When Hillary Clinton teared up the day before the New Hampshire democratic presidential primary, it should have been a clear sign not to vote her into office. If we do, then we deserve exactly what we get: a self-serving zealot and demagogue with a feminist chip on her shoulder and an insatiable appetite for power.
By electing Hillary president, we would be giving her exactly what she wants most: more power. Consider ourselves officially warned. Truth be told, though, the signs of Hillary's coming have been all around us for the past 15 years; since she began those closed-door hearings on universal health care as First Lady in 1993.
In New Hampshire, Hillary claimed she was crying out of concern for the country. But her words have been betrayed by her actions over the years.
The truth behind the cry is frustration over her presidential campaign, which, prior to Iowa, she thought was all but in the bag. Hillary has thought of herself as a candidate of destiny, the first female president of the United States. She is supposed to break the “highest of all glass ceilings” in the name of women everywhere. She isn’t supposed to lose the democratic nomination for president. If she does, then her dream of occupying the highest seat of power in the entire world will be over.
But with the results of Iowa, Hillary’s balloon burst and she settled back down to earth. Reality has forced her to accept that she would have to work and struggle to earn the democratic presidential nomination; it was not a given. There would be no coronation ceremony, no anointment. She was no longer a candidate of destiny, but one of fate just like the rest of the field.
Hillary was upset by the notion that people may not vote for her and that she may not be elected president of the United States. After all, the acquisition of and ascension to power has been the driving force behind Hillary Clinton.
She wants power the way an athlete wants to win or a gambler wants money—in the worst way.
Think about it: Why else would Hillary “stand by her man,” in spite of his multiple publicized extramarital affairs? An ordinary person would not put up with that kind of treachery. But Hillary did because she knew she could not get elected by herself without Bill Clinton’s namesake and celebrity. She was elected to the U.S. Senate because New York voters (1) recognized her as First Lady to President Bill Clinton, and (2) associated her with Bill’s tenure in office. She was not elected on her own merits.
Furthermore, why would Hillary establish residence in New York instead of, say, back in Arkansas? Three reasons: first, she knew she would probably not get elected in a traditionally conservative state; second, she knew that New York was very supportive of candidates with left-leaning views; and third, Arkansas does not carry the same weight in Beltway politics as New York does.
Make no mistake: Hillary’s move to New York was calculated. Neither was she in love with the state, nor particularly interested in representing its people. She wanted the shortest and easiest route to the national political scene. Lo and behold, she got it.
To this day, I marvel at the gullibility of New York voters, who actually believed Hillary wanted to represent them and really cared about their state. Anyone with half a lick of common sense could see that New York was a means to an end for Hillary. She wasn’t interested in what she could do for New York, only what New York could do for her.
What New York has done is position Hillary for the democratic presidential nomination; this after only one full-term in office. If Hillary really cared about New York, then why is she ditching her senate seat so soon? The reason is because Hillary wants to preside over all the states rather than be a representative of just one. Hillary wants her voice to be the one heard from sea to shining sea, instead of just one in a chamber of a hundred.
She is an egotistical, overzealous and power-hungry demagogue who thinks she has all the right answers to our problems and possesses the cures to the ills of our nation.
Anyone who says, “I have so many opportunities for this country,” is obviously stuck on themselves and their own ideas. She has no interest in the ideas of others; especially opposing views. She believes she alone can save the country from itself. History’s most infamous demagogues all thought the same thing.
The moral of this story is, if you want to give a power-monger what she wants most, then go ahead and vote for Hillary. You’ll receive the thanks of a grateful zealot.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Obasms cause blindness
Everyone likes to feel good. For some people, that alone guides their decisions. It is no surprise, then, that hedonists and wannabes alike are flocking to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), who is saying all the right things to make as many voters feel good as possible.
I have heard that people who attend his rallies feel good about themselves and the product (the candidate and his message). Then again, so do a lot of people on placebos.
A hundred years ago, charlatans would peddle their snake oil from the back of wagons to unwitting settlers out along the frontier. They would say or do anything to make a sale. But their tonics were nothing more than cheap liquor that made people feel good when they drank it. So, too, are the “Obasms” people feel while listening to the junior senator from Illinois speak.
