There's an interesting phenomena in modern American presidential campaigns which I first heard about with respect to the Nixon campaigns. And that is during party primaries, candidates, on both the right and left, make a mad dash to the lunatic fringes of their respective
parties in order to capture as much as possible of those of the devoted base (those most likely to believe volunteering for campaign grunt work will actually save the world). Once a candidate secures their party's nomination, the second phase is a mad dash as far and as fast as possible away from those very same voters, to the center, in order to try and convince the vast majority of American voters that they really aren't as crazy as they've been insisting they were since before the Iowa caucuses.
This sordid tango of disentanglement produces some of the most hilarious situations of both comic and tragic theater, that we Americans refer to as Politics.
Who can forget the sight of John McCain, back in the 2000 election, on stage with presumptive Republican nominee George W. Bush, repeating over and over "I support George Bush, I support George Bush, I support Bush...." in a vain attempt to shame the press who kept demanding a public recitation of concession speech. I could almost envision him leaping off the stage and throttling one of the reporters "I said it okay, are you happy you rat bastard!"
Or John Kerry proudly proclaiming himself as the 'anti war candidate' when losing the primaries to Howard Dean, and then 'storming the beaches' at Boston Harbor when officially arriving at the 2004 Democratic Convention, in an absolute farce salute to his service in the Navy during Vietnam. How about the salute and "Reporting for duty" line? I still wonder how much his campaign paid the team that came up with that one.
In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama and the left are already making their move. I've noticed two items in the last few days that tells my superior sense of political analysis, the race to the center has begun on the left.
This little nugget from the L.A. Times.
"Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.
Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence vs. knowingly propagating falsehoods."
When the United States Congress granted the President the authority to use force against Iraq back in 2002, I'm convinced they did it entirely based upon Bush's astronomical poll ratings following 9/11. Senators and Congressmen were falling over each other to get on the
record as being on the President's side. When polls on support for the war sank in the run up to the 2004 Presidential elections, Democrats sought to distance themselves from the war. But this brought a special dilemma all its own. How to dance away from their own words? And some of their speeches in favor of military action were quite enthralling. How do they now attempt to insist that never happened? My guess is they went back to the PR team that thought up Kerry's 'storming the beach' in Boston Harbor. Because the best they came up with was 'We was lied to.'
That might have been a plausible political strategy but, unfortunately, it was based on the premise that democratic voters would forget - or forgive - the fact their 2000 Presidential campaign was based on the concept that George Bush was an idiot. Think about that for a moment. They decided the best strategy was the person they declared the most stupid, idiotic person this side of the Americans with
Disabilities Act tricked them. Now that's ballsy.
I told you this was entertaining.
What was even more entertaining, and frustrating, was with the help of the hopelessly biased media, they essential pulled it off. George Bush was re-framed as a puppet, manipulated by the evil neocons who actually controlled the administration, and if we didn't all vote Democrat, we would all be doomed to a fascist hell. I still can't believe it worked. Ballsy and entertaining, if not entirely
satisfying. After all, I still have to live with whatever ridiculous laws these people come up if/when they do regain power.
This line of thinking worked fine when the democrats were more interested in control of Congress than they were in control of the White House. Now their interest is in the White House. And while this train of thinking worked fine with the far left Democratic fringe during the primary campaigns, it will not fly with the center, which is where general elections are won and lost. Hence, the grand race to the center.
For the last five years or so, the Democrats main campaign theme is not only was the war in Iraq the worst foreign policy endeavor since America conquered all of Asia, Europe and large parts of Africa on a dare at a cocaine-fueled frat party, but it was a lost cause, losing good money after bad. Once again, a small problem when you move this argument from the far left to the center.
The Surge worked.
So, the question as I see it for Barack Obama and the Democratic power brokers is, how do they move their campaign rhetoric from the last 5 years of 'Iraq is a complete failure' to the American center that obviously can see that's not true?
