This past Tuesday, Florida voters sent a historic message by electing Barack Obama statewide. At the same time worrying signs were apparent in Florida's election results which reminded us of Florida's dubious history. Areas of the original Florida or what many in our state's capitol refer to as the "real Florida" voted for John McCain by much bigger margins than they had supported George W. Bush. The only counties in the state where McCain won by a much bigger margin than Bush were west of Tallahassee: in an area traditionally very Jeffersonian and Segregationist. Counties such as Liberty, Calhoun and Jackson had actually given Democrat Bill McBride substantial victories over Jeb Bush in 2002. McBride got only 43% statewide when compared to Obama's 51% yet these formerly segregationist counties showed many whites willing to vote for a weak and possibly unqualified Democratic candidate for Governor were unwilling to vote for a winning African-American candidate for President. Many elected Democrats in the state legislature had felt focusing on this area of the state was more important than focusing on the I-4 corridor in the early part of this decade. That can explain why in 2002 McBride was routed in Pinellas, Hillsborough, Orange and Volusia counties, urban Central Florida areas Obama carried in 2008 by a large margin. The 2008 results should show beyond a reasonable doubt as did the 2002 results, that these counties don't matter in Florida elections if you can win along the I-4 corridor.
Statewide however, Amendment 2, an effort by far right conservatives to legislate the definition of marriage into the Florida Constitution was passed statewide with 62.5% of the vote. The same conservatives who decry judges who "legislate from the bench" like the great Earl Warren or Thurgood Marshall are willing to attack moral codes and legislation to the state's constitution. This once again demonstrates the rampant hypocrisy of most conservatives. But we digress: the issue here is that Amendment 2 continues Florida's pattern of discrimination. A pattern we saw rise up in the 1970s when Anita Bryant came to Florida to protest Dade County's then revolutionary gay rights statute.
Bryant's campaign came just a few short years after George Wallace carried 66 of Florida's 67 counties in the Florida Democratic Primary. Wallace running on a campaign opposing school busing and using code words which meant "I'll keep the blacks in their place." was a hit statewide. The northern elite media who had many friends and perhaps family that lived in Florida had mischarecterized the state as being "less Southern than Northern" in the lead up to the primary. Thus primary night, a shock ran through liberal precincts of the North when Florida decisively made Wallace the victor.
Florida is a state that had more per capita lynchings than any other in the 1910s and 1920s, even though Mississippi had a Governor James K. Vardamann that openly advocated the murder of blacks. The Rosewood Massacre outside Orlando took place in this period of time as well. The state around the same time elected a Governor, Sidney Catts whose entire platform was based on discrimination, particularly against Catholics who were populating Northern cities and may move South. Despite being part of the previously "solid south" for the Democratic Party, Florida cast its electoral votes in 1928 for Herbert Hoover against Catholic Al Smith. The same thing happened in 1960 when Richard Nixon carried his only southern state running against the Catholic John Kennedy. When the Democrats nominated a die in the wool segregationist like Woodrow Wilson, the state's voters proudly cast their ballots for the party that ruled the south. But when a northern liberal like Adlai Stevenson or worse yet a Catholic like Al Smith was nominated by the party that dominated the state, Floridians crossed over and voted Republican.
This may seem like a remarkable set of coincidences but chances are they are not. While Florida took one giant step forward with the victory of Barack Obama in the state, we are reminded of Florida's not so proud history with the passage of Amendment 2 and the votes of many North Florida counties against Obama.
Providing Unique Commentary and Insight into Politics, History and Society since 2005
Showing posts with label Election 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 2008. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Thursday, November 06, 2008
The Post Clinton South: More Democratic, Less Polarized
Bill Clinton was more successful than most post civil rights Democratic Presidential nominees winning five former Confederate states each time he ran for President. However Clinton's unpopularity in the rest of the South led to unprecedented losses for the Democrats in the region from US Senate right down to local offices. When Bill Clinton left office in 2001, Republicans controlled the US House delegations from each former Confederate state other than Mississippi and Texas. Now as Barack Obama prepares to enter the White House, Democrats control the House delegations in Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia (pending a recount in the 5th district.) Democrats have also picked up seats in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama since Clinton left office.
Much of this has to do with the Democrats refocusing on kitchen table issues and dumping polarizing personal politics of the Clinton years. While the South remains one of the two most conservative regions in the country (the Mountain West being the other) a focus on economics can win over enough Southern voters to help maintain Democratic majorities in the House. President Clinton's divisive social agenda: gays in the military, banning assault weapons, funding abortion providers abroad, and of course his opposition to the ban on partial birth abortion turned the South against the Democrats. Not that Clinton should have abandoned his views on those issues, but the volume with which Clinton's White House pushed those social items to gain support for the President among Northeast elites made it very easy for the South to turn against his party.
Race is often cited as a simple reason why the South has turned Republican. No doubt that race has been a factor, but even as late as 1992 the Democrats controlled the majority of congressional seats in the former confederacy. Race was an issue, but not the only issue for Southern white voters. After being wiped out in the 1990s and early 200s the positive message of the nation's first major party African American Presidential nominee has helped elect more Democrats from the South to Congress since the 1992 Election. Obama in fact ran ahead of white Democratic nominees from 2000 and 2004 in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Texas. Only in post Katrina ravaged Louisiana, Al Gore's home state of Tennessee and Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas did Obama run worse than Gore and Kerry.
Obama's positive message on economics and unity can play well in the South. Unlike President Clinton, Obama shows no signs of polarizing the nation and thumbing his noses at those who did not support his election. The South may have been lost for a generation of Democrats after Civil Rights, but it seems slowly the South is coming home to its ancestral party.
Much of this has to do with the Democrats refocusing on kitchen table issues and dumping polarizing personal politics of the Clinton years. While the South remains one of the two most conservative regions in the country (the Mountain West being the other) a focus on economics can win over enough Southern voters to help maintain Democratic majorities in the House. President Clinton's divisive social agenda: gays in the military, banning assault weapons, funding abortion providers abroad, and of course his opposition to the ban on partial birth abortion turned the South against the Democrats. Not that Clinton should have abandoned his views on those issues, but the volume with which Clinton's White House pushed those social items to gain support for the President among Northeast elites made it very easy for the South to turn against his party.
Race is often cited as a simple reason why the South has turned Republican. No doubt that race has been a factor, but even as late as 1992 the Democrats controlled the majority of congressional seats in the former confederacy. Race was an issue, but not the only issue for Southern white voters. After being wiped out in the 1990s and early 200s the positive message of the nation's first major party African American Presidential nominee has helped elect more Democrats from the South to Congress since the 1992 Election. Obama in fact ran ahead of white Democratic nominees from 2000 and 2004 in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Texas. Only in post Katrina ravaged Louisiana, Al Gore's home state of Tennessee and Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas did Obama run worse than Gore and Kerry.
Obama's positive message on economics and unity can play well in the South. Unlike President Clinton, Obama shows no signs of polarizing the nation and thumbing his noses at those who did not support his election. The South may have been lost for a generation of Democrats after Civil Rights, but it seems slowly the South is coming home to its ancestral party.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Moving Past the Clintons
Senator Barack Obama's historic victory Tuesday ushers in a new era of post partisan and potential post racial politics throughout much of America. Obama's sweeping victory and uplifting campaign stands in direct contrast to the most recent Democrat to occupy the White House, whose wife Obama defeated to win the Democratic nomination. This also creates a new opportunity for the Democratic Party to create a Governing majority. The fact that this comes so quickly after the Party's fortunes had ebbed to its lowest point since before the New Deal and talk of a long term GOP domination of electoral politics outside the Northeast was prevalent is all the more remarkable.
Regardless of what Democratic activists may claim the emergence of Bill and Hillary Clinton on the national stage was a near fatal blow for the Democrats as a national majority party. During Bill Clinton's tenure as President, the Democrats lost over 65 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 15 Governor's chairs. Only in 2006, with the election of many new Democratic Congressional candidates and Governors did the party begun to recover its national footing. In 2008, with Hillary Clinton safely out of the picture, American voters cast the majority of their ballots in Governors races, Congressional races, Senate races and the Presidency for Democrats for the first time since 1964. Also, for the first time since 1964, a Democratic Presidential nominee garnered more than 50.2% of the national vote last night as well.
While Clinton backers continue to claim to this day that President Clinton was not responsible for the catastrophic Democratic losses in Congress in 1994 and the subsequent failure to regain either House or Senate during the remainder of his tenure, it is very difficult to intellectually defend this view. The reality is that Democratic members of the House in particular and to a lesser extent the Senate had made themselves immune to the whims of voters in Presidential Politics. When Nixon routed McGovern in 1972 the Democrats lost seats but continued to hold a comfortable Congressional majority. In 1984 when Reagan defeated Monday by 20 points, the Democrats actually picked up a Senate seat and continued to hold a comfortable House majority.
This all changed with President Bill Clinton. His partisanship knew no bounds the first two years in office and the new President's inability to even deal with his own party's leadership in Congress delivered disastrous results. The first GOP Congressional majorities in forty years were ushered into power not as a reaction to Congress but as a reaction to the ideological bent and governing ineptitude of President Clinton.
Instead of taking the fight to the GOP Congress, President Clinton felt compelled to defend his relevance to the Washington Press Corps, declaring one famous March 1995 afternoon that "the constitution makes me relevant." Hardly the sort of statement you would expect from the leader of the free world. Eventually Clinton picked small battles with the GOP but on big ticket items like welfare reform, Free Trade and the GOP Budget he made deals with the new Congressional leadership, often times far to the right of the Democratic mainstream.
This left Democrats completely rudderless and in many ways devoid of an identifying set of principles to run elections on. Clinton's desire for self promotion and self preservation made it appear to many media observers at the time that he was running in tandem with the GOP leadership. So complete was Clinton's shift away from Democratic principles that Minority Leader Richard Gephardt gave the closing speech on the House floor against the Presidents 1997 Budget. Clinton's over indulgence in illegal campaign fund raising in 1996 also had the affect of denying the part an opportunity to retake the House just when the generic congressional polls had broken in favor of a Democratic takeover.
