If people think that John McCain:
-won’t raise taxes,
-can pander to the religious right without being beholden to them,
-has any big picture idea of where to take this country,
-will have the guts to cut government spending in any significant way,
-will protect women’s rights, and not just with respect to choice,
-won’t make at least one or two reckless decisions based on his gut,
then it says something about either their intellect or their ability to engage in critical thinking.
The reason I say this is not to bash John McCain, even though that’s probably how it comes off. I say it because I don’t hear anyone voting FOR John McCain. I only hear reasons to vote against Barack Obama. And the stated presumptions for those reasons are:
-he’s going to raise my taxes,
-he’s too liberal,
-he’s all about platitudes with no detail,
-he’s going to grow government,
-he’s elitist,
-he has too many advisors.
Hmmm…see any comparisons between the two that could be problematic?
Having a problem voting for any candidate is perfectly reasonable. But there’s something else going on in this country with respect to Obama, and no matter what the answer is, it’s not a pretty one. The only choices that make sense:
Reason #1 -- People have been listening to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Fox News for so long that they’ve forgotten that these pundits all have agendas that are stronger and less beholden to the truth than the “liberal mainstream media,” which at least tries to keep up the fight for objectivity. The aforementioned conservative “news” sources do not strive for objectivity, never have, and never will. If they’re your only news source, you might as well be listening to GOP Radio. Long time listeners connect early and then close off other sources of information. After a while, they forget that there are other credible sides to most issues and stories; they lose objectivity and the ability to think critically and question the messenger. Therefore, labels such as ‘liberal,’ ‘elitist,’ and ‘patriotism’ become charged with connotations that energize a subset of Americans without the usual filters to question whether those labels even apply.
Reason #2 -- Many people are uncomfortable with Obama’s intellect and it makes them feel stupid. That’s the only explanation how a mixed race child with no familial money who grew up being raised by grandparents and a single mom could ever be labeled as “elitist.” John McCain is not only the son of a U.S.N. Admiral, he’s 3rd generation; he married a woman who has a net worth that allows her to donate over $1MM in charitable contributions annually in the Phoenix ADI. George Bush is a 3rd generation legacy politician who also graduated from Yale. Throwing a black man from his circumstances who didn’t have actual wealth until recently in with those two and calling him the “elitist?”
Reason #3 -- Racism is a bigger undercurrent than anyone wants to publicly acknowledge. Lots of people know urban blacks who rub them the wrong way. They are seen as obnoxious and defiant, a group who intimidates and seems to expect something for nothing. Let’s just get it out there: that is a subculture that does indeed exist. But they don’t speak for African-Americans any more than poor rural racist whites speak for Caucasians. But if all people allow themselves to see is the stereotypical angry urban black man then they’re not going to want to give any quarter to what is seen as an ungrateful race. Or understand how someone like Obama could change the mindset of African-Americans permanently.
Reason #4 -- Religious beliefs make some people one-issue voters, or at least one-group voters. Otherwise, Sarah Palin, who is way out of her league, wouldn’t have energized so many people. They’re obviously not looking at her as a real leader: she’s a prom queen who happens to believe in a specific set of religious tenets. Perhaps there is this fanatical fantasy about turning the U.S. into some sort of idealistic Christian wet dream…never mind that this country was founded largely on religious tolerance and separation of church and state. The Republicans have pandered to the social right-wing of the party, which is as out-of-touch with the country at large as the social left-wing was in the late 70s and early 80s. The pendulum has swung, but a quarter of the country hasn't noticed and instead is frothing at the mouth at the possibility of fundamental Christianity as the law of the land.
Reason #5 – There is an outmoded (and wholly inaccurate) belief among a segment of the population that all taxes are bad and lowering taxes is always good. In a void or some idealistic capitalist video game, I agree. My votes for Republicans in the past has everything to do with fiscal responsibility. But in the last 8 years (including 4 where the Republicans had control of every house and arguably the Supreme court) the GOP hasn’t met a spending bill it hasn’t inked, AND they’ve cut taxes, reduced regulations and essentially have moved us all to a laissez-faire economic society. There’s a reason that we have antitrust laws. There are good reasons for regulation. (How much would common sense regulation of health insurance companies have done to stop the wreckage of our health care system of the last 25 years?) Not to mention that when you have a household that is spending more money than it takes in, and doesn’t have the good sense to eliminate any of the outgo, then you have no choice but to increase the income. The Republicans have been downright irresponsible with our money. Look at where we sit: if you think John McCain won’t raise your taxes or believe that they shouldn't be raised, then put me down for a big chunk of whatever you’re smoking.