I see this as step one. Slowly dismantling the program of the last five years, 'Bush Lied People Died.' I don't see any other way for Obama to move to the center on Iraq, unless this great and glorious platform of the democratic party from 2003 till, say, about 2 weeks ago, becomes history. And this is how it starts.
Earlier I mentioned two things that caught my attention. This is the second.
"The foreign minister said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear. . .
. Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will
not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's
response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all
that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising
a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic
administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden
decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your
stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made
through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military
commanders in the field." Certainly, it makes sense to consult with
those who, like Mr. Zebari, have put their lives on the line for an Iraq
that would be a democratic U.S. ally. Mr. Obama ought to listen
carefully to what they are saying."
The race to the center is on.....
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
The Audacity of Socialism
And so Barack Obama has declared himself the democratic nominee for the president of the US. Personally, I wouldn't count out Hillary Clinton until they're throwing the dirt on her grave, but this is the story the media is going to run with until the convention. So let's start with this one.
Barack Obama, the audacity of hope for transparent change. A new kind of politician, kind of like the "anti-politician." Or so the story goes. He will bring the country together with his soaring rhetoric and glorious smile. We will unite, and the world's problems will all suddenly become solvable, because of him. Is any one there buying this load? I'm certainly not.
For starters, there is no way any politician can unite Americans together. By definition the most he can do is unite one political party against the other. There's no way his warmed over socialist/Marxist, cavalier attitude toward economics and constitutional rights are going to unite anyone on the right.
Which is why I predict it won't be very long until we see all this talk of unity, new kind of politics, etc. will simply fade away, much like the "Dennis Kucinich for President" bumper stickers have. The only question for me is when, where, why and how. Will the new kind of campaign head straight for the swamp? Or will they dance around the edge for a while first? Or will the McCain or the GOP or some right-wing whacko land a solid punch right to the jaw of audacious change so resoundingly that Obama attacks full-bore out of reflex?
Perhaps his wife will finally blow her cork and that starts the mud. (Personally I'm rooting for this one. I can't stand rich people making several figures, ensconced in the lap of luxury lecturing me on how tough they have it.) Or perhaps, when the starstruck and biased media realizes that if they don't start asking real questions of him they will lose their last shred of dignity (along with their cushy jobs), they will begin to zero in on his numerous gaffes, stumbles and outright lies. Of course he and his campaign will accuse the media of being in McCain's pocket, racist or just plain not up to the level of the "new" political landscape.
Either way, the gloves will come off, we will see what kind of politician Obama really is. And then we'll find out if Hillary Clinton was right, and the Democrats should have chosen her. I think she was. But I don't think she would do much better against Senator McCain in November.
Barack Obama, the audacity of hope for transparent change. A new kind of politician, kind of like the "anti-politician." Or so the story goes. He will bring the country together with his soaring rhetoric and glorious smile. We will unite, and the world's problems will all suddenly become solvable, because of him. Is any one there buying this load? I'm certainly not.
For starters, there is no way any politician can unite Americans together. By definition the most he can do is unite one political party against the other. There's no way his warmed over socialist/Marxist, cavalier attitude toward economics and constitutional rights are going to unite anyone on the right.
Which is why I predict it won't be very long until we see all this talk of unity, new kind of politics, etc. will simply fade away, much like the "Dennis Kucinich for President" bumper stickers have. The only question for me is when, where, why and how. Will the new kind of campaign head straight for the swamp? Or will they dance around the edge for a while first? Or will the McCain or the GOP or some right-wing whacko land a solid punch right to the jaw of audacious change so resoundingly that Obama attacks full-bore out of reflex?
Perhaps his wife will finally blow her cork and that starts the mud. (Personally I'm rooting for this one. I can't stand rich people making several figures, ensconced in the lap of luxury lecturing me on how tough they have it.) Or perhaps, when the starstruck and biased media realizes that if they don't start asking real questions of him they will lose their last shred of dignity (along with their cushy jobs), they will begin to zero in on his numerous gaffes, stumbles and outright lies. Of course he and his campaign will accuse the media of being in McCain's pocket, racist or just plain not up to the level of the "new" political landscape.