After impeachment Clinton continued his previous pattern or deal cutting and ideological meandering that left his Vice President, Al Gore searching for a new set of ideas to run on in 2000. Critics have claimed Gore's campaign lacked focus and a clear message: while I agree with that assessment I cannot help but place a good amount of the blame on President Clinton himself. Congressional Democrats had the same problem and until the unifying posture of opposition to the Iraq War became a rallying cry in 2006, the Democrats were often times fighting battles on the turf where Clinton had taken them. These battles often served as virtual re-enactments of Custer's last stand.
Barack Obama's victory not only gives hope to millions of American citizens. It gives hope to longtime Democratic operatives like myself that the Clinton era is officially and finally dead in party politics.
Regardless of what Democratic activists may claim the emergence of Bill and Hillary Clinton on the national stage was a near fatal blow for the Democrats as a national majority party. During Bill Clinton's tenure as President, the Democrats lost over 65 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 15 Governor's chairs. Only in 2006, with the election of many new Democratic Congressional candidates and Governors did the party begun to recover its national footing. In 2008, with Hillary Clinton safely out of the picture, American voters cast the majority of their ballots in Governors races, Congressional races, Senate races and the Presidency for Democrats for the first time since 1964. Also, for the first time since 1964, a Democratic Presidential nominee garnered more than 50.2% of the national vote last night as well.
While Clinton backers continue to claim to this day that President Clinton was not responsible for the catastrophic Democratic losses in Congress in 1994 and the subsequent failure to regain either House or Senate during the remainder of his tenure, it is very difficult to intellectually defend this view. The reality is that Democratic members of the House in particular and to a lesser extent the Senate had made themselves immune to the whims of voters in Presidential Politics. When Nixon routed McGovern in 1972 the Democrats lost seats but continued to hold a comfortable Congressional majority. In 1984 when Reagan defeated Monday by 20 points, the Democrats actually picked up a Senate seat and continued to hold a comfortable House majority.
This all changed with President Bill Clinton. His partisanship knew no bounds the first two years in office and the new President's inability to even deal with his own party's leadership in Congress delivered disastrous results. The first GOP Congressional majorities in forty years were ushered into power not as a reaction to Congress but as a reaction to the ideological bent and governing ineptitude of President Clinton.
Instead of taking the fight to the GOP Congress, President Clinton felt compelled to defend his relevance to the Washington Press Corps, declaring one famous March 1995 afternoon that "the constitution makes me relevant." Hardly the sort of statement you would expect from the leader of the free world. Eventually Clinton picked small battles with the GOP but on big ticket items like welfare reform, Free Trade and the GOP Budget he made deals with the new Congressional leadership, often times far to the right of the Democratic mainstream.
This left Democrats completely rudderless and in many ways devoid of an identifying set of principles to run elections on. Clinton's desire for self promotion and self preservation made it appear to many media observers at the time that he was running in tandem with the GOP leadership. So complete was Clinton's shift away from Democratic principles that Minority Leader Richard Gephardt gave the closing speech on the House floor against the Presidents 1997 Budget. Clinton's over indulgence in illegal campaign fund raising in 1996 also had the affect of denying the part an opportunity to retake the House just when the generic congressional polls had broken in favor of a Democratic takeover.
After impeachment Clinton continued his previous pattern or deal cutting and ideological meandering that left his Vice President, Al Gore searching for a new set of ideas to run on in 2000. Critics have claimed Gore's campaign lacked focus and a clear message: while I agree with that assessment I cannot help but place a good amount of the blame on President Clinton himself. Congressional Democrats had the same problem and until the unifying posture of opposition to the Iraq War became a rallying cry in 2006, the Democrats were often times fighting battles on the turf where Clinton had taken them. These battles often served as virtual re-enactments of Custer's last stand.
Barack Obama's victory not only gives hope to millions of American citizens. It gives hope to longtime Democratic operatives like myself that the Clinton era is officially and finally dead in party politics.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
House Race Ratings: Nov 4
As the polls prepare to open and Senator John McCain appears much more poised to close out a heroic upset electoral college win than just two days ago, let's go over our final Congressional ratings. McCain has in this analysts estimation about a 30% chance of winning the Presidency up from about 5% a week ago. He's closing in the right states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia) and has taken the lead in several red states (Missouri, North Carolina) even though the national poll movement is not strong enough to carry Republicans to victory in Congress. Chances are Obama still wins the Presidency although it is no longer a slam dunk to quote George Tennent and could very well be a cliffhanger. I personally will be working the polls all day long for Democratic Candidates in Florida and will not update this during the day.
Changes in status since the last edition in RED
DEM HELD SEATS
LIKELY GOP
FL 16 (Mahoney)
PA 11 (Kanjorski)
LEANS GOP
TX 22 (Lampson)
TOSS UP
PA 12 (Murtha)
MS 1 (Childers)
LA 6 (Cazayoux)
GA 8 (Marshall)
LEANS DEM
AL 5 (Cramer/Open)
IL 14 (Foster)
WI 8 (Kagen)
NH 1 (Shea- Porter)
KS 2 (Boyda)
CA 11 (McNerney)
PA 4 (Altimire)
KY 3 (Yarmouth)
REPUBLICAN HELD SEATS
LIKELY DEMOCRATIC
VA 11 (Davis/Open)
LEANS DEMOCRATIC
AZ 1 (Renzi/Open)
FL 8 (Keller)
FL 24 (Feeney)
NC 8 (Hayes)
AK-AL (Young)
NY 13 (Fossella/Open)
NY 25 (Walsh/Open)
NY 29 (Kuhl)
NM 1 (Wilson/Open)
IL 10 (Kirk)
MN 3 (Ramstad/Open)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)
OH 15 (Pryce/Open)
TOSS UP
FL-25 (M Diaz Balart)
NY 26 (Reynolds/Open)
MN 6 (Bachman)
NV 3 (Porter)
OH 2 (Schmidt)
OH 16 (Regula/Open)
IL 11 (Weller/Open)
CT 4 (Shays)
WY-AL (Cubin/Open)
WA 8 (Reichart)
CO 4 (Musgrave)
NE-1 (Terry)
LEANS GOP
MD 1 (Gilchrist/Open)
AL-2 (Everett/Open)
CA-4 (Doolittle/Open)
OH-1 (Chabot)
FL 21 (L. Diaz Balart)
NJ 5 (Garrett)
ID-1 (Sali)
PA-3 (English)
AZ 3 (Shadegg)
LA-4 (McCrery/Open)
IL-18 (LaHood/Open)
NM-2 (Pearce)
MI-7 (Walberg)
MO-6 (Graves)
MO-9 (Hulshof)
VA-4 (Drake)
LIKELY GOP (Florida only)
FL-13 (Buchanan)
DEM HELD SEATS
LIKELY GOP
FL 16 (Mahoney)
PA 11 (Kanjorski)
LEANS GOP
TX 22 (Lampson)
TOSS UP
PA 12 (Murtha)
MS 1 (Childers)
LA 6 (Cazayoux)
GA 8 (Marshall)
LEANS DEM
AL 5 (Cramer/Open)
IL 14 (Foster)
WI 8 (Kagen)
NH 1 (Shea- Porter)
KS 2 (Boyda)
CA 11 (McNerney)
PA 4 (Altimire)
KY 3 (Yarmouth)
REPUBLICAN HELD SEATS
LIKELY DEMOCRATIC
VA 11 (Davis/Open)
LEANS DEMOCRATIC
AZ 1 (Renzi/Open)
FL 8 (Keller)
FL 24 (Feeney)
NC 8 (Hayes)
AK-AL (Young)
NY 13 (Fossella/Open)
NY 25 (Walsh/Open)
NY 29 (Kuhl)
NM 1 (Wilson/Open)
IL 10 (Kirk)
MN 3 (Ramstad/Open)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)
OH 15 (Pryce/Open)
TOSS UP
FL-25 (M Diaz Balart)
NY 26 (Reynolds/Open)
MN 6 (Bachman)
NV 3 (Porter)
OH 2 (Schmidt)
OH 16 (Regula/Open)
IL 11 (Weller/Open)
CT 4 (Shays)
WY-AL (Cubin/Open)
WA 8 (Reichart)
CO 4 (Musgrave)
NE-1 (Terry)
LEANS GOP
MD 1 (Gilchrist/Open)
AL-2 (Everett/Open)
CA-4 (Doolittle/Open)
OH-1 (Chabot)
FL 21 (L. Diaz Balart)
NJ 5 (Garrett)
ID-1 (Sali)
PA-3 (English)
AZ 3 (Shadegg)
LA-4 (McCrery/Open)
IL-18 (LaHood/Open)
NM-2 (Pearce)
MI-7 (Walberg)
MO-6 (Graves)
MO-9 (Hulshof)
VA-4 (Drake)
LIKELY GOP (Florida only)
FL-13 (Buchanan)
Monday, November 03, 2008
House Race Ratings: Nov 3
DEM HELD SEATS
LIKELY GOP
FL 16 (Mahoney)
PA 11 (Kanjorski)
LEANS GOP
TX 22 (Lampson)
TOSS UP
PA 12 (Murtha)
MS 1 (Childers)
LA 6 (Cazayoux)
GA 8 (Marshall)
LEANS DEM
AL 5 (Cramer/Open)
IL 14 (Foster)
WI 8 (Kagen)
NH 1 (Shea- Porter)
KS 2 (Boyda)
CA 11 (McNerney)
PA 4 (Altimire)
KY 3 (Yarmouth)
REPUBLICAN HELD SEATS
LIKELY DEMOCRATIC
VA 11 (Davis/Open)
LEANS DEMOCRATIC
AZ 1 (Renzi/Open)
FL 8 (Keller)
FL 24 (Feeney)
NC 8 (Hayes)
AK-AL (Young)
NY 13 (Fossella/Open)
NY 25 (Walsh/Open)
NY 29 (Kuhl)
NM 1 (Wilson/Open)
IL 10 (Kirk)
MN 3 (Ramstad/Open)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)
OH 15 (Pryce/Open)
TOSS UP
FL-25 (M Diaz Balart)
NY 26 (Reynolds/Open)
MN 6 (Bachman)
NV 3 (Porter)
OH 2 (Schmidt)
OH 16 (Regula/Open)
IL 11 (Weller/Open)
CT 4 (Shays)
WY-AL (Cubin/Open)
WA 8 (Reichart)
CO 4 (Musgrave)
LEANS GOP
MD 1 (Gilchrist/Open)
AL-2 (Everett/Open)
CA-4 (Doolittle/Open)
OH-1 (Chabot)
FL 21 (L. Diaz Balart)
NJ 5 (Garrett)
ID-1 (Sali)
PA-3 (English)
AZ 3 (Shadegg)
LA-4 (McCrery/Open)
IL-18 (LaHood/Open)
NE-1 (Terry)
NM-2 (Pearce)
MI-7 (Walberg)
MO-6 (Graves)
MO-9 (Hulshof)
VA-4 (Drake)
LIKELY GOP (Florida only)
FL-13 (Buchanan)
The Conservative QB Club
I've theorized for many years that Football players and fans represent the more conservative elements in American society: If you want to understand red America go to a College Football game on Saturday or if you want to understand purple America go to an NFL game. This is in contrast to College Basketball and the NBA where the players and fans tend to lean to the left with some very notable exceptions (Bob Knight anyone?).
