important to you than being liked, wanted or desired. It shows you are a whole person, who knows your limits and how to control your primal urges. Saying no makes you a better human being.
Sadly, the Spears girls were raised to see themselves and their bodies as objects of desire, rather than a temple to be admired and respected. They were raised to place a higher value on the physical, rather than the intangibles that make us uniquely who we are. They are clueless as to how a woman achieves esteem and confidence without using her body. Thanks, mom.
But I digress: Having said all of that, this is where my pity for Jamie Lynn Spears ends. My heart really goes out to the unborn child, whose future is weighted down with a lot of questions. What kind of mother will Jamie Lynn be, considering the examples set by Britney and grandma Spears? What kind of father, if any, will the sperm-donor be? Will the child even have its mother and father much at all in its life? Or, will mom be too busy with her celebrity lifestyle to be bothered with raising the kid? Will the child call its paid nanny “mom” instead of its birth mother? What sort of values will this child be taught? In 16 years, will the child have a child of its own, too??
There are just too many questions and not enough time to answer them all.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
January Madness is tourney time for candidates
January 2008 will be to democrats and republicans what March is to college basketball: Madness.
If you thought 2007 was ugly, just wait for the first presidential caucuses and primaries to get under way. Fireworks on New Year's Eve will not compare to those launching in several states to kick off this upcoming presidential election year. If the extremely early campaign season, which began unequivocally in January 2007, has been any indication, then Vote 2008 is shaping up to be a doozy of a fight. Below is a breakdown of the democratic and republican contenders....Do I sense a new reality TV show forming??
The Dems...
Hillary Clinton. Three words best describe Hillary Clinton for President: Brand-name recognition. She may be the democratic front-runner for nomination in 2008, but Mrs. Rodham Clinton had better not count her chickens before they hatch. In the early going, she is receiving pretty stiff competition from junior Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, who has done more to energize and reinvigorate democratic voters in the past several months than Mrs. Clinton did in all of her husband’s eight years in the White House. She is neither inspiring, nor confident, nor unifying as Obama appears to be. Truth be told, Hillary represents the old guard of liberal democrats; you know, the ones who have consistently lost presidential elections since 1968. Yeah, I know Bill won two terms in office in the 1990s; but really, Clinton masqueraded as a "new democrat," and he got a lot of help (11 percent of the popular vote) from the Texas Parrot.
But I digress: Hillary and her camp are taking 2008 for granted. They think the 2008 nomination and the White House are hers for the taking; the presidency is hers to lose. Some even have gone so far as to metaphorically anoint Hillary as the next President of the United States. Lest we forget, this is still a republican democracy and not a monarchy; there are no anointed ones here.
Hillary’s campaign is reminiscent of the NFL’s 1969 Baltimore Colts, who all but laid claim to the Super Bowl III title before the game was even played. That kind of braggadoccio led to the celebrity of Broadway Joe Namath and his upstart New York Jets. The celebrity in this case may just well be Barack Obama.
As Hall of Fame baseball legend and former New York Yankee Yogi Berra once said, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” Hillary would be wise to learn from history.
Barack Obama. He is the “rock star” of the 2008 presidential campaign. He is also an upstart, which historically do not have the greatest track record of winning elections. While Obama may be the “hot ticket” for democratic voters right now, there is still plenty of time in the race for him to peter out and lose steam. Remember Pat Buchanan in 1996? The populist and former republican presidential candidate caught fire early with conservative voters. But by the summer of 1996, Bob Dole had wrapped up the nomination. Barack risks falling into the same trap as Buchanan: Believing his press clippings. He is in great position and poised to upset front-runner Hillary Clinton; but if Barack gets careless with his campaign, Hillary can easily distance herself from him. She has name recognition, influence, party muscle, and the strength of her husband’s tenure in office behind her.
Where Barack may fizzle is down the stretch (like Buchanan), because of Hillary’s reach. In 1996, Bob Dole had it in with the powers of the Republican Party; something Buchanan did not have. Likewise, Hillary has the democratic machine behind her. Barack just has popularity. In a republican democracy, popularity alone does not win elections, much less nominations.
