Okay, I admit it. As a reporter, I've withheld information from the public. I've actually done so quite often and will continue to do so in the future.
The subject of when the media should disclose information came to light this week in two separate circumstances. First, the revelation that Prince Harry was fighting with U.K. forces against the Taliban in Afghanistan and, second, that the New York Times put out a story suggesting that John McCain might not be eligible to run for president because he was born outside of the United States.
Those two highlight the main reasons why news outlets don't necessarily pass along everything they learn.
-- Airing a story might prove to be recklessly dangerous, or,
-- making a judgment call on whether a story is relevant and pertinent.
Let's take the dangerous scenario first. A thumbnail sketch of what took place: the British media agreed to not publicize the prince's deployment until after he returned home, in exchange for almost unprecedented access to his activities for embedded reporters. The cover was blown this week by an item on the Drudge Report, and Harry is being shipped home for his own safety. The danger of militants knowing he is there is obvious. However, there's a debate raging over whether the British media should have accepted such a deal and whether it was right for Matt Drudge to blow it.
This is not an unusual subject, however, and it runs the gamut from the national media to local reporters. Remember how the Bush administration fought desperately but unsuccessfully to prevent publication of a story that revealed how the Treasury Department tracked international exchanges of money in its terror financing probes. That was a security issue for all of us.
Me, on the local level, well I'm often asked to not reveal a name of someone who might be a cooperating witness in a court case involving criminal street gangs. If the prosecutor, or the witnesses' lawyer, can give me legitimate explanation for how the witness has been threatened, then I won't reveal the name. In exchange, I build trust with an official who is more likely in the future to give me information that will prove beneficial to my readers, probably more so than simply putting out a name.
Considering whether a story is newsworthy, and how to present it, is an issue that's bedeviled The New York Times in the past week in two articles about McCain, including the most recent about whether he is in fact eligible to run for president.
McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was stationed there. He was born in a military hospital. A military installation in a foreign land, like an embassy, is considered U.S. soil. Therefore, McCain is a "natural born" citizen as specified by the Constitution and is therefore eligible to become president. There's no question about it. Americans born in civilian areas of the Panama Canal Zone may not have been so lucky, I understand, but that's not the issue with McCain.
So the story is neither relevant nor pertinent, and should not have been run the way it was, especially following the previous piece on McCain -- on his alleged relationship with a female lobbyist -- that turned into a disaster for the newspaper. The circumstances of McCain's birth are curious, though, and could have been an interesting sidebar snippet that does not leave his candidacy an open question.
---
News today is that overall advertising in the New York Times dropped more than 11 percent in January, led by a 22.6 percent drop in classified ads, a paper's lifeblood. Large shareholders are revolting because the New York Times Company has lost more than half of its share price in five years and isn't doing much to find new Internet-generated revenues (though few newspapers are finding the Web to be a money-maker).
The Times Company also includes the International Herald Tribune, the Boston Globe (which when I viewed it in 2003 appeared to me to be the worst big-city newspaper I'd ever seen), and About.com, which is actually quite useful and from which I'm learning at my ripe middle-age to play guitar -- on a very, very, very basic level. But you gotta make money from it.
It's easy to dump on The New York Times. The people who run the paper make themselves appear unbelievably silly sometimes. But what is happening to them is happening to newspapers across the United States, and the business of journalism is much worse off for it, as is the ability of consumers to get the daily information they need so they can lead productive lives.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Middle Class Strikes Back, Hillary, More
Before the presidential primary campaigns got serious around the middle of last year, there were a couple of consensus assumptions: Hillary Clinton would waltz to the Democratic nomination and John McCain could very well be the first Republican knocked out.
Here at the end of February, Clinton is hanging by her fingernails and is clearly campaigning in a desperate style, and McCain has all but wrapped up the Republican race.
So how did things go so wrong for the conventional wisdom? Call it the revolt of the middle class. The rest of us struck back against what "they" told us what would happen. We were tired of what "they" kept telling us. We were sick of those who "they" were thrusting upon us, a queen-to-be awaiting her coronation, a slick and clever corporate CEO, a trial lawyer, a career bureaucrat who assumed we would ignore his various indiscretions.
What we told those people was that they weren't going to get a free pass for getting us into the mess that we're in: a souring economy, troublesome relations with countries that should be our friends, a failed system of education that's crippled our competitiveness, and a southern border that's been rendered meaningless. Don't get me started, there's more I could add in, but you know already.
For all their faults -- which are many -- Barack Obama and John McCain spoke to us plainly and positively and didn't try to sneak anything past us. They both will take office with the intention of getting things done. Now the choice will be between competing versions of what those things should be, instead of character failings.
The people have spoken.
---
No strategery is going to bring Clinton back against Obama. If her message hasn't caught on with people by now, and her personality hasn't won her admirers, then she will lose no matter what she does. Only good old-fashioned hardball politics leading into the party convention can save her candidacy now.
