February 05, 2008
Must Read Post Of The Day
It is well worthy of your consideration; not just because I happen to agree with it, but because it is unusually thoughtful and well reasoned. If only more of us but this much care into the election of our public servants America would be a far better place.
Posted by Cassandra at February 5, 2008 06:53 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Very thoughtful summation indeed.
While reading TH's conclusions, with which I agree btw, I realized that this barely contained rage that McCain displays on more than a few occasions, the morality play mentality as TH characterizes it, reminds me of Richard M. Nixon, POTUS 37.
IMO, Nixon was a brilliant man who did much good while in office, yet he lost his way due to his inherent distrust, his temper and his paranoia.
Not a fair comparison maybe, but a nagging impression...
Posted by: bthun at February 5, 2008 08:24 AM
Excellent link. It's nice to see a more 'rounded' opinion on things. I'm personally for Romney, but that analysis gave me a sliver more comfort with the prospect of McCain in November. I still think that we're making a mistake if we back Straight Talk and expect him to treat Republicans any better in the White House than he has in the Senate.
Posted by: NeoconNews.com at February 5, 2008 08:49 AM
I wrote the following comment for Cass' FOOLS!!! VILE UNBELIEVERS!!!!! post a few days ago. It was either late, or boring, but I will vote for Mitt if he's still available when Texas gets to vote. I wish I could say he was my first choice, but he's been my second choice for a while. I even thought that Rudy for Pres, Mitt for VP, would be a very powerful combination.
(*setting the WayBack machine to February 2, 2008 09:35 PM, cue short-wave radio noise and static*)
I'm going to vote for Mitt Romney, since Rudy bailed out. I had chosen Rudy as my next President, the day he handed the check back to the Saudi Princeling. But, he evidently didn't want the job enough to campaign.
This makes me sad, because he's got the right reflexes. Ron Paul made some loony statement at one of the debates about 9/11 being the fault of our foreign policy, and Rudy bristled and let him have it. The others followed suit, but they did not feel it like Rudy did. But, Rudy's not going to happen, so I have moved on.
I enjoy watching Huckabee, but he is as stupid as Jimmah Cahtah with respect to Iran, and he doesn't deserve elevation to higher office until he does his homework on the subject. He is funny, and uses his quick humor to evade questioning when he's clearly beyond his depth. If I needed more reasons to reject him, there are many. Here are two:
Gov. Mike Huckabee: "And the ultimate thing is, I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night." ("Imus In The Morning," 12/4/07)
And this, from his Foreign Affairs article:
“The Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad.”
I think he should question 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq who have been liberated from tyrannical and murderous regimes about the counterproductive nature of Bush's arrogant bunker mentality, and then edit that statement a little. Dumber than dirt.
I wish Mitt Romney would put the GWOT as his first point when he refers to the challenges facing us, but he has it at about #3. He talks about the economy first. I suppose he's just bringing to the fore the parts of his resume that fit with the day's news. He's trying to show that he has the chops to handle whatever concerns are high on the list today. That's a little too poll-driven for me. But my other option is McCain? Deliver me!
McCain scares me. He should know what torture is, yet he would refuse to allow waterboarding under any circumstances. Crikey! Steve Harrigan of Fox News was waterboarded, and was back to normal in 5 minutes. This may be intense, but it's not torture. John McCain's arms won't raise very high because of his injuries when actually being tortured. WTH is wrong with his thought processes? He wants to close Guantanamo? Has he learned nothing in his 72 years on this Earth?
All this said, if he's the nominee, I will vote for him. I have been watching the debates on both sides, and Hillary is even more dangerous and monarchical than McCain, and if Obama became President, the tallest buildings in Chicago and Los Angeles would be history within weeks, and Iraq would be lost.
We are living in dangerous times. We need to be serious about our choices for President like never before in my lifetime.
Posted by: MathMom at February 5, 2008 09:02 AM
Oops. I forgot to mention that TH's article makes me believe that Mitt is the winner in most categories, and I'm glad to have his carefully reasoned input.
It is a very dumb thing for Republicans to say they will sit this one out if McCain gets the nomination. This is problem analysis at the intellectual level of a 7-year-old. TH makes a strong case for McCain's probable superiority as CinC. (BTW, his ads, with the five stars swirling around and morphing into a single star above his name is a powerful image. Mitt's logo looks like it came from a ExpressMail envelope at the post office.)