This year as with almost every Presidential or Congressional cycles current and former NFL Quarterbacks are making their voice known in the political process. Almost in unison these stars are stumping for John McCain and local Republican candidates. Let's start with John Elway a longtime Republican whose presence on the campaign trail has helped John McCain close the gap in Colorado. Brady Quinn has been dispatched in Ohio, and Indiana states where he has played NFL and College football. Troy Aikman is hitting the trail for McCain. In the recent past Jim Kelly, Peyton Manning, Terry Bradshaw, Mark Brunnel, Matt Hasslebeck, Jim Harbaugh, Chris Weinke and of course the former Congressmen Jack Kemp and JC Watts have all openly stumped for GOP candidates.
The sheer number of former QBs and other former football stars that have run for office like Steve Largent, Peter Boulware and others has to be attributed to a combination of financial considerations as to the violent ruggedness of Football as opposed to the soulful individualism of Basketball. For years Basketball players have tended to lean left. Bill Bradley and Tom McMillen went to Congress as liberal Democrats, and currently Kevin Johnson is running for Mayor of Sacramento on a very liberal platform. National Championship coaches Bill Self and Rick Pitino have stumped for Democrats previously in the red states they coach in and the great Dean Smith was perhaps the most liberal minded and politically charged Basketball coach of all. Other former NBA players like the late Dave DeBusschere, Walt Frazier, Julius Erving, Phil Jackson, Ernie Grunfeld and even Michael Jordan, have stumped for Democrats. This year Alonzo Mourning, and LeBron James lead the legion of NBA players for Democrats.
The Football/Basketball divide can even be found among fans from my experiences. While crossover fans come from both political parties and all ideological stripes, fans who openly prefer one sport to the other tend to fall into the Conservative category if Football fans or the Liberal category if Basketball fans.
The Democrats have had successes wooing a single former QB to its ranks. Heath Shuler, the runner up for the 1993 Heisman Trophy and classic NFL failure was elected to Congress as a Democrat in 2006. Shuler is very conservative on social issues in the QB/Football mold even preferring not to campaign on Sundays and taking the typical conservative line on abortion, guns and gay rights. However, Shuler is an economic populist putting his view on financial issues and Government spending at direct odds with his Quarterback club brethren, and making him fit comfortably on the Democratic left on economics. Perhaps his fellow QBs even mutter the terms "socialist" and "tax ans spend liberal" to discuss Shuler who has clearly deviated from the standard NFL QB position.
Can McCain ride the popularity of NFL QBs and Football fans in general to an Election 2008 victory? Likely not, but it's interesting to note for all the Hollywood bashing Republicans do, that they have their own arsenal of celebrities lining up to play the attack dog role for Conservative ideals.
This year as with almost every Presidential or Congressional cycles current and former NFL Quarterbacks are making their voice known in the political process. Almost in unison these stars are stumping for John McCain and local Republican candidates. Let's start with John Elway a longtime Republican whose presence on the campaign trail has helped John McCain close the gap in Colorado. Brady Quinn has been dispatched in Ohio, and Indiana states where he has played NFL and College football. Troy Aikman is hitting the trail for McCain. In the recent past Jim Kelly, Peyton Manning, Terry Bradshaw, Mark Brunnel, Matt Hasslebeck, Jim Harbaugh, Chris Weinke and of course the former Congressmen Jack Kemp and JC Watts have all openly stumped for GOP candidates.
The sheer number of former QBs and other former football stars that have run for office like Steve Largent, Peter Boulware and others has to be attributed to a combination of financial considerations as to the violent ruggedness of Football as opposed to the soulful individualism of Basketball. For years Basketball players have tended to lean left. Bill Bradley and Tom McMillen went to Congress as liberal Democrats, and currently Kevin Johnson is running for Mayor of Sacramento on a very liberal platform. National Championship coaches Bill Self and Rick Pitino have stumped for Democrats previously in the red states they coach in and the great Dean Smith was perhaps the most liberal minded and politically charged Basketball coach of all. Other former NBA players like the late Dave DeBusschere, Walt Frazier, Julius Erving, Phil Jackson, Ernie Grunfeld and even Michael Jordan, have stumped for Democrats. This year Alonzo Mourning, and LeBron James lead the legion of NBA players for Democrats.
The Football/Basketball divide can even be found among fans from my experiences. While crossover fans come from both political parties and all ideological stripes, fans who openly prefer one sport to the other tend to fall into the Conservative category if Football fans or the Liberal category if Basketball fans.
The Democrats have had successes wooing a single former QB to its ranks. Heath Shuler, the runner up for the 1993 Heisman Trophy and classic NFL failure was elected to Congress as a Democrat in 2006. Shuler is very conservative on social issues in the QB/Football mold even preferring not to campaign on Sundays and taking the typical conservative line on abortion, guns and gay rights. However, Shuler is an economic populist putting his view on financial issues and Government spending at direct odds with his Quarterback club brethren, and making him fit comfortably on the Democratic left on economics. Perhaps his fellow QBs even mutter the terms "socialist" and "tax ans spend liberal" to discuss Shuler who has clearly deviated from the standard NFL QB position.
Can McCain ride the popularity of NFL QBs and Football fans in general to an Election 2008 victory? Likely not, but it's interesting to note for all the Hollywood bashing Republicans do, that they have their own arsenal of celebrities lining up to play the attack dog role for Conservative ideals.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
House Race Ratings: Nov 1
Changes in status since the last edition in RED
DEM HELD SEATS
LIKELY GOP
FL 16 (Mahoney)
PA 11 (Kanjorski)
LEANS GOP
TX 22 (Lampson)
TOSS UP
PA 12 (Murtha)
MS 1 (Childers)
LA 6 (Cazayoux)
GA 8 (Marshall)
LEANS DEM
AL 5 (Cramer/Open)
IL 14 (Foster)
WI 8 (Kagen)
NH 1 (Shea- Porter)
KS 2 (Boyda)
CA 11 (McNerney)
PA 4 (Altimire)
KY 3 (Yarmouth)
REPUBLICAN HELD SEATS
LIKELY DEMOCRATIC
VA 11 (Davis/Open)
LEANS DEMOCRATIC
FL 8 (Keller)
FL 24 (Feeney)
NC 8 (Hayes)
AK-AL (Young)
NY 13 (Fossella)
NY 25 (Walsh/Open)
NY 29 (Kuhl)
NM 1 (Wilson/Open)
IL 10 (Kirk)
MN 3 (Ramstad/Open)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)
TOSS UP
FL-25 (M Diaz Balart)
NY 26 (Reynolds/Open)
MN 6 (Bachman)
NV 3 (Porter)
OH 2 (Schmidt)
OH 15 (Pryce/Open)
OH 16 (Regula/Open)
AZ 1 (Renzi/Open)
IL 11 (Weller/Open)
CT 4 (Shays)
WY-AL (Cubin/Open)
WA 8 (Reichart)
CO 4 (Musgrave)
LEANS GOP
MD 1 (Gilchrist/Open)
AL-2 (Everett/Open)
CA-4 (Doolittle/Open)
OH-1 (Chabot)
FL 21 (L. Diaz Balart)
NJ 5 (Garrett)
ID-1 (Sali)
PA-3 (English)
AZ 3 (Shadegg)
LA-4 (McCrery/Open)
IL-18 (LaHood/Open)
NE-1 (Terry)
LIKELY GOP (Florida only)
FL-13 (Buchanan)
DEM HELD SEATS
LIKELY GOP
FL 16 (Mahoney)
PA 11 (Kanjorski)
LEANS GOP
TX 22 (Lampson)
TOSS UP
PA 12 (Murtha)
MS 1 (Childers)
LA 6 (Cazayoux)
GA 8 (Marshall)