John Edwards. He is the folksy candidate, who tries appealing to the common voter through his country swagger. Unfortunately, folksy candidates don’t always “cut the mustard” as president. People want leaders, not neighbors for president; they want someone who can make the tough decisions that most of us are not willing to make. But this isn’t necessarily a stumbling block for Edwards. What may doom Edwards is his disingenuousness. To put it bluntly, he is a fake, a fraud, and a polished court room actor. He can make a person believe that he is just like their neighbor; but the reality is that John Edwards is an elitist, and not anywhere near like the common man he claims to be. After all, how many “common” people own and live in a 24,000-sq. ft. mansion? How many average folks earn a living as a trial lawyer, whose job it is to persuade juries to award their side exorbitant cash awards? And how many common men put career or political ambitions above their families when there is a personal crisis? I mean no disrespect to the Edwards’ family here, but an ordinary man whose wife is suffering from recurrent malignant cancer would want to spend as much time with her as possible, rather than spending it at the office. God only knows how much more time Elizabeth Edwards may have on this earth. John should focus all of his energy on spending quality time with her, instead of pursuing the presidency. He may well have other chances to run in the future; but when Elizabeth is gone, he won’t have any more chances to spend with her.
Bill Richardson. The former New Mexico governor and U.S. Energy Department Secretary appears to be running in the middle of the pack of democratic candidates at this point in the race. He is neither a stand-out, nor front-runner, nor a “rock star.” To a vast majority of political pundits, he is just another candidate crowding the field and clogging up the road for the Hillary Express. As far as official Washington is concerned, he has next to no chance of winning the democratic nomination for president. Funny, there was a lot of the same sentiment being felt about Bill Clinton in the early days of his candidacy for president during the 1992 campaign. He was a former governor of Arkansas (where the heck is that, anyway?!?) who was dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct in the Jennifer Flowers scandal. Yet, by July 1992, William Jefferson Clinton had secured the party nomination for president and went on to upset incumbent President George H.W. Bush for the presidency that November. Richardson finds himself being characterized and categorized in much the same fashion Clinton was during his first campaign for president. Richardson, like Clinton, is being overlooked by much more higher profile candidates. But mark my words: Bill Richardson is as legitimate a candidate for the democratic nomination as any currently in the field. History has shown that the dark horse can win from time to time; albeit not with regularity. What Richardson has going for him: (1) Gubernatorial experience. This means he has been a state governor. History favors former governors, such as Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, LBJ, etc. (2) federal cabinet experience. Richardson served during Clinton’s presidency as secretary of energy in the White House cabinet. Besides Hillary, he would know better than the other candidates how things work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. (3) U.S. Senate experience. Prior to his cabinet post, Richardson had served some time as a U.S. Senator. (4) He is Hispanic. Richardson can appeal to latino voters perhaps as no other presidential candidate has ever done before. And with a growing Hispanic population across the United States, they may well just be the swing voters every other candidate will try to attract. By virtue of his ethnicity, Richardson will have instant appeal with a great many latinos. The bottom line: Richardson has a more well-rounded resume of “leadership,” not just political experience, going for him. Beware of the dark horse, lest you be nipped at the wire.
Dennis Kucinich. I know little about the history and background of this candidate, other than the fact that he is a senior member of the House of Representatives, representing Ohio. But what I do know is that he is too far to the left for most voters in the United States. Most likely, the next President of the United States will be someone who appeals to the center. That has been a long-standing trend. Kucinich represents the traditional democratic candidate, who masquerades as champion of the "little guy" and the average Joe. Bottom line: He is just another foot soldier within the democratic ranks. He is not a member of the "top brass" as Hillary, Teddy Kennedy, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and other senate dinosaurs are. Kucinich also lacks the charisma and charm needed to be a presidential front-runner. He lacks widespread appeal. When he speaks, strange things come out of his mouth. I think he may also suffer from a bit of little man's syndrome, given his physical stature. He is of slight build and below average height. For some reason, his aura reminds me of another "little guy" who got his start with the Jacobin Society and rose to the position of Emperor of France. The only thing missing with Kucinich is a funny hat and a pose with his hand tucked in his shirt. Who knows? As the primary season gets more desperate for him, I wouldn't rule that out.
Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd. How many times have these two veteran senators ran for the democratic nomination for president? More than I care to count. I use the term "veteran senators" out of respect. But the truth is, these two career politicians are has-beens that are on their way to cushy Congressional pensions. They run for president not because they are really serious, but because they can't get enough of the attention that presidential primaries give them. Both of these fellows come from districts overshadowed by more significant senate seats in the Northeast United States, namely Massachusetts and New York. I mean, unless you live in Delaware or Connecticut, who in Washington or the rest of the country really cares? Furthermore, these democratic dinosaurs date back to the LBJ era and are old-school liberals, who historically have a hard time winning general elections. Can you say Mondale, Dukakis, McGovern, Kerry? This describes Biden and Dodd to a tee. Finally, these guys seek just about every democratic presidential nomination because they do what their party tells them to in order to make the race more interesting. These guys are dyed-in-the-wool blue-bloods, who would walk over hot coals for their party. Dodd and Biden are to the democratic primaries what a color guy is to a play-by-play announcer. They are the flavors of the month, and that's about it.
Mike Gravel. Um, who? Oh, yeah, the guy from Alaska, right? Well, consider Mr. Gravel to be like one of those obscure ornaments on a Christmas tree: You never see it, and probably don't even remember it is there. But nonetheless, in its own obscure way, it helps to decorate the tree. Gravel's purpose in the field of democratic candidates seeking the presidential nomination is the same as that of Dodd, Biden and Kucinich: It is to give the illusion that the race is not a runaway for the front-runners.
Now, the Reeps...
Rudy Giuliani. “Rudy! Rudy! Rah, rah, rah!” The only Rudy more inspiring than the former NYC mayor is the Notre Dame alum who had a movie made about him. And, frankly, if many people had their druthers, they would rather elect Rudy Ruettiger president of the United States than Rudolph “Rudy” Giuliani. Hands down, Giuliani is the popular republican candidate. But popularity alone won’t elect him. What makes Rudy a strong candidate is his consistency on issues, as well as a willingness to stand in and take the punches as they come. That takes guts, which is something many politicians these days lack. I don’t think Rudy is out to win a popularity contest; he doesn’t have to, because he is already the popular candidate. Moderates and liberal republicans will flock to Rudy, who will have a tough time attracting the conservative base of the party given his liberal stands on social issues. However, like Hillary, Rudy is a brand-name candidate. He will attract republican brand voters. The greatest concerns for Rudy, though, are the skeletons in his closet; namely his marital history and iconsistent stands on major republican issues, such as second amendment, gay marriage and abortion. Most voters tend to avoid candidates who literally stick out like sore thumbs. Look for Rudy's opponents to exploit his weaknesses and attempt to make him stick out.
Mitt Romney. Although he has the look, swagger and charm of a president, Mitt also represents the old-guard, country club republican. He is financially wealthy and has a background in corporate America, which has been painted by the media as evil in modern times. Many swing voters might see Mitt as just another rich white guy looking to move into the nation's most prestigious mansion. Yet, Mitt Romney has a lot going for him as well. He seems to have a level of integrity that is uncanny in today's political climate. He has gubernatorial experience, which historically bodes well for presidential candidates. And, Mitt can hang his hat on the success of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, which he helped to reinvigorate from bust into a boon. But look for Mitt’s opponents to exploit his “180” on abortion and other issues that can and will be dug up. The effort will be to paint Mitt as a flip-flopper. And we all know how well Sen. John F. Kerry fared in 2004. Otherwise, Romney is a good communicator, has charisma, and has experience and leadership behind him as a former governor of Massachusetts. Besides, any republican who can serve a full term as governor of the most liberal state in the country, while proudly identifying himself as a mormom, must have some good qualities.
John McCain. At risk of sounding callous, if it hadn’t been for his unfortunate stint as a Vietnam POW, would we know or even care who John McCain is? Indeed, would John McCain even be the high-profile politician he is today, running for president a second time? Other than the McCain-Feingold Bill –- which blatantly violates the free-speech clause of the Bill of Rights and has handcuffed mostly his own republican party’s ability to raise campaign money –- what else is John McCain known for? He is a Vietnam POW survivor, who happened to get elected to the U.S. Senate. But John McCain is not presidential material. He is to be admired and respected for his service in Vietnam; but that does not necessarily make him an effective leader. McCain exudes neither confidence, nor inspiration, nor unification. He does not have a defined voting base, either. By and large, conservatives don’t support McCain because of his liberal stands on illegal immigration, globalization of the economy, and his voting record in support of big government. Moderate and liberal republicans also do not favor McCain because of his conservative views on abortion and other social issues. To many, McCain is just another flip-flop-wearing empty suit running for office. He is kind of like the republican version of John F. Kerry. Scary.
