« January 2008 | Main | March 2008 »
I've decided to give up blogging and reading and commenting on other blogs for the remainder of Lent. Got too much stuff on. I shall write things off-line if I'm so inclined and post after Easter. Hope to get some school work (just four and a half quarters to graduation!) and some reading done. Might I suggest a visit to all those fine people linked to on the right-hand side of the screen.
If you get a chance, watch The Lives of Others. I was wary at first - judging from the trailers on the DVD for pretentious artsy PC films, including a trailer for that one where George Clooney played Edward R. Murrow - but it turned out to be one of the best films I have seen in a long time.
Certainly an indictment of the dehumanisation of society under socialist totalitarianism. And a damned good story exploring the character of a member of the Stasi who speaks maybe five sentences in the whole film and his relationship to those people he is assigned to observe.
German cinema seems to be going from strength to strength to strength over the last several years.
Did you see Newsnight last night? Wow...
About 14 minutes in, Jeremy Paxman begins a debate between Douglas Murray (noted British Neoconservative and all-round good egg in the intellectual debate over the Islamisation of European society) one one side, and, on the other side, the extremely PC Bishop of Hulme (who likes using the word Islamophobia a lot) and the world's most dangerous Islamist, Tariq Ramadan.
Ramadan is so bad that even the French and the Canadians won't give him a visa. Of course, why get a French or Canadian visa when you can get a professorship at Oxford, eh?
Ramadan talks a good, peaceful game as an urbane modern intellectual, and constantly speaks of modernising Islam. A few people have stated, however, that Ramadan does not fall into the camp that wants to modernise Islam, but that he wants to Islamise modernity.
I had made some observations about the welcome Ramadan was given by Paxman almost exactly two years ago on Newsnight. It appears from the debate last night that Paxman has been doing a little bit of research.
This is one of those times where one can honestly see Paxman taking sides. And he helps Murray to pwn both Hulme and Ramadan.
One of the things you can say about Paxman, despite his working for a problematic organisation like the BBC and perhaps some of his supposed positions, he is intensely patriotic. For proof, I highly recommend his extremely readable The English. That patriotism came to the fore last night. (I would be interested to read his memoirs when he finally does retire to see what he really thinks of the bias of the organisation he works for.)
Anyway, we were happy to watch it. I think the link I put up is good through Monday.
another leader shows his ass...
I have an e-mail out to my church's treasurer asking him if anything I donate makes its way to supporting the Archbishop of Canterbury. If it does, I think I'm going to have to find another home for that money.
UPDATE: Money given at the parish level does not filter up to the bishops and archbishops, they are paid from Church investment income. A bit relieved...I am beginning to think that the Archbishop is an atheist or Muslim convert. (At the very least, he's so open-minded, his brain's fallen out.)
suspend his candidacy. What an incredible speech today. It was way classy.
So, will it be Vice President Romney in 2008 and President Romney in 2012 or 2016?
Actually, a cabinet with all of the Republican presidential candidates in it would be formidable.
Okay, so my guy Mitt didn't do as well as I would have wanted him to. But there is still enough play in this contest to make it keep going for a while.
West Virginia was the final indication that Huckabee and McCain were triangulating against Romney. Not saying it's not fair, because that's politics. But it does kind of give you an indication of why Huckabee may be hanging in there: he's spoiling it for Romney.
As it shakes out right now...
McCain has 547 delegates with about 42% of the Republican vote
Romney has 233 delegates with about 32% of the Republican vote
Huckabee has 145 delegates with about 22% of the Republican vote
In order for one of them to get the nomination clear and free, they need 1,191 delegates. Many of the upcoming primaries are actually caucuses, and caucuses usually go toward Romney. And Romney plays well in the Rust Belt, and the Mountain West. So he's not out, and we could find it ends at the convention with a lot of deals.
That being said, Romney has had wins where he has brought in more than 50% of the Republican vote in some states, and McCain only came close to doing that in his native Arizona.