---
Okay, just who thought that the partial resignation of Fidel Castro would change things in Cuba and why would they even think something like that? Uh, the brother, Raul the enforcer, open up the political and economic system? Laughable. Go back and see who told us that this was a great opportunity for change, then ignore them in the future.
---
"Duh" news item of the day. A study by associate professors at Wellesley College and Rutgers University shows that U.S. born adult males are imprisoned at a rate 2.5 times above those of immigrants.
As we've pointed out on this blog before, my observation from years of covering crime and court news is that the problem with immigrants from the south of our nation is drunk driving and, to a much lesser extent, domestic violence. They're not going around assassinating Ma and Pa Kettle like some claim. Sure, there's individual exceptions, but if they're rare enough to point out, then they're certainly not the rule. Plus, DUI and DV cases almost always result in probation and victim-impact classes, not prison, so these convicts won't show up in their figures.
Secondly, immigrants who commit crimes are less likely to be apprehended than U.S. citizens. There are quite a few open murder cases I can think of just off the top of my head in my neck of the woods in which the suspect is believed to have fled to Mexico.
Finally, while it's probably not a big deal where the results of the study are concerned, the authors do not differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants. No one cares about legal immigration. It's the illegal border crossings that people want to stop.
Here at the end of February, Clinton is hanging by her fingernails and is clearly campaigning in a desperate style, and McCain has all but wrapped up the Republican race.
So how did things go so wrong for the conventional wisdom? Call it the revolt of the middle class. The rest of us struck back against what "they" told us what would happen. We were tired of what "they" kept telling us. We were sick of those who "they" were thrusting upon us, a queen-to-be awaiting her coronation, a slick and clever corporate CEO, a trial lawyer, a career bureaucrat who assumed we would ignore his various indiscretions.
What we told those people was that they weren't going to get a free pass for getting us into the mess that we're in: a souring economy, troublesome relations with countries that should be our friends, a failed system of education that's crippled our competitiveness, and a southern border that's been rendered meaningless. Don't get me started, there's more I could add in, but you know already.
For all their faults -- which are many -- Barack Obama and John McCain spoke to us plainly and positively and didn't try to sneak anything past us. They both will take office with the intention of getting things done. Now the choice will be between competing versions of what those things should be, instead of character failings.
The people have spoken.
---
No strategery is going to bring Clinton back against Obama. If her message hasn't caught on with people by now, and her personality hasn't won her admirers, then she will lose no matter what she does. Only good old-fashioned hardball politics leading into the party convention can save her candidacy now.
---
Okay, just who thought that the partial resignation of Fidel Castro would change things in Cuba and why would they even think something like that? Uh, the brother, Raul the enforcer, open up the political and economic system? Laughable. Go back and see who told us that this was a great opportunity for change, then ignore them in the future.
---
"Duh" news item of the day. A study by associate professors at Wellesley College and Rutgers University shows that U.S. born adult males are imprisoned at a rate 2.5 times above those of immigrants.
As we've pointed out on this blog before, my observation from years of covering crime and court news is that the problem with immigrants from the south of our nation is drunk driving and, to a much lesser extent, domestic violence. They're not going around assassinating Ma and Pa Kettle like some claim. Sure, there's individual exceptions, but if they're rare enough to point out, then they're certainly not the rule. Plus, DUI and DV cases almost always result in probation and victim-impact classes, not prison, so these convicts won't show up in their figures.
Secondly, immigrants who commit crimes are less likely to be apprehended than U.S. citizens. There are quite a few open murder cases I can think of just off the top of my head in my neck of the woods in which the suspect is believed to have fled to Mexico.
Finally, while it's probably not a big deal where the results of the study are concerned, the authors do not differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants. No one cares about legal immigration. It's the illegal border crossings that people want to stop.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
November a New Test of Far Left Strength
Between Michelle Obama's comment that her husband's presidential candidacy makes her proud of America for the first time and military hero John McCain's virtual lock on the Republican nomination, the general election could turn into an electoral battle between flag-waving patriots and those they call "Blame America Firsters."
In a sense, it becomes yet another test of strength for the far left in America, which has failed in three attempts to get a presidential candidate -- George McGovern, Walter Mondale or John Kerry -- elected. The first two got routed in 1972 and 1984, respectively. Kerry came much closer to winning the White House in 2004.
Maybe, in 2008, the far left is close enough to success.
As I've mentioned before when discussing Republican politics, ideology has not been a factor in the campaign. Neither for Democrats. Some have tried to make it ideological, but they failed. There's been no need among liberals to make sure their candidates have been ideologically pure. Americans for Democratic Action rated Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as 75 percent liberal in their 2007 voting, following 95 percent ratings the year before. Can't be more similar than that.
