Michael Moore says that the timing of Hurricane Gustav with the Republican National Convention is "proof that there is a God in Heaven."
That Michael Moore still makes films and is taken seriously is proof that the Devil walks on earth.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Palin
Well, it's the gutsy, strategic choice, that's for sure. Her conservatism will appeal to the base, which is finally fired up two months before the election. Maybe a sliver of Hillary Democrats will defect to McCain. (Check out the posts of PUMAs and others at the Hillary Forum, for example) More likely, Independent women voters will shift to Republican.
A couple of here-and-there thoughts:
She should definitely cut some ads, talking about her upbringing, work as governor, showing the family, union member husband, shooting & hunting, etc. Play them in OH, PA, MI, MO, VA, NH, and across the Rocky Mountain West. Think about it -- do you think there will be a slate of Biden ads (except maybe in PA) that will have anywhere near the same effectiveness? These are the states she should primarily visit too.
The criticism has already begun, although Obama and Biden have wisely decided to stay above it all (at least for now), leaving it up to surrogates. But the attacks on "this woman" and "that woman" are good news to Repubs. Rapping her inexperience makes everyone look back at Obama, and the top of a ticket. Bringing up the ethics investigation of her back in Alaska is a trap -- all Palin has to say is "I did not act improperly, but I will also do whatever I can to protect my sister from domestic abuse." Wonder how that will go over with Hillary and Independent Dems. Rod Dreher covers this well. There are so many paths to a backlash, Democrats would be wise to stay away.
Her expertise is energy policy and Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of oil drilling, offshore and up north. Make her the energy-oil-gas point person all fall. "You are angry about high gas prices? Let me tell you about Alaska ... and have you met my husband, the union member and oil worker? Todd, tell them about the Northern Slope..."
Keep using the phrases "smashing the glass ceiling" and "old-boy's network."
The abortion issue is being overplayed. The diehard pro-choicers will never back her anyway, but Independents (who are not the doctrinaire single-issue voters) will see past that to energy policy, taxes, ethics reform, etc. The Left may not like the strong pro-life position. Who cares. They are on the outside looking in.
She has the possibility of being the first veep candidate to make a difference election day.
Well, it's the gutsy, strategic choice, that's for sure. Her conservatism will appeal to the base, which is finally fired up two months before the election. Maybe a sliver of Hillary Democrats will defect to McCain. (Check out the posts of PUMAs and others at the Hillary Forum, for example) More likely, Independent women voters will shift to Republican.
A couple of here-and-there thoughts:
She should definitely cut some ads, talking about her upbringing, work as governor, showing the family, union member husband, shooting & hunting, etc. Play them in OH, PA, MI, MO, VA, NH, and across the Rocky Mountain West. Think about it -- do you think there will be a slate of Biden ads (except maybe in PA) that will have anywhere near the same effectiveness? These are the states she should primarily visit too.
The criticism has already begun, although Obama and Biden have wisely decided to stay above it all (at least for now), leaving it up to surrogates. But the attacks on "this woman" and "that woman" are good news to Repubs. Rapping her inexperience makes everyone look back at Obama, and the top of a ticket. Bringing up the ethics investigation of her back in Alaska is a trap -- all Palin has to say is "I did not act improperly, but I will also do whatever I can to protect my sister from domestic abuse." Wonder how that will go over with Hillary and Independent Dems. Rod Dreher covers this well. There are so many paths to a backlash, Democrats would be wise to stay away.
Her expertise is energy policy and Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of oil drilling, offshore and up north. Make her the energy-oil-gas point person all fall. "You are angry about high gas prices? Let me tell you about Alaska ... and have you met my husband, the union member and oil worker? Todd, tell them about the Northern Slope..."
Keep using the phrases "smashing the glass ceiling" and "old-boy's network."
The abortion issue is being overplayed. The diehard pro-choicers will never back her anyway, but Independents (who are not the doctrinaire single-issue voters) will see past that to energy policy, taxes, ethics reform, etc. The Left may not like the strong pro-life position. Who cares. They are on the outside looking in.