What I sense are entire subsets of people looking for reasons as to why Obama shouldn’t be President, because they don’t want to come out and say that the real issue is clinging to one or more of the above 5 reasons. Therefore, anything that sounds remotely plausible is latched onto with a fervor, lest one have to admit that they’re racist, unintelligent, fearful, irrational or has suspended critical thinking.
I’m not saying that there aren’t reasons not to vote for Obama. But no one is talking about why we should be voting FOR John McCain. We have a large swath of people in this country who have suspended critical thinking in favor of dogma and sketchy beliefs. And that might be the scariest thought of all.
Showing posts with label presidential election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label presidential election. Show all posts
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Economic Myths Abound
So I bring up the housing crisis to Conservative Cali Dude, who then proceeds to climb up on a 2-story soapbox and pontificate on the unfairness of the presumed bailout that's coming. Fact is, though, he's right. 5 or 6 years ago, when we were both still in Indianapolis, we talked about how utterly ridiculous the housing market was becoming and that there would be a serious correction coming. It wasn't if, it was when. And we were both right.
So now what do we do? Well, since both Democrats are in favor of some sort of a bailout, the reality is that there will likely be one. John McCain can't afford to be seen as insensitive, even if that's not the case. So we are all going to share the brunt of propping up a fair share of people who made bad decisions.
Here's the problem: we are panicking as a nation. The sky is falling. This is the worst recession since The Great Depression. Someone please help us.
Here's the reality: we are experiencing a market correction with respect to housing prices in much of the country. It needed to happen. Perhaps it could have/should have happened sooner, but it didn't. But that's all that's happening. Yes, it's going to affect a large number of people, but before everyone goes off their rocker about the problems with Predatory Lenders and Bad People...don't you think that this was telegraphed a long time ago? Are the CCD and me so omniscient that we could see this coming before the rest of the 300 million people in the U.S.? Somehow, I doubt that.
Housing prices have been out of line in certain markets (L.A., Vegas, Phoenix, south Florida) for a long time. C'mon; if you're paying $1MM for a 1000 square foot home on a zero lot and think that you're making a good investment, you're an idiot. Add in that you entered into that mortgage with no money down and took an ARM loan that states pretty clearly that your interest rate could rise as much as 2% per year...you're now just gambling. It didn't matter when this correction happened, you were going to have a significant number of same said idiots that were going to get burned.
So the question becomes, how much do they actually burn the economy back, and how much obligation do we have to bail them out? Personally, I don't think we have much obligation to these people or the institutions that lent them the money. The only reason to jump in with taxpayer money is if the hole left by this segment of the population will destroy the economy.
The new argument goes that unscrupulous lenders are somehow to blame, that they took advantage of people by not disclosing the actual loan terms, which has now caused this crisis to careen out of control. Couple this with investment banks and other lending institutions who traded the paper these loans were written, under the assumption that mortgages were relatively safe gambles, and look at where we’re at. In other words, no one’s at fault except for these crooks that wrote the loans in the first place. The argument then gets taken further to say that if we don’t rescue these poor people, the economy is going to collapse on itself.
People, are you all still in first grade? Do you really believe this?
Why is it not patently obvious that this is just a salve? An easy excuse so that those that got themselves into this fix can feel that they bear little to or even no blame? And the sad fact of the matter is, we’re all buying it! To the point where we’re doing the economic equivalent of overreacting and buying all of the stores out of bread, batteries and water before a snowstorm hits, like that’s really going to make a difference.
Some people are going to say that the true problem is that credit is tightening up to the point where it’s going to destroy the economy. While there is some veracity to that argument, don’t you think that’s masking another problem, that perhaps credit has been a little too easy? If you want to look for predatory lenders, how about credit card companies? Why have they been allowed to get away with the interest rates and practices that they have been utilizing for over 20 years?
What needs to happen right now is for everyone to take a deep breath and examine this a little more thoroughly. Unfortunately, we have our government rushing in to throw money at the problem….your money, I might add…to what end? And once the government gets control of an economic sector it becomes permanent.
That might be ok if they had a history of good management.
So now what do we do? Well, since both Democrats are in favor of some sort of a bailout, the reality is that there will likely be one. John McCain can't afford to be seen as insensitive, even if that's not the case. So we are all going to share the brunt of propping up a fair share of people who made bad decisions.
Here's the problem: we are panicking as a nation. The sky is falling. This is the worst recession since The Great Depression. Someone please help us.