Fred Thompson. His political opponents will attack him on his resume. First, Thompson needs to separate himself from the “country-club republican” stereotype that his tenure in the U.S. Senate was surrounded by. If he cannot, then political enemies will succeed in painting Thompson as just another rich white guy looking to take care of his own. Second, Thompson’s career as an actor can be as much a weakness as a strength. No doubt, political opponents will attempt to paint him the same color as Reagan: a good actor and nothing more.
Dr. Ron Paul. While I respect this man for his integrity and devotion to the U.S. Constitution, his libertarian views just won't jive with the mainstream voter, who is increasingly identified as moderate and generally reluctant to accept a position of shrinking the scope and size of today's federal government back to Constitutional levels. In addition, Paul's personal stand against abortion appears to be in conflict with libertarian principles, which although do not condone abortion, also do not seek to prevent its practice. I do not get the sense that he is the "live and let live" candidate his campaign wants us to believe him to be. He is also out of touch with the reality of the War On Terror. He wants to cut-and-run in the Middle East and leave everything unfinished. I appreciate his respect for the words of America's first president, George Washington, who warned against meddling in foreign affairs. And I agree with it wholeheartedly. But financially, we can't just pull up the drawbridge and cut ourselves off from the rest of the world. Economically, we have entangled ourselves so much in China and the Middle East that a sudden retreat could cause a depression or ruin to our domestic economy. This needs to be done gradually, not all at once. As far as the War On Terror, lest we forget that the terrorists brought this war to our soil. It is more prudent to take the fight to them than let them come back here and fight us. Perhaps Paul's biggest disadvantage is not his views on the War On Terror or foreign trade, but rather his age. At 72, he would succeed Ronald Reagan as the oldest president ever to take office. That just does not happen very often. And I think the mentality of today's uninformed swing voter is to vote for the most youthful, most energetic candidate.
Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. Good guys, great views, but too far to the right for moderate mainstream America and the swing votes there. These guys are blunt and to the point on their views. They do not sing, dance or entertain. The uninformed American voter, though, seems to like those who do. Tancredo and Hunter are the meat and potatoes of republican politics; but they are considered to be too high in fat and cholesterol for the appetites of moderate voters, whose palates tolerate only fad diets and sweet desserts as opposed to a hearty meal. What these two will do during this campaign season is help bring attention to issues that the front-runners would prefer to avoid, and that's good for debate.
If you thought 2007 was ugly, just wait for the first presidential caucuses and primaries to get under way. Fireworks on New Year's Eve will not compare to those launching in several states to kick off this upcoming presidential election year. If the extremely early campaign season, which began unequivocally in January 2007, has been any indication, then Vote 2008 is shaping up to be a doozy of a fight. Below is a breakdown of the democratic and republican contenders....Do I sense a new reality TV show forming??
The Dems...
Hillary Clinton. Three words best describe Hillary Clinton for President: Brand-name recognition. She may be the democratic front-runner for nomination in 2008, but Mrs. Rodham Clinton had better not count her chickens before they hatch. In the early going, she is receiving pretty stiff competition from junior Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, who has done more to energize and reinvigorate democratic voters in the past several months than Mrs. Clinton did in all of her husband’s eight years in the White House. She is neither inspiring, nor confident, nor unifying as Obama appears to be. Truth be told, Hillary represents the old guard of liberal democrats; you know, the ones who have consistently lost presidential elections since 1968. Yeah, I know Bill won two terms in office in the 1990s; but really, Clinton masqueraded as a "new democrat," and he got a lot of help (11 percent of the popular vote) from the Texas Parrot.
But I digress: Hillary and her camp are taking 2008 for granted. They think the 2008 nomination and the White House are hers for the taking; the presidency is hers to lose. Some even have gone so far as to metaphorically anoint Hillary as the next President of the United States. Lest we forget, this is still a republican democracy and not a monarchy; there are no anointed ones here.
