By Rick Morris
Sports gamblers don't care about the ultimate outcome of games; they only care about who covered. Likewise, for politicians and the entire political chattering class, pointspreads are also the end-all, be-all. Except they're known in that realm as "expectations."
History will record that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each went 1-1 on Tuesday night, with Obama pocketing North Carolina and Hil-Rod (ultimately, after a long wait) clinching Indiana. Frankly, the straightforward historical record is also meaningless, because the key difference in the outcomes came in the expectations: Obama "beat the spread" in North Carolina and also managed to "cover" in Indiana, coming tantalizingly close to an outright win that would have ended the process already via superdelegate stampede on Wednesday. On a completely different topic, anyone wondering why the Democratic machine in Gary, Indiana held back results until the wee hours of the morning would do well to read the epic book "Will" by G. Gordon Liddy for an explanation of how Lake County REALLY operates.
But back to the topic at hand: Obama, already the frontrunner, was able to consolidate his delegate lead by whipping Hillary all over Tobacco Road and by holding her to a near-tie among Hoosiers. The shock of Obama's turnaround Tuesday (especially in light of a tough few weeks in terms of primary results and headlines about his personal associations) was such that it triggered the primary season version of the election night "call" by networks. Tim Russert of NBC News set off a mass media stampede by proclaiming the race over and Barack Obama the winner. The conventional wisdom of the moment is that Obama's coronation in Denver at the convention is a done deal because of the way the numbers have materialized.
While media organizations, campaigns, and participants at every level of the process all have metrics that point in that direction, it's likely that none of them have anything quite as solid as what we're about to unveil here.
I've recently become acquainted with an excellent writer named Jacob Rosen, who writes about many different topics just like those of us here at The FDH Lounge. He's a busy, busy man and a man of many talents so I don't know when it will be feasible on his end, but it seems likely that we'll be able to feature him in some form through the FDH media family in the days ahead. When you read what we've got here, you'll understand why that thought causes us such enthusiasm.
Jacob sent us an email that he gave us permission to quote liberally here and we will. This is excerpted from his excellent email newsletter. He performed a statistical analysis on the Democratic race for president -- and found it quite uphill to say the least for Hillary at the moment. In short, he devised a metric he called the "glorious, magical number" that calculated her overall chances in the race.
"This number represents the break-even percentage point in which a) Hillary Clinton must win a difference over Obama for the overall super delegates, and b) the difference she must win in the remaining primaries.
Before the Pennsylvania primaries on April 22nd, the glorious, magical number stood at about 12.24% -- meaning that if Clinton were to win the remaining primaries by this number, and eventually increase her lead over Obama in terms of super delegates to this number, the overall delegate race would be tied in the end. Since Clinton did not win by 12.24%, but came awfully close to a 10% victory over the 158 pledged delegates, the glorious, magical number increased to 12.90% (which includes Guam results.)
In North Carolina and Indiana, Obama netted a total of 12 delegates (97 to 85) according to the most recent numbers available on RealClearPolitics.com. With these numbers, the glorious, magical number has increased to an astounding 16.40%. The number is now so large because North Carolina and Indiana represented just under half of the remaining pledged delegates remaining after Guam and Pennsylvania. This number may even seem quite irrelevant, because Clinton's super delegate lead is now only at 2.07% (down from 9.54% pre-OH/TX, 4.90% pre-PA and 2.65% pre-NC/IND.). So in order to catch her break-even point of pledged and super delegates, Clinton would have to exponentially increase her lead of super delegate supporters.
According to numbers on www.demconwatch.blogspot.com, the unofficial delegate totals from Michigan (with Obama as the uncommitted) and Florida for Obama and Clinton are 122 to 178. Including this into the total of overall pledged delegates, and the glorious, magical number at this point in time becomes 10.87%. Thus, if Clinton is to have any logical chance at winning this thing, or even making a point to seat these delegates in the first place, she must increase her overall super delegate lead to 10%. That should be the initial goal for the Clinton campaign, as the number of undecided super delegates out-weighs the number of remaining pledged delegates (264 to 217).
I have not seen very good polls just yet from upcoming primaries spots of West Virginia, Kentucky and Oregon. Once I do, however, I will be able to predict what the glorious, magical number will become like I did pre-NC/IND. According to poll averages RealClearPolitics.com from NC and IND (which I then formulated around 100% total), I had predicted the glorious, magical number to increase to 15.90%. The change of 0.5% is noted because of the impressive performance by Obama against the pre-primary polls (the first time since before OH/TX)."
Again, that's excellent work by Jacob right there in terms of breaking down the race with cold, hard numbers. Is there anybody out there not named Bill, Hillary or Chelsea who still thinks a win is possible? Actually, Chelsea seems pretty sharp to me; I wouldn't even necessarily count her with the believers at this point!
This race is done even if the Clintons don't realize it yet. As the Democratic party and their element in the left-wing blogosphere gets ever more angry about Obama still having to work for the nomination while John McCain gets a free ride, look for the recriminations directed at the Clintons to skyrocket. One wonders what Keith Olbermann's next misogynistic call for somebody to deal forcibly with Hillary will entail and whether this time he'll be getting waterboarded by the Secret Service. Then again, since the Secret Service doesn't look kindly on objects of their protection throwing lamps at people, they probably won't lift a finger and Olbermann, Kos and everyone else on that side will be able to keep spewing their impotent, murderous rage at Hillary.
Showing posts with label Democrat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrat. Show all posts
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
North Carolina/Indiana primary predictions
By Rick Morris
The Real Clear Politics averages put Obama up 8 points in North Carolina and Clinton up 5 points in Indiana. With polls on the verge of closing shortly, here are my predictions.
Reports out of North Carolina today indicate that Obama will "beat the spread," perhaps decisively, as turnout among his key constituencies carries him to a big win. I see him covering, but not by much, mostly because he has not performed up to the levels of his late polling during much of the primary/caucus season. Call it Obama by 10.
In Indiana, I think the favorite also covers, as I believe Clinton will win by 8 points. I think that the state shapes up nicely for her in terms of the demographics she's carried in the past. Any hopes whatsoever for Obama to win are going to hinge on huge outpourings in Gary and Indianapolis -- which do account for a significant percentage of the state's Democratic voters. Frankly, with Gary being just a short commute for members of Obama's hometown machine, he's done a masterful job in terms of managing expectations in the state, as he should have been perceived as having a strong chance to win.