Here's the reality: we are experiencing a market correction with respect to housing prices in much of the country. It needed to happen. Perhaps it could have/should have happened sooner, but it didn't. But that's all that's happening. Yes, it's going to affect a large number of people, but before everyone goes off their rocker about the problems with Predatory Lenders and Bad People...don't you think that this was telegraphed a long time ago? Are the CCD and me so omniscient that we could see this coming before the rest of the 300 million people in the U.S.? Somehow, I doubt that.
Housing prices have been out of line in certain markets (L.A., Vegas, Phoenix, south Florida) for a long time. C'mon; if you're paying $1MM for a 1000 square foot home on a zero lot and think that you're making a good investment, you're an idiot. Add in that you entered into that mortgage with no money down and took an ARM loan that states pretty clearly that your interest rate could rise as much as 2% per year...you're now just gambling. It didn't matter when this correction happened, you were going to have a significant number of same said idiots that were going to get burned.
So the question becomes, how much do they actually burn the economy back, and how much obligation do we have to bail them out? Personally, I don't think we have much obligation to these people or the institutions that lent them the money. The only reason to jump in with taxpayer money is if the hole left by this segment of the population will destroy the economy.
The new argument goes that unscrupulous lenders are somehow to blame, that they took advantage of people by not disclosing the actual loan terms, which has now caused this crisis to careen out of control. Couple this with investment banks and other lending institutions who traded the paper these loans were written, under the assumption that mortgages were relatively safe gambles, and look at where we’re at. In other words, no one’s at fault except for these crooks that wrote the loans in the first place. The argument then gets taken further to say that if we don’t rescue these poor people, the economy is going to collapse on itself.
People, are you all still in first grade? Do you really believe this?
Why is it not patently obvious that this is just a salve? An easy excuse so that those that got themselves into this fix can feel that they bear little to or even no blame? And the sad fact of the matter is, we’re all buying it! To the point where we’re doing the economic equivalent of overreacting and buying all of the stores out of bread, batteries and water before a snowstorm hits, like that’s really going to make a difference.
Some people are going to say that the true problem is that credit is tightening up to the point where it’s going to destroy the economy. While there is some veracity to that argument, don’t you think that’s masking another problem, that perhaps credit has been a little too easy? If you want to look for predatory lenders, how about credit card companies? Why have they been allowed to get away with the interest rates and practices that they have been utilizing for over 20 years?
What needs to happen right now is for everyone to take a deep breath and examine this a little more thoroughly. Unfortunately, we have our government rushing in to throw money at the problem….your money, I might add…to what end? And once the government gets control of an economic sector it becomes permanent.
That might be ok if they had a history of good management.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Obama Rally Recap
When one is going to go to a political rally, there are a few things one should remember.
First rule of thumb: don't stay up until 3am when you're going to do something that requires thought the next day, even if you're having a really good time.
Second rule of thumb: when it's 70 degrees in Austin bring a jacket. 70 degrees isn't really that warm here, especially if there's wind.
Third rule of thumb: 20% chance of rain means that there IS a chance of rain. And it's not a warm rain in February, even in central Texas.
Sadly, the CW and I ignored all three.
Despite all that, this was quite the interesting event. The setting was at Auditorium Shores, which is actually a field on the south shore of Town Lake in downtown Austin. It could easily be called "Dog Shit Smelling Field at Town Lake" or "Nice View, No Seating Park" or something else more readily identifiable.
Other than Obama merchandise and 658 people soliciting everyone in sight to sign up and work for the Obama campaign, there was nothing to eat or drink besides soft drinks, water and $2 packs of junk food. This wouldn't have been an issue, except that the local paper, The Statesman, published press releases that said they were going to limit the crowd to the first 10,000 people; since there were already requests for over 16,000 tickets we figured we needed to be there early, so we arrived a little before 1pm (Obama being scheduled to speak at 3pm). Two hours without any place to sit or food to speak of was a bit tiring (especially given the breaking of the aforementioned rules of thumb), and as it turned out, wholly unnecessary. We could have shown up at 2:55 and been fine. No one limited the crowd and there was plenty of room to put more people in. The final tally came in this morning as "at least 15,000 people."
The crowd had an air of Woodstock about it. The average age couldn't have been over 26, and they were all enthused, engaged and...well...very 1968. Long hair, loose clothes, tie-died T-shirts, frisbees, live bands playing protest songs, artists & poets mingling, old hippies, braless women, everyone talking of love and change, teenage parents with $8.34 between them playing with their kids. All that was missing was the smell of pot and a couple or two getting it on in a tent. It was almost surreal. I'm not a stranger to standing out in a crowd, but usually it's not because I'm the one who looks like the wealthy Republican plant.