We have to remember that Libya unilaterally discontinued its WMD projects after GWB started pounding on Saddam. Why? He said he was afraid of George W. Bush. And GWB is a kitten compared to McCain.
Posted by: MathMom at February 5, 2008 09:18 AM
Like MM, I was leaning towards Rudy over all the others running and am really torn on what to do today. As I've said, I've met Romney on a couple occasions and he just left me cold. I have no doubt he is a brilliant businessman, but he lacks personality, he has flip flopped on almost as many issues as John Edwards / John Kerry and really annoyed me with the comment that his sons are serving the country (in lieu of military service) by getting him elected president. Like the rest of you, I am also concerned with McCain's temperament, age and liberal leanings including his belief in teachings of the global warming cult.
Posted by: Frodo at February 5, 2008 09:20 AM
Cass, why do you not like McCain, given his tendency to disagree with the Republican party in favor of more middle of the road things?
What about McCain's attempt to get the President to listen to him over a surge of troops, in contradiction to what Bush's generals then were telling him?
Posted by: Ymarsakar at February 5, 2008 09:49 AM
YMarsakar ... yes, I will give him credit there. When all others were running away from the topic he stood up with an unpopular, but correct position.
Posted by: Frodo at February 5, 2008 10:20 AM
This is why I love reading your blog. First TH's well written post, and MM and Frodo's insightful comments.
I voted for Mitt Romney. Why? NOT because we share the same faith. If anything, that would spell disaster to me for the simple fact that just because you Believe doesn't mean you know how to govern or deal with people.
While I rather snarkily posted on another blog that anyone who could govern the state that King Edward and Prince John call home deserves respect, that is only half the story of Mitt Romney for me.
I knew for a long time he was pro choice because a cousin of his died from a botched abortion. He went back to a pro life stand and will keep that position. He has worked within The Rulez to get things done.
ron Paul is so 100% constitutional that he will never even get close to what he would call a return simply because he can't accept anything less.
So I see him as one who has allowed us to slip farther away...JMO and you can laugh all you want, but I do see him as overly simplistic and there fore childish.
Posted by: Cricket at February 5, 2008 10:54 AM
I followed his advice before I even read it.
Posted by: KJ at February 5, 2008 11:05 AM
I understand support for Romney based on his abilities as an executive and his intelligence. One of my coworkers, who is very liberal, saw him in person a few months ago and was quite impressed by those qualities.
I am somewhat baffled, however, by support for him based on supposed "conservative positions on issues". For example, I'm a gun owner. Why should I believe his current love for the NRA and for rights of gun owners and his pledge to veto any new gun control bills when he, only a short time ago, was voicing support for a new Ugly Rifle Ban with no sunset provision?
Is there any new conservative position of his that people think he wouldn't jettison if that act would get him more votes?
Posted by: Fritz at February 5, 2008 01:48 PM
Well Fritz, I'm really not sure how that is any different at the end of the day than what any candidate has to do to get elected.
This is really kind of a dumb argument at the core. Any candidate - ANY of them - has one or two issues on which he or she absolutely will not compromise because of principle. Beyond that, everything is negotiable because in politics, you have to give up some of this to get that and you have to get into office if you ever hope to get ANYTHING done.
This is why pundits everywhere are observing that John McCain is now moving to the right of his former positions (WAAAH!!!! doesn't that make him look "Romneyesque"?)
Answer: no. It's what every other candidate has been doing all along. It's just that now that he's the front runner, the microscope is aimed right up *his* a$$ for a change.
Posted by: Cassandra at February 5, 2008 01:56 PM
And I didn't mean that to sound disparaging of your comment, Fritz, but of some of the commentary I've heard in the past about Romney 'flip-flopping'. When I tune into FoxNews and hear Bill Kristol and Krew openly advising McCain to "flip flop" on the issues to "win over" the party base, I just want to throw up.
Remind me again: isn't that kind of "insincerity" why you geniuses wouldn't support Romney?
Posted by: Cassandra at February 5, 2008 01:59 PM
Why can't those one or two never compromise positions of these guys ever be 1. I will not expand govt or entitlements and 2. I will shrink government and entitlements?