Either way, the gloves will come off, we will see what kind of politician Obama really is. And then we'll find out if Hillary Clinton was right, and the Democrats should have chosen her. I think she was. But I don't think she would do much better against Senator McCain in November.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Broken as designed
If I hear one more politician promise us citizens that they will unite the country to solve America's problems, I'm going to have to go out and buy a kitten just so I can kick it. Unite America? That's the most absurd thought I've ever heard. A united America is practically a
myth. I say practically a myth because a good argument can be made that the Japanese invitation to join WWII by bombing Pearl Harbor did in fact unite America. My response to that statement would be, great, so the vast majority of Americans united and thought it was a good idea to round up Japanese-Americans and stuff them into concentration camps. That's just the kind of uniting we need these days.
No. Americans are not united. Never really have been, probably never will, and it's probably a good thing. A united people can rally around a dumb idea as easily as they can around a good idea. If it ever happens, experience tells me we're much more likely to get stuck with
the former rather than the latter.
Even looking back to America's founding, the colonials weren't anymore united than we are today. As a matter of fact, more citizens were for remaining part of England than were for the revolution. America's first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was a failure from get-go for the very reason the people weren't united. That's because weak central government naturally devolves into regionalism. That was James Madison's argument for the Constitutional
Convention that gave us our current constitution. He started his speech at the convention with a dreadfully long report of the fate of every nation in the history of the world that had a weak confederacy. Guess what that was? Here's a hint, you don't see the Greek City States on the map these days, now do you?
I've read several accounts of the Constitutional Convention and one thing for sure, they couldn't unite together around anything other than the Articles had to go. But what to replace it with? Throughout the Convention another thing became obvious to the founding fathers - they
couldn't agree on anything, no matter what. They discovered the debates never ended. They just went on and on and on. Madison finally got the right idea when he figured out, a democratic-republican form of government provides for a government that can't settle issues. Why not? Ask any individual how they would solve national issues, and most have their firmly held opinions ready to whip out like a preprogrammed cell phone. But what happens when you ask two people? They may agree on some things, but not on others. That's politics.
Suppose, just suppose, the moon is in the seventh house, and Mars and Jupiter are aligned. And every issue on the table is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. What about the next issue that comes up? See? It never ends. That's what Madison figured out. So the issue was resolved in an entirely different idea. Instead of a government that solves everyone's problems, they created a framework where the important issues of the day, whatever they may be, have a place to be
aired in public. That's what Congress is. Its the institution where the public's issues are endlessly debated. Proposed laws are presented, bashed around, written, rewritten, rewritten again, amended, voted up or down. And after all that work is done, to no one's satisfaction, the
process starts all over again in the Senate. And by the time the tortured document gets over to the White House, its own mother wouldn't recognize it. And that's a good thing too. Whenever all of Congress and the White House agree on something, it usually means it benefits the
ruling class at the expense of We The People. See the fine print in the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform. They get to hide more money in 501(c)'s, they get to campaign for as long as they want, but if we pay $5 for an ad for a candidate in the local Penny Saver, we've committed a federal offense.
It only makes sense in America that we wouldn't unite. What seems like a good idea in Florida, might be thought of as not too smart in Texas, downright dangerous in Ohio, while New Yorkers might want to pass a law against it. (New York likes to pass laws against all kinds of things. Better living through legislation.)
So when you come right down to it, when politicians are screaming at each other, making all kinds of scurrilous charges, and generally attacking each other like badgers high on crystal meth locked in a garbage can together, that doesn't mean the government is broken and
needs to be fixed. Perish the thought. That means everything is working just the way the founding fathers intended. So excuse me if some sappy politician comes along and says they're the ones to put an end to disunity and fix the government. I know, not only are they wrong, in my opinion they're dangerous.
myth. I say practically a myth because a good argument can be made that the Japanese invitation to join WWII by bombing Pearl Harbor did in fact unite America. My response to that statement would be, great, so the vast majority of Americans united and thought it was a good idea to round up Japanese-Americans and stuff them into concentration camps. That's just the kind of uniting we need these days.