One thing that struck me soon after walking in was how difficult it was going to be to secure this area. (See some of the photos at http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/photos/02/022307_reader_obama.html ). Not only was the stage in an open field, there were tall buildings all within relatively easy rifle range. Behind us (south of downtown) were an entire construction crew building a new structure, as well as the Palmer events center, all within 1000 yards of the venue. And the security to get in was lax as well: women's bags were searched before entry, but we saw people who came in with backpacks (which you weren't supposed to be able to bring), umbrellas, food (would have been nice to have), and one person even got in with her dog. Anyone could have walked in with a small weapon without a problem.
I saw exactly two police officers, a male and a female, who stayed together the entire time, one sheriff's deputy, and one Secret Service agent patrolling the crowd, who stuck out like a sore thumb way more than I ever could with his tailored suit, Secret Service pin on his lapel and shoes polished to blinding. Nice undercover work; I wonder if the feds are that stealthy all the time. Oh, and a police helicopter circling for about 10 minutes before Obama hit the stage. It makes me wonder if the Obama campaign is just naive enough to be reckless about his safety.
For some reason, there was an almost constant running dialog from the stage about New Orleans. Yes, there are still evacuees in Austin, and yes it's fashionable to talk about the failing of the government there. (No one ever referred to the grotesque failings of the Lousiana & NOLA local officials; to hear it from this forum GWB is responsible for everything.) Given that Obama barely brought it up, I have to wonder what purpose there was to grinding that axe.
The final band relocated to Austin from NOLA, which is the only reason I can figure out why they were allowed to play. The horn section was tight...by the 2nd verse of every tune, the female singer was consistently 1/4 step sharp and kept "going for it" in vocal places that she should have left unexplored. As CW said about their self-penned protest songs: "Generally speaking, protest songs are quite badly written." Note to band: there are more lyrical choices than a recounting of what happened. We all know the story of Katrina, we all know the story of Rosa Parks. Don't give us a blow-by-blow recap and expect anyone to pay attention when your lyrics are along the lines of "She was just tired/and needed a well-deserved rest/ so when they asked her to stand/ she just sat." Thanks for the history lesson...now go take some music lessons. When they played their one cover, Stevie Wonder's "I Wish," there was a lot of wishing all right -- wishing they would go away. They did accomplish one thing, though: I have now seen a bad Austin band.
After another girl got up to speak about Katrina, Obama finally hit the stage to..."Rock and Roll Part 2." That's good. Pull out that burnt back catalog of British pedophiles. Always a crowd-pleaser.
Of course, Obama is extremely charismatic and articulate. It's also easy to see that he's very early in his crafting of a stump speech. I was kind of surprised at how many times he said 'uh,' and paused and seemed to have to gather his thoughts. He's so smart and has his positions so well organized in his head that he probably still believes that he can get up on stage and wing it extemporaneously, and to some extent he can. But I will be very surprised if he doesn't start forming a much better template soon. He's in for the long haul and he's going to start getting tired. There are times that it's better to perform than to think, and I think he has yet to learn that.
Obama's four main points were 1) universal health care, 2) rebuilding the country's infrastructure (including broadband access to everyone), 3) more funding for education, specifically more money to teachers, and 4) getting the country out of Iraq. As with any set of campaign goals, the "how do we pay for it" portion was left out, but a campaign stop is not necessarily the forum to go over the details. Finally, he ended with an explanation of what "The Audacity of Hope" means and the emotion of what he wants to accomplish; very powerful and compelling. He left the stage to "Long Train Running" which kind of made sense.
Now the true problem: he has fired up the youth, but despite all the talk to the contrary this is not who you court to win the presidency. They have no money. They don't get registered to vote. They don't vote when they are registered. For all of the "change" in the 60s and the nostalgia of how politically connected everyone was, the last time I looked Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern did not occupy the White House; instead it was Richard Nixon. If this is Obama's sole crowd he has no chance to win, no matter how much enthusiasm is generated.
All in all, my opinion remains the same: Obama is intriguing, likeable, and passionate. There seems to be very little pretense about him; he is the real deal. But there are places where we have fundamental differences of opinion on the issues, and there are little clues that leave me wondering if he is ready to truly lead. (For instance, he doesn't talk about winning, he talks about being an agent of change.) But he has the two qualities that make an effective leader: charisma, and a clear direction on where he wants to go.
I wonder who else will be coming to town...