Or 1. I will get us school choice with vouchers and 2. I will replace social security with forced privately self funded, self directed retirement accounts.
Posted by: KJ at February 5, 2008 02:12 PM
Cass is right about McCain flip-flopping. I watch all the debates that I can, including the one last week. McCain kept saying "I come from a border state. I know how to secure the border." I silently screamed at the moderator "Ask him how he does that, and if he knows how, why the Arizona border is not secure!" But perhaps in the days ahead, McCain, who knows how to secure the border because he comes from a border state, will tell us exactly how that is done.
He also knows how to get Osama bin Laden, and he'll get right on that as soon as he becomes President. Of course, a true patriot ("I served my country, not for profit, but for patiotism") would pull President Bush aside at the earliest opportunity and tell him how to do it, because a true patriot wouldn't want a single American life lost beyond those absolutely required to do the job, even if he didn't get all the accolades from it. But President McCain will wait until after inauguration day in 2009 to tidy up this little mess.
Don't ever call Romney a flip-flopper. He's a lightweight compared to McCain.
Posted by: MathMom at February 5, 2008 02:28 PM
Romney has to govern Massachussets. I'm talking Mass. What's McCain's excuse over in Arizona? Arnold has to deal with a fake liberal Leftist legislature. What is McCain's excuse in Arizona?
I don't care about flippy flopping so much. John Kerry flip flopping from traitor to American patriot is problematic not because of the flip flopping. It is because of the traitor thing.
If people have good reasons to change their mind, like Bush with troops and generals, then they should do it. That's how you solve problems. Nobody is born with the "Right" solution and foundation that they should never change.
People talking about "flip flopping" have forgotten why that was such a bad thing with Kerry.
Posted by: Ymarsakar at February 5, 2008 02:53 PM
No problem, Cass. Since consistency is important to me, I'm sure you can figure who has gotten my contributions this cycle -- and it ain't McCain either. Unfortunately, we both agree that consistency and electibility rarely if ever coexist.
I've just been amazed (and, yeah, somewhat amused) at the sudden conservative "cred" of Romney.
Posted by: Fritz at February 5, 2008 03:00 PM
Unfortunately, we both agree that consistency and electibility rarely if ever coexist.
Amen. I think, too, that often electibility and having a thoughtful position on the issues don't go together either. I fear that McCain will get the nomination simply because he is perceived as being more of a 'fighter'. Well there are all kinds of strength (or toughness, or whatever) and some of it, frankly is the brittle kind. Some is also the quiet kind that feels no need to posture and yammer on about following Osama to the gates of hell. Yeah, it was a great line.
It was also unadulterated bullshit. Osama's one man in a global jihadist movement that will march right on with or without him. The leader of the free world needs to have broader vision than that.
Keep your eye on the bouncing ball there, big guy.
Posted by: Cassandra at February 5, 2008 03:09 PM
I think, too, that often electibility and having a thoughtful position on the issues don't go together either.Ain't it the truth.
Walkin' Boss and I just completed our civic duty and I feel so put upon. Why we had to show identification in order to vote! Outrageous! Simply outrageous! I really wanted to vote a few times, just to make sure my choice counted. =:-)
Posted by: bthun at February 5, 2008 05:00 PM
Well, I'm off to the polls now ... was interesting to read everyones opinion on the topic ... not sure if it helped me one way or the other, but certainly reinforced my thoughts on each candidate.
Posted by: Frodo at February 5, 2008 05:23 PM
Well, Frodo? Are you going to tell us what you finally decided? Enquiring minds want to know!
Posted by: MathMom at February 5, 2008 05:35 PM
He'll never vote for Romney :p
Posted by: Cassandra at February 5, 2008 05:40 PM
I actually stood there in the booth for 5 or so minutes going back and forth on the pros / cons of each in the end I decided ...... Its a secret ballot ... :P
Posted by: Frodo at February 5, 2008 08:48 PM
I don't get to vote for another month. I hope my vote actually gets to count this time around :-|
The "choices" we have left: McCain, Romney, Huckabee & Paul.
Paul, IMO, is nuts (his views on 9/11 and always talking about "empire").