While both push liberal programs, many see Obama as being more liberal of the two, and he's getting support from the pillars of the left: university towns, Hollywood, unions. Clinton is not entirely trusted regarding the war.
Then there's Michelle Obama. She probably didn't expect a fierce reaction when she told a crowd in Wisconsin that she'd never been proud of the good ol' USA before. The comment was probably just a little over-the-top speech. The trouble is not so much that she said it, but that to her audience, such a statement is nothing out of the norm. To her social and intellectual set, the same as Barack's, such a line fit right in with their thinking. They've been insulated. They haven't had to explain their thinking to voters with Lee Greenwood on their iPods.
That will change when the general election rolls around. Republicans will rally around God and country. Democrats, who came close four years ago to electing their first far-left president, will find out if they have enough strength now to hold off the flag-wavers.
---
The New York Times article about McCain's connection to a telecommunications lobbyist leaves one to ponder. My reaction: gee, what a shock. People around Washington, D.C., get around, especially if they've been in office a long time. Which is why politicians who are clean when elected are soiled if they stay more than a few terms. For this to happen to McCain is no surprise.
But why bring up something that's kind of old? The relationship ended around the year 2000. Certainly there can be something newer.
That's why I think the story is a test run for what's to come. This isn't that big a story, certainly nothing that will harm McCain's election prospects. Running this story now might just rattle his tree some, and if the tree shakes, something might fall off. The NYT reporter started investigating the relationship when he received a tip. The story might bring more tips into the newsroom, or those of the Washington Post or LA Times, which might be more useful against McCain in late-October.
---
The stories on the resignation of Cuba's Fidel Castro have been kind of funny. "Might There be Change in Havana?" Uh, no.
Change will come to Pakistan, and it's about time we congratulate the opposition and get on board with them. You don't have to jettison Musarraf, but you'll have to work with whoever it is that's in power.
Unfortunately, that power says it plans to try to resolve Pakistan's problems with Islamists through dialogue. Musarraf has already tried that and it didn't work. So look for the South Asian nation to remain unstable for a while, and for our efforts in neighboring Afghanistan to be prolonged as a result.
In a sense, it becomes yet another test of strength for the far left in America, which has failed in three attempts to get a presidential candidate -- George McGovern, Walter Mondale or John Kerry -- elected. The first two got routed in 1972 and 1984, respectively. Kerry came much closer to winning the White House in 2004.
Maybe, in 2008, the far left is close enough to success.
As I've mentioned before when discussing Republican politics, ideology has not been a factor in the campaign. Neither for Democrats. Some have tried to make it ideological, but they failed. There's been no need among liberals to make sure their candidates have been ideologically pure. Americans for Democratic Action rated Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as 75 percent liberal in their 2007 voting, following 95 percent ratings the year before. Can't be more similar than that.
While both push liberal programs, many see Obama as being more liberal of the two, and he's getting support from the pillars of the left: university towns, Hollywood, unions. Clinton is not entirely trusted regarding the war.
Then there's Michelle Obama. She probably didn't expect a fierce reaction when she told a crowd in Wisconsin that she'd never been proud of the good ol' USA before. The comment was probably just a little over-the-top speech. The trouble is not so much that she said it, but that to her audience, such a statement is nothing out of the norm. To her social and intellectual set, the same as Barack's, such a line fit right in with their thinking. They've been insulated. They haven't had to explain their thinking to voters with Lee Greenwood on their iPods.
That will change when the general election rolls around. Republicans will rally around God and country. Democrats, who came close four years ago to electing their first far-left president, will find out if they have enough strength now to hold off the flag-wavers.
---
The New York Times article about McCain's connection to a telecommunications lobbyist leaves one to ponder. My reaction: gee, what a shock. People around Washington, D.C., get around, especially if they've been in office a long time. Which is why politicians who are clean when elected are soiled if they stay more than a few terms. For this to happen to McCain is no surprise.
But why bring up something that's kind of old? The relationship ended around the year 2000. Certainly there can be something newer.
That's why I think the story is a test run for what's to come. This isn't that big a story, certainly nothing that will harm McCain's election prospects. Running this story now might just rattle his tree some, and if the tree shakes, something might fall off. The NYT reporter started investigating the relationship when he received a tip. The story might bring more tips into the newsroom, or those of the Washington Post or LA Times, which might be more useful against McCain in late-October.
---
The stories on the resignation of Cuba's Fidel Castro have been kind of funny. "Might There be Change in Havana?" Uh, no.
Change will come to Pakistan, and it's about time we congratulate the opposition and get on board with them. You don't have to jettison Musarraf, but you'll have to work with whoever it is that's in power.
