Sunday, April 10, 2005
Rudy for President?
Outside the Beltway, see http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10015 makes the point that Giuliani seems an improbably popular candidate for President in 2008. Improbable in that he seems to offend a decent section of the Republican base.
My basic point, as I put in a little comment, is that he is a nasty S.O.B. As a former school administrator, I found him arrogant and frankly not all that interested in the schools. He pointed out that he had almost no control of the schools so he should not be blamed for the problems.
On the other hand, he was a superb administrator as mayor. The streets really did get far quieter and a lot cleaner as well. The change was real, was very visible. The media did not like him much but they had to report on progress. He was someone far more respected than liked.
But his weaknesses would be far more likely to be pointed out by Republicans than Democrats. And there are some reasonable answers.
a) Rudy's personal life was more than a bit of a mess. Amen. However, so's the personal life of a lot of people. Even those in Red States who are part of the base. He may not have the partner he started with but he's always pushed the idea of competence. That in itself is a pretty powerful message. And he can talk about how his current wife helped him through his bout with cancer. (It might also be mentioned that the groups working against prostate cancer have a lot of alpha males who might contribute more than a bit).
b) He's very friendly with gays, actually lived in the apartment of a gay friend who had a live-in lover. It would actually be fun to watch the Dems go after him on this one. The gay lobby would have a difficult time with their scare-notices. And he could focus on the real fear of a lot of heteros, that gays might go after kids. He would be able to promise real action on that without scaring the gays. As for gay marriage, who knows what the courts and legislatures will do between now and 2008? It could be as much of a problem for every candidate as they all tip-toe, at least to some degree, on the issue.
c) He is for gun control. Easier to answer than most. He WAS mayor of New York and something has to be done about handguns, etc. But he can point out that his biggest improvements came from better administration, not just the guns. I might also mention that he can point out how few crimes seem to be committed with rifles, shotguns, etc.
d) The abortion issue is his real problem. Very true. But he can work very firmly on a focus on things like partial-birth abortion, pointing out that there are limits to what even a President can do. After all, in the past quarter of a century, President Reagan and both Presidents Bush have had limited success. Can promise work on some limits that can withstand the courts.
e) The real issue is that he could actually win! If Hillary runs, that could prove very popular. Also, he is far more acceptable to the Republican center and right than McCain. Giuliani (and probably any Republican) could carry the South. But he would be very, very strong in the really contested states. He can work over the Catholics and go into Black and Hispanic areas and talk about what he has done! That could be very big in states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If he takes those, the Dems start to die.
My basic point, as I put in a little comment, is that he is a nasty S.O.B. As a former school administrator, I found him arrogant and frankly not all that interested in the schools. He pointed out that he had almost no control of the schools so he should not be blamed for the problems.
On the other hand, he was a superb administrator as mayor. The streets really did get far quieter and a lot cleaner as well. The change was real, was very visible. The media did not like him much but they had to report on progress. He was someone far more respected than liked.
But his weaknesses would be far more likely to be pointed out by Republicans than Democrats. And there are some reasonable answers.
a) Rudy's personal life was more than a bit of a mess. Amen. However, so's the personal life of a lot of people. Even those in Red States who are part of the base. He may not have the partner he started with but he's always pushed the idea of competence. That in itself is a pretty powerful message. And he can talk about how his current wife helped him through his bout with cancer. (It might also be mentioned that the groups working against prostate cancer have a lot of alpha males who might contribute more than a bit).
b) He's very friendly with gays, actually lived in the apartment of a gay friend who had a live-in lover. It would actually be fun to watch the Dems go after him on this one. The gay lobby would have a difficult time with their scare-notices. And he could focus on the real fear of a lot of heteros, that gays might go after kids. He would be able to promise real action on that without scaring the gays. As for gay marriage, who knows what the courts and legislatures will do between now and 2008? It could be as much of a problem for every candidate as they all tip-toe, at least to some degree, on the issue.
c) He is for gun control. Easier to answer than most. He WAS mayor of New York and something has to be done about handguns, etc. But he can point out that his biggest improvements came from better administration, not just the guns. I might also mention that he can point out how few crimes seem to be committed with rifles, shotguns, etc.
d) The abortion issue is his real problem. Very true. But he can work very firmly on a focus on things like partial-birth abortion, pointing out that there are limits to what even a President can do. After all, in the past quarter of a century, President Reagan and both Presidents Bush have had limited success. Can promise work on some limits that can withstand the courts.