First rule of thumb: don't stay up until 3am when you're going to do something that requires thought the next day, even if you're having a really good time.
Second rule of thumb: when it's 70 degrees in Austin bring a jacket. 70 degrees isn't really that warm here, especially if there's wind.
Third rule of thumb: 20% chance of rain means that there IS a chance of rain. And it's not a warm rain in February, even in central Texas.
Sadly, the CW and I ignored all three.
Despite all that, this was quite the interesting event. The setting was at Auditorium Shores, which is actually a field on the south shore of Town Lake in downtown Austin. It could easily be called "Dog Shit Smelling Field at Town Lake" or "Nice View, No Seating Park" or something else more readily identifiable.
Other than Obama merchandise and 658 people soliciting everyone in sight to sign up and work for the Obama campaign, there was nothing to eat or drink besides soft drinks, water and $2 packs of junk food. This wouldn't have been an issue, except that the local paper, The Statesman, published press releases that said they were going to limit the crowd to the first 10,000 people; since there were already requests for over 16,000 tickets we figured we needed to be there early, so we arrived a little before 1pm (Obama being scheduled to speak at 3pm). Two hours without any place to sit or food to speak of was a bit tiring (especially given the breaking of the aforementioned rules of thumb), and as it turned out, wholly unnecessary. We could have shown up at 2:55 and been fine. No one limited the crowd and there was plenty of room to put more people in. The final tally came in this morning as "at least 15,000 people."
The crowd had an air of Woodstock about it. The average age couldn't have been over 26, and they were all enthused, engaged and...well...very 1968. Long hair, loose clothes, tie-died T-shirts, frisbees, live bands playing protest songs, artists & poets mingling, old hippies, braless women, everyone talking of love and change, teenage parents with $8.34 between them playing with their kids. All that was missing was the smell of pot and a couple or two getting it on in a tent. It was almost surreal. I'm not a stranger to standing out in a crowd, but usually it's not because I'm the one who looks like the wealthy Republican plant.
One thing that struck me soon after walking in was how difficult it was going to be to secure this area. (See some of the photos at http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/photos/02/022307_reader_obama.html ). Not only was the stage in an open field, there were tall buildings all within relatively easy rifle range. Behind us (south of downtown) were an entire construction crew building a new structure, as well as the Palmer events center, all within 1000 yards of the venue. And the security to get in was lax as well: women's bags were searched before entry, but we saw people who came in with backpacks (which you weren't supposed to be able to bring), umbrellas, food (would have been nice to have), and one person even got in with her dog. Anyone could have walked in with a small weapon without a problem.
I saw exactly two police officers, a male and a female, who stayed together the entire time, one sheriff's deputy, and one Secret Service agent patrolling the crowd, who stuck out like a sore thumb way more than I ever could with his tailored suit, Secret Service pin on his lapel and shoes polished to blinding. Nice undercover work; I wonder if the feds are that stealthy all the time. Oh, and a police helicopter circling for about 10 minutes before Obama hit the stage. It makes me wonder if the Obama campaign is just naive enough to be reckless about his safety.
For some reason, there was an almost constant running dialog from the stage about New Orleans. Yes, there are still evacuees in Austin, and yes it's fashionable to talk about the failing of the government there. (No one ever referred to the grotesque failings of the Lousiana & NOLA local officials; to hear it from this forum GWB is responsible for everything.) Given that Obama barely brought it up, I have to wonder what purpose there was to grinding that axe.
The final band relocated to Austin from NOLA, which is the only reason I can figure out why they were allowed to play. The horn section was tight...by the 2nd verse of every tune, the female singer was consistently 1/4 step sharp and kept "going for it" in vocal places that she should have left unexplored. As CW said about their self-penned protest songs: "Generally speaking, protest songs are quite badly written." Note to band: there are more lyrical choices than a recounting of what happened. We all know the story of Katrina, we all know the story of Rosa Parks. Don't give us a blow-by-blow recap and expect anyone to pay attention when your lyrics are along the lines of "She was just tired/and needed a well-deserved rest/ so when they asked her to stand/ she just sat." Thanks for the history lesson...now go take some music lessons. When they played their one cover, Stevie Wonder's "I Wish," there was a lot of wishing all right -- wishing they would go away. They did accomplish one thing, though: I have now seen a bad Austin band.
After another girl got up to speak about Katrina, Obama finally hit the stage to..."Rock and Roll Part 2." That's good. Pull out that burnt back catalog of British pedophiles. Always a crowd-pleaser.