Believe it or not, I was happy to see Huckabee win in my native Georgia. Contrary to what you may be thinking, it wasn't the evangelicals that won it for him, it was the Fair Tax. My own representative, John Linder is the co-author of the Fair Tax Book with noted Atlanta-based, nationally-syndicated talk radio host Neal Boortz, who has been banging the Fair Tax drum for a long time. This could mean that profound taxation reform could also be brokered as a plank in the Republican platform.
(H/T Tom Paine at The Last Ditch)
| What military aircraft are you? B-52 Stratofortress You're a B-52. You are old and wise, and you absolutely love destruction. You believe in the principle of "peace through deterrence" and aren`t afraid to throw your weight around.
|
| Click Here to Take This Quiz Brought to you by YouThink.com quizzes and personality tests. |
Bill O'Reilly predicts that if McCain becomes the nominee, he has no choice but to go to the guy who can raise the money as his VP candidate: Mitt Romney.
True, there is no other Republican who can raise as much as Mitt. After his so-called defeat in New Hampshire his team raised $5 Million. IN ONE DAY!!!!
I believe McCain only managed $7 Million for all of January.
Everyone else seems to think Huckabee has been offered VP and that's why he's still in, to split the conservative vote to clear the way for McCain.
But O'Reilly still seems to think that despite the rancor between them, McCain would have to go with the money guy.
We'll see after tomorrow how things shake out. A lot of polls are now coming out with a positive trend toward Romney over McCain now. It appears that the talk radio onslaught on McCain may be taking hold.
I swear, this is better than a soap opera...
Update, 31 October 2008: Coming into the home stretch now. Despite my critique below, I'm for McCain all the way. You should be, too. To borrow a phrase from ACORN and the Obama Campaign: Vote Early, Vote Often. (For those of you with a sense of humor bypass: Just kidding about the Vote Often bit.) McCain is a known quantity at a time when we need more stability. Boy, we can all deal with a bit more stability.
Update, 05 September 2008: Wow, what a week this has been. After the selection of Sarah Palin, her speech, and then McCain's speech last night, I can't begin to say how wrong I was below...McCain is the man. (And I put my money where my mouth is, too; McCain got a little bit more from me than I gave to Romney in the primaries.)
UPDATE, 23 April 2008: Now that Romney is out, and McCain is the nominee designate, I am fully behind him. Go here for my rationale. I also think he has infused a lot of checks on his public persona so far, too, which shows that maybe old dogs can learn new tricks.
Original Post:
I've been making comments on other blogs and sent an e-mail or two regarding my thoughts on McCain, who is now the "front-runner" for the Republican Party nomination.
I will yield to Cobb with regard to McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms. Saying it is an attack on the 1st Amendment is overegging it. The rancor fellow Republicans hold for him is actually that the reforms severely hampered the Republican Party in a way that it did not hamper the Democrat Party.
His disdain for Justice Alito can also be brushed aside, as he has shown the closest thing to contrition that McCain could show: that is to publicly say he would seek to nominate more justices like Alito.
Likewise the mud that people are dragging up about the Keating 5 is likewise a red herring, nothing to see here. And fer cryin' out loud...This is a Republican. He may not tick all of our boxes, but the fact is, when it comes to defense and foreign affairs, he is far better than either of the alternatives on the other side of the aisle. And that is going to be very important. And we shouldn't be doing their (the Democrats) work for them.
However, that being said, he shows clear disdain for those who disagree with him. Unlike the other Senators who were sucked up into the immigration issue, he has shown no contrition, no acknowledgement that his immigration bill was not the best thing. He only regrets that it didn't stress the border fence first. He regrets the sequencing of the provisions of the bill, not the content of the bill. And he clearly does not like those who were opposed to the content.