A split decision along the lines of what I forecast tonight changes nothing. There will be no stampede of superdelegates to Obama absent an upset win in Indiana, although they'll keep moving in his direction overall unless he inexplicably coughs up North Carolina.
The Real Clear Politics averages put Obama up 8 points in North Carolina and Clinton up 5 points in Indiana. With polls on the verge of closing shortly, here are my predictions.
Reports out of North Carolina today indicate that Obama will "beat the spread," perhaps decisively, as turnout among his key constituencies carries him to a big win. I see him covering, but not by much, mostly because he has not performed up to the levels of his late polling during much of the primary/caucus season. Call it Obama by 10.
In Indiana, I think the favorite also covers, as I believe Clinton will win by 8 points. I think that the state shapes up nicely for her in terms of the demographics she's carried in the past. Any hopes whatsoever for Obama to win are going to hinge on huge outpourings in Gary and Indianapolis -- which do account for a significant percentage of the state's Democratic voters. Frankly, with Gary being just a short commute for members of Obama's hometown machine, he's done a masterful job in terms of managing expectations in the state, as he should have been perceived as having a strong chance to win.
A split decision along the lines of what I forecast tonight changes nothing. There will be no stampede of superdelegates to Obama absent an upset win in Indiana, although they'll keep moving in his direction overall unless he inexplicably coughs up North Carolina.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Sore loser Gore hurts Democrats 8 years later
By Rick Morris
It's commonly accepted that the Democratic battle for president is the messiest since 1980, if not 1968 (and folks, we're headed for some Days of Rage out in Denver if Obama gets this nomination ripped from him). Everyone attributes two factors for this state of affairs:
1. The volatility of the usual Democratic obsession with identity politics being mixed with the certainty that either the first black or first woman candidate will be nominated.
2. The unparalleled ambition and ruthlessness of the Clintons.
But everyone's forgetting the vital third element in the equation, and this amnesia is surprising because it related directly to the rage Democrats have felt against George W. Bush since his first national campaign:
3. The legacy of the tactics deployed by Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election -- or rather, his refusal to accept the outcome of the 2000 election.
You remember the conduct of Sore-Loserman in the aftermath of the vote, don't you? The transformation of infantile drivel such as "the will of the people" becoming the official mantra of the Democrat party?
[Side note, Dick Nixon legitimately had the 1960 election stolen from him by crooks manipulating the "graveyard vote" in Illinois and Texas. Four decades later, Gore lost primarily because some of his core voters were illiterates who couldn't understand a simple butterfly ballot. Nixon refused to contest the election and conceded so our country wouldn't be divided at a time of peril in the Cold War. Regardless of what voters intended in their hearts, Gore lost the election by losing Florida and yet divided our country with relish at a vulnerable time when his president had spent eight years not facing up to the terrorist threat plaguing our nation. And yet it's Gore who gets made into a secular saint by the simpletons who comprise the ranks of "opinion leaders" in the U.S.A.]
Gore ran around the country trumpeting the fact that he won the popular vote, which is Constitutionally irrelevant under our system of government. Democrats demagogued the Electoral College, pronouncing it an anachronism when it suited their purposes. One of the chief phonies at the time was Hillary Clinton, who pronounced it undemocratic and who is now being blocked from the nomination by other phonies who pronounce her efforts undemocratic. Yes, there is a God and He has a sense of Karmic humor!
Gore picked a fight in a game of chicken he knew he could not possibly win, for it was certain that even if the U.S. Supreme Court backed the partisan hacks on the Florida Supreme Court and allowed the little old ladies with hatpins surreptitiously poking holes in the chads to steal the election that the House of Representatives would vote to recognize the legal Katherine Harris slate of electors. So he had no chance -- not immediately that is, as the clear endgame was to bloody up Bush for a rematch four years later and that scenario would have played out had Gore not chickened out when Bush was still in his post-9/11 popularity phase.
By posing as if they were the only ones concerned with "counting all the votes," Democrats ended up creating an extra standard in all elections. Now, even though the rules don't give Barack Obama any edge whatsoever because of it, he can claim a Divine Mandate because he's ahead in the popular vote and elected delegate count. Hillary has to augment her logical argument with "the rules say nothing about those factors" with more of her patented say-anything drivel like "caucuses are undemocratic."
By working so hard to delegitimize the winner of the 2000 presidential election (and I pronounce Bush the rightful winner of the election despite the fact that I did not vote for him, but rather, Patrick J. Buchanan), Democrats created a set of circumstances where tactics unexceptional by historical standards would call for the language of delegitimization to be invoked. The bitter fruit they are now choking on can best be called their just desserts.
It's commonly accepted that the Democratic battle for president is the messiest since 1980, if not 1968 (and folks, we're headed for some Days of Rage out in Denver if Obama gets this nomination ripped from him). Everyone attributes two factors for this state of affairs:
1. The volatility of the usual Democratic obsession with identity politics being mixed with the certainty that either the first black or first woman candidate will be nominated.
2. The unparalleled ambition and ruthlessness of the Clintons.
But everyone's forgetting the vital third element in the equation, and this amnesia is surprising because it related directly to the rage Democrats have felt against George W. Bush since his first national campaign:
3. The legacy of the tactics deployed by Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election -- or rather, his refusal to accept the outcome of the 2000 election.
You remember the conduct of Sore-Loserman in the aftermath of the vote, don't you? The transformation of infantile drivel such as "the will of the people" becoming the official mantra of the Democrat party?
[Side note, Dick Nixon legitimately had the 1960 election stolen from him by crooks manipulating the "graveyard vote" in Illinois and Texas. Four decades later, Gore lost primarily because some of his core voters were illiterates who couldn't understand a simple butterfly ballot. Nixon refused to contest the election and conceded so our country wouldn't be divided at a time of peril in the Cold War. Regardless of what voters intended in their hearts, Gore lost the election by losing Florida and yet divided our country with relish at a vulnerable time when his president had spent eight years not facing up to the terrorist threat plaguing our nation. And yet it's Gore who gets made into a secular saint by the simpletons who comprise the ranks of "opinion leaders" in the U.S.A.]
Gore ran around the country trumpeting the fact that he won the popular vote, which is Constitutionally irrelevant under our system of government. Democrats demagogued the Electoral College, pronouncing it an anachronism when it suited their purposes. One of the chief phonies at the time was Hillary Clinton, who pronounced it undemocratic and who is now being blocked from the nomination by other phonies who pronounce her efforts undemocratic. Yes, there is a God and He has a sense of Karmic humor!