Unfortunately, that power says it plans to try to resolve Pakistan's problems with Islamists through dialogue. Musarraf has already tried that and it didn't work. So look for the South Asian nation to remain unstable for a while, and for our efforts in neighboring Afghanistan to be prolonged as a result.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Hillary-Hating Whites Going to Obama
The recent spate of victories by Barack Obama represents something of a breakthrough in what had been a demographics-based campaign on the Democratic side of the presidential campaign. We knew that blacks were backing Obama over Hillary Clinton in a big way. In the so-called "Potomac Primaries," Obama also won over whites, fueled by an 18-point margin of caucasian males in Virginia.
In fact, according to ABC News, Obama has won white males in the past 12 states to vote.
Apparently white guys like the Illinois senator. More likely, they dislike the lady from New York. Males of all stripes really haven't cared much for Mrs. Clinton since she came upon the national scene 16 years ago, something which has drawn considerable scorn from feminists.
The question is why. The subject came up on the one segment of Rush Limbaugh's radio program this morning while I drove to work. He came up with the basics: that Hillary Clinton possesses female traits that men hate most, that she comes off as Nurse Ratched or the Mother-in-Law from hell.
The feminists answer for all these years has been that men are afraid of newly liberated, strong women.
I think Rush's comments have some merit, but the feminists are just being defensive.
My take is that the reason why men dislike Hillary is that she's a fraud. Since most men either enjoy watching sports or are at least socialized enough to be aware of what's going on with the players and teams, we know how to spot frauds. How many times does a player come over to your favorite baseball team, either through trade, free agency or a promotion from the minor leagues, get a big buildup about how great he is, and then hit .215? Fans hate that.
On the other hand, the semi-talented who come in to be a late-inning defensive replacement or long reliever, well, we understand their limitations. We wish we were that guy.
We certainly go crazy with frustration over the big supposed star who can't hit his weight. Even acclaimed superstars like Alex Rodriguez with the Yankees, and Barry Bonds when he was with the Pirates, drew the ire of fans because when they got to the big stage -- the World Series or playoffs -- they'd stink. If they're so good and make the big bucks, post-season is when you're supposed to deliver. Neither Rodriguez nor Bonds, who was disliked for this long before steroids become an issue, have been productive in October.
Now, back to Hillary. Her supporters for years told us she's the smartest woman on earth. Well, at least the smartest woman in politics.
But look at her record. There's very little to indicate that she can convert all those smarts to productive action. She bungled nearly everything she touched while her husband was in the White House and as senator has basically accomplished nothing, other than to become this year's biggest earmarker.
Big buildup. No production. It drives people nuts, and that's why guys, the first to spot this, don't like her.
Now, women are going for Obama in greater numbers, which accounted for his huge victory totals in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Females, who watched each other closely, can spot frauds among their own better than we men can, that's for sure.
---
In a recent post, I mentioned that McCain was going to have to adjust his general election campaign to attract a different kind of non-Republican if he's going to have a chance to win.
Obama has much the same problem. He's going to have to find a replacement for these white men who are voting for him, and the ones going for Hillary. Many of the Obama supporters are casting anti-Hillary votes and, without John Edwards around, have nowhere else to place their vote. In November, they'll size up Barack Obama as he really is and will have McCain as their alternative. Many will stay with Obama. Many others will not.
The divide between supporters of Obama and Hillary is also one of social class. As it's frequently explained in shorthand, Obama gets the wine-and-cheese set and Clinton picks up the blue collar guys. If McCain makes the recommended adjustments, he'll pick up many of the male Clinton supporters, too.
In fact, according to ABC News, Obama has won white males in the past 12 states to vote.
Apparently white guys like the Illinois senator. More likely, they dislike the lady from New York. Males of all stripes really haven't cared much for Mrs. Clinton since she came upon the national scene 16 years ago, something which has drawn considerable scorn from feminists.
The question is why. The subject came up on the one segment of Rush Limbaugh's radio program this morning while I drove to work. He came up with the basics: that Hillary Clinton possesses female traits that men hate most, that she comes off as Nurse Ratched or the Mother-in-Law from hell.
The feminists answer for all these years has been that men are afraid of newly liberated, strong women.
I think Rush's comments have some merit, but the feminists are just being defensive.
My take is that the reason why men dislike Hillary is that she's a fraud. Since most men either enjoy watching sports or are at least socialized enough to be aware of what's going on with the players and teams, we know how to spot frauds. How many times does a player come over to your favorite baseball team, either through trade, free agency or a promotion from the minor leagues, get a big buildup about how great he is, and then hit .215? Fans hate that.
On the other hand, the semi-talented who come in to be a late-inning defensive replacement or long reliever, well, we understand their limitations. We wish we were that guy.
We certainly go crazy with frustration over the big supposed star who can't hit his weight. Even acclaimed superstars like Alex Rodriguez with the Yankees, and Barry Bonds when he was with the Pirates, drew the ire of fans because when they got to the big stage -- the World Series or playoffs -- they'd stink. If they're so good and make the big bucks, post-season is when you're supposed to deliver. Neither Rodriguez nor Bonds, who was disliked for this long before steroids become an issue, have been productive in October.