Hillary’s campaign is reminiscent of the NFL’s 1969 Baltimore Colts, who all but laid claim to the Super Bowl III title before the game was even played. That kind of braggadoccio led to the celebrity of Broadway Joe Namath and his upstart New York Jets. The celebrity in this case may just well be Barack Obama.
As Hall of Fame baseball legend and former New York Yankee Yogi Berra once said, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” Hillary would be wise to learn from history.
Barack Obama. He is the “rock star” of the 2008 presidential campaign. He is also an upstart, which historically do not have the greatest track record of winning elections. While Obama may be the “hot ticket” for democratic voters right now, there is still plenty of time in the race for him to peter out and lose steam. Remember Pat Buchanan in 1996? The populist and former republican presidential candidate caught fire early with conservative voters. But by the summer of 1996, Bob Dole had wrapped up the nomination. Barack risks falling into the same trap as Buchanan: Believing his press clippings. He is in great position and poised to upset front-runner Hillary Clinton; but if Barack gets careless with his campaign, Hillary can easily distance herself from him. She has name recognition, influence, party muscle, and the strength of her husband’s tenure in office behind her.
Where Barack may fizzle is down the stretch (like Buchanan), because of Hillary’s reach. In 1996, Bob Dole had it in with the powers of the Republican Party; something Buchanan did not have. Likewise, Hillary has the democratic machine behind her. Barack just has popularity. In a republican democracy, popularity alone does not win elections, much less nominations.
John Edwards. He is the folksy candidate, who tries appealing to the common voter through his country swagger. Unfortunately, folksy candidates don’t always “cut the mustard” as president. People want leaders, not neighbors for president; they want someone who can make the tough decisions that most of us are not willing to make. But this isn’t necessarily a stumbling block for Edwards. What may doom Edwards is his disingenuousness. To put it bluntly, he is a fake, a fraud, and a polished court room actor. He can make a person believe that he is just like their neighbor; but the reality is that John Edwards is an elitist, and not anywhere near like the common man he claims to be. After all, how many “common” people own and live in a 24,000-sq. ft. mansion? How many average folks earn a living as a trial lawyer, whose job it is to persuade juries to award their side exorbitant cash awards? And how many common men put career or political ambitions above their families when there is a personal crisis? I mean no disrespect to the Edwards’ family here, but an ordinary man whose wife is suffering from recurrent malignant cancer would want to spend as much time with her as possible, rather than spending it at the office. God only knows how much more time Elizabeth Edwards may have on this earth. John should focus all of his energy on spending quality time with her, instead of pursuing the presidency. He may well have other chances to run in the future; but when Elizabeth is gone, he won’t have any more chances to spend with her.
Bill Richardson. The former New Mexico governor and U.S. Energy Department Secretary appears to be running in the middle of the pack of democratic candidates at this point in the race. He is neither a stand-out, nor front-runner, nor a “rock star.” To a vast majority of political pundits, he is just another candidate crowding the field and clogging up the road for the Hillary Express. As far as official Washington is concerned, he has next to no chance of winning the democratic nomination for president. Funny, there was a lot of the same sentiment being felt about Bill Clinton in the early days of his candidacy for president during the 1992 campaign. He was a former governor of Arkansas (where the heck is that, anyway?!?) who was dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct in the Jennifer Flowers scandal. Yet, by July 1992, William Jefferson Clinton had secured the party nomination for president and went on to upset incumbent President George H.W. Bush for the presidency that November. Richardson finds himself being characterized and categorized in much the same fashion Clinton was during his first campaign for president. Richardson, like Clinton, is being overlooked by much more higher profile candidates. But mark my words: Bill Richardson is as legitimate a candidate for the democratic nomination as any currently in the field. History has shown that the dark horse can win from time to time; albeit not with regularity. What Richardson has going for him: (1) Gubernatorial experience. This means he has been a state governor. History favors former governors, such as Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, LBJ, etc. (2) federal cabinet experience. Richardson served during Clinton’s presidency as secretary of energy in the White House cabinet. Besides Hillary, he would know better than the other candidates how things work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. (3) U.S. Senate experience. Prior to his cabinet post, Richardson had served some time as a U.S. Senator. (4) He is Hispanic. Richardson can appeal to latino voters perhaps as no other presidential candidate has ever done before. And with a growing Hispanic population across the United States, they may well just be the swing voters every other candidate will try to attract. By virtue of his ethnicity, Richardson will have instant appeal with a great many latinos. The bottom line: Richardson has a more well-rounded resume of “leadership,” not just political experience, going for him. Beware of the dark horse, lest you be nipped at the wire.