Gore picked a fight in a game of chicken he knew he could not possibly win, for it was certain that even if the U.S. Supreme Court backed the partisan hacks on the Florida Supreme Court and allowed the little old ladies with hatpins surreptitiously poking holes in the chads to steal the election that the House of Representatives would vote to recognize the legal Katherine Harris slate of electors. So he had no chance -- not immediately that is, as the clear endgame was to bloody up Bush for a rematch four years later and that scenario would have played out had Gore not chickened out when Bush was still in his post-9/11 popularity phase.
By posing as if they were the only ones concerned with "counting all the votes," Democrats ended up creating an extra standard in all elections. Now, even though the rules don't give Barack Obama any edge whatsoever because of it, he can claim a Divine Mandate because he's ahead in the popular vote and elected delegate count. Hillary has to augment her logical argument with "the rules say nothing about those factors" with more of her patented say-anything drivel like "caucuses are undemocratic."
By working so hard to delegitimize the winner of the 2000 presidential election (and I pronounce Bush the rightful winner of the election despite the fact that I did not vote for him, but rather, Patrick J. Buchanan), Democrats created a set of circumstances where tactics unexceptional by historical standards would call for the language of delegitimization to be invoked. The bitter fruit they are now choking on can best be called their just desserts.
McCain's realistic hope - Democrats blow it
By Rick Morris
The domestic economy is circling the drain and the global economy could well be on the way to following it. The country is at war and 3 1/2 years of George W. Bush trying to apply the "Dean Smith Four Corners Defense" to a bogged-down situation where outclassed terrorists are killing us with IEDs had left him, in the words of one insolent commentator, as less popular than gonorrhea.
Plus, this country doesn't elect politicians of the same party for three consecutive terms even in good times; aside from George Herbert Walker Bush gravy-training Reagan's third term in 1988 (was there even one person in America who voted for that clueless dipstick because they were psyched to have his penny loafers shuffling through the Oval Office every day?), it hasn't happened since FDR was winning like 47 elections in a row back in the day. So even under ideal circumstances, John McCain would probably be screwed this year, right?
Probably. But not necessarily.
There is ample precedent in this country for one political party being pronounced dead and buried only to be revived by the complete and utter incompetence of the other. Granted, things are looking so bad right now that even the Seventies are pointing and laughing and saying, "Man, what an f'd up decade!" But to deny that the Democrats could screw up badly enough to hand it to McCain is to ignore several such precedents in the last few decades:
^ 1964: LBJ massacres Barry Goldwater in the presidential election, and pundits are righting off the Republican party forever for nominating a "right-wing nut." Two years, later, Vietnam and a domestic civil war manifesting itself in the form of riots and anti-war extremism almost costs the Democrats control of Congress and in 1968, Richard Nixon of all people is elected president under the Republican banner.
^ 1972: Nixon is riding high, thrashing George McGovern in a mirror image of the curb stomping the GOP got from LBJ eight years before. He is invincible, King of the World, and the Democrats are a hapless mess. Until, uh, that Watergate thing. He resigns in disgrace in '74 and the Republicans get wiped out in the midterm elections that fall.
^ 1974: If Dubya is less popular than gonorrhea right now, Nixon was trailing jock itch in the polls that year after resigning in disgrace and seeing his party get buried that year in Congressional elections. But then Gerald Ford rallied in '76 to almost win re-election (El Klutzo shouldn't have checked off "Yes" on the "Debate RSVP" that year, though) and Reagan put a huge beatdown on Jimmah Carter in 1980.
^ 1992: The walking coma known as the first Bush Administration ended in ignominy, as a shyster country lawyer from Arkansas won over a nation and came in with much momentum. Having seen Carter get hamstrung by bad relations with Bob Byrd and Tip O'Neill, however, Bill Clinton loudly proclaimed himself the huckleberry for Democratic Congressional leaders and his party got drilled in the '94 midterms, losing both houses of Congress in a historic rout.
^ 2004: George W. Bush was headed for the same one-term status as his mediocre father. The war was being perceived as a mistake, Abu Ghraib gave the America-haters in the domestic and world media with enough rope to hang us and the economy was still largely perceived as sluggish. But in an example of the Feiler Faster Thesis and in a supreme example of good luck, his many deficiencies were overshadowed by the national disaster that was the John Kerry campaign. Dubya became the first president since his father 16 years ago to be elected with an outright majority of the popular vote.
So there you have it. Numerous examples in our recent history of how one political party blew it badly enough to be down forever only to be revived by the mistakes and foibles of the opposition. As a matter of fact, the majority of recent reversals of fortune in this country have resulted in unforced errors being exploited successfully by the other side. So while others may be quick to minimize the effects of an increasingly bloody and bitter battle between Hillary and Obama for the Democratic nomination, I see the chaos for what it is: John McCain's greatest -- and only -- chance.
The domestic economy is circling the drain and the global economy could well be on the way to following it. The country is at war and 3 1/2 years of George W. Bush trying to apply the "Dean Smith Four Corners Defense" to a bogged-down situation where outclassed terrorists are killing us with IEDs had left him, in the words of one insolent commentator, as less popular than gonorrhea.
Plus, this country doesn't elect politicians of the same party for three consecutive terms even in good times; aside from George Herbert Walker Bush gravy-training Reagan's third term in 1988 (was there even one person in America who voted for that clueless dipstick because they were psyched to have his penny loafers shuffling through the Oval Office every day?), it hasn't happened since FDR was winning like 47 elections in a row back in the day. So even under ideal circumstances, John McCain would probably be screwed this year, right?
Probably. But not necessarily.
There is ample precedent in this country for one political party being pronounced dead and buried only to be revived by the complete and utter incompetence of the other. Granted, things are looking so bad right now that even the Seventies are pointing and laughing and saying, "Man, what an f'd up decade!" But to deny that the Democrats could screw up badly enough to hand it to McCain is to ignore several such precedents in the last few decades:
^ 1964: LBJ massacres Barry Goldwater in the presidential election, and pundits are righting off the Republican party forever for nominating a "right-wing nut." Two years, later, Vietnam and a domestic civil war manifesting itself in the form of riots and anti-war extremism almost costs the Democrats control of Congress and in 1968, Richard Nixon of all people is elected president under the Republican banner.