LEANS DEM
AL 5 (Cramer/Open)
IL 14 (Foster)
WI 8 (Kagen)
NH 1 (Shea- Porter)
KS 2 (Boyda)
CA 11 (McNerney)
PA 4 (Altimire)
KY 3 (Yarmouth)
REPUBLICAN HELD SEATS
LIKELY DEMOCRATIC
VA 11 (Davis/Open)
LEANS DEMOCRATIC
FL 8 (Keller)
FL 24 (Feeney)
NC 8 (Hayes)
AK-AL (Young)
NY 13 (Fossella)
NY 25 (Walsh/Open)
NY 29 (Kuhl)
NM 1 (Wilson/Open)
IL 10 (Kirk)
MN 3 (Ramstad/Open)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)
TOSS UP
FL-25 (M Diaz Balart)
NY 26 (Reynolds/Open)
MN 6 (Bachman)
NV 3 (Porter)
OH 2 (Schmidt)
OH 15 (Pryce/Open)
OH 16 (Regula/Open)
AZ 1 (Renzi/Open)
IL 11 (Weller/Open)
CT 4 (Shays)
WY-AL (Cubin/Open)
WA 8 (Reichart)
CO 4 (Musgrave)
LEANS GOP
MD 1 (Gilchrist/Open)
AL-2 (Everett/Open)
CA-4 (Doolittle/Open)
OH-1 (Chabot)
FL 21 (L. Diaz Balart)
NJ 5 (Garrett)
ID-1 (Sali)
PA-3 (English)
AZ 3 (Shadegg)
LA-4 (McCrery/Open)
IL-18 (LaHood/Open)
NE-1 (Terry)
LIKELY GOP (Florida only)
FL-13 (Buchanan)
Friday, October 31, 2008
House Race Ratings: Oct 31
Changes in status since the last edition in RED
DEM HELD SEATS
LIKELY GOP
FL 16 (Mahoney)
PA 11 (Kanjorski)
LEANS GOP
TX 22 (Lampson)
TOSS UP
PA 12 (Murtha)
MS 1 (Childers)
LA 6 (Cazayoux)
GA 8 (Marshall)
LEANS DEM
AL 5 (Cramer/Open)
IL 14 (Foster)
WI 8 (Kagen)
NH 1 (Shea- Porter)
KS 2 (Boyda)
CA 11 (McNerney)
PA 4 (Altimire)
KY 3 (Yarmouth)
REPUBLICAN HELD SEATS
LIKELY DEMOCRATIC
VA 11 (Davis/Open)
LEANS DEMOCRATIC
FL 8 (Keller)
FL 24 (Feeney)
NC 8 (Hayes)
AK-AL (Young)
NY 13 (Fossella)
NY 25 (Walsh/Open)
NY 29 (Kuhl)
NM 1 (Wilson/Open)
IL 10 (Kirk)
MN 3 (Ramstad/Open)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)
TOSS UP
NY 26 (Reynolds/Open)
MN 6 (Bachman)
NV 3 (Porter)
OH 2 (Schmidt)
OH 15 (Pryce/Open)
OH 16 (Regula/Open)
AZ 1 (Renzi/Open)
IL 11 (Weller/Open)
CT 4 (Shays)
WY-AL (Cubin/Open)
WA 8 (Reichart)
CO 4 (Musgrave)
LEANS GOP
MD 1 (Gilchrist/Open)
AL-2 (Everett/Open)
CA-4 (Doolittle/Open)
OH-1 (Chabot)
FL 21 (L. Diaz Balart)
FL 25 (M. Diaz Balart)
NJ 5 (Garrett)
ID-1 (Sali)
PA-3 (English)
AZ 3 (Shadegg)
LA-4 (McCrery/Open)
IL-18 (LaHood/Open)
LIKELY GOP (Florida only)
FL-13 (Buchanan)
DEM HELD SEATS
LIKELY GOP
FL 16 (Mahoney)
PA 11 (Kanjorski)
LEANS GOP
TX 22 (Lampson)
TOSS UP
PA 12 (Murtha)
MS 1 (Childers)
LA 6 (Cazayoux)
GA 8 (Marshall)
LEANS DEM
AL 5 (Cramer/Open)
IL 14 (Foster)
WI 8 (Kagen)
NH 1 (Shea- Porter)
KS 2 (Boyda)
CA 11 (McNerney)
PA 4 (Altimire)
KY 3 (Yarmouth)
REPUBLICAN HELD SEATS
LIKELY DEMOCRATIC
VA 11 (Davis/Open)
LEANS DEMOCRATIC
FL 8 (Keller)
FL 24 (Feeney)
NC 8 (Hayes)
AK-AL (Young)
NY 13 (Fossella)
NY 25 (Walsh/Open)
NY 29 (Kuhl)
NM 1 (Wilson/Open)
IL 10 (Kirk)
MN 3 (Ramstad/Open)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)
TOSS UP
NY 26 (Reynolds/Open)
MN 6 (Bachman)
NV 3 (Porter)
OH 2 (Schmidt)
OH 15 (Pryce/Open)
OH 16 (Regula/Open)
AZ 1 (Renzi/Open)
IL 11 (Weller/Open)
CT 4 (Shays)
WY-AL (Cubin/Open)
WA 8 (Reichart)
CO 4 (Musgrave)
LEANS GOP
MD 1 (Gilchrist/Open)
AL-2 (Everett/Open)
CA-4 (Doolittle/Open)
OH-1 (Chabot)
FL 21 (L. Diaz Balart)
FL 25 (M. Diaz Balart)
NJ 5 (Garrett)
ID-1 (Sali)
PA-3 (English)
AZ 3 (Shadegg)
LA-4 (McCrery/Open)
IL-18 (LaHood/Open)
LIKELY GOP (Florida only)
FL-13 (Buchanan)
Thursday, October 30, 2008
House Race Ratings
For the last five days before Election 2008 I have decided to mimic Stu Rothenberg and Charlie Cook the best way I can: by producing my own ratings for each strongly contested House race in the nation using the most recent public poll data as well as my long standing knowledge of these districts which in most cases goes back to the early 1990s. Also factored in are historical trends. I will produce these lists daily until the election.
Here are the ratings for Thursday October 30th
DEM HELD SEATS
LIKELY GOP
FL 16 (Mahoney)
LEANS GOP
PA 11 (Kanjorski)
TX 22 (Lampson)
TOSS UP
AL 5 (Cramer/Open)
PA 12 (Murtha)
MS 1 (Childers)
LA 6 (Cazayoux)
GA 8 (Marshall)
LEANS DEM
IL 14 (Foster)
WI 8 (Kagen)
NH 1 (Shea- Porter)
KS 2 (Boyda)
CA 11 (McNerney)
PA 4 (Altimire)
KY 3 (Yarmouth)
REPUBLICAN HELD SEATS
LIKELY DEMOCRATIC
VA 11 (Davis/Open)
LEANS DEMOCRATIC
FL 24 (Feeney)
NC 8 (Hayes)
AK-AL (Young)
NY 13 (Fossella)
NY 25 (Walsh)
NY 26 (Reynolds)
NY 29 (Kuhl)
NM 1 (Wilson/Open)
IL 10 (Kirk)
MN 3 (Ramstad/Open)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)
TOSS UP
MN 6 (Bachman)
FL 8 (Keller)
NV 3 (Porter)
OH 2 (Schmidt)
OH 15 (Pryce/Open)
OH 16 (Regula/Open)
AZ 1 (Renzi/Open)
IL 11 (Weller/Open)
CT 4 (Shays)
MD 1 (Gilchrist/Open)
WY-AL (Cubin/Open)
WA 8 (Reichart)
CO 4 (Musgrave)
LEANS GOP
AL-2 (Everett/Open)
CA-4 (Doolittle/Open)
OH-1 (Chabot)
FL 21 (L. Diaz Balart)
FL 25 (M. Diaz Balart)
NJ 5 (Garrett)
ID-1 (Sali)
PA-3 (English)
AZ 3 (Shadegg)
LA-4 (McCrery/Open)
IL-18 (LaHood/Open)
LIKELY GOP (Florida only)
FL-13 (Buchanan)
For daily updates please visit kartiksworld.blogspot.com
Here are the ratings for Thursday October 30th
DEM HELD SEATS
LIKELY GOP
FL 16 (Mahoney)
LEANS GOP
PA 11 (Kanjorski)
TX 22 (Lampson)
TOSS UP
AL 5 (Cramer/Open)
PA 12 (Murtha)
MS 1 (Childers)
LA 6 (Cazayoux)
GA 8 (Marshall)
LEANS DEM
IL 14 (Foster)
WI 8 (Kagen)
NH 1 (Shea- Porter)
KS 2 (Boyda)
CA 11 (McNerney)
PA 4 (Altimire)
KY 3 (Yarmouth)
REPUBLICAN HELD SEATS
LIKELY DEMOCRATIC
VA 11 (Davis/Open)
LEANS DEMOCRATIC
FL 24 (Feeney)
NC 8 (Hayes)
AK-AL (Young)
NY 13 (Fossella)
NY 25 (Walsh)
NY 26 (Reynolds)
NY 29 (Kuhl)
NM 1 (Wilson/Open)
IL 10 (Kirk)
MN 3 (Ramstad/Open)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)
TOSS UP
MN 6 (Bachman)
FL 8 (Keller)
NV 3 (Porter)
OH 2 (Schmidt)
OH 15 (Pryce/Open)
OH 16 (Regula/Open)
AZ 1 (Renzi/Open)
IL 11 (Weller/Open)
CT 4 (Shays)
MD 1 (Gilchrist/Open)
WY-AL (Cubin/Open)
WA 8 (Reichart)
CO 4 (Musgrave)
LEANS GOP
AL-2 (Everett/Open)
CA-4 (Doolittle/Open)
OH-1 (Chabot)
FL 21 (L. Diaz Balart)
FL 25 (M. Diaz Balart)
NJ 5 (Garrett)
ID-1 (Sali)
PA-3 (English)
AZ 3 (Shadegg)
LA-4 (McCrery/Open)
IL-18 (LaHood/Open)
LIKELY GOP (Florida only)
FL-13 (Buchanan)
For daily updates please visit kartiksworld.blogspot.com
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Will the South Sink Obama? (And what the term Socialism means in the South)
Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, Democrats have won exactly three Presidential elections. In the seven losing Democratic campaigns, Democratic nominees have only once carried a a single southern state (I define Southern states as former Confederate states. So in other words Kentucky and Oklahoma are not Southern states by my definition): Hubert Humphrey carried President Johnson's home state of Texas in 1968 and Jimmy Carter carried his own home state of Georgia in 1980. In the three victorious Democratic campaigns, the party has carried a grand total of 20 Southern states. In fact the Democrats have carried every single state in the South in a victorious Presidential election since 1968 with the exception of Virginia, traditionally the most reactionary rim south state which last voted for a Democrat in 1964.
Barrack Obama is my choice for President. I have editorialized at length during the primary how limited I believed Senator Hillary Clinton was a national candidate. I correctly foretasted that Senator Obama would be much more competitive in the interior western states as well as in Midwestern populist states like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa than the cookie cutter Democrat with baggage that Clinton is. I however appear to have been wrong in believing Obama's ability to transcend race and regional appeal would make him attractive in the South. Sadly this is not all Obama's fault nor due to Southern voters being left to their own devices. They are being manipulated.