While Barack Obama’s message of hope is inspiring, refreshing and admittedly contagious, it really is nothing more than empty promises—the equivalent of useless snake oil. The right words have been proven to get people off as surely as vibrators do.
Obama speaks of change, like reforming health care and giving coverage to ALL Americans. Yet, he fails to explain how his reform is going to be paid for. He states that his plan would be financed through deficit spending. But this means paying for something with money that the United States government does NOT have. In other words, we will simply charge Uncle Sam’s proverbial credit card every time we go to the doctor. Question: How is this “change” different from the way things are done in Washington now?
Obama talks about giving money to individuals hit hard by the mortgage lending crisis. First of all, appealing to people by referring to them as victims and reinforcing victimization is classic political maneuvering and pandering. Politicians know that the shortest distance to a vote is to promise people things: “I’ll give you something in exchange for your vote.”
The senator surmises that the mortgage lending crisis could have been avoided had the government been there to “save the day” in the first place. In other words, he is talking about the need for more regulation.
But Obama does not place any personal responsibility on the lendees, who bought what the sub-prime lenders were selling hook, line and sinker. Call me callous, but if people were gullible enough to jump into the pool without checking for water first, then they deserve what they got.
Now, we have people like Obama pushing for relief to consumers affected by the mortgage crisis.
Questions: Why should I have to pay for somebody else’s mistake? Is it right to award idiots money for their idiocy? Well, that is what Obama and others like him advocate.
The moral of this story is to warn people about the dangers of succumbing to the “Obasm,” which can lead to cognitive blindness if gone untreated.
Studies show that Obasms can cause HIV (Human Intelligence Void), AIDS (Acquired Intelligence Deficient Speeches) and other STDs (Speech Transmission Diseases).
Warning: Obasms are also known to exacerbate symptoms of certain mental disorders, especially those with anxiety and guilt-related features otherwise known as “liberalism.”
Practice safe-thinking, because unprotected thought is a danger to others.
I have heard that people who attend his rallies feel good about themselves and the product (the candidate and his message). Then again, so do a lot of people on placebos.
A hundred years ago, charlatans would peddle their snake oil from the back of wagons to unwitting settlers out along the frontier. They would say or do anything to make a sale. But their tonics were nothing more than cheap liquor that made people feel good when they drank it. So, too, are the “Obasms” people feel while listening to the junior senator from Illinois speak.
While Barack Obama’s message of hope is inspiring, refreshing and admittedly contagious, it really is nothing more than empty promises—the equivalent of useless snake oil. The right words have been proven to get people off as surely as vibrators do.
Obama speaks of change, like reforming health care and giving coverage to ALL Americans. Yet, he fails to explain how his reform is going to be paid for. He states that his plan would be financed through deficit spending. But this means paying for something with money that the United States government does NOT have. In other words, we will simply charge Uncle Sam’s proverbial credit card every time we go to the doctor. Question: How is this “change” different from the way things are done in Washington now?
Obama talks about giving money to individuals hit hard by the mortgage lending crisis. First of all, appealing to people by referring to them as victims and reinforcing victimization is classic political maneuvering and pandering. Politicians know that the shortest distance to a vote is to promise people things: “I’ll give you something in exchange for your vote.”
The senator surmises that the mortgage lending crisis could have been avoided had the government been there to “save the day” in the first place. In other words, he is talking about the need for more regulation.
But Obama does not place any personal responsibility on the lendees, who bought what the sub-prime lenders were selling hook, line and sinker. Call me callous, but if people were gullible enough to jump into the pool without checking for water first, then they deserve what they got.
Now, we have people like Obama pushing for relief to consumers affected by the mortgage crisis.
Questions: Why should I have to pay for somebody else’s mistake? Is it right to award idiots money for their idiocy? Well, that is what Obama and others like him advocate.
The moral of this story is to warn people about the dangers of succumbing to the “Obasm,” which can lead to cognitive blindness if gone untreated.
Studies show that Obasms can cause HIV (Human Intelligence Void), AIDS (Acquired Intelligence Deficient Speeches) and other STDs (Speech Transmission Diseases).
Warning: Obasms are also known to exacerbate symptoms of certain mental disorders, especially those with anxiety and guilt-related features otherwise known as “liberalism.”