Of course, Obama is extremely charismatic and articulate. It's also easy to see that he's very early in his crafting of a stump speech. I was kind of surprised at how many times he said 'uh,' and paused and seemed to have to gather his thoughts. He's so smart and has his positions so well organized in his head that he probably still believes that he can get up on stage and wing it extemporaneously, and to some extent he can. But I will be very surprised if he doesn't start forming a much better template soon. He's in for the long haul and he's going to start getting tired. There are times that it's better to perform than to think, and I think he has yet to learn that.
Obama's four main points were 1) universal health care, 2) rebuilding the country's infrastructure (including broadband access to everyone), 3) more funding for education, specifically more money to teachers, and 4) getting the country out of Iraq. As with any set of campaign goals, the "how do we pay for it" portion was left out, but a campaign stop is not necessarily the forum to go over the details. Finally, he ended with an explanation of what "The Audacity of Hope" means and the emotion of what he wants to accomplish; very powerful and compelling. He left the stage to "Long Train Running" which kind of made sense.
Now the true problem: he has fired up the youth, but despite all the talk to the contrary this is not who you court to win the presidency. They have no money. They don't get registered to vote. They don't vote when they are registered. For all of the "change" in the 60s and the nostalgia of how politically connected everyone was, the last time I looked Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern did not occupy the White House; instead it was Richard Nixon. If this is Obama's sole crowd he has no chance to win, no matter how much enthusiasm is generated.
All in all, my opinion remains the same: Obama is intriguing, likeable, and passionate. There seems to be very little pretense about him; he is the real deal. But there are places where we have fundamental differences of opinion on the issues, and there are little clues that leave me wondering if he is ready to truly lead. (For instance, he doesn't talk about winning, he talks about being an agent of change.) But he has the two qualities that make an effective leader: charisma, and a clear direction on where he wants to go.
I wonder who else will be coming to town...
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
THE ROMNEY FILES
-Mitt Romney: right-wing conservative.
-Mitt Romney: centrist Republican who can win blue states.
-Mitt Romney: Mormon out of step with America.
-Mitt Romney: Can-do businessman who understands how to lead.
Is he any of these? All of the above? None of the above? Unless you're from Massachusetts or possibly Utah, you likely don't know either. As it is, I'm just now beginning to even find snippets of information deep enough to chew on about the man. Here's the thumbnail:
-Romney made his fortune as a successful venture capitalist in Massachusetts. He ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994, putting the fear of God into Teddy before losing a close race in which Romney spent over $6MM of his own money. In 2001 he was brought in to salvage the Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002, and took the Games it from a looming financial disaster into a successful and profitable venture. He parlayed that into the governorship of Massachusetts the same year.
Romney's biggest hurdle seems to be convincing voters where he actually stands on issues, and like McCain and Giuliani where he lands may be more crucial to his chances in the Republican primaries than the general election. Romney has been pro-choice for his entire life, but seems to have recently undergone a "conversion" based on a conversation with Harvard scientists who Mitt says horrified him with things they're doing in the lab with human embryos. Whether it's true or not, it rings of a conversion of convenience.
Also hot on his heels is Mitt's religion: he's a Mormon. Most people in the U.S. don't know what Mormons are all, so about stereotypical images are often associated with the religion, such as polygamy. Many fundamentalists apparently don't even see it as a Christian religion, even though they worship Jesus.
Now in my book, neither of these have squat to do with the major problems facing the country. Abortion especially is a hot-button issue that continues to obfuscate other issues and disproportionately dominate the conversation. This is not to suggest it's not important to a large segment of the population, but we are rejecting or electing candidates based on their abortion stance, and it's far from the only issue that is crucial to our lives and well-being. Yet, this may be where Romney's success will be predicated on his ability to walk that line, because if he falls too heavily on one side or the other of the abortion issue he offends that same number on the other side. And there's a real danger that no one believes whatever he says because of his "conversion," even if it's for real, in which case his candidacy is doomed. Sad, but true.
On the actual legislative side of things, Romney has had success as a conservative in an ultra-liberal state where Democrats control both houses. He signed a universal health care plan into law that, among other things, allows employees to take their insurance coverage with them when they change jobs; it also provides vouchers for the poor. It's probably too early to tell where the successes and pitfalls of his plan will be (and I don't live in Massachusetts so far be it from me to have any insight), but in an era where everyone acknowledges that the system is broken it's a welcome sign of action. He also successfully fought the state Supreme Court's efforts to legalize gay marriage. Score one for each side of the red-blue divide.