He has also gone after Romney in a sleazy underhanded way which the Clintons could be proud of. I seem to recall both Huckabee and McCain whined about personal attacks when Romney went after McCain and Huckabee on their positions in Iowa and New Hampshire (as a result, I think Romney pulled many of the ads attacking his opponents' positions because people didn't like the "negative" campaigning then). This past week, McCain actively lied about Romney and when Romney called him on it in the debate, he didn't even address it. He didn't even stick by his lies.
One of the reasons people don't see Romney getting as down and dirty as McCain, and he could, is that he has actively decided not to attack personalities or to lie about his opponent. He is arguing based on the record. He is trying to rise above. And if Hillary is the nominee on the other side, it is not going to be scrappy mudslinging that will win the day against her, but being able to rise above the mud.
Look at how Obama got suckered into it by Billary a couple of weeks ago; it is when people play classy rather than reacting to the Clintons that their account goes up. McCain is incapable of playing a classy game. It will turn people off when he finally blows his top publicly, and he will. People don't want to see old and cranky. They want young and hopeful.
I see McCain campaigning against Billary like this: Billary will slime McCain with some nasty mud. McCain will blow his cool. Voters will get turned off of him.
I see McCain campaigning against Obama like this: Obama plays it classy (as he mostly has to date; yes it is possible for socialists to be classy), but does the whole hope and youth thing. McCain plays slimey, gets caught. Voters will get turned off of him.
McCain also doesn't go into those places on his own side where he is challenged the most (such as talk radio). He has a problem being under scrutiny, it pisses him off. Look at what has happened to Bush over the past eight years. Say what you will about Bush's poor communications, he has certainly suffered the slings and arrows under grace, never letting it buckle him.
McCain clearly holds disdain for the right wing of the party on domestic issues; he does not like them. And the right wing of the party makes the party viable. But anyway, despite his ability to get independents to vote for him, he will have a problem getting conservatives to show up.
McCain is also anti-business, or speaks anti-business at least (he has changed sides on the tax cuts issue, and has some good support in his camp, though). And the next president should not be anti-business. There is only one of the top four candidates on either side that are not so populistically anti-business.
Anyway, I have already voted for Romney, and I would vote for McCain if he is the candidate, only because I think the alternative will be worse.
I got an e-mail from the Romney campaign which also highlighted a few more points to consider when pulling the lever for the Republican candidate:
5) Governor Romney has tremendous financial support, from people just like you. Not including ANY of Governor Romney’s personal contributions to his campaign, Governor Romney’s campaign has raised more money than any candidate in the history of the Republican Party! He has raised roughly $20 million more than John McCain thus far. And that financial support remains strong; in fact, the day after placing second in the New Hampshire primary—what some were calling a “big loss” to McCain—Governor Romney held a fundraiser and raised $5 million in one day. By comparison, the democrat winner in NH, Hillary Clinton, also held a fundraiser that day and raised only $700,000. This relates directly to his ability to stay the course and beat the Democrat nominee in November.
6) Governor Romney is the most electable Republican because he can fight the fight. I just mentioned money raised. Money will mean a lot in the coming months! John McCain is currently spending as much money as he brings in and is $4.5 million in debt. The Democrats have raised hundreds of millions of dollars and if Senator McCain becomes the nominee, he will have no money with which to compete with the Democrats. The Democrats will bury him with the sheer size of their war chests. He CANNOT compete with them financially.
7) Senator McCain CANNOT beat the Democrats. You cannot beat the Democrats by acting like a Democrat. John McCain has sided with the Democrats on issues from supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants, attacking the 1st Amendment with campaign finance reform, opposing drilling for oil in ANWR to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, and he voted TWICE against the Bush tax cuts. John McCain was reported to have considered running as John Kerry’s running mate in 2004. You can’t beat Democrats at their game, you need someone who talks AND acts like a true Republican leader. That is clearly not John McCain; that person is Governor Romney.
We need to unite NOW behind Governor Romney. People ought not to vote for John McCain simply because they aren’t given all the information about how strong Governor Romney is as a candidate.
Recent Comments