Practice safe-thinking, because unprotected thought is a danger to others.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
The Rhetoric of Change
Every presidential election season—I mean, every one—is about change. Frankly, I am so tired of hearing the calls for “change,” especially when it goes undefined.
The theme for both democrats and republicans is this notion of “change.” But what does this “change” mean? What kinds of change are they talking about? What kinds of change are the voters clamoring for?
It is scary when we demand change, but don’t even know what kinds of change we are talking about.
This idea of “change” can be as damaging to our country as it is helpful, depending on what kind of change we want and of which is spoken.
For instance, when Barack Obama says that “the ways of Washington must change,” what is he really talking about? What are the “ways” he refers to, and what kind of change does he advocate? Well, he may be talking about regulating lobbyists, political action committees, and special interest groups in general from influencing lawmakers. Sounds good on the surface, right? I mean, after all, there are a lot of corrupt interest groups who selfishly pursue their own agendas in Washington, D.C. That’s common knowledge, and it frosts us to no end.
But what such regulation really amounts to is the suppression of free speech, which is the people’s right to speak and be heard by their government. It is about Congress not passing laws that abridge our freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances, which, by the way, is a clause in Article I of the Constitution.
What this means is that lobbies like the National Rifle Association could be prevented from being heard in the halls of Congress. The NRA, which is the foremost advocate of Second Amendment rights in the country, could be silenced. And if we don’t have a group like the NRA standing up for us in Washington, D.C., reminding our lawmakers of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, then what is to stop the government from making changes to the Constitution altogether?
What I am talking about is censorship. As much as I do not like many of the special interest groups and lobbyists prowling around my representative’s office, they have that right by virtue of the U.S. Constitution. Their form of “speech” is money, and we may not like that. But the fact is that people like you and me give money to these groups to advocate for them. They are a voice for people seeking a redress of grievances. Without lobbyists, Congress could essentially ignore the many different grievances people have.
Well, isn’t that what our elected representatives are for, to advocate on our behalf? Yes, in theory. But as large and complex as the federal government has become—a gargantuan public corporation, of sorts—budget matters, bills and committees seem to take up a great deal of legislators’ time. If we let them alone, then they would be more than happy not to legislate, but to rule.
Two examples of where our voices were heard through lobbies: Illegal immigration and the Fairness Doctrine.
If it hadn’t been for lobbyists and interest groups opposing illegal immigration, then the infamous Amnesty Bill of 2007 would have become law, granting legal status to millions of people who are living in our country illegally. Wait a minute, you say: Didn’t the amnesty bill get voted down because legislators were flooded with calls from their constituents? Yes, absolutely. But who alerted the people to the dangers of this bill and inspired millions of us to jam the Congressional phone lines? Lobbyists and interest groups, including conservative talk radio, internet bloggers and more.
Talk radio and conservative think-tanks helped to shoot down the proposed Fairness Doctrine before it could be presented before Congress as a bill.
So, you see, lobbyists and interest groups have their place, even if we don’t like them.
But I digress: Some change can be good for the country, such as a change in our foreign trade and fiscal spending policies. I’d like to see the government tax less, spend less and trade less with China and other countries that have us by the tail.
I’d like to see fewer jobs outsourced overseas, where something can be made for a fraction of the cost because labor is cheaper and more plentiful. Unfortunately, this will require the federal government to stop and roll back regulations on business and industry. American companies have been overburdened with taxes and regulations to such a degree that outsourcing has become necessary as a matter of survival. How can we expect Ford, General Electric or even McDonald’s to continue giving us the products we want and can still afford without the ability to make a profit? If government is allowed to take away company profits, then more and more businesses will be here today and gone tomorrow. Companies are being suffocated by myriad regulations—labor, environmental, legal, economic, and social, to name a few—so much so that the difference between profit and cost margins have shrunk to near hairline levels.
In the past two decades, corporate mergers have become commonplace even among large companies. Why? Because many corporations today are unable to stay afloat on their own. So, in order to stay alive and keep people employed, companies large and small have consolidated their assets with others.
My father worked 37 years for a major oil company. He survived more than a half-dozen corporate mergers and buyouts through the 1980s and 1990s before opting for retirement at the point of the old company axe. He griped all the time about the overregulation of the oil industry and how such government interference was going to bring an end to competition in the marketplace.