She has the possibility of being the first veep candidate to make a difference election day.
The Problems of Sarah Palin, Real and Apparent
I had a brief talk with The Ombudsman this morning about the choice of Governor Sarah Palin for the Republican nominee for Vice President. We had a robust exchange and agreed that some joint blogging on the topic might be "just the ticket."
From my perspective there are two sets of problems relating to Mrs. Palin, the real problems and the apparent problems. I'll take these in order of ascending importance and deal with the real problems first.
The real problems, chiefly her lack of policy depth and governing experience, are not terribly important in terms of the Vice Presidency. As a friend of mine recently said of the office, "How hard is it, really?" You have lunch with the boss once a week where you study his physical, mental and emotional well-being. You go to funerals, attend meetings, and help the party raise money. If you're lucky, like Al Gore, the president gives you a few substantive policy assignments. In Mrs. Palin's case, that's likely to be the energy portfolio. In this area, she would be formidable. As yesterday's interview with CNBC demonstrates, she's deeply knowledgeable and has a strong grasp on energy policy nuances. She was even able to call Obama and Biden "naieve" on the issue. With her reform credentials, she would also have an enjoyable time scrubbing appropriations bills for earmarks and making veto recommendations to McCain. The two are going to have a grand time together torturing Members of Congress over their pet projects. On the real side, the substantive side, her intelligence and philosophy make her eminently qualified for the vice presidency.
But first she has to get elected, and this is where the dragons be. I'll stipulate she has little to fear from the Obama/Biden team. They have already gotten their ears boxed by both Democratic nominees for being a tad bit aggressive in the way they came after Mrs. Palin's "experience" credentials after the Dayton announcement. American women don't like the rough stuff and they are a little tired of hearing that they aren't qualified to lead. Obama more or less apologized for his team's behavior yesterday afternoon. Apart from further developments on the attempted firing of Mrs. Palin's brother-in-law from the state police force, she's largely immunized from political attack by the Obama team.
Her real problem will be with the press corps. The Fourth Estate is in love with glib wonkishness and Mrs. Palin is likely to be a disappointment in this area. After all, the press will say, are you REALLY qualified for the presidency if you can't explain the difference between Trade Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance? What's your view on whether people with disabilities should be included in the denominator when states calculate their TANF work participation rate? The truth is that anyone who knows the answers to these kinds of questions should be automatically disqualified from holding elective office. Reporters will hold an absence of knowledge about such minutiae as a sign of unfitness for office.
I'm hopeful that Mrs. Palin will be able to thread this needle between her real and apparent qualifications for office. She is sui generis and all the comparisons to Dan Quayle will soon be drop-kicked into oblivion. Unlike Quayle, Palin's life experience (born into a humble, middle class existance, well-acquainted with the troubles of life on the frontier, impatient with privilege and corruption) is going to be high-tensile armor against media attacks. And therein lies her main strength: she will exceed expectations by several orders of magnitude.
One final, unrelated thought: John McCain's political genius (and his manager Steve Schmidt's) is something to behold. Only those two could figure out a way to totally squash the coverage of Obama's speech in Denver. That was one first-class roll-out in Dayton.
I have hope.
I had a brief talk with The Ombudsman this morning about the choice of Governor Sarah Palin for the Republican nominee for Vice President. We had a robust exchange and agreed that some joint blogging on the topic might be "just the ticket."
From my perspective there are two sets of problems relating to Mrs. Palin, the real problems and the apparent problems. I'll take these in order of ascending importance and deal with the real problems first.