I wanted, at the beginning of all these debates, to hear more from Huckabee. Now that I have, I don't like what I see. And, he's got his own little nasty streak.
McCain I just can't trust. He's a "maverick" because he likes to poke conservatives like me in the eye. He might be "talking the talk", but he's not walking the walk. He says he'll "build the go**amn fence", but he's got open border, "Mexico first", former Mexican government official Juan Hernandez as his "Hispanic Outreach Director", and the anti-English only founder of Univision as a National Finance Co-chair. And, he says he'd sign McCain-Kennedy if it got to his desk as President. Also, I can't get behind closing Gitmo, moving all those unlawful combatant to Levenworth and giving them Constitutional rights...
Romney, of the candidates that are left to pick from, most matches my views. While abortion isn't a make-or-break issue for me at this point in time, I've known others who have changed from being pro-choice to pro-life, so I believe Mitt is sincere in his change - he actually offers an explanation for the change instead of trying to pass himself off as "always pro-life". At this point, I can still hope for a Romney-Thompson ticket...
Posted by: Miss Ladybug at February 5, 2008 09:25 PM
I don't have a bit of problem with someone changing their position on that score.
My personal views and my political views do not happen to coincide, so I can readily see how someone would be very conflicted. I know I am.
Posted by: Cassandra at February 5, 2008 09:30 PM
My comment about Romney & abortion was more an example of him changing his position and being able to justify that change. Too often, politicians "flip-flop" and have the gall to claim they've held this (most recent) position all along...
My big conflict will be if McCain wins the (R) nomination. In many ways, he's no better than the Dems, and I can't count on Republicans in Congress fighting a President McCain on liberal legislation. And, I just don't agree with McCain on too many issues that are important to me. Do I vote my conscience and vote third party (I won't stay home), or do I go against principal just so there might be an (R) in the White House.
Posted by: Miss Ladybug at February 5, 2008 09:47 PM
I didn't mean to sound as though I was arguing with you. I just had a really crappy day, Miss Ladybug. It didn't come out like I meant it to - I knew what you meant to say. I just didn't phrase my response very well.
Posted by: Cassandra at February 5, 2008 09:57 PM
Not sure I felt you were arguing, but that maybe I needed to clarify... No harm, no foul ;-)
Posted by: Miss Ladybug at February 5, 2008 10:06 PM
Re Ron Paul and "empire"...
Well, I don't know a better name for it. What is extraordinary is that we have a world-wide empire the upkeep of which is paid for by the American taxpayers rather than, well, paying the Americans. Any self-respecting Roman would wonder what we were doing. "No, no, you have it backwards..." But it is still empire. Just like the Russians have their (now much smaller) empire that they are working hard to rebuild.
Over half of the messes we are currently screwing up in are the remnants of the 19th-century British world-wide empire, that they dumped in our lap (or the lap of the UN) when it all got too expensive. For example, Iraq is a British construct.
Posted by: Fritz at February 5, 2008 11:40 PM
You are right, to an extent, but I don't think that is what Paul means. Yes, a lot of what we deal with today is because of European arrogance over the last century or so, but I don't think the US desiring to have other nations supportive of our positions is equal to empire...
Posted by: Miss Ladybug at February 6, 2008 12:11 AM
The primary in PA isn't until April; things will probably be settled by then.
I'm still holding out hope for a brokered convention, but will vote for McCain if it comes down to that...
Posted by: camojack at February 6, 2008 01:17 AM
I didn't realize anyone thought Romney was a serious candidate until I read TH's post -- I thought he was another Ron Paul fringer. Of course, I thought that about Huckabee, too, and I guess they were the two frontrunners besides McCain. I honestly thought the candidates who would do well were Fred Thompson, possibly McCain just because he's run so often before that everyone knows him, and perhaps one of the serious anti-immigration candidates.
Apparently, that was all wrong. None of those candidates even made it to Super Tuesday except McCain, and his real opposition were two people I dismissed as unserious.
Not sure what's going on back home this year. Turn your back for a little while and...
Posted by: Grim at February 6, 2008 06:12 AM
Well I've been solidly for Romney since day one, Grim. There has been zero doubt on that score.
But then I suppose I'm just easily dismissable. You know women - emotional. Irrational.