Is it any wonder why gasoline prices are the way they are these days? How many American oil companies are left in the marketplace? You can count the large ones on one hand. In my dad’s day, there was competition aplenty. Coincidentally, prices remained around or under $1.00 per gallon. But once the mergers began, we saw prices rise to above $1, $2 and now over $3 per gallon.
Excessive environmental regulations have also contributed to the increased price of gas at the pump. Oil companies are not allowed to build additional refineries because of environmental regulations. In fact, there hasn’t been a new oil refinery built in a generation or so, in spite of the burden of increased demand over the years. So, what we have here is a fundamental problem of supply and demand. Except that the government stands in the way of the marketplace doing its job to correct the problem.
Furthermore, environmental laws prevent oil companies from exploration and drilling on our own property. Laws have forced us to import the vast majority of our oil, which happens to come from political enemies in the Middle East and South America. We are doing business with a bunch of racketeers who have us by the gonads.
Moreover, taxes on gasoline at all levels of governments continue to increase.
Do you still wonder why gasoline has gotten so expensive?
Again, I digress: When a politician uses the term “change,” I have to wonder exactly what kind of change s/he is talking about. I have to ask what the consequences are of such change. Can we really afford this “change” that many of our politicians are tossing around like a beach ball?
Before you start to join in the chorus for change, think about it.
There’s an old saying: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And if it is broke, be sure you know what you are doing before you try to fix it.
The theme for both democrats and republicans is this notion of “change.” But what does this “change” mean? What kinds of change are they talking about? What kinds of change are the voters clamoring for?
It is scary when we demand change, but don’t even know what kinds of change we are talking about.
This idea of “change” can be as damaging to our country as it is helpful, depending on what kind of change we want and of which is spoken.
For instance, when Barack Obama says that “the ways of Washington must change,” what is he really talking about? What are the “ways” he refers to, and what kind of change does he advocate? Well, he may be talking about regulating lobbyists, political action committees, and special interest groups in general from influencing lawmakers. Sounds good on the surface, right? I mean, after all, there are a lot of corrupt interest groups who selfishly pursue their own agendas in Washington, D.C. That’s common knowledge, and it frosts us to no end.
But what such regulation really amounts to is the suppression of free speech, which is the people’s right to speak and be heard by their government. It is about Congress not passing laws that abridge our freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances, which, by the way, is a clause in Article I of the Constitution.
What this means is that lobbies like the National Rifle Association could be prevented from being heard in the halls of Congress. The NRA, which is the foremost advocate of Second Amendment rights in the country, could be silenced. And if we don’t have a group like the NRA standing up for us in Washington, D.C., reminding our lawmakers of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, then what is to stop the government from making changes to the Constitution altogether?
What I am talking about is censorship. As much as I do not like many of the special interest groups and lobbyists prowling around my representative’s office, they have that right by virtue of the U.S. Constitution. Their form of “speech” is money, and we may not like that. But the fact is that people like you and me give money to these groups to advocate for them. They are a voice for people seeking a redress of grievances. Without lobbyists, Congress could essentially ignore the many different grievances people have.
Well, isn’t that what our elected representatives are for, to advocate on our behalf? Yes, in theory. But as large and complex as the federal government has become—a gargantuan public corporation, of sorts—budget matters, bills and committees seem to take up a great deal of legislators’ time. If we let them alone, then they would be more than happy not to legislate, but to rule.
Two examples of where our voices were heard through lobbies: Illegal immigration and the Fairness Doctrine.
If it hadn’t been for lobbyists and interest groups opposing illegal immigration, then the infamous Amnesty Bill of 2007 would have become law, granting legal status to millions of people who are living in our country illegally. Wait a minute, you say: Didn’t the amnesty bill get voted down because legislators were flooded with calls from their constituents? Yes, absolutely. But who alerted the people to the dangers of this bill and inspired millions of us to jam the Congressional phone lines? Lobbyists and interest groups, including conservative talk radio, internet bloggers and more.
Talk radio and conservative think-tanks helped to shoot down the proposed Fairness Doctrine before it could be presented before Congress as a bill.
So, you see, lobbyists and interest groups have their place, even if we don’t like them.
But I digress: Some change can be good for the country, such as a change in our foreign trade and fiscal spending policies. I’d like to see the government tax less, spend less and trade less with China and other countries that have us by the tail.