Now, back to Hillary. Her supporters for years told us she's the smartest woman on earth. Well, at least the smartest woman in politics.
But look at her record. There's very little to indicate that she can convert all those smarts to productive action. She bungled nearly everything she touched while her husband was in the White House and as senator has basically accomplished nothing, other than to become this year's biggest earmarker.
Big buildup. No production. It drives people nuts, and that's why guys, the first to spot this, don't like her.
Now, women are going for Obama in greater numbers, which accounted for his huge victory totals in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Females, who watched each other closely, can spot frauds among their own better than we men can, that's for sure.
---
In a recent post, I mentioned that McCain was going to have to adjust his general election campaign to attract a different kind of non-Republican if he's going to have a chance to win.
Obama has much the same problem. He's going to have to find a replacement for these white men who are voting for him, and the ones going for Hillary. Many of the Obama supporters are casting anti-Hillary votes and, without John Edwards around, have nowhere else to place their vote. In November, they'll size up Barack Obama as he really is and will have McCain as their alternative. Many will stay with Obama. Many others will not.
The divide between supporters of Obama and Hillary is also one of social class. As it's frequently explained in shorthand, Obama gets the wine-and-cheese set and Clinton picks up the blue collar guys. If McCain makes the recommended adjustments, he'll pick up many of the male Clinton supporters, too.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Good Mitt Bad Mitt Steps Down, McCain Advice
In a previous post, I said with tongue planted only slightly firmly in cheek that the 2012 presidential election campaign would start in December, as in this December. I was wrong. It started on Feb. 7 with Mitt Romney's withdrawal speech before a gathering of conservative political activists.
This speech was Mitt Romney at his best. He hit all the right points and was correct on the issues. About two-thirds of the way through a speech of about 20 minutes, I was thinking that the former Massachusetts governor was Ronald Reagan circa 1976. He had just lost a primary campaign to a more established politician but had exited strongly.
This speech was also Mitt Romney at his worst. He's much too calculating. Too clever for his own good. As he offered his concession before a crowd of cheering supporters, he said he made the decision to exit the campaign because the United States is a nation at war, and he thought it would be best to step aside for the good of the country so John McCain could begin his general election campaign -- thereby saving us from Democrats Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
Puh-leeze!
Romney pulled out of the race because he had no good options. He finished second or third in the states that count, discovered that middle class southerners don't like him and had less than half the delegates that McCain had accumulated. He was financing a large portion of his campaign with the family largess, and with no hope of winning, it was time to pull out.
If he just says that, fine. We understand. But to sacrifice himself on the alter of a nation at war is really going over the top.
Romney -- I may have written this previously -- throughout the campaign when I heard him give a speech or be interviewed, always made lots of sense but almost always said something to piss me off. It left me remembering what made me mad more than what I had agreed with. I bet a lot of you had the same reaction. It's why I didn't become a Romney honk early in the campaign like a lot of pundits did. It's also why he didn't earn this blog's endorsement until two candidates I preferred had dropped out of the race.
So here I am remembering -- and ranting -- about the annoying last five minutes of Romney's withdrawal speech. That's the way politics works. I have to remind myself that the first 15 minutes of the talk were utterly brilliant, and the reason why Romney will probably remain not far from the Republican consciousness over the next few years, and why he will be considered a party favorite in 2012 to either replace an aging McCain or to unseat Clinton or Obama.
---
John McCain is getting all kinds of advice this week on how to unify the GOP and take on the Democrats this fall. Here's my two cents worth.
1. Recognize that only the delegate count is dominant. The number of states won and total popular votes does not show a great victory over Romney or Mike Huckabee. I doubt McCain would offer the vice-presidency to a man he conspired against along with Huckabee in the West Virginia caucuses, but he does admit economics is not his strong point. While Romney probably would not accept a lowly cabinet position, it would be great for him to take on an informal advisory role in this area. Huckabee probably would accept an appointment and should be given one. If Obama wins the Democrat nomination, McCain will probably have to give Huckabee the vice-presidency. The point is to announce, within the next couple weeks as Republicans re-evaluate a McCain candidacy, the inclusion of those two men in his administration.
2. Recognize that the non-Republicans who voted for McCain in the primaries will probably not be voting for him in November. The exit polls show the McCain independents are socially liberal anti-war activists who enjoy how he's tweaked President Bush. When those people come to learn that McCain is pro-life, the leading cheerleader of the war in Iraq and will govern much the same way as Bush, they will scamper to the Democratic candidate. McCain will, however, have considerable appeal to the so-called "Reagan Democrats" who see him as a buffer for Clinton's or Obama's liberalism.
McCain got off to a good start in party unification with his speech to the same conservative activists to whom Romney spoke. His talk was excellent, humble and conciliatory, and included a note that he and Romney would soon have a sit-down to discuss the issues.