Dennis Kucinich. I know little about the history and background of this candidate, other than the fact that he is a senior member of the House of Representatives, representing Ohio. But what I do know is that he is too far to the left for most voters in the United States. Most likely, the next President of the United States will be someone who appeals to the center. That has been a long-standing trend. Kucinich represents the traditional democratic candidate, who masquerades as champion of the "little guy" and the average Joe. Bottom line: He is just another foot soldier within the democratic ranks. He is not a member of the "top brass" as Hillary, Teddy Kennedy, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and other senate dinosaurs are. Kucinich also lacks the charisma and charm needed to be a presidential front-runner. He lacks widespread appeal. When he speaks, strange things come out of his mouth. I think he may also suffer from a bit of little man's syndrome, given his physical stature. He is of slight build and below average height. For some reason, his aura reminds me of another "little guy" who got his start with the Jacobin Society and rose to the position of Emperor of France. The only thing missing with Kucinich is a funny hat and a pose with his hand tucked in his shirt. Who knows? As the primary season gets more desperate for him, I wouldn't rule that out.
Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd. How many times have these two veteran senators ran for the democratic nomination for president? More than I care to count. I use the term "veteran senators" out of respect. But the truth is, these two career politicians are has-beens that are on their way to cushy Congressional pensions. They run for president not because they are really serious, but because they can't get enough of the attention that presidential primaries give them. Both of these fellows come from districts overshadowed by more significant senate seats in the Northeast United States, namely Massachusetts and New York. I mean, unless you live in Delaware or Connecticut, who in Washington or the rest of the country really cares? Furthermore, these democratic dinosaurs date back to the LBJ era and are old-school liberals, who historically have a hard time winning general elections. Can you say Mondale, Dukakis, McGovern, Kerry? This describes Biden and Dodd to a tee. Finally, these guys seek just about every democratic presidential nomination because they do what their party tells them to in order to make the race more interesting. These guys are dyed-in-the-wool blue-bloods, who would walk over hot coals for their party. Dodd and Biden are to the democratic primaries what a color guy is to a play-by-play announcer. They are the flavors of the month, and that's about it.
Mike Gravel. Um, who? Oh, yeah, the guy from Alaska, right? Well, consider Mr. Gravel to be like one of those obscure ornaments on a Christmas tree: You never see it, and probably don't even remember it is there. But nonetheless, in its own obscure way, it helps to decorate the tree. Gravel's purpose in the field of democratic candidates seeking the presidential nomination is the same as that of Dodd, Biden and Kucinich: It is to give the illusion that the race is not a runaway for the front-runners.
Now, the Reeps...
Rudy Giuliani. “Rudy! Rudy! Rah, rah, rah!” The only Rudy more inspiring than the former NYC mayor is the Notre Dame alum who had a movie made about him. And, frankly, if many people had their druthers, they would rather elect Rudy Ruettiger president of the United States than Rudolph “Rudy” Giuliani. Hands down, Giuliani is the popular republican candidate. But popularity alone won’t elect him. What makes Rudy a strong candidate is his consistency on issues, as well as a willingness to stand in and take the punches as they come. That takes guts, which is something many politicians these days lack. I don’t think Rudy is out to win a popularity contest; he doesn’t have to, because he is already the popular candidate. Moderates and liberal republicans will flock to Rudy, who will have a tough time attracting the conservative base of the party given his liberal stands on social issues. However, like Hillary, Rudy is a brand-name candidate. He will attract republican brand voters. The greatest concerns for Rudy, though, are the skeletons in his closet; namely his marital history and iconsistent stands on major republican issues, such as second amendment, gay marriage and abortion. Most voters tend to avoid candidates who literally stick out like sore thumbs. Look for Rudy's opponents to exploit his weaknesses and attempt to make him stick out.