^ 1972: Nixon is riding high, thrashing George McGovern in a mirror image of the curb stomping the GOP got from LBJ eight years before. He is invincible, King of the World, and the Democrats are a hapless mess. Until, uh, that Watergate thing. He resigns in disgrace in '74 and the Republicans get wiped out in the midterm elections that fall.
^ 1974: If Dubya is less popular than gonorrhea right now, Nixon was trailing jock itch in the polls that year after resigning in disgrace and seeing his party get buried that year in Congressional elections. But then Gerald Ford rallied in '76 to almost win re-election (El Klutzo shouldn't have checked off "Yes" on the "Debate RSVP" that year, though) and Reagan put a huge beatdown on Jimmah Carter in 1980.
^ 1992: The walking coma known as the first Bush Administration ended in ignominy, as a shyster country lawyer from Arkansas won over a nation and came in with much momentum. Having seen Carter get hamstrung by bad relations with Bob Byrd and Tip O'Neill, however, Bill Clinton loudly proclaimed himself the huckleberry for Democratic Congressional leaders and his party got drilled in the '94 midterms, losing both houses of Congress in a historic rout.
^ 2004: George W. Bush was headed for the same one-term status as his mediocre father. The war was being perceived as a mistake, Abu Ghraib gave the America-haters in the domestic and world media with enough rope to hang us and the economy was still largely perceived as sluggish. But in an example of the Feiler Faster Thesis and in a supreme example of good luck, his many deficiencies were overshadowed by the national disaster that was the John Kerry campaign. Dubya became the first president since his father 16 years ago to be elected with an outright majority of the popular vote.
So there you have it. Numerous examples in our recent history of how one political party blew it badly enough to be down forever only to be revived by the mistakes and foibles of the opposition. As a matter of fact, the majority of recent reversals of fortune in this country have resulted in unforced errors being exploited successfully by the other side. So while others may be quick to minimize the effects of an increasingly bloody and bitter battle between Hillary and Obama for the Democratic nomination, I see the chaos for what it is: John McCain's greatest -- and only -- chance.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
FDH Lounge News Nuggets
By Rick Morris
Our "News Nuggets" segment on our FDH LOUNGE program generally addresses minor topics, or sometimes wacky ones, in detail that is brief relative to our discussion of other matters. This "News Nuggets" column is going to be a bit different, as factors relating to the overall FDH family (primarily keeping our pimp hand strong during fantasy baseball season) have kept me from opining here as much as I would have liked over the past two weeks -- but I do want to put my two cents in on the following topics:
^ Eliot Spitzer -- what goes around ... ew, I'm not going to finish that sentence given some of the connotations some people could put there! But this jerkwad slimed Richard Grasso and others on Wall Street, preferring to hypocritically try to blackmail them using their alleged sexual misadventures as part of his grandstanding campaign to advance himself. Now I'm supposed to feel sorry for him now that he's got a "problem"? Nah. I do feel badly for his daughters and yes, for his wife, notwithstanding her decision to accompany him in front of the cameras instead of walking away like he deserved (BTW, may I say Mrs. Spit is looking fine for her age and I'm sure there'd be a long line of guys looking to cheer up this "Mrs. Robinson" if push comes to shove). Now he suffers more humiliation as we learn that he likes to keep his black socks on, uh, "during." Wow. Pardon me while I get some turpentine and try to scrub my brain of that mental image ... OK, I'm back now with one more note. Apparently Hollywood Wackjob Par Excellence Alec Baldwin worshiped this guy and thinks America's going in the crapper now that he's been marginalized. He also notes that prostitution is wrong because "every prostitute is someone's daughter." I'm actually touched that Baldwin took five minutes out of his busy schedule (which, ironically, seems to consist largely of working towards driving his own young daughter to a career "on the pole" by screaming at her about her alleged bovine tendencies) to break off that particular bit of Captain Obvious wisdom.
^ Planned Parenthood's real agenda is snuffing out black babies. The heck you say! The same folks who revere their founder, Fascist Racist Extraordinare Margaret Sanger? Evidently, things haven't changed much since Sanger was founding their little baby-skull-crushing enterprise:
"Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as 'unfit,' a plan she said would be the 'salvation of American civilization.' And she also spike of those who were 'irresponsible and reckless,' among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that 'there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.' That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered 'unfit' cannot be easily refuted.
She wrote: 'We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.'"
Whoopsie Margaret! All these years later one of your peons let the cat out of the bag about your extermination agenda. Sucks when that happens, eh?
"Donor: Wonderful. I want to specify that abortion to help a minority group - would that be possible?
^ The NCAA is officially more cynical than any politician anywhere. We see now what CBS gets for its 58 gajillion dollars for the NCAA hoops tournament. Mayo v. Beasley in Round One of the brackets? Bob Huggins facing his ancient rival Xavier for a shot at the Elite Eight? Georgetown happening to draw the little sister just up the road for the first round sacrificial lamb? A first round battle of very different sentimental favorites in Notre Dame and George Mason? This entire event is tainted by the fact that it is explicitly made-for-TV in the sense that logical matchups and fair seeding are going to be cast aside for whatever the puppets on the committee think is going to move the Nielson ratings. Say what you will about Vince McMahon, and I've buried him consistently, but at least he's honest about what his enterprise is.
^ Speaking of the tournament, Bobby Knight has yet to choke Digger Phelps out on camera. Fortunately, we've got two weeks to go ...
^ Winners win and losers make excuses. The Detroit Tigers have, predictably, signed their new young franchise player Miguel Cabrera to a megabucks deal that will keep him in town well into the next decade. Meanwhile, my Cleveland Indians are engaging in a season-long goodbye wave to C.C. Sabathia. And people wonder why I may sound bitter from time to time ...
^ So now Hugh Hewitt is pushing Mitt Romney for V.P. Who saw that coming? I'd watch my back if I was McCain, though, because if that ticket wins in November, good old Uncle Hughey is going to be perched in the crow's nest on Inauguration Day with a poison blowdart aimed right at JM's carotid artery.
^ Speaking of poison blowdarts, I wouldn't put my "thoat" anywhere within firing distance of Hillary these days if I was Bill Richardson. What a greasy, back-stabbing opportunist -- and surprise, he doesn't side with the Clintons!
^ Obama's pastor hates Whitey. Obama himself throws his grandma under the bus to make him look better by comparison. Whoever said campaigns teach us nothing about the candidates for office?