Current polling shows McCain beating both Democrats, but those results have only come from polls when the senator has been riding high. Later in the campaign, it could change. McCain can probably handle Clinton. Obama's passion and attraction to youth and women (yeah, he's losing women to Clinton, but she'd get even more of the female vote without him) could prove troublesome.
This speech was Mitt Romney at his best. He hit all the right points and was correct on the issues. About two-thirds of the way through a speech of about 20 minutes, I was thinking that the former Massachusetts governor was Ronald Reagan circa 1976. He had just lost a primary campaign to a more established politician but had exited strongly.
This speech was also Mitt Romney at his worst. He's much too calculating. Too clever for his own good. As he offered his concession before a crowd of cheering supporters, he said he made the decision to exit the campaign because the United States is a nation at war, and he thought it would be best to step aside for the good of the country so John McCain could begin his general election campaign -- thereby saving us from Democrats Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
Puh-leeze!
Romney pulled out of the race because he had no good options. He finished second or third in the states that count, discovered that middle class southerners don't like him and had less than half the delegates that McCain had accumulated. He was financing a large portion of his campaign with the family largess, and with no hope of winning, it was time to pull out.
If he just says that, fine. We understand. But to sacrifice himself on the alter of a nation at war is really going over the top.
Romney -- I may have written this previously -- throughout the campaign when I heard him give a speech or be interviewed, always made lots of sense but almost always said something to piss me off. It left me remembering what made me mad more than what I had agreed with. I bet a lot of you had the same reaction. It's why I didn't become a Romney honk early in the campaign like a lot of pundits did. It's also why he didn't earn this blog's endorsement until two candidates I preferred had dropped out of the race.
So here I am remembering -- and ranting -- about the annoying last five minutes of Romney's withdrawal speech. That's the way politics works. I have to remind myself that the first 15 minutes of the talk were utterly brilliant, and the reason why Romney will probably remain not far from the Republican consciousness over the next few years, and why he will be considered a party favorite in 2012 to either replace an aging McCain or to unseat Clinton or Obama.
---
John McCain is getting all kinds of advice this week on how to unify the GOP and take on the Democrats this fall. Here's my two cents worth.
1. Recognize that only the delegate count is dominant. The number of states won and total popular votes does not show a great victory over Romney or Mike Huckabee. I doubt McCain would offer the vice-presidency to a man he conspired against along with Huckabee in the West Virginia caucuses, but he does admit economics is not his strong point. While Romney probably would not accept a lowly cabinet position, it would be great for him to take on an informal advisory role in this area. Huckabee probably would accept an appointment and should be given one. If Obama wins the Democrat nomination, McCain will probably have to give Huckabee the vice-presidency. The point is to announce, within the next couple weeks as Republicans re-evaluate a McCain candidacy, the inclusion of those two men in his administration.
2. Recognize that the non-Republicans who voted for McCain in the primaries will probably not be voting for him in November. The exit polls show the McCain independents are socially liberal anti-war activists who enjoy how he's tweaked President Bush. When those people come to learn that McCain is pro-life, the leading cheerleader of the war in Iraq and will govern much the same way as Bush, they will scamper to the Democratic candidate. McCain will, however, have considerable appeal to the so-called "Reagan Democrats" who see him as a buffer for Clinton's or Obama's liberalism.
McCain got off to a good start in party unification with his speech to the same conservative activists to whom Romney spoke. His talk was excellent, humble and conciliatory, and included a note that he and Romney would soon have a sit-down to discuss the issues.
Current polling shows McCain beating both Democrats, but those results have only come from polls when the senator has been riding high. Later in the campaign, it could change. McCain can probably handle Clinton. Obama's passion and attraction to youth and women (yeah, he's losing women to Clinton, but she'd get even more of the female vote without him) could prove troublesome.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Romney: Woulda, Coulda, Didn't
Mitt Romney, meet Paul Tsongas. Well, not literally, since the Massachusetts lawmaker is no longer with us. But there are veteran Democrats who will swear up and down that Tsongas would have made a brilliant president because of his sharp and detailed knowledge of the financial condition of the federal government. Trouble is, he was a dull campaigner who failed to connect with people outside his own little corner of the world.
Super Tuesday voters virtually relegated Romney to a similar fate. Could have been an excellent president. Ran a poor campaign in which he came off as too calculating in his positions, too clever by half and, at the end, too whiny over perceived political slights that would have been nothing back in the day.
Romney did win some Super Tuesday states. Like his own, Massachusetts. He also took Minnesota and Montana. Unfortunately, not all states' names begin with a capital M, and he failed to win Missouri, where he in fact came in third.
The problem for Romney on this watershed day is that in numerous large states, Arizona Sen. John McCain simply took him to the woodshed. In California, if the numbers hold up, Romney lost by more than 20 points in a place where most polls had him leading or close. Other large states were similar. The places won by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee generally placed Romney third.