I’d like to see fewer jobs outsourced overseas, where something can be made for a fraction of the cost because labor is cheaper and more plentiful. Unfortunately, this will require the federal government to stop and roll back regulations on business and industry. American companies have been overburdened with taxes and regulations to such a degree that outsourcing has become necessary as a matter of survival. How can we expect Ford, General Electric or even McDonald’s to continue giving us the products we want and can still afford without the ability to make a profit? If government is allowed to take away company profits, then more and more businesses will be here today and gone tomorrow. Companies are being suffocated by myriad regulations—labor, environmental, legal, economic, and social, to name a few—so much so that the difference between profit and cost margins have shrunk to near hairline levels.
In the past two decades, corporate mergers have become commonplace even among large companies. Why? Because many corporations today are unable to stay afloat on their own. So, in order to stay alive and keep people employed, companies large and small have consolidated their assets with others.
My father worked 37 years for a major oil company. He survived more than a half-dozen corporate mergers and buyouts through the 1980s and 1990s before opting for retirement at the point of the old company axe. He griped all the time about the overregulation of the oil industry and how such government interference was going to bring an end to competition in the marketplace.
Is it any wonder why gasoline prices are the way they are these days? How many American oil companies are left in the marketplace? You can count the large ones on one hand. In my dad’s day, there was competition aplenty. Coincidentally, prices remained around or under $1.00 per gallon. But once the mergers began, we saw prices rise to above $1, $2 and now over $3 per gallon.
Excessive environmental regulations have also contributed to the increased price of gas at the pump. Oil companies are not allowed to build additional refineries because of environmental regulations. In fact, there hasn’t been a new oil refinery built in a generation or so, in spite of the burden of increased demand over the years. So, what we have here is a fundamental problem of supply and demand. Except that the government stands in the way of the marketplace doing its job to correct the problem.
Furthermore, environmental laws prevent oil companies from exploration and drilling on our own property. Laws have forced us to import the vast majority of our oil, which happens to come from political enemies in the Middle East and South America. We are doing business with a bunch of racketeers who have us by the gonads.
Moreover, taxes on gasoline at all levels of governments continue to increase.
Do you still wonder why gasoline has gotten so expensive?
Again, I digress: When a politician uses the term “change,” I have to wonder exactly what kind of change s/he is talking about. I have to ask what the consequences are of such change. Can we really afford this “change” that many of our politicians are tossing around like a beach ball?
Before you start to join in the chorus for change, think about it.
There’s an old saying: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And if it is broke, be sure you know what you are doing before you try to fix it.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Wrong about McCain, right about Romney
Okay, so I was wrong about Sen. John McCain and New Hampshire. The pundits and pollsters were right, and I was wrong. So sue me.
But just because the Arizona senator won the Granite State right on cue doesn’t give him the republican presidential nomination by any means. McCain has historically done well in the Northeast during past presidential bids, because of his moderate standing in the party. He beat George W. Bush there in 2000. But Bush is completing his second term in office; not McCain.
I forecast Mitt Romney to be the gold medalist in New Hampshire. Turns out, the former Massachusetts governor claimed the silver instead. He was also runner-up in Iowa, a state he was not expected to do very well in at all. Furthermore, he won Wyoming’s uncovered primary this month as well.
Although Romney has not won any of the media-heavy states yet, by all accounts he remains the republican candidate to beat in 2008; neither Huckabee, nor McCain—in spite of the fact that they have taken two of the highest profile primaries.
Romney has what McCain does not have: the look, the personality, the charisma, the charm and the swagger of a president. Compared to Romney, McCain is a fuddy-duddy. Seeing the two together reminds me of George Bailey and old man Henry J. Potter from “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Just as everybody liked George, Mitt is a likable candidate.
As I recall, nobody liked Potter except for Potter.
There is also something genuine about the way Romney speaks. When he talks, his words sound sincere rather than scripted. They dare you to believe in them.
McCain, on the other hand, sounds like the wiley and seasoned politician that he is. His words are heavy on rhetoric and light on genuine believability. His words taste like the same-old-thing, instead of a new flavor full of freshness, optimism and idealism that the GOP desperately needs and republican voters are so thirsty for.
Romney speaks plainly and matter-of-factly in a way that the average person can understand and appreciate. He is real and believable.
