This is not shocking, but it should be a wake-up call. The GOP has a real problem going forward. The problem is that their message doesn't speak to minorities. There message is not geared toward minorities and even if it were, they do a terrible job reaching out to minorities. This is by no means suggesting that the Democratic party's policies are 100% in favor of minorities, or that it is a no-brainer for minorities to vote Democratic. It is merely to suggest that the GOP has long been able to win elections without appealing to minorities, whereas Democrats cannot. I think that with the changing ethnic makeup of this country, it is going to be increasingly impossible for the GOP to ignore efforts to craft a message that resonates, and actively recruit minority candidates of all backgrounds.
I have never, EVER quoted Al Sharpton before and I only do so here in closing, with pause. What he said at the 2004 Democratic Convention speaks brilliantly to this issue:
"As I close, Mr. President, I heard you say Friday that you had questions for voters, particularly African American voters. It is true that Mr. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, after which there was a commitment to give forty acres and a mule . . . We never got the forty acres. We went all the way to Herbert Hoover and we never got the forty acres. We didn't get the mule, so we decided we'd ride this donkey as far as it would take us."
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Prime Minister's Questions
Hitchens, in his latest article, talks about John McCain's recent suggestion that he would begin an American practice similar to Britain and Canada, by going to Congress and taking questions. This is the most brilliant proposal I have heard in American politics . . . ever!
I think it is interesting to view the Presidential race within the context of who would be a better President in "President's Questions"?
I think that the experienced, Senatorial McCain would have the tenor down pat. I don't think that he would allow himself to be bullied or pushed around by Congress, however, there might be some worry about him having a temper meltdown.
Obama I think would be forced to lose his, "cool cat" demeanor. I also think that he would be pressed in a more substantive way than he has ever been before on his lofty, idealist goals. I also happen to think he is more than able to do so quite adequately.
I think McCain and Obama would be a lot of fun to watch in a "President's Questions" format. I think they would both excel at it. Most importantly, I think it would be a great thing to institute in our country.
Thought of the day: Imagine George W. Bush in "President's Questions" and imagine how our foreign policy might be different if the President were forced to withstand scrutiny on the policies he implemented and decisions he made, and ask yourself whether you would have been better off with this system in place eight years ago?
I think it is interesting to view the Presidential race within the context of who would be a better President in "President's Questions"?
I think that the experienced, Senatorial McCain would have the tenor down pat. I don't think that he would allow himself to be bullied or pushed around by Congress, however, there might be some worry about him having a temper meltdown.
Obama I think would be forced to lose his, "cool cat" demeanor. I also think that he would be pressed in a more substantive way than he has ever been before on his lofty, idealist goals. I also happen to think he is more than able to do so quite adequately.
I think McCain and Obama would be a lot of fun to watch in a "President's Questions" format. I think they would both excel at it. Most importantly, I think it would be a great thing to institute in our country.
Thought of the day: Imagine George W. Bush in "President's Questions" and imagine how our foreign policy might be different if the President were forced to withstand scrutiny on the policies he implemented and decisions he made, and ask yourself whether you would have been better off with this system in place eight years ago?
Monday, May 19, 2008
Kristol Clear
Bill Kristol, in the NYTIMES this morning puts out an interesting piece. It is interesting because it raises the specter that while the country is clearly sick of Republican leadership, McCain, especially McCain when juxtaposed with Obama, might be an exception to the rule on Republicans.
This is not a brilliant point, but it is one worth noting. To toot my own horn, it was something I picked up on way back in the beginning of the nominating process when the mainstream Republican media was bashing John McCain. I was thinking, out loud and to myself, that John McCain surely represents the best, if only, option for the Republicans to retain the White House. I am not suggesting that he will in fact, it is too early to prognosticate that far out, but he certainly seems better positioned to do so than anyone else in his party.
Here are some of Kristol's comments:
The Republican Party is clearly in bad shape — trailing by double digits in party preference among the electorate, very likely to lose House and Senate seats in the fall. But John McCain — despite a rather haphazard campaign so far lacking in thematic coherence — is doing pretty well. In two public tracking polls, by Gallup and Rasmussen, he’s basically even with Barack Obama; other polls have him slightly behind.