e) The real issue is that he could actually win! If Hillary runs, that could prove very popular. Also, he is far more acceptable to the Republican center and right than McCain. Giuliani (and probably any Republican) could carry the South. But he would be very, very strong in the really contested states. He can work over the Catholics and go into Black and Hispanic areas and talk about what he has done! That could be very big in states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If he takes those, the Dems start to die.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Why DEMS need Mrs. Clinton in 2008
The Dems need Mrs. Clinton for a vital reason. They MUST win in 2008 or they will start being written off as a political party. There are several reasons for this:
1. You have to win sometimes or people will not think you're serious. Why would people want to run for election to Congress when they will have permanent minority status? There are more Reps. than Dems. in the House right now and it is likely there will be more. There are not all that many seats really up for grabs and there are far more seats in districts that Bush carried that have Dems than Kerry carried with Reps. After the next census, there will be even more Rep seats
2. Senate-wise there are very few seats that the Reps hold that are real targets. Olympia Snowe, RINO that she is in many ways, will probably hold on. Lincoln Chafee might slip through but votes with the Reps so seldom that it might not make all the much difference. Rick Santorum is the only Rep that faces a major challenge. But there are several Dem seats that have interesting problems: open seat in Maryland, for example. Plus a very weak Maria Cantwell in Washington where it is more and more apparent that Dino Rossi had the election stolen. And several very red states with Dem Senators.
3. Stated again, 2010 creates a new challenge. The new census will shift more seats in the House as well as more electoral votes to Red States. In 2004, had the Dems not stolen Wisconsin, Bush could have lost Ohio and still won. That would not even make a difference in 2012 if trends coming down the line continue. And they could get even worse for Dems... rising gas prices also reflect higher heating oil prices. That will make a life a lot less fun up north and will result in more people moving to the south.
4. The Dems are having trouble winning over or at least holding certain blocs. Hispanics are being well-organized by the Reps and most are either Catholic or Evangelical. That does not bode well for Dems. There are several districts in California that did not give Dem Reps very large margins. A few shifts, and WOW!
5. There is one thing that Reps need even more than a decent candidate in 2008-- control of one of the broadcast networks. If they controlled CBS or ABC they could get their message out, or at least do a job on the Dems. In that case, the Dems would probably be doomed.
Question is: How would they be replaced? The left is well-organized and has burrowed in very well...tenure in academia, the courts, and, of course, the media. But if all they can provide is thunder on the left, they will start to fade. Unless they can continue to B.S. with little opposition within their ranks. Then they can continue to rave and make life a lot easier for Reps.
1. You have to win sometimes or people will not think you're serious. Why would people want to run for election to Congress when they will have permanent minority status? There are more Reps. than Dems. in the House right now and it is likely there will be more. There are not all that many seats really up for grabs and there are far more seats in districts that Bush carried that have Dems than Kerry carried with Reps. After the next census, there will be even more Rep seats
2. Senate-wise there are very few seats that the Reps hold that are real targets. Olympia Snowe, RINO that she is in many ways, will probably hold on. Lincoln Chafee might slip through but votes with the Reps so seldom that it might not make all the much difference. Rick Santorum is the only Rep that faces a major challenge. But there are several Dem seats that have interesting problems: open seat in Maryland, for example. Plus a very weak Maria Cantwell in Washington where it is more and more apparent that Dino Rossi had the election stolen. And several very red states with Dem Senators.
3. Stated again, 2010 creates a new challenge. The new census will shift more seats in the House as well as more electoral votes to Red States. In 2004, had the Dems not stolen Wisconsin, Bush could have lost Ohio and still won. That would not even make a difference in 2012 if trends coming down the line continue. And they could get even worse for Dems... rising gas prices also reflect higher heating oil prices. That will make a life a lot less fun up north and will result in more people moving to the south.
4. The Dems are having trouble winning over or at least holding certain blocs. Hispanics are being well-organized by the Reps and most are either Catholic or Evangelical. That does not bode well for Dems. There are several districts in California that did not give Dem Reps very large margins. A few shifts, and WOW!
5. There is one thing that Reps need even more than a decent candidate in 2008-- control of one of the broadcast networks. If they controlled CBS or ABC they could get their message out, or at least do a job on the Dems. In that case, the Dems would probably be doomed.