McCain, on the contrary, is too well versed in Beltway verbage to really connect with and relate to the common man. The cynics, skeptics and pessimists amongst us have grown too weary any more of the Washington, D.C., dinosaurs who aspire to higher office. To the hard-lined conservatives like me, we are wise to McCain and his ilk. We know that he is a mover and a shaker in Beltway politics. He’s a deal-maker who is more likely to sell the GOP conservative base up the river in order to keep the peace in Washington; just as both the Bushes have done.
Romney is more of an outsider to Washington politics, even though he comes from a political family and is himself an experienced politician.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m as weary of Romney as I am of McCain, Huckabee and most of the rest of the republican field. There are things about him that cause butterflies to stir in my stomach—not his religion, for the record.
Rather, he has a history of flip-flopping on key republican issues, such as gun control and abortion. He may even be more moderate than conservatives like me would prefer. After all, he got himself elected governor of the most liberal state in the union. Romney is a neo-con, to be sure. He’s not the traditional conservative that I am or that many long-time GOP faithful are.
But he exudes confidence and optimism that is Reagan-esque. Of course, so does Huckabee. But the latter is using his faith as leverage to garner votes among GOP voters, a move that I, quite frankly, resent and find distasteful. We are supposed to be electing a president, not a religious leader. A man’s faith is a fine thing, to be sure. And it speaks well of his character and compass. But the oval office, by design, is supposed to be a place of business; not worship.
Romney, by contrast, knows that his Mormon faith can be a stumbling block for him with many GOP voters, who, by and large, identify themselves as protestant, evangelical Christians. He is careful not to use his faith as a tool to win votes, because he knows it just won’t work for him. Instead, he identifies himself with his faith as part of who he is. It is part of the bigger picture of Mitt Romney and what guides his decisions. Frankly, I admire someone who is comfortable enough in his own skin to not peddle his religion in an effort to win votes.
Romney probably will not win South Carolina. That one will go to either Huckabee or McCain, by virtue of their appeal to southern voters. However, Michigan is Romney’s home state and he is expected to show very strong there. In fact, depending on how Michigan goes for Romney, he may be able to take much of the Great Lakes region from McCain. Nevada is a strong possibility for either of them, with a solid southwest and Mormon connection there.
But please, please do not forget about former New York City Mayor Rudolph “Rudy” Giuliani, who has been sitting back in the shadows watching the last two major primaries unfold. He didn’t do well in either of them, and he did not expect to. Instead, Rudy is focusing on New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, California, probably Ohio, Illinois and Texas—the bigger fish where raw primary votes are concerned. Many in the media have been expecting Rudy to cash in his chips and leave the table after the first two primaries. Strange that he has not. Why? Because he’s waiting to compete for much larger stakes. The guy is a high stakes gambler, who is not afraid to take some hits before he starts playing for keeps. I’ve said from the beginning that I admire Rudy’s toughness and grit. Furthermore, he obviously has the financial backing enough to let the first few primaries go by without so much as a twitch in his eye.
I continue to stand by my prediction that the GOP nod will go to either Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani; the latter of which stands the best chance against Hillary or Obama, because he has the sand that I just don’t detect from the other republican candidates. While I part ways with Rudy on some social and Constitutional issues, I would cast my vote for him before I would even think about voting for either Hillary or Obama.
So, those of you who have jumped on the Huckabee and McCain bandwagons had better be prepared for a short ride, because when the buckboard stops, it will stop cold.
But just because the Arizona senator won the Granite State right on cue doesn’t give him the republican presidential nomination by any means. McCain has historically done well in the Northeast during past presidential bids, because of his moderate standing in the party. He beat George W. Bush there in 2000. But Bush is completing his second term in office; not McCain.
I forecast Mitt Romney to be the gold medalist in New Hampshire. Turns out, the former Massachusetts governor claimed the silver instead. He was also runner-up in Iowa, a state he was not expected to do very well in at all. Furthermore, he won Wyoming’s uncovered primary this month as well.
Although Romney has not won any of the media-heavy states yet, by all accounts he remains the republican candidate to beat in 2008; neither Huckabee, nor McCain—in spite of the fact that they have taken two of the highest profile primaries.