The real problems, chiefly her lack of policy depth and governing experience, are not terribly important in terms of the Vice Presidency. As a friend of mine recently said of the office, "How hard is it, really?" You have lunch with the boss once a week where you study his physical, mental and emotional well-being. You go to funerals, attend meetings, and help the party raise money. If you're lucky, like Al Gore, the president gives you a few substantive policy assignments. In Mrs. Palin's case, that's likely to be the energy portfolio. In this area, she would be formidable. As yesterday's interview with CNBC demonstrates, she's deeply knowledgeable and has a strong grasp on energy policy nuances. She was even able to call Obama and Biden "naieve" on the issue. With her reform credentials, she would also have an enjoyable time scrubbing appropriations bills for earmarks and making veto recommendations to McCain. The two are going to have a grand time together torturing Members of Congress over their pet projects. On the real side, the substantive side, her intelligence and philosophy make her eminently qualified for the vice presidency.
But first she has to get elected, and this is where the dragons be. I'll stipulate she has little to fear from the Obama/Biden team. They have already gotten their ears boxed by both Democratic nominees for being a tad bit aggressive in the way they came after Mrs. Palin's "experience" credentials after the Dayton announcement. American women don't like the rough stuff and they are a little tired of hearing that they aren't qualified to lead. Obama more or less apologized for his team's behavior yesterday afternoon. Apart from further developments on the attempted firing of Mrs. Palin's brother-in-law from the state police force, she's largely immunized from political attack by the Obama team.
Her real problem will be with the press corps. The Fourth Estate is in love with glib wonkishness and Mrs. Palin is likely to be a disappointment in this area. After all, the press will say, are you REALLY qualified for the presidency if you can't explain the difference between Trade Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance? What's your view on whether people with disabilities should be included in the denominator when states calculate their TANF work participation rate? The truth is that anyone who knows the answers to these kinds of questions should be automatically disqualified from holding elective office. Reporters will hold an absence of knowledge about such minutiae as a sign of unfitness for office.
I'm hopeful that Mrs. Palin will be able to thread this needle between her real and apparent qualifications for office. She is sui generis and all the comparisons to Dan Quayle will soon be drop-kicked into oblivion. Unlike Quayle, Palin's life experience (born into a humble, middle class existance, well-acquainted with the troubles of life on the frontier, impatient with privilege and corruption) is going to be high-tensile armor against media attacks. And therein lies her main strength: she will exceed expectations by several orders of magnitude.
One final, unrelated thought: John McCain's political genius (and his manager Steve Schmidt's) is something to behold. Only those two could figure out a way to totally squash the coverage of Obama's speech in Denver. That was one first-class roll-out in Dayton.
I have hope.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
McCain has made his veep choice apparently, and all the rumors surround the usual suspects: Romney, Pawlenty, (gulp) Lieberman, and Hutchison. An uninspiring pool, but Romney is the best of the bunch.
How about this for a risky move? Pick Bobby Jindal just as Hurrican Gustav moves on Louisiana. McCain comes before the convention saying, "Governor Jindal can't be here tonight, because he is helping the people of his home state." Great story, public service before politics, etc.
And hope Jindal does a good job, a better job than the motley crew of boobs who watched while Katrina leveled the Gulf.
Surrender Your Liberties! Get Cool Stuff!
As Jonah Goldberg and many others have noted, the Left has a real softspot for effective, efficient, productive dictatorships. The latest exhibit in the sad history of the liberal love affair with totalitarianism is Tom Friedman's column in today's New York Times.
Friedman waxes eloquent on all the fabulous booty China laid before the world during the Olympic Games and contrasts this sharply with the sad condition of...LaGuardia Airport, a facility that causes much suffering among the denizens of Manhattan. China, Friedman tells us,
"did not build the magnificent $43 billion infrastructure for these games, or put on the unparalleled opening and closing ceremonies, simply by the dumb luck of discovering oil. No, it was the culmination of seven years of national investment, planning, concentrated state power, national mobilization and hard work."
Really.
You can scour Friedman's analysis from stem to stern and find not one mentnion of political oppression, human rights abuses, forced abortion or any of the other myriad sins the Chinese regime commits daily against its own citizens and around the world in places like Sudan.