No. Americans are not united. Never really have been, probably never will, and it's probably a good thing. A united people can rally around a dumb idea as easily as they can around a good idea. If it ever happens, experience tells me we're much more likely to get stuck with
the former rather than the latter.
Even looking back to America's founding, the colonials weren't anymore united than we are today. As a matter of fact, more citizens were for remaining part of England than were for the revolution. America's first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was a failure from get-go for the very reason the people weren't united. That's because weak central government naturally devolves into regionalism. That was James Madison's argument for the Constitutional
Convention that gave us our current constitution. He started his speech at the convention with a dreadfully long report of the fate of every nation in the history of the world that had a weak confederacy. Guess what that was? Here's a hint, you don't see the Greek City States on the map these days, now do you?
I've read several accounts of the Constitutional Convention and one thing for sure, they couldn't unite together around anything other than the Articles had to go. But what to replace it with? Throughout the Convention another thing became obvious to the founding fathers - they
couldn't agree on anything, no matter what. They discovered the debates never ended. They just went on and on and on. Madison finally got the right idea when he figured out, a democratic-republican form of government provides for a government that can't settle issues. Why not? Ask any individual how they would solve national issues, and most have their firmly held opinions ready to whip out like a preprogrammed cell phone. But what happens when you ask two people? They may agree on some things, but not on others. That's politics.
Suppose, just suppose, the moon is in the seventh house, and Mars and Jupiter are aligned. And every issue on the table is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. What about the next issue that comes up? See? It never ends. That's what Madison figured out. So the issue was resolved in an entirely different idea. Instead of a government that solves everyone's problems, they created a framework where the important issues of the day, whatever they may be, have a place to be
aired in public. That's what Congress is. Its the institution where the public's issues are endlessly debated. Proposed laws are presented, bashed around, written, rewritten, rewritten again, amended, voted up or down. And after all that work is done, to no one's satisfaction, the
process starts all over again in the Senate. And by the time the tortured document gets over to the White House, its own mother wouldn't recognize it. And that's a good thing too. Whenever all of Congress and the White House agree on something, it usually means it benefits the
ruling class at the expense of We The People. See the fine print in the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform. They get to hide more money in 501(c)'s, they get to campaign for as long as they want, but if we pay $5 for an ad for a candidate in the local Penny Saver, we've committed a federal offense.
It only makes sense in America that we wouldn't unite. What seems like a good idea in Florida, might be thought of as not too smart in Texas, downright dangerous in Ohio, while New Yorkers might want to pass a law against it. (New York likes to pass laws against all kinds of things. Better living through legislation.)
So when you come right down to it, when politicians are screaming at each other, making all kinds of scurrilous charges, and generally attacking each other like badgers high on crystal meth locked in a garbage can together, that doesn't mean the government is broken and
needs to be fixed. Perish the thought. That means everything is working just the way the founding fathers intended. So excuse me if some sappy politician comes along and says they're the ones to put an end to disunity and fix the government. I know, not only are they wrong, in my opinion they're dangerous.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Letter to the Editor (with a note from the Editor)
[Editor's note: The author of this blog decided last year to just give up on this site. Like those effeminate liberals who want to run away from the glorious future victory that is Iraq, the blog author turned his back on a difficult - but rewarding - mission. In any case, yesterday out of the blue he sends this on and says it would make a good blog post. With little expectation that he's going to make this a regular thing - and certainly no expectation that anyone has stuck around to read this comatose blog - I dutifully present this to you, dear reader.]
Click here for news story.
How nice of Binghamton's "progressive" politicians to provide us with a wonderful example of how to destroy housing units!