^ So now Steven Spielberg, Nancy Pelosi and other moral posturers are doing their full-blown "Mr. Mackey routine" at China: "Mmmmkay, genocide is bad, mmmmmkay?" Call me cynical if you must, but I can't see any of these buffoons standing up to an Islamic terrorist threatening our country in the same way -- or standing up for the rights of (those darn intolerant and judgmental!) Christians in the same way. But now that China is oppressing Buddhists -- conjuring up the image of helpless, peaceful fat bald guys rubbing their bellies as ChiCom tanks plow them over -- well, hey, now it's time to take a stand! Gimme a call the next time any of these assclowns raises a peep when a Jewish woman and her family gets blown to bits by a homicide bomber in Israel ...
Our "News Nuggets" segment on our FDH LOUNGE program generally addresses minor topics, or sometimes wacky ones, in detail that is brief relative to our discussion of other matters. This "News Nuggets" column is going to be a bit different, as factors relating to the overall FDH family (primarily keeping our pimp hand strong during fantasy baseball season) have kept me from opining here as much as I would have liked over the past two weeks -- but I do want to put my two cents in on the following topics:
^ Eliot Spitzer -- what goes around ... ew, I'm not going to finish that sentence given some of the connotations some people could put there! But this jerkwad slimed Richard Grasso and others on Wall Street, preferring to hypocritically try to blackmail them using their alleged sexual misadventures as part of his grandstanding campaign to advance himself. Now I'm supposed to feel sorry for him now that he's got a "problem"? Nah. I do feel badly for his daughters and yes, for his wife, notwithstanding her decision to accompany him in front of the cameras instead of walking away like he deserved (BTW, may I say Mrs. Spit is looking fine for her age and I'm sure there'd be a long line of guys looking to cheer up this "Mrs. Robinson" if push comes to shove). Now he suffers more humiliation as we learn that he likes to keep his black socks on, uh, "during." Wow. Pardon me while I get some turpentine and try to scrub my brain of that mental image ... OK, I'm back now with one more note. Apparently Hollywood Wackjob Par Excellence Alec Baldwin worshiped this guy and thinks America's going in the crapper now that he's been marginalized. He also notes that prostitution is wrong because "every prostitute is someone's daughter." I'm actually touched that Baldwin took five minutes out of his busy schedule (which, ironically, seems to consist largely of working towards driving his own young daughter to a career "on the pole" by screaming at her about her alleged bovine tendencies) to break off that particular bit of Captain Obvious wisdom.
^ Planned Parenthood's real agenda is snuffing out black babies. The heck you say! The same folks who revere their founder, Fascist Racist Extraordinare Margaret Sanger? Evidently, things haven't changed much since Sanger was founding their little baby-skull-crushing enterprise:
"Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as 'unfit,' a plan she said would be the 'salvation of American civilization.' And she also spike of those who were 'irresponsible and reckless,' among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that 'there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.' That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered 'unfit' cannot be easily refuted.
She wrote: 'We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.'"
Whoopsie Margaret! All these years later one of your peons let the cat out of the bag about your extermination agenda. Sucks when that happens, eh?
"Donor: Wonderful. I want to specify that abortion to help a minority group - would that be possible?
Kersey (Planned Parenthood employee!!!): Absolutely.
Donor: Like the black community for example?
Kersey: Certainly.
Donor: OK, so the abortion -- I can give money specifically for a black baby, that would be the purpose.
Kersey: Absolutely. If you wanted to designate that you wanted your gift to be used to help (an) African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure that that gift was earmarked specifically for that purpose.
Donor: Great. Because I really face trouble with affirmative action, and I don't want my kids being disadvantaged, you know, against black kids. I just had a baby; I want to put it in his name, you know.
Kersey: Mmhmm, absolutely.
Donor: So that's definitely possible.
Kersey: Oh, always, always.
Donor: So I just wanna - can I put this in the name of my son?
Kersey: Absolutely.
Donor: Yeah, he's trying to get into colleges, and he's going to be applying, you know, he's just -- we're just really big -- he's really faced troubles with affirmative action.
Kersey: Mmhmm.
Donor: And we don't, you know, we just think, you know, the less black kids out there the better.
Kersey: (Laughs) Understandable, understandable. ... Um David, let me, if I may, just get some sort of specific general information so we can set this up the right way. You said you wanted to put it in your son's name, and you would like this designated specifically to assist (an) African-American woman who's looking to terminate a pregnancy.
Donor: Exactly, and yeah, I wanna protect my son, so he can get into college.
Kersey: All right. Excuse my hesitation, um, um, this is the first time I've had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I'm excited, and I wanna make sure I don't leave anything out."
Well, at least the media's been pretty quiet about it, ensuring that the populace remains in the dark about what a holocaust that "choice" really is.^ The NCAA is officially more cynical than any politician anywhere. We see now what CBS gets for its 58 gajillion dollars for the NCAA hoops tournament. Mayo v. Beasley in Round One of the brackets? Bob Huggins facing his ancient rival Xavier for a shot at the Elite Eight? Georgetown happening to draw the little sister just up the road for the first round sacrificial lamb? A first round battle of very different sentimental favorites in Notre Dame and George Mason? This entire event is tainted by the fact that it is explicitly made-for-TV in the sense that logical matchups and fair seeding are going to be cast aside for whatever the puppets on the committee think is going to move the Nielson ratings. Say what you will about Vince McMahon, and I've buried him consistently, but at least he's honest about what his enterprise is.
^ Speaking of the tournament, Bobby Knight has yet to choke Digger Phelps out on camera. Fortunately, we've got two weeks to go ...
^ Winners win and losers make excuses. The Detroit Tigers have, predictably, signed their new young franchise player Miguel Cabrera to a megabucks deal that will keep him in town well into the next decade. Meanwhile, my Cleveland Indians are engaging in a season-long goodbye wave to C.C. Sabathia. And people wonder why I may sound bitter from time to time ...
^ So now Hugh Hewitt is pushing Mitt Romney for V.P. Who saw that coming? I'd watch my back if I was McCain, though, because if that ticket wins in November, good old Uncle Hughey is going to be perched in the crow's nest on Inauguration Day with a poison blowdart aimed right at JM's carotid artery.
^ Speaking of poison blowdarts, I wouldn't put my "thoat" anywhere within firing distance of Hillary these days if I was Bill Richardson. What a greasy, back-stabbing opportunist -- and surprise, he doesn't side with the Clintons!