Yes, Mr. Friedman, you can get whopping GDP growth and Potempkin-village improvements in highways, maglev trains and public parks if the government directs all aspects of politcal, cultural, and economic life. Yes, if you want material well-being you can get it, fast, at least in the short term, by denying people the right to govern themselves, think for themselves, worship freely, and live in peace within the four walls of their own homes. A bit tougher to "concentrate state power" and engage in "national mobilization" when you have you a constitution, free elections, separation of powers, a free press, private property and religious freedom.
What with all those checks and balances progress is bound to be slow. You might even have to answer a few difficult questions about ways and means. Someone might say, "I don't want to eat grass for dinner so that you can build the Bird's Nest," and you wouldn't be able to settle the argument with a quick prison sentence or a bullet to the back of the head.
As Jonah Goldberg and many others have noted, the Left has a real softspot for effective, efficient, productive dictatorships. The latest exhibit in the sad history of the liberal love affair with totalitarianism is Tom Friedman's column in today's New York Times.
Friedman waxes eloquent on all the fabulous booty China laid before the world during the Olympic Games and contrasts this sharply with the sad condition of...LaGuardia Airport, a facility that causes much suffering among the denizens of Manhattan. China, Friedman tells us,
"did not build the magnificent $43 billion infrastructure for these games, or put on the unparalleled opening and closing ceremonies, simply by the dumb luck of discovering oil. No, it was the culmination of seven years of national investment, planning, concentrated state power, national mobilization and hard work."
Really.
You can scour Friedman's analysis from stem to stern and find not one mentnion of political oppression, human rights abuses, forced abortion or any of the other myriad sins the Chinese regime commits daily against its own citizens and around the world in places like Sudan.
Yes, Mr. Friedman, you can get whopping GDP growth and Potempkin-village improvements in highways, maglev trains and public parks if the government directs all aspects of politcal, cultural, and economic life. Yes, if you want material well-being you can get it, fast, at least in the short term, by denying people the right to govern themselves, think for themselves, worship freely, and live in peace within the four walls of their own homes. A bit tougher to "concentrate state power" and engage in "national mobilization" when you have you a constitution, free elections, separation of powers, a free press, private property and religious freedom.
What with all those checks and balances progress is bound to be slow. You might even have to answer a few difficult questions about ways and means. Someone might say, "I don't want to eat grass for dinner so that you can build the Bird's Nest," and you wouldn't be able to settle the argument with a quick prison sentence or a bullet to the back of the head.
Today would have been Lyndon Baines Johnson’s 100th birthday. LBJ had his warts, but is it me or is there a slight falling off in gravitas and depth between Lyndon Johnson and Joe Biden, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi?
As Henry Adams said, “the progression of President Washington to President Grant was alone evidence to disprove Darwin.”
As Henry Adams said, “the progression of President Washington to President Grant was alone evidence to disprove Darwin.”
Did Hillary do too well last night?
The pundits were all over the map last night in judging HC’s speech. MSNBC predictably thought it was glorious, with Olbermann and Maddow singing hosannas as the network’s progressive Bobbsey twins. Fox fell on the other side, thinking the address fell short of endorsing Obama’s leadership and aptitude to be commander-in-chief. CNN fell somewhere in-between the two.
Leaving out policy and content, I thought the speech was magnificent in tone, delivery, and “feel.” In fact, she looked and sounded “presidential,” so much so that by the end, I wondered if the whole thing was a mistake. Sometimes a speaker can be too good, and eclipse the nominee. Think of 1976, when President Ford invited Ronald Reagan down to the podium to give an impromptu speech to the convention, a magnanimous gesture to a vanquished foe. Reagan ended up giving such a compelling speech that, according to biographer Edmund Morris, the delegates began to think they had nominated the wrong guy – Ford could never sound this good or be this riveting. “Buyer’s remorse?” I bet, as Charles Krauthammer noted last night, that behind the Obama button-clad hats many delegates were thinking, “Crap, we picked the wrong horse.”