First the progressives got elected. Then they decided to quadruple the number of the mayor's personal assistants. When the City Council wouldn't pay them as much as the mayor wanted, he just waited a year than snuck in 40% pay raises for them. (It ain't cheap being progressive!)
And now we get a front row seat to watch them gut the Binghamton housing stock.
The old economics axiom, when honest people can no longer make an honest living doing honest work, they get out of that business and find another honest way to make a living. How ever, dishonest people have no problem continuing it.
This is step one. The politicians find someone who they think they can squeeze a few more bucks out of. Then they declare that its not really a tax increase, because these people have been cheating every one else all along, so the politicians are just "making things right."
"Teri Rennia, D-4th District, said the change would provide tax relief for homeowners and would ensure everyone was 'paying their fair share.'"
Step 2 is to see how much money politicians think they can squeeze out of these officially classified "dead beats."
"Some landlords are facing an 80 percent increase in property taxes"
Now, does anyone know what happens when an honest business person is going to do when their tax bill goes up 80% in one year? Those that can afford to pay it, might, for a while, or they may decided to chuck the business altogether. Those that can't afford it will have to sell. And what type of person is likely to buy these rental units that come with this huge tax bill? Enter the slum lords. And if the tax bill is so high that even slum lords won't pay it, the houses will stand vacant, crumble and decay, and then be abandoned altogether and turned over to the city/county, and be taken off the tax rolls, so every other tax payer in Binghamton will have to pony up to cover the difference.
On the upside we get to watch a crystal clear example of the simple, repeatable, 100% guaranteed laws of economics in action. On the down side we also watch Binghamton taxpayers, landlords and renters get royally fucked. On the up side, I don't live in Binghamton. On the down side, every one in Broom County is going to feel the pain to some extent. On the upside, unless this gets derailed somehow, what the progressives are doing to Binghamton will ensure they are run out off office for years to come.
I wonder what the progressives will fix next?
Click here for news story.
How nice of Binghamton's "progressive" politicians to provide us with a wonderful example of how to destroy housing units!
First the progressives got elected. Then they decided to quadruple the number of the mayor's personal assistants. When the City Council wouldn't pay them as much as the mayor wanted, he just waited a year than snuck in 40% pay raises for them. (It ain't cheap being progressive!)
And now we get a front row seat to watch them gut the Binghamton housing stock.
The old economics axiom, when honest people can no longer make an honest living doing honest work, they get out of that business and find another honest way to make a living. How ever, dishonest people have no problem continuing it.
This is step one. The politicians find someone who they think they can squeeze a few more bucks out of. Then they declare that its not really a tax increase, because these people have been cheating every one else all along, so the politicians are just "making things right."
"Teri Rennia, D-4th District, said the change would provide tax relief for homeowners and would ensure everyone was 'paying their fair share.'"
Step 2 is to see how much money politicians think they can squeeze out of these officially classified "dead beats."
"Some landlords are facing an 80 percent increase in property taxes"
Now, does anyone know what happens when an honest business person is going to do when their tax bill goes up 80% in one year? Those that can afford to pay it, might, for a while, or they may decided to chuck the business altogether. Those that can't afford it will have to sell. And what type of person is likely to buy these rental units that come with this huge tax bill? Enter the slum lords. And if the tax bill is so high that even slum lords won't pay it, the houses will stand vacant, crumble and decay, and then be abandoned altogether and turned over to the city/county, and be taken off the tax rolls, so every other tax payer in Binghamton will have to pony up to cover the difference.
On the upside we get to watch a crystal clear example of the simple, repeatable, 100% guaranteed laws of economics in action. On the down side we also watch Binghamton taxpayers, landlords and renters get royally fucked. On the up side, I don't live in Binghamton. On the down side, every one in Broom County is going to feel the pain to some extent. On the upside, unless this gets derailed somehow, what the progressives are doing to Binghamton will ensure they are run out off office for years to come.
I wonder what the progressives will fix next?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)