Question is: How would they be replaced? The left is well-organized and has burrowed in very well...tenure in academia, the courts, and, of course, the media. But if all they can provide is thunder on the left, they will start to fade. Unless they can continue to B.S. with little opposition within their ranks. Then they can continue to rave and make life a lot easier for Reps.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Lies and ways of distortion of truth
Cassandra has a "must read" blog on ways that main stream media lie. See it at: http://cassandra2004.blogspot.com/2005/04/top-10-categories-of-msmdnc-bias.html
There is an attempt to come up with ten different ways of slanting news and, of course there are so many more that there are actually twelve listed.
I propose a thirteenth:
Making false claims by saying that "something has already been debunked" and not providing any evidence. The stories of weapons of mass destruction is handled that way without recognizing that there were SOME wmd found...not a lot, but some. Also, that there is more than a bit of evidence that some weaponry wound up in Syria.
Best example of this, of course, is the Swifboat charges against Senator "Alfie". I watched Chris Matthews and Tom Oliphant freely saying that all the charges had been debunked. However, where was the evidence?
When it came to Rathergate, the evidence of the forgeries was right out in the open. The only doubts came from members of the mainstream media who overlooked minor details like the fact that they documents had been done on Microsoft Word that had not come along for 20 years after the event or that Bush would not have to take the physical exam since he was no longer considered a pilot (the type of plane he flew was discontinued in use) or that he was listed as having been ordered to take the physical on a national holiday (someone writing 20 years later might not check but people doing scheduling at the time would know). So it was clear that the charges were false.
However, Matthews and buddy claimed that "none of the media would accept the charges" and left it at that.
So we are left to believe that a man who had nothing at all in his record throughout his life to demonstrate reasons for voting for him suddenly was a paragon of truth about four months of his life. And that the 200 men who served with him all lied. And that the records that would show he told the truth should not be shown to the public although they might demonstrate that he HAD told the truth.
But many of us are considered too dumb to understand all of that.
Actually, that leads to a number 14 in ways of distorting the truth: Focus on one of the minor trees in the forest instead of a major argument.
Most of the Swiftboat vets were ticked off by Kerry's charges that they committed war crimes. Quite a lot of O'Neill's book focused on the charges made by Kerry. But that meant things were on videotape...or at least in old news reports. It would be very difficult to make false claims. So Matthews and his media chums almost NEVER spent any time on that element but only on the parts that they assumed at first would be easy targets.
This was done again with the claims on reasons for going to war in Iraq. President Bush gave a whole group of reasons for going in, but they focus on only one. They claim that was the reason we went in...and the only reason...short of wanting oil and to help Halliburton, etc. And there are people who, after a while, believe them.
Actually, that leads to another way (Perhaps everyone could get together and come up with a list of like "How do you lie to me, let me count the ways". Limit information in some areas.
I can imagine Chris Matthews announcing his next guest, "And here we have Mr. Tony Soprano, a respected businessman from New Jersey, who resents the identification of Italians with organized crime." Nothing more about Tony.
We have that now. In the Terri Schiavo case, several of the characters including Michael Schiavo's lawyer and the key doctor in the case are part of the "Hemlock" society, the one favoring assisted suicide. Why has that never been mentioned by the MSM? Can you imagine how that might change some minds?
Pollster: "Would the fact that the doctor who claimed Terri Schiavo would never recover and could be killed was an associate of Dr. Kevorkian have an impact on your opinion?"
This is done in so many ways. Randall Terry, a target held up by many in the MSM had not been involved at all in the discussion until near the end? His antics were discussed in great detail, the details of the pro-Michael group were ignored.
And we all know why.
As I said, why not a contest?
There is an attempt to come up with ten different ways of slanting news and, of course there are so many more that there are actually twelve listed.
I propose a thirteenth:
Making false claims by saying that "something has already been debunked" and not providing any evidence. The stories of weapons of mass destruction is handled that way without recognizing that there were SOME wmd found...not a lot, but some. Also, that there is more than a bit of evidence that some weaponry wound up in Syria.
Best example of this, of course, is the Swifboat charges against Senator "Alfie". I watched Chris Matthews and Tom Oliphant freely saying that all the charges had been debunked. However, where was the evidence?
When it came to Rathergate, the evidence of the forgeries was right out in the open. The only doubts came from members of the mainstream media who overlooked minor details like the fact that they documents had been done on Microsoft Word that had not come along for 20 years after the event or that Bush would not have to take the physical exam since he was no longer considered a pilot (the type of plane he flew was discontinued in use) or that he was listed as having been ordered to take the physical on a national holiday (someone writing 20 years later might not check but people doing scheduling at the time would know). So it was clear that the charges were false.
However, Matthews and buddy claimed that "none of the media would accept the charges" and left it at that.