You combine Hillary’s performance with President Bill’s upcoming extravaganza, sure to be a vintage red-meat act, and Obama suddenly has a very high bar to clear on Thursday night. He can give the oratorical, purple-prose address that keeps Chris Matthews’ leg atwitter, but can he give a presidential address?
The pundits were all over the map last night in judging HC’s speech. MSNBC predictably thought it was glorious, with Olbermann and Maddow singing hosannas as the network’s progressive Bobbsey twins. Fox fell on the other side, thinking the address fell short of endorsing Obama’s leadership and aptitude to be commander-in-chief. CNN fell somewhere in-between the two.
Leaving out policy and content, I thought the speech was magnificent in tone, delivery, and “feel.” In fact, she looked and sounded “presidential,” so much so that by the end, I wondered if the whole thing was a mistake. Sometimes a speaker can be too good, and eclipse the nominee. Think of 1976, when President Ford invited Ronald Reagan down to the podium to give an impromptu speech to the convention, a magnanimous gesture to a vanquished foe. Reagan ended up giving such a compelling speech that, according to biographer Edmund Morris, the delegates began to think they had nominated the wrong guy – Ford could never sound this good or be this riveting. “Buyer’s remorse?” I bet, as Charles Krauthammer noted last night, that behind the Obama button-clad hats many delegates were thinking, “Crap, we picked the wrong horse.”
You combine Hillary’s performance with President Bill’s upcoming extravaganza, sure to be a vintage red-meat act, and Obama suddenly has a very high bar to clear on Thursday night. He can give the oratorical, purple-prose address that keeps Chris Matthews’ leg atwitter, but can he give a presidential address?
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The Return of Mike Huckabee?
The Corner is saying (and Rich Lowry is urging) that McCain should take a second look at Governor Huckabee as veep. Although some conservatives would roll their eyes, I actually like the idea. In addition to all the reasons Lowry gives, Huckabee would also (1.) blunt any Southern strategy the Obama forces have (Huck polled fully 40% in the VA Repub primary), (2.) play awfully well in those "Hillary Democrat" areas of rural PA and OH, and (3.) check any "evangelical outreach" by the Dems.
And while he'd have his troubles versus Biden in any foreign policy discussion, the ex-Arkansas governor could run circles around him on nuts and bolts domestic issues like taxes, health care, education, infrastructure, etc.
He'd be the only candidate of the four to brag executive experience (Romney and Palin could play that card too).
The Corner is saying (and Rich Lowry is urging) that McCain should take a second look at Governor Huckabee as veep. Although some conservatives would roll their eyes, I actually like the idea. In addition to all the reasons Lowry gives, Huckabee would also (1.) blunt any Southern strategy the Obama forces have (Huck polled fully 40% in the VA Repub primary), (2.) play awfully well in those "Hillary Democrat" areas of rural PA and OH, and (3.) check any "evangelical outreach" by the Dems.
And while he'd have his troubles versus Biden in any foreign policy discussion, the ex-Arkansas governor could run circles around him on nuts and bolts domestic issues like taxes, health care, education, infrastructure, etc.
He'd be the only candidate of the four to brag executive experience (Romney and Palin could play that card too).
Monday, August 25, 2008
So, like any good academic, I was listening to NPR, indeed to Fresh Air(!) with Terry Gross, and she is interviewing Beliefnet's Dan Gilgoff, who among other things writes the blog entitled "God-o-meter", and a very good read it is, too.
So, they're chatting about the Saddleback Forum, and Gilgoff reveals that Obama's campaign staff was really, really shocked at how well McCain did. I mean, he was candid! And revealing! And was so comfortable in that setting!
I was flabberghasted at this flabberghastedness. Where have these people been? Haven't they watched McCain over the years on Letterman? Haven't they seen him in town hall meetings? Haven't they read any of his books?
It's enough to make you think that the Obama campaign is just a little, you know...arrogant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)