Surprisingly Obama currently leads by a big margin in Virginia, increasingly suburban and less reactionary than it once was. But Obama is not even slightly competitive in rim/border South states like Arkansas and Tennessee which have a much greater progressive tradition than the deep south. Obama looks to have a slight shot of carrying North Carolina on election day but is not polling well in Louisiana, a state Bill Clinton carried twice or Georgia which Clinton carried in 1992 and lost by a single point in 1996. It is also highly likely inspite of the current polls that Obama will not carry Florida.
Obviously the National Democratic Party is too toxic right now in the Deep South to seriously entertain thoughts of competing in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama or Mississippi. However, Obama's poor poll numbers in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana are to me very worrying. In fact in the case of Tennessee and Louisiana it is possible Michael Dukakis ended up with a better percentage of the votes than Obama will. That's flat out unacceptable for a new kind of Democrat, but perhaps this owes itself more to John McCain's race baiting.
Much of this is not Obama's fault. Southern whites of course vote based on race more often than any other white voters in the nation. Moreover, the national media which is made almost entirely of elites in New York and Washington who look down upon the South, have not picked up on the use of code words by John McCain. Calling Obama a socialist is like throwing red meat to white southerners. "Socialist" in Southern political lingo means "for the blacks." Southern whites fear Government programs and interference will help poor blacks: that's why code words like welfare and crime are often used also in Southern campaigns. Some examples of the socialist terminology:
Senator McCain has now added to his legacy as a typical Arizona Republican by race baiting his way to a potential Presidential victory. For someone who served his country so honorably in the past it is a sad way to conduct what could be his last campaign.
Barrack Obama is my choice for President. I have editorialized at length during the primary how limited I believed Senator Hillary Clinton was a national candidate. I correctly foretasted that Senator Obama would be much more competitive in the interior western states as well as in Midwestern populist states like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa than the cookie cutter Democrat with baggage that Clinton is. I however appear to have been wrong in believing Obama's ability to transcend race and regional appeal would make him attractive in the South. Sadly this is not all Obama's fault nor due to Southern voters being left to their own devices. They are being manipulated.
Surprisingly Obama currently leads by a big margin in Virginia, increasingly suburban and less reactionary than it once was. But Obama is not even slightly competitive in rim/border South states like Arkansas and Tennessee which have a much greater progressive tradition than the deep south. Obama looks to have a slight shot of carrying North Carolina on election day but is not polling well in Louisiana, a state Bill Clinton carried twice or Georgia which Clinton carried in 1992 and lost by a single point in 1996. It is also highly likely inspite of the current polls that Obama will not carry Florida.
Obviously the National Democratic Party is too toxic right now in the Deep South to seriously entertain thoughts of competing in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama or Mississippi. However, Obama's poor poll numbers in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana are to me very worrying. In fact in the case of Tennessee and Louisiana it is possible Michael Dukakis ended up with a better percentage of the votes than Obama will. That's flat out unacceptable for a new kind of Democrat, but perhaps this owes itself more to John McCain's race baiting.
Much of this is not Obama's fault. Southern whites of course vote based on race more often than any other white voters in the nation. Moreover, the national media which is made almost entirely of elites in New York and Washington who look down upon the South, have not picked up on the use of code words by John McCain. Calling Obama a socialist is like throwing red meat to white southerners. "Socialist" in Southern political lingo means "for the blacks." Southern whites fear Government programs and interference will help poor blacks: that's why code words like welfare and crime are often used also in Southern campaigns. Some examples of the socialist terminology:
- In 1964 when Hayden Burns was running against Robert King High in the Democratic Primary for Florida Governor, Burns from Jacksonville attacked High from Miami as a "socilaist." His justification? High supported civil rights for African-Americans. Burns won the primary.
- In 1966 George Wallace accussed Alabama Attorney General Richmond Flowers of "bringing socialism to Alabama." Flowers crime? Enforcing federal civil rights laws that protected blacks.Flowers got the ultimate revenge sending his son, future Olympian Richmond Flowers Jr. to the University of Tennessee to play Football. The younger Flowers became the Alabama Crimson Tide's biggest nemesis for the next few seasons.
- In 1964 Strom Thurmond in his speech leaving the Democratic Party accused President Lyndon Johnson was "moving the country towards a socialist dictatorship." Johnson had just signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- In 1967 John Bell Williams was elected Governor of Mississippi as a Democrat despite attacking the National Party as a " Soviet Style Socialist Party." Williams would become a loyalist to Richard Nixon years later.
Senator McCain has now added to his legacy as a typical Arizona Republican by race baiting his way to a potential Presidential victory. For someone who served his country so honorably in the past it is a sad way to conduct what could be his last campaign.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Congressional Races Galore
As a student of Congressional politics (I've worked in Washington DC in the House and obsesses over the body so much that I have every Almanac of American Politics since it was first published in the early 1970s) Florida has been a boring place to be through the years. Since the past 1980 census redistricting, Florida has had close races here and there. The 1988 race where longtime incumbent Bill Chappell was knocked off, the 1994 open seat race for Jim Bacchus old seat and the 2000 Shaw/Bloom race. But for the most part, Florida has been a bore. Sitting in Florida election night working on localized races has meant watching the TV ticker or the computer to find out what trends were developing in Congressional races nationally. However, 2008 has changed that.
Florida is the battleground in the US House. Florida has become what Ohio, Pennsylvania and even in recent times Texas or Illinois has become: a test as to whether a congressional election is actually a wave election. For example in 1996, when Bill Clinton was re-elected he found himself embroiled in a campaign fund raising scandal which turned a potential Democratic rout, into a Republican year in everything but the Presidential race. (The Dems actually picked up House seats but almost all were against fluke GOP winners from two years earlier: almost every close race cut towards the GOP that year.) Now in 2008, Florida will test whether or not this is truly a wave election.
Here are the congressional races to watch in Florida:
Florida is the battleground in the US House. Florida has become what Ohio, Pennsylvania and even in recent times Texas or Illinois has become: a test as to whether a congressional election is actually a wave election. For example in 1996, when Bill Clinton was re-elected he found himself embroiled in a campaign fund raising scandal which turned a potential Democratic rout, into a Republican year in everything but the Presidential race. (The Dems actually picked up House seats but almost all were against fluke GOP winners from two years earlier: almost every close race cut towards the GOP that year.) Now in 2008, Florida will test whether or not this is truly a wave election.
Here are the congressional races to watch in Florida:
- Incumbent Republican Tom Feeney vs Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)
- Incumbent Republican Ric Keller vs Alan Grayson (FL-8)
- Incumbent Republican Vern Buchanan vs Christine Jennings (FL-13)
- Incumbent Republican Lincoln Diaz Balart vs Raul Martinez (FL-21)
- Incumbent Republican Mario Diaz Balart vs Joe Garcia (FL-25)
Friday, October 24, 2008
Should Al Qaeda Hope for a McCain Victory?
John McCain projects an image of a military veteran who supported the Iraq war. But for multiple reasons, the leadership of Al Qaeda must be hoping for a McCain victory on November 4th. John McCain is an American hero. He has done more over a lifetime to earn the Presidency than Barack Obama. No one whether you support Obama or McCain can objectively dispute otherwise. (Here in Florida, exit polls recorded in 1998, that 93% felt Buddy McKay had done more to earn the Governorship than Jeb Bush, but of course Bush won 55%-45%.)
However McCain has several liabilities at this time which will empower Al Qaeda. Foremost among these is McCain unwillingness to use American forces to cross the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and crush Bin Laden and his deputies in tribal controlled areas of Pakistan. In the second debate McCain claimed Obama's declarations that he'd chase down Al Qaeda in Pakistan unilaterally showed Obama's naivety. In fact it showed McCain despite supporting virtual unilateral action in Iraq, in violation of Iraq's sovereignty was naive enough to respect the sovereignty of Pakistan who currently harbour terrorists that killed over 3,000 Americans.
I am with Obama on this. The United States has gotten past the point where we need to ask Pakistan's permission to attack Al Qaeada. For seven years the Pakistani authorities have assured President Bush they were chasing Al Qaeda and for seven years they have failed. Under McCain's naive strategy the US would be at the mercy of Pakistani authorities who are responsive first and foremost to an anti-American, pro Islamist public.
McCain's support of the sideshow in Iraq helped Al Qaeda recruit terrorists who hate America at an alarming rate. Yet McCain's continued emphasis on "winning the war in Iraq" and discussions of Iran seem to ignore the fact that those who perpetrated the greatest crime on humanity on September 11th 2001 are still at large. Those terrorists whose very survival threatens America are not important to John McCain. By persecuting the war in Iraq, Al Qaeda has grown stronger and American interests have been compromised. McCain's lack of decisiveness in the economic crisis of this month also demonstrated a potential lack of strong Presidential action should terrorists strike America. This we cannot afford.
A McCain victory would likely result in the United States allowing Al Qaeda more time to regroup in the mountains of Northwestern Pakistan. With a McCain victory comes more time for terrorists to plot attacks on the United States and a less defensible homeland since we will have tied up many of the most essential troops in the Iraqi war a sideshow in the global war on terror. The central front in the war on terror is Afghanistan and Pakistan. John McCain wants to tread carefully in that region while Barack Obama wants to kill the terrorists. If you were in Al Qaeda's shoes wouldn't you be hoping for a McCain victory?
However McCain has several liabilities at this time which will empower Al Qaeda. Foremost among these is McCain unwillingness to use American forces to cross the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and crush Bin Laden and his deputies in tribal controlled areas of Pakistan. In the second debate McCain claimed Obama's declarations that he'd chase down Al Qaeda in Pakistan unilaterally showed Obama's naivety. In fact it showed McCain despite supporting virtual unilateral action in Iraq, in violation of Iraq's sovereignty was naive enough to respect the sovereignty of Pakistan who currently harbour terrorists that killed over 3,000 Americans.