^ Obama's pastor hates Whitey. Obama himself throws his grandma under the bus to make him look better by comparison. Whoever said campaigns teach us nothing about the candidates for office?
^ So now Steven Spielberg, Nancy Pelosi and other moral posturers are doing their full-blown "Mr. Mackey routine" at China: "Mmmmkay, genocide is bad, mmmmmkay?" Call me cynical if you must, but I can't see any of these buffoons standing up to an Islamic terrorist threatening our country in the same way -- or standing up for the rights of (those darn intolerant and judgmental!) Christians in the same way. But now that China is oppressing Buddhists -- conjuring up the image of helpless, peaceful fat bald guys rubbing their bellies as ChiCom tanks plow them over -- well, hey, now it's time to take a stand! Gimme a call the next time any of these assclowns raises a peep when a Jewish woman and her family gets blown to bits by a homicide bomber in Israel ...
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Pa. Prez Debate – moderated by Michael Scott?
By Rick Morris
The following is a transcript of the Democratic presidential debate from the state of
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Good evening and welcome to this special edition of HARDBALL. We are taping a presidential debate here this afternoon from the
MICHAEL SCOTT: Thank you, Chris. Somehow, you seemed funnier and more entertaining on TV. I am honored to be here this afternoon so that my wonderful ability to MC can help illuminate the choice in this election for my fellow citizens. I regret that my two most trusted assistants in the office, Jim and Pam, could not join me today. They insisted about the supply closet being long overdue for reorganization. I’m not quite sure why Jim was making air quotes when he said that or why Pam smirked a little bit as he did or why Kevin ended up outside the door giggling after they went in. I guess we’ll never know the answer to those questions. But I will get the candidates to answer my questions here today, along with the two people I have here with me instead of Jim and Pam, the ones I really wanted. Dwight Schrute is the top salesman at our branch and Toby Flenderson is a brainless jerk in our HR department who is only here because the stupid people in our country apparently deserve a voice also.
TOBY FLENDERSON: Please, Michael …
MICHAEL: Shut it, Toby, nobody cares about you. OK, my first question is for Senator Osama. Now, Senator …
SENATOR OBAMA: Uh, that’s Obama, not Osama …
MICHAEL: Uh, excuse me, I’m speaking here.
OBAMA: But you got my name wrong!
MICHAEL: Details, details. Save it for your answer. Now, Senator, you have really turned your image around. I see all these young people clamoring for a chance to support you and you’re the hottest thing since my routine last time on open mic night. But really, Senator Osama, do you really think people’s memories are that short? I mean, it was a good move to lose the beard and the turban and the “
OBAMA: I am not Osama bin Laden! My name is Barack Obama. I had NOTHING! TO! DO! with 9/11!
MICHAEL: Uh huh, likely story. Just another politician dodging accountability. Senator Clinton, your response?
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, Michael, I can tell you that my campaign is not responsible for any implication that Senator Obama masterminded 9/11, those flyers in
OBAMA: That’s outrageous! Senator Clinton, I demand an immediate apology and a …
MICHAEL: Candidates, please! You’re not doing anything to elevate the level of discourse here! Let’s move along, I’ll take the next question. Now, Senator Hillary Rodman
MICHAEL: Exactly. Now, I look at you, the cool, collected professional woman in your tailored corporate pantsuits and I’ve gotta tell you, it’s very reminiscent of my girlfriend – eh, let’s call it like it is, my live-in lover Jan Levinson. Now, she rocks the whole powerful businesswoman look, but she is a tomcat in the bedroom. I mean, insatiable. Now Senator …
MICHAEL: You haven’t heard the question yet! Talk about prejudging! So much for open-mindedness. Senator, is the same true of you? Are you a hellion underneath your polished professional look, and if so, why’s Bill constantly roaming the country looking for some strange?
MICHAEL: Blah, blah, blah. I gotta tell ya, you’re not helping your ice queen image much with your uptight response. Here I lob you a softball, give you a chance to talk about using cherry-flavored massage oil or whatever you like to use to get freaky and you get all weird on me!
MICHAEL: OK, we see where you’re going with that. Osama, you got any response?
OBAMA: That’s Obama. I agree very much with Senator Clinton that any discussion of her frigid tendencies is completely inappropriate in this campaign …
MICHAEL: Please! Candidates, can we keep in on the issues here? OK, I’m going to reluctantly turn over the floor to Toby here and I hope that he won’t stink up the place too badly.
TOBY: Thank you, Michael. Senator Obama, can you discuss your approach to withdrawing our troops from
OBAMA: Thank you for that intelligent question, Toby. I believe that an expeditious and orderly withdrawal of our armed forces from the situation in
MICHAEL: That’s what she said!
OBAMA: Excuse me, what did Hillary say?
MICHAEL: Wait, no, Hillary didn’t …never mind, just please keep answering Toby’s stupid question.
OBAMA: All right. As I say, I want to increase our troop footprint in
MICHAEL: Buffer? I hardly know her!
TOBY: Michael …
MICHAEL: Shut it, Toby, you’re ruining the whole debate! OK, let’s move on from the way Toby just brought the debate down …
MICHAEL: Hold on, there, Hitlery …
OBAMA: She’s right, Michael, there’s really no comparison between her and the madman behind the Third Reich. Why, her and Bill offed a lot more folks than that back in
MICHAEL: C’mon, people! Don’t let this thing degenerate. The people deserve better than this. OK, next question comes from Dwight Schrute.
DWIGHT SCHRUTE: Senator Clinton. As the top salesman for Dunder-Mifflin Scranton, I know quite a bit about dominance. I live it every day. As you probably know, males in any species of mammal can mark their territory and establish dominance by peeing on the floor. You are in no position to be able to position yourself in such a way. I would like to ask if you have plans to modify your pantsuits in a manner to allow you to squat and …
OBAMA: Lemme jump in and answer that. I don’t think any man out there wants to see that. Can I get a “Hell Yeah?”
MATTHEWS: OK, we’ve heard enough. Good night from
MICHAEL: Hang on, I’m going to do an impression as we go off the air. Lemme just get my Oriental props together …
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Obama candidacy: high stakes for USA
By Rick Morris
Hillary Clinton's campaign is seizing on the prospect of Barack Obama raising hopes that can't possibly be fulfilled as a desperate grasp to keep him from the Democratic nomination. However, despite the fact that everything she says should be taken with an entire shaker full of salt, there is an underlying undeniable truth that is at least somewhat related to Hillary's point: the Obama candidacy has moved this country to a point where the stakes are very high in terms of any potential for national unity and maybe even viability down the road.