Mitt Romney. Although he has the look, swagger and charm of a president, Mitt also represents the old-guard, country club republican. He is financially wealthy and has a background in corporate America, which has been painted by the media as evil in modern times. Many swing voters might see Mitt as just another rich white guy looking to move into the nation's most prestigious mansion. Yet, Mitt Romney has a lot going for him as well. He seems to have a level of integrity that is uncanny in today's political climate. He has gubernatorial experience, which historically bodes well for presidential candidates. And, Mitt can hang his hat on the success of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, which he helped to reinvigorate from bust into a boon. But look for Mitt’s opponents to exploit his “180” on abortion and other issues that can and will be dug up. The effort will be to paint Mitt as a flip-flopper. And we all know how well Sen. John F. Kerry fared in 2004. Otherwise, Romney is a good communicator, has charisma, and has experience and leadership behind him as a former governor of Massachusetts. Besides, any republican who can serve a full term as governor of the most liberal state in the country, while proudly identifying himself as a mormom, must have some good qualities.
John McCain. At risk of sounding callous, if it hadn’t been for his unfortunate stint as a Vietnam POW, would we know or even care who John McCain is? Indeed, would John McCain even be the high-profile politician he is today, running for president a second time? Other than the McCain-Feingold Bill –- which blatantly violates the free-speech clause of the Bill of Rights and has handcuffed mostly his own republican party’s ability to raise campaign money –- what else is John McCain known for? He is a Vietnam POW survivor, who happened to get elected to the U.S. Senate. But John McCain is not presidential material. He is to be admired and respected for his service in Vietnam; but that does not necessarily make him an effective leader. McCain exudes neither confidence, nor inspiration, nor unification. He does not have a defined voting base, either. By and large, conservatives don’t support McCain because of his liberal stands on illegal immigration, globalization of the economy, and his voting record in support of big government. Moderate and liberal republicans also do not favor McCain because of his conservative views on abortion and other social issues. To many, McCain is just another flip-flop-wearing empty suit running for office. He is kind of like the republican version of John F. Kerry. Scary.
Fred Thompson. His political opponents will attack him on his resume. First, Thompson needs to separate himself from the “country-club republican” stereotype that his tenure in the U.S. Senate was surrounded by. If he cannot, then political enemies will succeed in painting Thompson as just another rich white guy looking to take care of his own. Second, Thompson’s career as an actor can be as much a weakness as a strength. No doubt, political opponents will attempt to paint him the same color as Reagan: a good actor and nothing more.
Dr. Ron Paul. While I respect this man for his integrity and devotion to the U.S. Constitution, his libertarian views just won't jive with the mainstream voter, who is increasingly identified as moderate and generally reluctant to accept a position of shrinking the scope and size of today's federal government back to Constitutional levels. In addition, Paul's personal stand against abortion appears to be in conflict with libertarian principles, which although do not condone abortion, also do not seek to prevent its practice. I do not get the sense that he is the "live and let live" candidate his campaign wants us to believe him to be. He is also out of touch with the reality of the War On Terror. He wants to cut-and-run in the Middle East and leave everything unfinished. I appreciate his respect for the words of America's first president, George Washington, who warned against meddling in foreign affairs. And I agree with it wholeheartedly. But financially, we can't just pull up the drawbridge and cut ourselves off from the rest of the world. Economically, we have entangled ourselves so much in China and the Middle East that a sudden retreat could cause a depression or ruin to our domestic economy. This needs to be done gradually, not all at once. As far as the War On Terror, lest we forget that the terrorists brought this war to our soil. It is more prudent to take the fight to them than let them come back here and fight us. Perhaps Paul's biggest disadvantage is not his views on the War On Terror or foreign trade, but rather his age. At 72, he would succeed Ronald Reagan as the oldest president ever to take office. That just does not happen very often. And I think the mentality of today's uninformed swing voter is to vote for the most youthful, most energetic candidate.
Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. Good guys, great views, but too far to the right for moderate mainstream America and the swing votes there. These guys are blunt and to the point on their views. They do not sing, dance or entertain. The uninformed American voter, though, seems to like those who do. Tancredo and Hunter are the meat and potatoes of republican politics; but they are considered to be too high in fat and cholesterol for the appetites of moderate voters, whose palates tolerate only fad diets and sweet desserts as opposed to a hearty meal. What these two will do during this campaign season is help bring attention to issues that the front-runners would prefer to avoid, and that's good for debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