So we are left to believe that a man who had nothing at all in his record throughout his life to demonstrate reasons for voting for him suddenly was a paragon of truth about four months of his life. And that the 200 men who served with him all lied. And that the records that would show he told the truth should not be shown to the public although they might demonstrate that he HAD told the truth.
But many of us are considered too dumb to understand all of that.
Actually, that leads to a number 14 in ways of distorting the truth: Focus on one of the minor trees in the forest instead of a major argument.
Most of the Swiftboat vets were ticked off by Kerry's charges that they committed war crimes. Quite a lot of O'Neill's book focused on the charges made by Kerry. But that meant things were on videotape...or at least in old news reports. It would be very difficult to make false claims. So Matthews and his media chums almost NEVER spent any time on that element but only on the parts that they assumed at first would be easy targets.
This was done again with the claims on reasons for going to war in Iraq. President Bush gave a whole group of reasons for going in, but they focus on only one. They claim that was the reason we went in...and the only reason...short of wanting oil and to help Halliburton, etc. And there are people who, after a while, believe them.
Actually, that leads to another way (Perhaps everyone could get together and come up with a list of like "How do you lie to me, let me count the ways". Limit information in some areas.
I can imagine Chris Matthews announcing his next guest, "And here we have Mr. Tony Soprano, a respected businessman from New Jersey, who resents the identification of Italians with organized crime." Nothing more about Tony.
We have that now. In the Terri Schiavo case, several of the characters including Michael Schiavo's lawyer and the key doctor in the case are part of the "Hemlock" society, the one favoring assisted suicide. Why has that never been mentioned by the MSM? Can you imagine how that might change some minds?
Pollster: "Would the fact that the doctor who claimed Terri Schiavo would never recover and could be killed was an associate of Dr. Kevorkian have an impact on your opinion?"
This is done in so many ways. Randall Terry, a target held up by many in the MSM had not been involved at all in the discussion until near the end? His antics were discussed in great detail, the details of the pro-Michael group were ignored.
And we all know why.
As I said, why not a contest?
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Terri Schiavo
Terri Shiavo, R.I.P.
Terri Schiavo
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Tribute to a patriot
Wonderful story at American Thinker by Michael May about Michael Kelly who died two years ago today. He was a personal favorite of mine and I miss his writing today. I ask myself "why couldn't it have been one of the Nazis from Reuters who died?" They are of no value to anyone while Michael Kelly was a decent, thinking human.
We need more like him.
Link to the story here: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4371
We need more like him.
Link to the story here: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4371
Monday, March 28, 2005
Venezuela, Would Matilda run there anymore?
Good piece in the Washington Post about Chavez in Venezuela
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5755-2005Mar27.html
Taking away freedom of speech...well, the press doesn't like that. Hating the US...wow, they love it.
We can expect more garbage from those slime buckets on the left about how great a man Chavez is, how democratic his government is,
Jimmy Carter, our most useless president, will probably find a way to say something good about Chavez. Perhaps Michael Schiavo could go after him next. He's been brain dead for decades.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5755-2005Mar27.html
Taking away freedom of speech...well, the press doesn't like that. Hating the US...wow, they love it.
We can expect more garbage from those slime buckets on the left about how great a man Chavez is, how democratic his government is,
Jimmy Carter, our most useless president, will probably find a way to say something good about Chavez. Perhaps Michael Schiavo could go after him next. He's been brain dead for decades.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Arguments over Life and Death
David Brooks demonstrates again why he is the only great columnist at the Times. Read his column: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/26/opinion/26brooks.html?hp
His point is very good. We have two different arguments going on. Social conservatives are very aware of the difference between life and death. Liberals are far more interested in the idea of quality of life. They also tend to worship "the judicial system" as long as it goes along with their views, i.e., examining Republican or conservative flaws. The court has "sold out" when it rules for those groups, of course.
Doctor Kevourkian would not have been nearly as cruel as these sweet folks. Terri would have died quickly with no discomfort at all. Well, there are lots of Alzheimer's patients that can now be starved to death.
His point is very good. We have two different arguments going on. Social conservatives are very aware of the difference between life and death. Liberals are far more interested in the idea of quality of life. They also tend to worship "the judicial system" as long as it goes along with their views, i.e., examining Republican or conservative flaws. The court has "sold out" when it rules for those groups, of course.
Doctor Kevourkian would not have been nearly as cruel as these sweet folks. Terri would have died quickly with no discomfort at all. Well, there are lots of Alzheimer's patients that can now be starved to death.