My early impression is that most of us don't know enough about Romney to draw any real conclusions; I certainly do not. He reminds me of what ESPN's Bill Simmons wrote about New Orleans Saints rookie Reggie Bush at the beginning of the NFL season, which paraphrased was "No one comes in with more expectations in every direction. If he lives up to the hype, most won't be surprised. If he fails miserably, most won't be surprised. In short, all things and no things are considered possible or even probable, sometimes by the same people."
12 months away from the first primaries, that seems an apt description of Mitt. However, if he takes the bait and goes hard after the right wing of the Republican Party, I'll lay lots and lots of money that he will never come within sniffing distance of the White House. The country has tired of the right-wing rhetoric.
-Mitt Romney: centrist Republican who can win blue states.
-Mitt Romney: Mormon out of step with America.
-Mitt Romney: Can-do businessman who understands how to lead.
Is he any of these? All of the above? None of the above? Unless you're from Massachusetts or possibly Utah, you likely don't know either. As it is, I'm just now beginning to even find snippets of information deep enough to chew on about the man. Here's the thumbnail:
-Romney made his fortune as a successful venture capitalist in Massachusetts. He ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994, putting the fear of God into Teddy before losing a close race in which Romney spent over $6MM of his own money. In 2001 he was brought in to salvage the Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002, and took the Games it from a looming financial disaster into a successful and profitable venture. He parlayed that into the governorship of Massachusetts the same year.
Romney's biggest hurdle seems to be convincing voters where he actually stands on issues, and like McCain and Giuliani where he lands may be more crucial to his chances in the Republican primaries than the general election. Romney has been pro-choice for his entire life, but seems to have recently undergone a "conversion" based on a conversation with Harvard scientists who Mitt says horrified him with things they're doing in the lab with human embryos. Whether it's true or not, it rings of a conversion of convenience.
Also hot on his heels is Mitt's religion: he's a Mormon. Most people in the U.S. don't know what Mormons are all, so about stereotypical images are often associated with the religion, such as polygamy. Many fundamentalists apparently don't even see it as a Christian religion, even though they worship Jesus.
Now in my book, neither of these have squat to do with the major problems facing the country. Abortion especially is a hot-button issue that continues to obfuscate other issues and disproportionately dominate the conversation. This is not to suggest it's not important to a large segment of the population, but we are rejecting or electing candidates based on their abortion stance, and it's far from the only issue that is crucial to our lives and well-being. Yet, this may be where Romney's success will be predicated on his ability to walk that line, because if he falls too heavily on one side or the other of the abortion issue he offends that same number on the other side. And there's a real danger that no one believes whatever he says because of his "conversion," even if it's for real, in which case his candidacy is doomed. Sad, but true.
On the actual legislative side of things, Romney has had success as a conservative in an ultra-liberal state where Democrats control both houses. He signed a universal health care plan into law that, among other things, allows employees to take their insurance coverage with them when they change jobs; it also provides vouchers for the poor. It's probably too early to tell where the successes and pitfalls of his plan will be (and I don't live in Massachusetts so far be it from me to have any insight), but in an era where everyone acknowledges that the system is broken it's a welcome sign of action. He also successfully fought the state Supreme Court's efforts to legalize gay marriage. Score one for each side of the red-blue divide.
My early impression is that most of us don't know enough about Romney to draw any real conclusions; I certainly do not. He reminds me of what ESPN's Bill Simmons wrote about New Orleans Saints rookie Reggie Bush at the beginning of the NFL season, which paraphrased was "No one comes in with more expectations in every direction. If he lives up to the hype, most won't be surprised. If he fails miserably, most won't be surprised. In short, all things and no things are considered possible or even probable, sometimes by the same people."
12 months away from the first primaries, that seems an apt description of Mitt. However, if he takes the bait and goes hard after the right wing of the Republican Party, I'll lay lots and lots of money that he will never come within sniffing distance of the White House. The country has tired of the right-wing rhetoric.
Friday, January 26, 2007
HILLARY CLINTON - THE EASY ONE
Unelectable.
Ok, so a one-word column might be a bit too neat. As conservative California friend 'John Wayne' points out, Hillary is a "30-percenter": 30 percent of the people are going to vote for her no matter what and 30 percent are going to vote against her no matter what. So on paper, Clinton needs to attract half out of the remaining 40 percent of the voters to win. But this is a more daunting task than it sounds.
On issues, Hillary certainly is not the classic liberal Democrat. She voted to approve the war in Iraq, supported some meaningful tax cuts, and has been more or less pro-business, at least with issues that impact cities in New York. On the other side, she also supports many traditional Democratic positions: support of Roe v. Wade, increasing the minimum wage, and her continued support for universal health care.