I am with Obama on this. The United States has gotten past the point where we need to ask Pakistan's permission to attack Al Qaeada. For seven years the Pakistani authorities have assured President Bush they were chasing Al Qaeda and for seven years they have failed. Under McCain's naive strategy the US would be at the mercy of Pakistani authorities who are responsive first and foremost to an anti-American, pro Islamist public.
McCain's support of the sideshow in Iraq helped Al Qaeda recruit terrorists who hate America at an alarming rate. Yet McCain's continued emphasis on "winning the war in Iraq" and discussions of Iran seem to ignore the fact that those who perpetrated the greatest crime on humanity on September 11th 2001 are still at large. Those terrorists whose very survival threatens America are not important to John McCain. By persecuting the war in Iraq, Al Qaeda has grown stronger and American interests have been compromised. McCain's lack of decisiveness in the economic crisis of this month also demonstrated a potential lack of strong Presidential action should terrorists strike America. This we cannot afford.
A McCain victory would likely result in the United States allowing Al Qaeda more time to regroup in the mountains of Northwestern Pakistan. With a McCain victory comes more time for terrorists to plot attacks on the United States and a less defensible homeland since we will have tied up many of the most essential troops in the Iraqi war a sideshow in the global war on terror. The central front in the war on terror is Afghanistan and Pakistan. John McCain wants to tread carefully in that region while Barack Obama wants to kill the terrorists. If you were in Al Qaeda's shoes wouldn't you be hoping for a McCain victory?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Election Coverage
Beginning Monday October 27th we will have daily blurbs on election related happenings in Florida. Not just the Presidential race, but Congressional and State Legislative races as well. Please check back beginning Monday for updates.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
What's the Matter With Kansas? Clinton Elites Think Kansas Doesn't Matter
While the continued drumbeat from the Clinton campaign about Senator Barack Obama's "elitism" is mildly amusing, It is in fact Senator Clinton and her husband who continued the long descent of the Democratic Party away from the ideals and values of Middle America. Thomas Frank's 2004 bestseller discussed the Democratic Party's bi-coastal elitism and its complete disconnect from middle America. That process has been completed in the 2008 fight for the Democratic nomination by Senator Hillary Clinton, whose campaign has indicated the only criteria important for determining who would be a stronger Democratic nominee is how the candidates perform in states which the Democrats have carried in the last four Presidential elections. How candidates perform in states the Democrats will need to pick up to create a clear national majority does not matter to the Clinton elites. States like Colorado, Virginia, Missouri and yes Kansas that have been trending Democratic lately are unimportant. States in the midwest that have been trending Republican like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa are too unimportant. Each of these seven states were carried by Barack Obama in the primaries and they represent perhaps the most important set of states in the 2008 General Election. The only states that matter are states which Senator Clinton carried, where independents and moderate Republicans will likely stay in the GOP fold because of the reputation of John McCain as a maverick.
A recent poll in the Indianapolis Star showed that Barack Obama, despite trailing in the Democratic Primary is in a much stronger position to win moderate Republican votes in the fall than is the uniquely polarizing Senator Clinton. Add to this the recent irresponsible, cowboy rhetoric by Senator Clinton with regards to use of nuclear weapons and the US military and you realize Republicans disaffected by George W. Bush's war policies may find a more reasonable, statesmanlike and sane alternative in Senator McCain should Senator Clinton steal the Democratic nomination.
But electoral math and logic does not matter to the Clinton team. They are determined to win the nomination regardless of the long term negative impact it creates for the Democratic Party of for Progressive Liberalism. They are even willing to lose a Presidential election for the Democratic Party in order to stay in power.
A recent poll in the Indianapolis Star showed that Barack Obama, despite trailing in the Democratic Primary is in a much stronger position to win moderate Republican votes in the fall than is the uniquely polarizing Senator Clinton. Add to this the recent irresponsible, cowboy rhetoric by Senator Clinton with regards to use of nuclear weapons and the US military and you realize Republicans disaffected by George W. Bush's war policies may find a more reasonable, statesmanlike and sane alternative in Senator McCain should Senator Clinton steal the Democratic nomination.
But electoral math and logic does not matter to the Clinton team. They are determined to win the nomination regardless of the long term negative impact it creates for the Democratic Party of for Progressive Liberalism. They are even willing to lose a Presidential election for the Democratic Party in order to stay in power.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Cowgirl Clinton's Rhetoric More Dangerous than Bush's
I am absolutely flabbergasted by the rhetoric coming from the mouth of Democratic Presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton in the past few days. We know Senator Clinton has tried to stake out moderate ground on foreign policy as opposed to her more dovish and inexperienced opponent, Senator Barack Obama, but her recent statements not only show Clinton to be a poor campaigner, but possibly too reactionary to be trusted as Commander in Chief.
Senator Clinton discusses her qualification to answer the phone at 3am in a recent television advertisement and consistently berates her opponent for the Democratic nomination as inexperienced and naive. However, two comments by Senator Clinton in the last week have me, a liberal Democrat believing John McCain would be a more responsible leader when it comes to foreign policy than Senator Clinton. (I do not however think Senator McCain has the depth of understanding of domestic and economic issues to be taken seriously as a Presidential candidate)
Last week Senator Clinton took a completely irresponsible and indefensible position of using nuclear weapons to protect gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from a potential Iranian attack. This comment made during a Presidential debate was sadly not challenged by Senator Obama. But let's get something straight. Using nuclear weapons to protect Saudi Arabia, one of the largest exporters of terror and one of the nations most hostly opposed to the ideals of Western Christendom and the secular governments of the West, of which the United States belongs is not an acceptable position for the United States to be in. Moreover, these sorts of bombastic, cowboy like statements make the job of our policymakers in the State Department, including Secretary Rice (who despite her other faults has been trying to avoid a military confrontation with Iran) much more difficult.
Now Senator Clinton has used her bully pulpit to actively advocate using nuclear weapons to defend undemocratic regimes in the gulf. Yet many of her supporters continue to claim she will be reasoned and thoughtful in office.
Following that statement Senator Clinton dug in claiming she would under the right circumstances "totally obliterate Iran in the next ten years." Liberals who have poked fun at George W. Bush's many mis-statements and have claimed his rhetoric is over the top have thus far today been silent in their denunciation of Mrs. Clinton's cowgirl rhetoric. These sorts of statements not only reflect poorly in Senator Clinton but on the entire United States. Despite President Bush's many over the top comments about foreign policy, he has never talked about obliterating countries.
I understand that some of Senator Clinton's problem is as a woman with a polarizing liberal reputation she feels she has to appear to be tough. But a fine line exists between being tough and being dangerous and right now Senator Clinton has crossed the line into murky territory.
Senator Clinton discusses her qualification to answer the phone at 3am in a recent television advertisement and consistently berates her opponent for the Democratic nomination as inexperienced and naive. However, two comments by Senator Clinton in the last week have me, a liberal Democrat believing John McCain would be a more responsible leader when it comes to foreign policy than Senator Clinton. (I do not however think Senator McCain has the depth of understanding of domestic and economic issues to be taken seriously as a Presidential candidate)
Last week Senator Clinton took a completely irresponsible and indefensible position of using nuclear weapons to protect gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from a potential Iranian attack. This comment made during a Presidential debate was sadly not challenged by Senator Obama. But let's get something straight. Using nuclear weapons to protect Saudi Arabia, one of the largest exporters of terror and one of the nations most hostly opposed to the ideals of Western Christendom and the secular governments of the West, of which the United States belongs is not an acceptable position for the United States to be in. Moreover, these sorts of bombastic, cowboy like statements make the job of our policymakers in the State Department, including Secretary Rice (who despite her other faults has been trying to avoid a military confrontation with Iran) much more difficult.
Now Senator Clinton has used her bully pulpit to actively advocate using nuclear weapons to defend undemocratic regimes in the gulf. Yet many of her supporters continue to claim she will be reasoned and thoughtful in office.
Following that statement Senator Clinton dug in claiming she would under the right circumstances "totally obliterate Iran in the next ten years." Liberals who have poked fun at George W. Bush's many mis-statements and have claimed his rhetoric is over the top have thus far today been silent in their denunciation of Mrs. Clinton's cowgirl rhetoric. These sorts of statements not only reflect poorly in Senator Clinton but on the entire United States. Despite President Bush's many over the top comments about foreign policy, he has never talked about obliterating countries.
I understand that some of Senator Clinton's problem is as a woman with a polarizing liberal reputation she feels she has to appear to be tough. But a fine line exists between being tough and being dangerous and right now Senator Clinton has crossed the line into murky territory.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Deception, Distortion and Dishonesty: The Clinton Way
Today's sorry drama of "plagiarism" by Barack Obama reminded me of why I so disdain the Clinton family and why the Democratic Party has had a certain moral bankruptcy over the past several years. For the Clinton's winning, even at the expense of the party whom they have used as a vehicle to power or at the expense of the few causes they may truly find near and dear to their heart is the ultimate goal.
This is a family who as America's first family engaged in in a ruthless battle to the death with their political opponents, and so polluted the air in Washington that the politics of personal destruction became the way of the capitol. Barack Obama, promising a new politics not only threatens the Clinton's personal survival, but the survival of the culture of petty partisanship and shouting that the Clinton's fostered and their cronies have profited from. As someone involved in Democratic Party politics during the Clinton years, the stew that was brewed by the Clinton machine was so distasteful to someone like myself who puts values and issues above personality and petty hatred. Thus, while I am Democrat to my core I don't involve myself in partisan activities any longer.
The Clinton's violated the most basic Campaign Finance laws in the 1996 re-election campaign. These laws were meant to protect American citizens from a large and corrupt government and stop the potential sabotage of American policy by foreign governments or foreign interests. While I do not believe President Bill Clinton compromised American security with his illegal fund raising he certainly allowed access to the White House for arms dealers and in the case of James Riady and the Lippo Group, may have been close to giving the Chinese Intelligence service unfathomable access to American officials. Clinton did not want to help the Chinese. He wanted to help himself raise money: once again the Clinton's ambition to raise money and keep power met national security head on and the power of ambition won. In other words, we as Americans should be thankful Riady, Charlie Trie, and John Huang among others were caught before national security was in fact compromised.