Posted by: Cassandra at February 6, 2008 06:18 AM
And a white woman to boot and you know what they're like... :D
Posted by: Frodo at February 6, 2008 06:50 AM
As Hunter and Thompson were unable to gain any following, I considered the remnants and came away with Romney as my better fit candidate. And boy howdy am I cranky this morning... I want a do-over on the POTUS nominations with a mandatory wakeup slap in the face for every registered voter.
And Huck? HUCK! Nanny state Liberalism(yeah, capitalized) in the name of the Lord... Wow... just wow.
Apparently we have a sizable segment of the society who wish for a more European socialist, communal direction for the nation. I for one am not looking forward to a Jimmy Carter era redux.
Posted by: bthun at February 6, 2008 06:51 AM
Thomson, like Rudy, never really campaigned to earn the nomination ... seemed like both thought it would be given to them just for declaring they wanted it.
Posted by: Frodo at February 6, 2008 06:53 AM
And a white woman to boot and you know what they're like... :D
I am all about Teh Cranky.
Posted by: Where's The White Wommin At? at February 6, 2008 07:17 AM
"There has been zero doubt on that score."
Honestly, I had no idea. I mean seriously -- I didn't know who you were backing until yesterday.
Now, my attention has been very much divided. I remember you were going to write a post on how you thought we should go about choosing candidates -- or at least on the subject of how people do, which may be a very different topic -- but I didn't know who you were for.
Probably you put up a post called "VOTE FOR ROMNEY" and I just missed it that day; but he didn't impact my awareness as a serious candidate (or even as a candidate you were taking seriously).
As for me dismissing women's opinions, I suppose you would have changed your mind because I said so, right? :) Of course not. So why would I change my mind because you said so?
I might have at least looked at the guy, though. Heck, if I were home, I might have even voted for him -- since my own candidates were gone -- on your recommendation.
As it was, though, I didn't get to wait until Election Day to make up my mind. By the time the primary rolled around, the guy I'd chosen (and his backup) were both gone.
So if you're unhappy with today's results, well, join the club. I'm with bthun -- let's have a do-over of the whole thing. The system doesn't apparently just doesn't work.
Posted by: Grim at February 6, 2008 07:56 AM
Yeah... the campaigning. Well Joe Blowkowski did not come to my town, shake my hand, and promise that Uncle Sam would satisfy my every need so I'm not going to vote for Mr. Blowkowski. That just strikes me as so 19th century.
We as a nation expect the candidates to convince us in a short span of time to choose them to be our leader based on what is filtered through the major media. And we (again we in the aggregate) ignore their history of word and deed, their often well established character traits, their associations, their voting records and we swallow their well oiled presentations in the run up to the elections. I can come up with no reason to think that we should accept their presentations at face value. But. We. Do.
I doubt that we(aggregate) would employ the same methods to select employees for our businesses, i.e. accept the resume/presentation/interview of a prospective hire without a little background scrutiny.
We certainly will get the government we deserve. And with the ready access to information available to all folks in the nation I do not see any excuse to think otherwise.
I truly wish that people would get a freakin' public library card and go fish if they do not have access to a PC/internet connection. And that there was some basic level of awareness that one had to exhibit in order to vote. Ha ha ha! Pinch me. But why bother when we do not care if the dead or even non-citizens participate in the elections of our representatives, repeatedly in different locations. But what the hey... no biggie. It's not like the government affects our lives, much.
Well, I have admitted that I am cranky today and I might not be alone which is worth something. Cranky loves company.
Posted by: bthun at February 6, 2008 07:57 AM
One thing I haven't mentioned, as it is a trivia type thing...Romney's father was born in Mexico.
He also saved AMC from bankruptcy...lest anyone doubt where Romney learned his amazing corporate
makeover skills. Oh, yeah, he went to Hahvahd
and got an MBA, but I am teddibly sure he learned
a lesson or two at his papa's knee.
So when Romney talks about immigration, I would listen. His father moved here as a child, in 1912, and made something of himself. Governor of
Michigan, the Iacocca of his day, etc.
Posted by: Cricket at February 6, 2008 07:59 AM
No, Grim. I can't put up a post that says "Vote for Romney" (or any other candidate, for that matter). I don't have time to figure out what is in McCain Feingold or other changes in our wonderful anti-free speech laws nor to monitor how close I am to various deadlines so it just makes better sense never to go there at all because I can't even remember when to pay my (*&^ attention bill half the time.