Although it's folly to draw too close a comparison with the Middle East, because our country on its worst day is 1,000 times more stable than the lands of feuding fanatics in the desert will ever be, it's worth thinking back to the launch of the Second Intifada in 2000. The first (and God willing, only) President Clinton brought together the key players in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to try to put together a nice 11th-hour gloss on his troubled legacy. Hopes were high as the parties agreed on almost all key points. And then -- it collapsed. Yasser Arafat walked away from the table at the end, unable or (probably) unwilling to compromise on the final sticking points. At that point, the bitterness of the raised expectations boiled over and the Palestinians took their militant operations to new heights, threatening the entire region.
Now, I don't think anything like that is possible in the literal sense here in America. I'm even dubious that we'd see a repeat of the urban riots of the late 1960s or those that followed the Rodney King verdicts of 1992. I could be wrong, but I don't think the strife that could arise between the races in this country will erupt in the streets.
However, it's not necessary to have a situation crest to that level for it to truly become a crisis. This country has traveled down a long road of redemption, first becoming the only country to go through a bloody war with itself to extinguish the crimes of slavery, then legislatively addressing the wrongs of Jim Crow. While the media has long harped on remaining points of contention between the races, such as how to administer affirmative action programs, we're at a point of overall peace between races in this country that our parents and grandparents probably could not have envisioned. Go talk to an elderly relative if you don't believe this assertion.
But with the country very much on the verge of electing its first black president, hopes have been raised to a point that could prove dangerous for all of us down the road. Let's examine some scenarios:
^ Hillary overtakes Obama for the nomination through "shenanigans." We've already addressed the point that Hillary has to pretty much leave a smoking crater where Obama used to be if she's to still get nominated. How's that going to go over in the minority community, with a longtime purported friend of theirs destroying their would-be pioneer?
^ John McCain comes back in the polls to win in November. With cynicism still high in the black community on issues of racial justice (for reasons I would partially agree with, given this nation's history), how's it going to look if McCain pulls out a win when all the polls indicate otherwise? Frankly, to many blacks it'll look like this country would never elect a black man under any circumstances.
^ The worst case of all: assassination. The internal strife this country endured in the 1960s over matters of race and war shook us all like nothing since the Civil War. I daresay that if the worst fears of many blacks are realized and Obama does not survive his campaign, the Sixties might look like a cakewalk in terms of ANY prospects for significant national unity. There's no way to ever undo the damage that such a tragedy would inflict on our country, no way to avoid the permanent bitterness if not outright hatred that a significant percentage of our fellow Americans would always carry with them. To a much, much lesser extent, the same would be true if Obama had an unsuccessful presidency and did not get reelected; the sense would be that America dumped him at the first available opportunity regardless of what any of the facts on the ground were.
Because assassination would rip this nation apart at the seams from now until the end of time, it's especially unforgivable that the Secret Service had such an egregious lapse (in Dallas of all places!) when they reportedly relaxed weapons screening at an Obama rally in the interest of speeding up the process. Because an Obama assassination would be more damaging to the country than any single killing that has happened in our history, his security detail should be significantly above and beyond that of any other candidate. The full weight of the disciplinary process needs to come down on any individuals responsible for this idiotic and amateurish decision.
Aside from keeping Obama's security air-tight, there's nothing that can be done to head off any damage from the possibility of high hopes being dashed. At the end of the day, he's a politician like anyone else, albeit a very talented one, and he's going to have to navigate the political process like anyone else. If he has a successful presidency, he'll move us much further along the path to racial reconciliation that we collectively began in the 1960s. Anything short of that is going to set us back in terms of truly being "One Nation Under God," and the only question is how far we get set back.
Hillary Clinton's campaign is seizing on the prospect of Barack Obama raising hopes that can't possibly be fulfilled as a desperate grasp to keep him from the Democratic nomination. However, despite the fact that everything she says should be taken with an entire shaker full of salt, there is an underlying undeniable truth that is at least somewhat related to Hillary's point: the Obama candidacy has moved this country to a point where the stakes are very high in terms of any potential for national unity and maybe even viability down the road.
Although it's folly to draw too close a comparison with the Middle East, because our country on its worst day is 1,000 times more stable than the lands of feuding fanatics in the desert will ever be, it's worth thinking back to the launch of the Second Intifada in 2000. The first (and God willing, only) President Clinton brought together the key players in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to try to put together a nice 11th-hour gloss on his troubled legacy. Hopes were high as the parties agreed on almost all key points. And then -- it collapsed. Yasser Arafat walked away from the table at the end, unable or (probably) unwilling to compromise on the final sticking points. At that point, the bitterness of the raised expectations boiled over and the Palestinians took their militant operations to new heights, threatening the entire region.
Now, I don't think anything like that is possible in the literal sense here in America. I'm even dubious that we'd see a repeat of the urban riots of the late 1960s or those that followed the Rodney King verdicts of 1992. I could be wrong, but I don't think the strife that could arise between the races in this country will erupt in the streets.
However, it's not necessary to have a situation crest to that level for it to truly become a crisis. This country has traveled down a long road of redemption, first becoming the only country to go through a bloody war with itself to extinguish the crimes of slavery, then legislatively addressing the wrongs of Jim Crow. While the media has long harped on remaining points of contention between the races, such as how to administer affirmative action programs, we're at a point of overall peace between races in this country that our parents and grandparents probably could not have envisioned. Go talk to an elderly relative if you don't believe this assertion.
But with the country very much on the verge of electing its first black president, hopes have been raised to a point that could prove dangerous for all of us down the road. Let's examine some scenarios:
^ Hillary overtakes Obama for the nomination through "shenanigans." We've already addressed the point that Hillary has to pretty much leave a smoking crater where Obama used to be if she's to still get nominated. How's that going to go over in the minority community, with a longtime purported friend of theirs destroying their would-be pioneer?
^ John McCain comes back in the polls to win in November. With cynicism still high in the black community on issues of racial justice (for reasons I would partially agree with, given this nation's history), how's it going to look if McCain pulls out a win when all the polls indicate otherwise? Frankly, to many blacks it'll look like this country would never elect a black man under any circumstances.