Hillary Clinton's campaign operatives have accused Barack Obama or potentially having a problem of stealing others words. In a future post I will explore Mrs. Clinton's own record on this issue, including passages from her book "It Takes a Village." But even if Obama does steal words from others, stealing words is a lot less dangerous than potentially compromising national security. If a Clinton restoration was to occur, and times got tough, and Senator Clinton like her husband had such a poor first eighteen months in office that the GOP swept Congress like it did in 1994, would the same temptation occur for Mrs. Clinton to raise illegal money from foreign sources who are enemies of the United States as her husband did. Why should we take the chance? Why should we as Democrats allow our party to be prostituted for the gain of a single power hungry family? Why should we as Democrats live in the gutter with the equally destructive and nasty Republicans when we have an opportunity to make a clean break with Barack Obama? Why should we aspire to race to the bottom when Obama can restore our national and partisan pride?
This is a family who as America's first family engaged in in a ruthless battle to the death with their political opponents, and so polluted the air in Washington that the politics of personal destruction became the way of the capitol. Barack Obama, promising a new politics not only threatens the Clinton's personal survival, but the survival of the culture of petty partisanship and shouting that the Clinton's fostered and their cronies have profited from. As someone involved in Democratic Party politics during the Clinton years, the stew that was brewed by the Clinton machine was so distasteful to someone like myself who puts values and issues above personality and petty hatred. Thus, while I am Democrat to my core I don't involve myself in partisan activities any longer.
The Clinton's violated the most basic Campaign Finance laws in the 1996 re-election campaign. These laws were meant to protect American citizens from a large and corrupt government and stop the potential sabotage of American policy by foreign governments or foreign interests. While I do not believe President Bill Clinton compromised American security with his illegal fund raising he certainly allowed access to the White House for arms dealers and in the case of James Riady and the Lippo Group, may have been close to giving the Chinese Intelligence service unfathomable access to American officials. Clinton did not want to help the Chinese. He wanted to help himself raise money: once again the Clinton's ambition to raise money and keep power met national security head on and the power of ambition won. In other words, we as Americans should be thankful Riady, Charlie Trie, and John Huang among others were caught before national security was in fact compromised.
Hillary Clinton's campaign operatives have accused Barack Obama or potentially having a problem of stealing others words. In a future post I will explore Mrs. Clinton's own record on this issue, including passages from her book "It Takes a Village." But even if Obama does steal words from others, stealing words is a lot less dangerous than potentially compromising national security. If a Clinton restoration was to occur, and times got tough, and Senator Clinton like her husband had such a poor first eighteen months in office that the GOP swept Congress like it did in 1994, would the same temptation occur for Mrs. Clinton to raise illegal money from foreign sources who are enemies of the United States as her husband did. Why should we take the chance? Why should we as Democrats allow our party to be prostituted for the gain of a single power hungry family? Why should we as Democrats live in the gutter with the equally destructive and nasty Republicans when we have an opportunity to make a clean break with Barack Obama? Why should we aspire to race to the bottom when Obama can restore our national and partisan pride?
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The Clinton Dynasty: Victory By Any Means
The continued attempts by Bill and Hillary Clinton to manipulate the media and public opinion for personal gain hearken us back to the selfish nature of the Clinton presidency itself. While the comment of MSNBC's David Shuster (whom I consider to be among the finest political correspondents on TV) were misplaced the ensuing bitterness and attacks on MSNBC by the Clinton "spin" machine make me recall why Howard Kurtz's late 1990s book Spin Cycle, was so well received throughout the country.
Careful subterfuge has always been a Clintonian trait. Impeachment looming? Wag the Dog! Bomb a foreign embassy with huge diplomatic consequences? Blame old maps! Records sought by Congress firing travel office staff and a land scandal? Attack the messenger! Losing primaries in caucuses in areas Democrats need to win? change the subject! Losing a grip the nomination that your family feels is owed to them? Subvert Democracy by courting super delegates to correct the "mistake" the heathens (the Democratic Party's rank in file voters) are making!
Everything has worked out the way it was meant to for the Clintons. Mario Cuomo got gun shy and didn't run for the Presidency in 1992. the GOP despite being in an upswing due largely to the ineptitude of the first Clinton term (after winning both houses of Congress in 1994 running against Bill Clinton) nominated a weak candidate and in 2000 Al Gore's failure to secure the Presidency after winning the popular vote and essentially winning Florida as well served the machine well. With Gore out of the picture, the Clinton's could count on eight years of George W. Bush as an interlude in the dynasty. Senator Clinton's votes and "reconciliatory" behavior in the Senate was meant in many ways to enable a Bush re-election to serve her own political needs. The greater cause of liberal/progressive politics was rejected in favor personal political gain, much as it was throughout the 1990s when personal survival was the name of the game in the Clinton White House.
The Clinton's arrogance has never failed to amaze me. Now their desire to win at all costs and reclaim something they feel entitled to makes them willing to trump Democracy, and the will of the party they have allowed as an enabler to their selfish needs. It's about time Democrats got up and smelled the stench coming from Clinton HQ and finally reclaimed the party which has been hijacked for the better part of fifteen years for the Clinton Dynasty and the dis-enlightenment it provides.
Careful subterfuge has always been a Clintonian trait. Impeachment looming? Wag the Dog! Bomb a foreign embassy with huge diplomatic consequences? Blame old maps! Records sought by Congress firing travel office staff and a land scandal? Attack the messenger! Losing primaries in caucuses in areas Democrats need to win? change the subject! Losing a grip the nomination that your family feels is owed to them? Subvert Democracy by courting super delegates to correct the "mistake" the heathens (the Democratic Party's rank in file voters) are making!
Everything has worked out the way it was meant to for the Clintons. Mario Cuomo got gun shy and didn't run for the Presidency in 1992. the GOP despite being in an upswing due largely to the ineptitude of the first Clinton term (after winning both houses of Congress in 1994 running against Bill Clinton) nominated a weak candidate and in 2000 Al Gore's failure to secure the Presidency after winning the popular vote and essentially winning Florida as well served the machine well. With Gore out of the picture, the Clinton's could count on eight years of George W. Bush as an interlude in the dynasty. Senator Clinton's votes and "reconciliatory" behavior in the Senate was meant in many ways to enable a Bush re-election to serve her own political needs. The greater cause of liberal/progressive politics was rejected in favor personal political gain, much as it was throughout the 1990s when personal survival was the name of the game in the Clinton White House.
The Clinton's arrogance has never failed to amaze me. Now their desire to win at all costs and reclaim something they feel entitled to makes them willing to trump Democracy, and the will of the party they have allowed as an enabler to their selfish needs. It's about time Democrats got up and smelled the stench coming from Clinton HQ and finally reclaimed the party which has been hijacked for the better part of fifteen years for the Clinton Dynasty and the dis-enlightenment it provides.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Obama Shows Red State Strength
Today on my early morning flight to
The returns from
But the big story is the West and the
Senator Hillary Clinton’s victories yesterday were almost exclusively in what are referred to as “Blue” states and “Purple” states where the party insiders and establishment control the political process. Obama’s victories were largely in Red and Purple states. This speaks well to Obama’s electability and ability to be competitive in places the Democrats must win and also to Senator Clinton’s limited appeal beyond the Democratic base. This is a consideration Democrats must ponder going forward. Senator Clinton’s negatives are sky high nationally and as I observed last night on
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Obama, Romney Weak Among Conservative Rural White Voters
Florida, ah Florida. My home state and the most representative microcosm of Americas population seems to have done it again. The field for President has been by Florida essentially narrowed to two serious national Presidential candidates: Hillary Clinton and John McCain who baring slip ups will coast to their party's nominations. It's not about the final tally as much as it is about the specific county returns that prove a failure to compete in rural areas for two big city Northern candidates who have either a racial or religious background which for many Americans is out of the political mainstream- Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Let me preface this discussion by saying I would prefer Obama to be the nominee of my party, the Democrats. I have as many of my writings have indicated for years now a disdain for the entire Clinton dynasty and the dis-enlightenment it has provided the Democratic Party. With my first choice, John Edwards out of the race, Obama is an inspirational and potentially transformational figure. However the continued dis-enlightenment triggered by the Clinton machine upon the Democratic Party seems to have made its impact in North Florida.
A careful examination of the most conservative rural North Florida Counties with the smallest African-American percentage indicates Barack Obama was a distant 3rd choice in most places behind Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. This trend was bucked by two large North Florida Counties with large student populations- Alachua and the University of Florida where Obama won narrowly and Leon and Florida State University where Obama won in a romp. (of the two major Florida universities, FSU tends to have the more liberal student body so the discrepancy there is not surprising.) But throughout the rest of the panhandle, where the African American population is under 30% Obama was smashed. In Holmes County for instance, where Richard Nixon got 97% of the votes against George McGovern in 1972, Obama received 10% of the vote as opposed to 49& for John Edwards and 30% for Hillary Clinton.
On the Republican side the very same Holmes County placed Mitt Romney in third at 20% behind Mike Huckabee and John McCain. Jackson County is another example of Romney finishing a distant 3rd in a North Florida County. Romney's strength in Florida tended to come from economic well to do areas: Collier and Lee Counties as well as specific upper income precincts in Metropolitan Jacksonville and Orlando. Romeny carried Seminole County outside Orlando which is perhaps the most economically conservative county in the state, and whose demographics are made up largely of refugees from high tax states like Romney's own Massachusetts, Ohio and Michigan.
So essentially what we have coming out of Florida is two niche campaigns with major financial and political backing: Obama and Romney, and two national campaigns in Clinton and McCain. Obviously both McCain and Bill Clinton have legendary tempers so while the game appears to be over the fat lady is not singing just yet. A slip up could occur under the rigors of the campaign for either front running camp and then a nominee who clearly will have to write off large portions of the electorate could emerge for either party.