Oh, well. I endorsed him for the Republican side, citing his record as a can-do problem solver. He now has the problem of explaining to his wife how he blew quite a few million big ones on such a sorry effort as a campaigner.
---
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton will divvy up the Democratic delegates won on Super Tuesday. Obama won more states, but Clinton won bigger states, ones more important to their party's cause in November. Clinton could expand her lead, but it won't be dominating by any stretch of the imagination. Obama, if he ends up with more delegates, will cut into Clinton's advantage, but probably not by much.
The rest of the month could be kind to Obama, however. Coming up are, among other primaries, are Louisiana, Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. You're looking at blacks -- going more than 80 percent for Obama -- lot's of YUPPYs and college students, all going for Obama big-time.
---
I think McCain can ease the fears of Republicans that he's not conservative enough. As I mentioned in a previous post, he's conservative plenty, and not conservative at all. He's simply a guy who looks at the issues and takes a position. He's not an ideologue. He's gotten some issues right, and some wrong. When he makes a mistake, it's usually a spectacular one. But it says little about whether he's a conservative or not and those ideological questions have turned out to play little to no role in the primary season.
How he approaches the general election will be interesting, however. Most of the moderate and independent voters supporting him now oppose the Iraq War, are socially liberal and hate the way the Bush administration conducts business -- and love how McCain has been a thorn in their side.
Once they realize that McCain is the biggest advocate of the Iraq War, is socially quite conservative, and will likely govern in much the same style as Bush, their vote in November might not be forthcoming.
---
All this bellyaching about "battling for the soul of the Republican Party" and "saving the Reagan coalition" is driving me crazy. I'm sure there are a lot of activists and pundits who will be quick to announce the end of conservativism.
We voters voted for who we thought would be the best president, or at least the best presidential candidate. I really doubt someone in Missouri or Alabama walked into a voting booth with intentions of destroying the Reagan legacy.
Really, get serious.
---
One of the other things we've been hearing with John McCain's rise has been the loss of influence of talk radio hosts. However, talk radio listeners are said to be lemmings, going wherever their hosts lead them. Maybe the listeners, as voters, simply have minds of their own after all.
Super Tuesday voters virtually relegated Romney to a similar fate. Could have been an excellent president. Ran a poor campaign in which he came off as too calculating in his positions, too clever by half and, at the end, too whiny over perceived political slights that would have been nothing back in the day.
Romney did win some Super Tuesday states. Like his own, Massachusetts. He also took Minnesota and Montana. Unfortunately, not all states' names begin with a capital M, and he failed to win Missouri, where he in fact came in third.
The problem for Romney on this watershed day is that in numerous large states, Arizona Sen. John McCain simply took him to the woodshed. In California, if the numbers hold up, Romney lost by more than 20 points in a place where most polls had him leading or close. Other large states were similar. The places won by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee generally placed Romney third.
Oh, well. I endorsed him for the Republican side, citing his record as a can-do problem solver. He now has the problem of explaining to his wife how he blew quite a few million big ones on such a sorry effort as a campaigner.
---
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton will divvy up the Democratic delegates won on Super Tuesday. Obama won more states, but Clinton won bigger states, ones more important to their party's cause in November. Clinton could expand her lead, but it won't be dominating by any stretch of the imagination. Obama, if he ends up with more delegates, will cut into Clinton's advantage, but probably not by much.
The rest of the month could be kind to Obama, however. Coming up are, among other primaries, are Louisiana, Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. You're looking at blacks -- going more than 80 percent for Obama -- lot's of YUPPYs and college students, all going for Obama big-time.
---
I think McCain can ease the fears of Republicans that he's not conservative enough. As I mentioned in a previous post, he's conservative plenty, and not conservative at all. He's simply a guy who looks at the issues and takes a position. He's not an ideologue. He's gotten some issues right, and some wrong. When he makes a mistake, it's usually a spectacular one. But it says little about whether he's a conservative or not and those ideological questions have turned out to play little to no role in the primary season.
How he approaches the general election will be interesting, however. Most of the moderate and independent voters supporting him now oppose the Iraq War, are socially liberal and hate the way the Bush administration conducts business -- and love how McCain has been a thorn in their side.
Once they realize that McCain is the biggest advocate of the Iraq War, is socially quite conservative, and will likely govern in much the same style as Bush, their vote in November might not be forthcoming.
---
All this bellyaching about "battling for the soul of the Republican Party" and "saving the Reagan coalition" is driving me crazy. I'm sure there are a lot of activists and pundits who will be quick to announce the end of conservativism.
We voters voted for who we thought would be the best president, or at least the best presidential candidate. I really doubt someone in Missouri or Alabama walked into a voting booth with intentions of destroying the Reagan legacy.