Yet it doesn't seem likely that her position on issues is what will sway potential voters to support her or not. Rather, it rests more on the questions of whether she can lead and if her intagibles weigh on the positive side of the scale or the negative.
Outside of New York, Hillary will be colored and judged by her years in the White House. She gets sympathy for the embarrasment we all assume she suffered when Bill admitted to the Lewinsky affair; she also gets positives for being a strong woman. Knocking those out, though, are the negatives:
-the botched and confusing attempt at universal health care
-her role in the Whitewater scandal
-Travelgate
-she is perceived as a power monger
-she comes off as having a cold, calculating public personality
One must also take into consideration that Clinton is only slightly more experienced at governing than Barack Obama. Until 2000 she never held elected office, and she has only been in the Senate, not in a mini-management office, such as mayor or governor, that might prove as a test case for the presidency. And having been First Lady is only going to carry so much weight, as observation doesn't count as much as experience.
Not to be overlooked is how Americans react to the prospect of our presidential lineage going Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr, Clinton II. My suspicion is: not favorably. (Thank God Jeb's not running in this election cycle or the country's collective head might just implode at the horror created by a Bush v. Clinton campaign.)
Whether her fault or not, Hillary seems to embody most of Bill Clinton's negatives without the benefit of his positives. This is almost insurmountable. It will be so easy for any opponent to remind potential voters of her image, and this could even happen as early as the Democratic primaries. Individual voters don't have to dislike her personally to believe that they'd be backing a loser to support her, and that's why Hillary has an almost impossible task ahead of her in trying to land the swing voters. She may have a chance to win the Democratic nomination, but she is unlectable as president unless the Republicans put up a candidate so repugnant that the voters have to hold their nose and vote for her. Hey...it's how she won the Senate in 2000, so it's not impossible. Ultimately, though, if she is the Democratic nominee the GOP has to trip over their own genitalia to lose.
Ok, so a one-word column might be a bit too neat. As conservative California friend 'John Wayne' points out, Hillary is a "30-percenter": 30 percent of the people are going to vote for her no matter what and 30 percent are going to vote against her no matter what. So on paper, Clinton needs to attract half out of the remaining 40 percent of the voters to win. But this is a more daunting task than it sounds.
On issues, Hillary certainly is not the classic liberal Democrat. She voted to approve the war in Iraq, supported some meaningful tax cuts, and has been more or less pro-business, at least with issues that impact cities in New York. On the other side, she also supports many traditional Democratic positions: support of Roe v. Wade, increasing the minimum wage, and her continued support for universal health care.
Yet it doesn't seem likely that her position on issues is what will sway potential voters to support her or not. Rather, it rests more on the questions of whether she can lead and if her intagibles weigh on the positive side of the scale or the negative.
Outside of New York, Hillary will be colored and judged by her years in the White House. She gets sympathy for the embarrasment we all assume she suffered when Bill admitted to the Lewinsky affair; she also gets positives for being a strong woman. Knocking those out, though, are the negatives:
-the botched and confusing attempt at universal health care
-her role in the Whitewater scandal
-Travelgate
-she is perceived as a power monger
-she comes off as having a cold, calculating public personality
One must also take into consideration that Clinton is only slightly more experienced at governing than Barack Obama. Until 2000 she never held elected office, and she has only been in the Senate, not in a mini-management office, such as mayor or governor, that might prove as a test case for the presidency. And having been First Lady is only going to carry so much weight, as observation doesn't count as much as experience.
Not to be overlooked is how Americans react to the prospect of our presidential lineage going Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr, Clinton II. My suspicion is: not favorably. (Thank God Jeb's not running in this election cycle or the country's collective head might just implode at the horror created by a Bush v. Clinton campaign.)
Whether her fault or not, Hillary seems to embody most of Bill Clinton's negatives without the benefit of his positives. This is almost insurmountable. It will be so easy for any opponent to remind potential voters of her image, and this could even happen as early as the Democratic primaries. Individual voters don't have to dislike her personally to believe that they'd be backing a loser to support her, and that's why Hillary has an almost impossible task ahead of her in trying to land the swing voters. She may have a chance to win the Democratic nomination, but she is unlectable as president unless the Republicans put up a candidate so repugnant that the voters have to hold their nose and vote for her. Hey...it's how she won the Senate in 2000, so it's not impossible. Ultimately, though, if she is the Democratic nominee the GOP has to trip over their own genitalia to lose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