What’s more, three developments this past week were promising for McCain — or what amounts to pretty much the same thing, problematic for Obama.
1. On Tuesday night, while the G.O.P. Congressional candidate was losing in a Mississippi district George Bush carried in 2004 by 25 points, Barack Obama was being trounced in the West Virginia Democratic primary — by 41 points. I can’t find a single recent instance of a candidate who ultimately became his party’s nominee losing a primary by this kind of margin. The crucial swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania (whose primaries Obama also lost to Hillary Clinton) have a fair number of West Virginia-type working-class, culturally conservative voters. The Obama campaign can’t be confident about his prospects there in the fall.
2. On Thursday, the California Supreme Court did precisely what much of the American public doesn’t want judges doing: it made social policy from the bench. With a 4-to-3 majority, the judges chose not to defer to a ballot initiative approved by 61 percent of California voters eight years ago, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court redefined marriage in that state, helping to highlight the issues of same-sex marriage and judicial activism for the 2004 presidential campaign. Now the California court has conveniently stepped up to the plate.
Obama’s campaign issued a statement that its candidate “respects the decision of the California Supreme Court.” The McCain campaign, by contrast, said it recognized “the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution ... John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.” Since the next president will almost certainly have one Supreme Court appointment, and could have two or three, this difference on judicial philosophy could well matter to voters — and in a way that should help McCain.
This is not a brilliant point, but it is one worth noting. To toot my own horn, it was something I picked up on way back in the beginning of the nominating process when the mainstream Republican media was bashing John McCain. I was thinking, out loud and to myself, that John McCain surely represents the best, if only, option for the Republicans to retain the White House. I am not suggesting that he will in fact, it is too early to prognosticate that far out, but he certainly seems better positioned to do so than anyone else in his party.
Here are some of Kristol's comments:
The Republican Party is clearly in bad shape — trailing by double digits in party preference among the electorate, very likely to lose House and Senate seats in the fall. But John McCain — despite a rather haphazard campaign so far lacking in thematic coherence — is doing pretty well. In two public tracking polls, by Gallup and Rasmussen, he’s basically even with Barack Obama; other polls have him slightly behind.
What’s more, three developments this past week were promising for McCain — or what amounts to pretty much the same thing, problematic for Obama.
1. On Tuesday night, while the G.O.P. Congressional candidate was losing in a Mississippi district George Bush carried in 2004 by 25 points, Barack Obama was being trounced in the West Virginia Democratic primary — by 41 points. I can’t find a single recent instance of a candidate who ultimately became his party’s nominee losing a primary by this kind of margin. The crucial swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania (whose primaries Obama also lost to Hillary Clinton) have a fair number of West Virginia-type working-class, culturally conservative voters. The Obama campaign can’t be confident about his prospects there in the fall.
2. On Thursday, the California Supreme Court did precisely what much of the American public doesn’t want judges doing: it made social policy from the bench. With a 4-to-3 majority, the judges chose not to defer to a ballot initiative approved by 61 percent of California voters eight years ago, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court redefined marriage in that state, helping to highlight the issues of same-sex marriage and judicial activism for the 2004 presidential campaign. Now the California court has conveniently stepped up to the plate.
Obama’s campaign issued a statement that its candidate “respects the decision of the California Supreme Court.” The McCain campaign, by contrast, said it recognized “the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution ... John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.” Since the next president will almost certainly have one Supreme Court appointment, and could have two or three, this difference on judicial philosophy could well matter to voters — and in a way that should help McCain.
And this is why we don't want to go the way of France. . .
The French are often vilified by the Right in this country. For years I have been standing up for France, a country I have visited on several occasions and a country of which I am quite fond. However, perhaps the Right has been correct all along. Maybe France is a threat to all that is good in the world. Maybe France is just wrong on EVERYTHING! Maybe I should start eating Freedom Fries . . . and you should too because this time France is simply going too far! Read about their atrocious behavior here!