Really, get serious.
---
One of the other things we've been hearing with John McCain's rise has been the loss of influence of talk radio hosts. However, talk radio listeners are said to be lemmings, going wherever their hosts lead them. Maybe the listeners, as voters, simply have minds of their own after all.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
McCain No Conservative, Duh, Neither is Romney; Open Warfare on Border
John McCain is trying to appear more conservative in order to wrap up the Republican presidential nomination. His remaining major opponent, Mitt Romney, is claiming the conservative mantle for himself.
Conservative talk radio is ripping McCain and embracing Romney. The primary campaign has come down to holding the so-called "Reagan Coalition" together. The end of conservativism is at hand. The party is about to walk the liberal plank!
Who cares? A rhetorical question. Really.
When the campaign began, so many years ago it seems, the number one theme for the GOP is that no true conservatives were running among the serious candidates. McCain was no conservative. Neither was Romney. Both held conservative-ish views on some things, but not others. The other remaining candidate, Mike Huckabee, was only conservative on social issues. Rudy Giuliani on national security and law enforcement. The only true conservative in the race was Rep. Duncan Hunter, who celebrated a straight single digit.
McCain and Romney, despite the campaign rhetoric, are both pragmatists who have ideas endorsed by conservatives in some areas and not others. Just the way they are. McCain is a war hawk -- inexplicably picking up thousands of anti-war votes, one of the lone voices trying to limit federal spending and is strongly pro-life. Romney has strong pro-business policies and is supportive of the war efforts.
None of this says anything about the death of conservatism or the Reagan Coalition. It's just how the choice has worked out in this odd campaign season. Our vote for or against them needs to be on their records and their promises, not who more-perfectly upholds the conservative ideal.
---
It's been a while since I wrote about illegal immigration, but conditions at the border merit a comment. News reports today say that U.S. Border Patrol agents shot and wounded a smuggler and at least one migrant yesterday east of San Diego, the second such incident in a couple of weeks. Agents had confronted them in a vehicle, and opened fire when they reversed toward one of them.
This comes after an agent was killed in late-January in the Imperial Valley desert when he was run over by a smuggler driving a Hummer, who quickly fled back to Mexico.
The Mexican government this week complained about an increase of agents firing tear gas across the border. The Border Patrol responded that there's been more cross-border violence requiring such action.
In short, it's open warfare at the border. You're a smuggler who drives a vehicle in the direction of a border patrol agent, expect gunfire as a response. Agents, reasonably, don't want to end up like their late colleague.
It's amazing that as violence increases along the border, only one candidate among the four majors remaining is committed to being tough on illegal immigration. Reality needs to be injected in this campaign in a number of areas, and this is high up among them.
Conservative talk radio is ripping McCain and embracing Romney. The primary campaign has come down to holding the so-called "Reagan Coalition" together. The end of conservativism is at hand. The party is about to walk the liberal plank!
Who cares? A rhetorical question. Really.
When the campaign began, so many years ago it seems, the number one theme for the GOP is that no true conservatives were running among the serious candidates. McCain was no conservative. Neither was Romney. Both held conservative-ish views on some things, but not others. The other remaining candidate, Mike Huckabee, was only conservative on social issues. Rudy Giuliani on national security and law enforcement. The only true conservative in the race was Rep. Duncan Hunter, who celebrated a straight single digit.
McCain and Romney, despite the campaign rhetoric, are both pragmatists who have ideas endorsed by conservatives in some areas and not others. Just the way they are. McCain is a war hawk -- inexplicably picking up thousands of anti-war votes, one of the lone voices trying to limit federal spending and is strongly pro-life. Romney has strong pro-business policies and is supportive of the war efforts.
None of this says anything about the death of conservatism or the Reagan Coalition. It's just how the choice has worked out in this odd campaign season. Our vote for or against them needs to be on their records and their promises, not who more-perfectly upholds the conservative ideal.
---
It's been a while since I wrote about illegal immigration, but conditions at the border merit a comment. News reports today say that U.S. Border Patrol agents shot and wounded a smuggler and at least one migrant yesterday east of San Diego, the second such incident in a couple of weeks. Agents had confronted them in a vehicle, and opened fire when they reversed toward one of them.
This comes after an agent was killed in late-January in the Imperial Valley desert when he was run over by a smuggler driving a Hummer, who quickly fled back to Mexico.
The Mexican government this week complained about an increase of agents firing tear gas across the border. The Border Patrol responded that there's been more cross-border violence requiring such action.
In short, it's open warfare at the border. You're a smuggler who drives a vehicle in the direction of a border patrol agent, expect gunfire as a response. Agents, reasonably, don't want to end up like their late colleague.
It's amazing that as violence increases along the border, only one candidate among the four majors remaining is committed to being tough on illegal immigration. Reality needs to be injected in this campaign in a number of areas, and this is high up among them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)