A careful examination of the most conservative rural North Florida Counties with the smallest African-American percentage indicates Barack Obama was a distant 3rd choice in most places behind Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. This trend was bucked by two large North Florida Counties with large student populations- Alachua and the University of Florida where Obama won narrowly and Leon and Florida State University where Obama won in a romp. (of the two major Florida universities, FSU tends to have the more liberal student body so the discrepancy there is not surprising.) But throughout the rest of the panhandle, where the African American population is under 30% Obama was smashed. In Holmes County for instance, where Richard Nixon got 97% of the votes against George McGovern in 1972, Obama received 10% of the vote as opposed to 49& for John Edwards and 30% for Hillary Clinton.
On the Republican side the very same Holmes County placed Mitt Romney in third at 20% behind Mike Huckabee and John McCain. Jackson County is another example of Romney finishing a distant 3rd in a North Florida County. Romney's strength in Florida tended to come from economic well to do areas: Collier and Lee Counties as well as specific upper income precincts in Metropolitan Jacksonville and Orlando. Romeny carried Seminole County outside Orlando which is perhaps the most economically conservative county in the state, and whose demographics are made up largely of refugees from high tax states like Romney's own Massachusetts, Ohio and Michigan.
So essentially what we have coming out of Florida is two niche campaigns with major financial and political backing: Obama and Romney, and two national campaigns in Clinton and McCain. Obviously both McCain and Bill Clinton have legendary tempers so while the game appears to be over the fat lady is not singing just yet. A slip up could occur under the rigors of the campaign for either front running camp and then a nominee who clearly will have to write off large portions of the electorate could emerge for either party.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
The Clinton Dynasty: Bad for Democrats, Bad for America
Yesterday Hillary Clinton took a big step, possibly a definitive step towards securing the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination. In the time I have been watching Democratic Party politics (since 1980) if a candidate won New Hampshire they won the nomination with the exception of William Jefferson Clinton whose 1992 loss to Paul Tsongas can be excepted because Lowell, the home of the late great Senator Tsongas is just across the border in Massachusetts. (The record for Iowa is not so good: Al Gore in 2000 was the first candidate to be nominated after winning Iowa in 20 years) The gender gap I had predicted last week showed up in New Hampshire and will continue in all primary states. I hate to say this because I am most certainly not a backer of any Clinton who may appear on the ballot but this race for the nomination despite media protestations and the good fight Senator Obama and his legion of followers seem destined to continue is in all likelihood over.
How can one make that assumption after one narrow primary victory? In 1992 Bill Clinton was the last candidate in that Democratic field to win a primary or caucus (in Georgia) but he found a way to manipulate the media into ordaining him as the nominee soon after. Hillary Clinton and her clever handlers who put meaningless rhetorical lines on paper in her stump speeches are as Howard Kurtz described in his book Spin Cycle, "the best media manipulators in the country." Senator Clinton's appeal to this point in the campaign had largely been based on inevitability because after all she is a Clinton. Later this week or early next I'll detail how the Democratic Party ceased to be a truly national party under the watch of President William Jefferson Clinton and why it took twelve years to even partially reverse the losses of the Clinton years in the Congress, State Legislatures and Governorships for the party.
The Clinton family is aiming to be a dynasty that puts the welfare of the "royal family" above that of the party they belong to and represent and ultimately the country itself in many cases. The American psyche has a soft spot for royalty. Not knowing the struggles of our forefathers who threw off an oppressive Monarchy in the pursuit of liberty, today's TV driven American society became quickly obsessed with Princess Diana and various TV show and movie celebrities. William Jefferson Clinton understanding this dynamic better than anyone used the media to its advantage and the psychopathy of Democratic Party loyalists, desperate for any sort hero to worship in the 1990s after almost 30 years of Republican control of the executive branch to cast himself and his family in a "leading light" sense to the public.
Hillary Clinton's sense of entitlement is galling for any objective observer of the process especially one who has been watching these primaries from near or afar for over twenty years like myself. Senator Clinton claimed last week that Senator Obama was giving false hope to Americans with his lofty and inspirational rhetoric, the sort of speech, I have never once seen Senator Clinton deliver. Were I a Clinton, I would not get into the debate on false hope. William Jefferson Clinton's 1992 Campaign lifted the hopes of liberals, progressives and moderates throughout the nation, the middle class, those looking for a break, etc. What William Jefferson Clinton's administration actually delivered were Republican majorities for the first time in forty years in both houses of Congress a record number of state Republican governors (32 after the 1996 election), and a number of moderate to conservative laws based on ensuring the political survival of the Clinton dynasty. Clinton's recklessness which led to impeachment also was directly responsible for Al Gore's failure to secure the White House in 2000: Clinton's behavior, not Al Gore's failure to campaign with him made the vote total close enough to where Florida's electoral process could be hijacked and manipulated. Interestingly enough, Gore's failure to become President allowed Hillary Clinton the opportunity to run in 2008 for the White House.
On the campaign trail Senator John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama have spoken in plain terms about their vision for American society. Hillary Clinton has spoken in Clintoneque platitudes and subtly insulted her opponents along the way. Let's get something straight when Senator Clinton refers to experience. I believe a candidate whose life and professional experience enriches their knowledge and ability to understand real problems is a qualification for the President. John Edwards as a plaintiffs attorney represented the most disadvantaged in society: those injured or manipulated by greedy large corporations. Edwards often times wouldn't see a dime for his hard work while he would spend thousands on his client in preparation for taking on the mammoth corporations who dot the American landscape. Hillary Clinton on the other hand served as a corporate attorney for the Rose Law Firm, a politically connected firm, which represents nothing but big business in typically corporate work.
As the last paragraph indicates, I intend to vote for John Edwards in the Florida Primary on January 29th. If Senator Edwards is no longer in the running I will support Barack Obama. Knowing the struggles of our party over the past several years, the rich heritage of the nation we live in and its founding principles and my desire to for our nation to move beyond the corporate/lobbyist driven political world that I recently gave up precludes me from supporting Hillary Clinton. But having been through the political wars makes me a realist. Their is very little chance she will not win the nomination. New Hampshire has spoken and as go New Hampshire's Democrats so usually go the nation's Democrats.
How can one make that assumption after one narrow primary victory? In 1992 Bill Clinton was the last candidate in that Democratic field to win a primary or caucus (in Georgia) but he found a way to manipulate the media into ordaining him as the nominee soon after. Hillary Clinton and her clever handlers who put meaningless rhetorical lines on paper in her stump speeches are as Howard Kurtz described in his book Spin Cycle, "the best media manipulators in the country." Senator Clinton's appeal to this point in the campaign had largely been based on inevitability because after all she is a Clinton. Later this week or early next I'll detail how the Democratic Party ceased to be a truly national party under the watch of President William Jefferson Clinton and why it took twelve years to even partially reverse the losses of the Clinton years in the Congress, State Legislatures and Governorships for the party.
The Clinton family is aiming to be a dynasty that puts the welfare of the "royal family" above that of the party they belong to and represent and ultimately the country itself in many cases. The American psyche has a soft spot for royalty. Not knowing the struggles of our forefathers who threw off an oppressive Monarchy in the pursuit of liberty, today's TV driven American society became quickly obsessed with Princess Diana and various TV show and movie celebrities. William Jefferson Clinton understanding this dynamic better than anyone used the media to its advantage and the psychopathy of Democratic Party loyalists, desperate for any sort hero to worship in the 1990s after almost 30 years of Republican control of the executive branch to cast himself and his family in a "leading light" sense to the public.
Hillary Clinton's sense of entitlement is galling for any objective observer of the process especially one who has been watching these primaries from near or afar for over twenty years like myself. Senator Clinton claimed last week that Senator Obama was giving false hope to Americans with his lofty and inspirational rhetoric, the sort of speech, I have never once seen Senator Clinton deliver. Were I a Clinton, I would not get into the debate on false hope. William Jefferson Clinton's 1992 Campaign lifted the hopes of liberals, progressives and moderates throughout the nation, the middle class, those looking for a break, etc. What William Jefferson Clinton's administration actually delivered were Republican majorities for the first time in forty years in both houses of Congress a record number of state Republican governors (32 after the 1996 election), and a number of moderate to conservative laws based on ensuring the political survival of the Clinton dynasty. Clinton's recklessness which led to impeachment also was directly responsible for Al Gore's failure to secure the White House in 2000: Clinton's behavior, not Al Gore's failure to campaign with him made the vote total close enough to where Florida's electoral process could be hijacked and manipulated. Interestingly enough, Gore's failure to become President allowed Hillary Clinton the opportunity to run in 2008 for the White House.
On the campaign trail Senator John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama have spoken in plain terms about their vision for American society. Hillary Clinton has spoken in Clintoneque platitudes and subtly insulted her opponents along the way. Let's get something straight when Senator Clinton refers to experience. I believe a candidate whose life and professional experience enriches their knowledge and ability to understand real problems is a qualification for the President. John Edwards as a plaintiffs attorney represented the most disadvantaged in society: those injured or manipulated by greedy large corporations. Edwards often times wouldn't see a dime for his hard work while he would spend thousands on his client in preparation for taking on the mammoth corporations who dot the American landscape. Hillary Clinton on the other hand served as a corporate attorney for the Rose Law Firm, a politically connected firm, which represents nothing but big business in typically corporate work.
As the last paragraph indicates, I intend to vote for John Edwards in the Florida Primary on January 29th. If Senator Edwards is no longer in the running I will support Barack Obama. Knowing the struggles of our party over the past several years, the rich heritage of the nation we live in and its founding principles and my desire to for our nation to move beyond the corporate/lobbyist driven political world that I recently gave up precludes me from supporting Hillary Clinton. But having been through the political wars makes me a realist. Their is very little chance she will not win the nomination. New Hampshire has spoken and as go New Hampshire's Democrats so usually go the nation's Democrats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Canes Rising Headlines
The Kartik Report
CSRN's American Soccer Spot
Blog Archive
Links
About Me
- Kartik
- I am the host of the Major League Soccer Talk and EPL Talk Podcasts and am frequent guest on other (world) football shows. I am also the publisher of various other websites including this one. I work in public/government relations in addition to my soccer work and have a keen interest in history, politics, aviation, travel,and the world around us.
Widgetbox