I decided that a long time ago and unlike some, I don't believe in being a poster child for citizen activism by openly violating the law rather than changing it via our elected representatives.
Posted by: Where's The White Wommin At? at February 6, 2008 08:03 AM
Crikey. Although I guess it's not against the rules, the collusion between McCain and Huckabee's voters at the WVa caucuses just smells bad.
I guess not enough "evangelical" voters remember our last two Baptist presidents. Remember Clinton? Remember Carter? Being a Baptist minister doesn't make you a good person or a qualified candidate for President. One of the slimiest and least ethical people that I have known in my life was a Baptist minister. It was a real tough wake-up call, believe me. When I see Huckabee up there doing his innocent palms-up aw-shucks $#!+, asking whether the Mormons believe that Jesus and the Devil are brothers, I get disturbing flashbacks of Pastor Bob. Of course, Huckabee says he's just curious about the Jesus/Devil thing, because, you know, he just doesn't know a thing about Mormon theology, even though he was a keynote speaker at the SBC convention in Salt Lake City in 1998 which had as its goal converting Mormons, and where the book Mormonism Unmasked was available as a teaching tool. Geez.
The goal in WVa was to "stop Romney". Why? Because he is a competent individual who actually knows how the real world works?
Posted by: MathMom at February 6, 2008 08:08 AM
What, seriously? It never occurred to me that it might be illegal to urge your fellow citizens to support a candidate. If it is, well, a damn sight more than just ignoring the law is called for.
Anyway, that might be why I didn't know he was your candidate. :)
Posted by: Grim at February 6, 2008 08:10 AM
Thanks for the info about George Romney. I know my dad thought highly of him when I was a little kid - a buried memory that surfaced when Mitt began campaigning and mention was made on TV about his dad being Michigan's governor.
Posted by: MathMom at February 6, 2008 08:17 AM
Nothing like a little inter party backstabbing between 'friends' to make sure all is 'bidness'
If anything could sicken me more, it would be that. Makes me all the more determined to campaign against either of them.
While Romney is no babe in the woods when it comes to this type of behavior, he should have seen it coming.
Write, write write in your candidate of choice.
Posted by: Cricket at February 6, 2008 08:18 AM
this from Bill Whittle at Instapundit. It's worth a read.
Posted by: MathMom at February 6, 2008 08:31 AM
So when Romney talks about immigration, I would listen. His father moved here as a child, in 1912, and made something of himself..
uh, George Romeny was born in Mexico to American citizens whose paraents fled to Mexico to avoid US government's crackdown on polygamy. Next.
Posted by: morewivespls at February 6, 2008 08:49 AM
I've already said that if he ends up being the nominee I would more than likely do as McCain's own mother said: "hold my nose" and vote for him.
Russ's post concerns what we do BEFORE we get to that point.
Posted by: Cassandra at February 6, 2008 08:56 AM
Cass, it never occurred to me that the McCain - Fiengold nonsense might apply to a blog ... I am a frequent reader of Curt Schillings Blog ( http://38pitches.com/ )and he has been relentless in 'shilling' his support for McCain. Would be ironic if it was against McCain's own law!
Posted by: Frodo at February 6, 2008 09:04 AM
"Russ's post concerns what we do BEFORE we get to that point."Heh! You're right. I've not heard any large white wymen singing, yet.
Posted by: Sheriff Bart at February 6, 2008 09:05 AM
In the process they still had a child born overseas. That makes his father an immigrant
even though the polygamists MIGHT have retained
their US citizenship, which I doubt.
Colonia Dublan and Colonia Juarez were religious colonies, not established by the US. The rights and privileges of US citizenship may have been denied them because of the practice of polygamy, and the issuance of the Manifesto in the US.
Posted by: Cricket at February 6, 2008 01:12 PM
In the process they still had a child born overseas. That makes his [Mitt's] father an immigrant
Huh?!? Crikey, miss Cricket, that made his father a natural born citizen, and eligible to run for President of the United States, which is what his father did in 1968.
Posted by: morewivespls at February 7, 2008 07:57 AM