Friday, May 16, 2008
Matthews Owns His Guest
I don't know how many of you watch Hardball. It is an entertaining show for sure, though Chris Matthews can be, at times, difficult to take and better in small doses. However, he will seldom be accused of not knowing his stuff.
Below you will see a video with Matthews at his best, absolutely OWNING a right-wing blabber mouth talking about Bush's insinuation that Obama is an appeaser because he is willing to talk with our enemies. Blabber mouth Kevin James compares Obama to Neville Chamberlain as an appeaser. When pressed by Matthews on what exactly most people frown upon Neville Chamberlain for, or asked the simple, historical question: what did Neville Chamberlain do? James has absolutely no answer and Matthews rightly calls him out on it.
The issue is not that this guy didn't know what Neville Chamberlain did. Rather, the issue is that this guy went on television and said Obama was analagous to Chamberlain, who he said was a Nazi appeaser. This is a serious charge levelled, but he clearly had no idea what he was talking about. It was just empty rhetoric, shouted with volume. And we wonder why people are so often turned off by politics. It's because of imbeciles like this clown.
Enjoy the video!
Below you will see a video with Matthews at his best, absolutely OWNING a right-wing blabber mouth talking about Bush's insinuation that Obama is an appeaser because he is willing to talk with our enemies. Blabber mouth Kevin James compares Obama to Neville Chamberlain as an appeaser. When pressed by Matthews on what exactly most people frown upon Neville Chamberlain for, or asked the simple, historical question: what did Neville Chamberlain do? James has absolutely no answer and Matthews rightly calls him out on it.
The issue is not that this guy didn't know what Neville Chamberlain did. Rather, the issue is that this guy went on television and said Obama was analagous to Chamberlain, who he said was a Nazi appeaser. This is a serious charge levelled, but he clearly had no idea what he was talking about. It was just empty rhetoric, shouted with volume. And we wonder why people are so often turned off by politics. It's because of imbeciles like this clown.
Enjoy the video!
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Sean Penn is a SUPER Douche!
Here are Sean Penn's utterly incoherent "thoughts" on this year's Presidential election:
"I don't have a candidate I'm supporting and I'm certainly interested and excited by the hope that Barack Obama is inspiring," he said, but went on to accuse him of a “phenomenally inhuman and unconstitutional” voting record.
"I hope that he will understand, if he is the nominee, the degree of disillusionment that will happen if he doesn't become a greater man than he will ever be,” Penn said. “This is the most important election, certainly in my lifetime, and maybe ever.”
Pray tell Sean, what is it that you find inhuman and unconstitutional in Obama's voting record? You can't just level a ridiculous accusation like that without back up. Oh, and do please explain how Obama is supposed to ward off disillusionment if he doesn't become a greater man than he ever will be. . . This last part MIGHT make sense if he had said, a greater man than he ever can be, because that speaks to potential, will be speaks as a foregone conclusion.
This is a perfect example of why people hate Hollywood types getting involved in politics. Seriously, if he hadn't played Huey Long in "All the King's Men," I might never watch another movie of his again! SUPER DOUCHE!
"I don't have a candidate I'm supporting and I'm certainly interested and excited by the hope that Barack Obama is inspiring," he said, but went on to accuse him of a “phenomenally inhuman and unconstitutional” voting record.
"I hope that he will understand, if he is the nominee, the degree of disillusionment that will happen if he doesn't become a greater man than he will ever be,” Penn said. “This is the most important election, certainly in my lifetime, and maybe ever.”
Pray tell Sean, what is it that you find inhuman and unconstitutional in Obama's voting record? You can't just level a ridiculous accusation like that without back up. Oh, and do please explain how Obama is supposed to ward off disillusionment if he doesn't become a greater man than he ever will be. . . This last part MIGHT make sense if he had said, a greater man than he ever can be, because that speaks to potential, will be speaks as a foregone conclusion.
This is a perfect example of why people hate Hollywood types getting involved in politics. Seriously, if he hadn't played Huey Long in "All the King's Men," I might never watch another movie of his again! SUPER DOUCHE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)