Romney has what McCain does not have: the look, the personality, the charisma, the charm and the swagger of a president. Compared to Romney, McCain is a fuddy-duddy. Seeing the two together reminds me of George Bailey and old man Henry J. Potter from “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Just as everybody liked George, Mitt is a likable candidate.
As I recall, nobody liked Potter except for Potter.
There is also something genuine about the way Romney speaks. When he talks, his words sound sincere rather than scripted. They dare you to believe in them.
McCain, on the other hand, sounds like the wiley and seasoned politician that he is. His words are heavy on rhetoric and light on genuine believability. His words taste like the same-old-thing, instead of a new flavor full of freshness, optimism and idealism that the GOP desperately needs and republican voters are so thirsty for.
Romney speaks plainly and matter-of-factly in a way that the average person can understand and appreciate. He is real and believable.
McCain, on the contrary, is too well versed in Beltway verbage to really connect with and relate to the common man. The cynics, skeptics and pessimists amongst us have grown too weary any more of the Washington, D.C., dinosaurs who aspire to higher office. To the hard-lined conservatives like me, we are wise to McCain and his ilk. We know that he is a mover and a shaker in Beltway politics. He’s a deal-maker who is more likely to sell the GOP conservative base up the river in order to keep the peace in Washington; just as both the Bushes have done.
Romney is more of an outsider to Washington politics, even though he comes from a political family and is himself an experienced politician.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m as weary of Romney as I am of McCain, Huckabee and most of the rest of the republican field. There are things about him that cause butterflies to stir in my stomach—not his religion, for the record.
Rather, he has a history of flip-flopping on key republican issues, such as gun control and abortion. He may even be more moderate than conservatives like me would prefer. After all, he got himself elected governor of the most liberal state in the union. Romney is a neo-con, to be sure. He’s not the traditional conservative that I am or that many long-time GOP faithful are.
But he exudes confidence and optimism that is Reagan-esque. Of course, so does Huckabee. But the latter is using his faith as leverage to garner votes among GOP voters, a move that I, quite frankly, resent and find distasteful. We are supposed to be electing a president, not a religious leader. A man’s faith is a fine thing, to be sure. And it speaks well of his character and compass. But the oval office, by design, is supposed to be a place of business; not worship.
Romney, by contrast, knows that his Mormon faith can be a stumbling block for him with many GOP voters, who, by and large, identify themselves as protestant, evangelical Christians. He is careful not to use his faith as a tool to win votes, because he knows it just won’t work for him. Instead, he identifies himself with his faith as part of who he is. It is part of the bigger picture of Mitt Romney and what guides his decisions. Frankly, I admire someone who is comfortable enough in his own skin to not peddle his religion in an effort to win votes.
Romney probably will not win South Carolina. That one will go to either Huckabee or McCain, by virtue of their appeal to southern voters. However, Michigan is Romney’s home state and he is expected to show very strong there. In fact, depending on how Michigan goes for Romney, he may be able to take much of the Great Lakes region from McCain. Nevada is a strong possibility for either of them, with a solid southwest and Mormon connection there.
But please, please do not forget about former New York City Mayor Rudolph “Rudy” Giuliani, who has been sitting back in the shadows watching the last two major primaries unfold. He didn’t do well in either of them, and he did not expect to. Instead, Rudy is focusing on New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, California, probably Ohio, Illinois and Texas—the bigger fish where raw primary votes are concerned. Many in the media have been expecting Rudy to cash in his chips and leave the table after the first two primaries. Strange that he has not. Why? Because he’s waiting to compete for much larger stakes. The guy is a high stakes gambler, who is not afraid to take some hits before he starts playing for keeps. I’ve said from the beginning that I admire Rudy’s toughness and grit. Furthermore, he obviously has the financial backing enough to let the first few primaries go by without so much as a twitch in his eye.
I continue to stand by my prediction that the GOP nod will go to either Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani; the latter of which stands the best chance against Hillary or Obama, because he has the sand that I just don’t detect from the other republican candidates. While I part ways with Rudy on some social and Constitutional issues, I would cast my vote for him before I would even think about voting for either Hillary or Obama.
So, those of you who have jumped on the Huckabee and McCain bandwagons had better be prepared for a short ride, because when the buckboard stops, it will stop cold.
Never underestimate the power of a good cry
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