^ The worst case of all: assassination. The internal strife this country endured in the 1960s over matters of race and war shook us all like nothing since the Civil War. I daresay that if the worst fears of many blacks are realized and Obama does not survive his campaign, the Sixties might look like a cakewalk in terms of ANY prospects for significant national unity. There's no way to ever undo the damage that such a tragedy would inflict on our country, no way to avoid the permanent bitterness if not outright hatred that a significant percentage of our fellow Americans would always carry with them. To a much, much lesser extent, the same would be true if Obama had an unsuccessful presidency and did not get reelected; the sense would be that America dumped him at the first available opportunity regardless of what any of the facts on the ground were.
Because assassination would rip this nation apart at the seams from now until the end of time, it's especially unforgivable that the Secret Service had such an egregious lapse (in Dallas of all places!) when they reportedly relaxed weapons screening at an Obama rally in the interest of speeding up the process. Because an Obama assassination would be more damaging to the country than any single killing that has happened in our history, his security detail should be significantly above and beyond that of any other candidate. The full weight of the disciplinary process needs to come down on any individuals responsible for this idiotic and amateurish decision.
Aside from keeping Obama's security air-tight, there's nothing that can be done to head off any damage from the possibility of high hopes being dashed. At the end of the day, he's a politician like anyone else, albeit a very talented one, and he's going to have to navigate the political process like anyone else. If he has a successful presidency, he'll move us much further along the path to racial reconciliation that we collectively began in the 1960s. Anything short of that is going to set us back in terms of truly being "One Nation Under God," and the only question is how far we get set back.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Hillary has to disembowel Obama
By Rick Morris
With the final Democratic presidential debate before the big March 4 primaries looming next Tuesday, the dilemma facing Hillary Clinton is very stark indeed. Ever since she lost
It’s clear that Hillary and her inner circle realized the full extent of the crisis even during their only upswing of the election season. The insane momentum realized by Obama after the Hawkeye state win set in motion a dynamic that even Hillary’s shocking comeback win in
Hillary’s attempt to come off graceful at the end of the
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
But don't call Michelle Obama unpatriotic!
By Rick Morris
Click here to be taken to video of Michelle Obama saying that her husband's campaign is making her proud of America for the first time in her adult life.
The mind fairly reels.
Too bad for Hillary that she can't take advantage of this -- calling somebody on being an America-hater doesn't get you any votes in Democratic primaries. If DNC Chairman Howard Dean were capable of the slightest bit of introspection, he might want to look at why that might be.
Click here to be taken to video of Michelle Obama saying that her husband's campaign is making her proud of America for the first time in her adult life.
The mind fairly reels.
Too bad for Hillary that she can't take advantage of this -- calling somebody on being an America-hater doesn't get you any votes in Democratic primaries. If DNC Chairman Howard Dean were capable of the slightest bit of introspection, he might want to look at why that might be.
Monday, February 18, 2008
My Hatred Toward Dennis Kucinich Supporters
By Tony Mazur
It's an election year in the United States of America. And in Cleveland, Ohio, many loud, yellow 'Dennis!' signs sprout in front yards across the metropolitan area. Some Kucinich supporters planted their signs as early as October 2007, 13 months before the election.
People LOVE Dennis Kucinich, and I haven't the foggiest idea as to why. And I'm not just talking about the college-aged burnouts who support him because he's all about legalizing marijuana. I'm also not talking about the gays who agree with his stance on same-sex marriage. I'm talking about suburban white couples, roughly between the ages of 45-80.
If you're outside the Cleveland area, Dennis Kucinich represents the 10th District of Ohio in the House of Representatives. His district includes most of the west side of Cleveland, as well as Parma, Cleveland's largest suburb, and Cuyahoga Heights.
Every two years, Cleveland-area citizens continue to vote for this guy. These are the people who forgot about Dennis's early political career. After Kucinich's time in the Cleveland City Council and as the clerk of the municipal court, he was elected Mayor in 1977. As usual in local government, the leader typically appoints friends and acquaintances, particularly around his/her same age. That's what Dennis Kucinich did. However, since Dennis was considered "The Boy Mayor" (he was 31 year old), his entire cabinet was made up of inexperienced peers.
I could rip on his mayoral history for hours, but you can just read it here.
Dennis has been elected to the House five times since his run in 1996, and it appears that he will win yet again.
Just like many Democrats, they rarely show up for their votes. Barack Obama does not. Do you think he has the time to campaign for the presidency AND show up for work? Of course not! The same goes for Dennis. He pretends to care about the needs of the citizens, and they fall for it hook, line, and sinker. If Kucinich really cared, he'd take a break from campaigning and hanging out with Sean Penn and start showing up for his votes. As Joe Cimperman, Dennis's opponent, stated in one of his campaign commercials, "It is not time for a part-time congressman."
I mentioned earlier that Dennis supporters come in different shapes and sizes. Or in this case, from the other side of the spectrum. Gays love him (they think he's adorable), stoners dig him, minority groups think he really cares about those in dire need of help, but most of all, the unions support him. A janitor at Ford will make a ridiculous amount of money, thanks to the Democrats. I believe in capitalism, but the salaries for low-level jobs are too high, causing factories to cease operation or move overseas. And who is there criticizing the outsourcing? The Democrats, of course.
My hatred for Kucinich supporters is comparable to my disdain towards Ron Paul fans. But the outcome is bittersweet. I get a kick out of the fact that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich do not have a shot in Hell at moving into the White House, but instead we'll have some other pea-brain reciting the Oath of Office.
It's an election year in the United States of America. And in Cleveland, Ohio, many loud, yellow 'Dennis!' signs sprout in front yards across the metropolitan area. Some Kucinich supporters planted their signs as early as October 2007, 13 months before the election.
People LOVE Dennis Kucinich, and I haven't the foggiest idea as to why. And I'm not just talking about the college-aged burnouts who support him because he's all about legalizing marijuana. I'm also not talking about the gays who agree with his stance on same-sex marriage. I'm talking about suburban white couples, roughly between the ages of 45-80.
If you're outside the Cleveland area, Dennis Kucinich represents the 10th District of Ohio in the House of Representatives. His district includes most of the west side of Cleveland, as well as Parma, Cleveland's largest suburb, and Cuyahoga Heights.
Every two years, Cleveland-area citizens continue to vote for this guy. These are the people who forgot about Dennis's early political career. After Kucinich's time in the Cleveland City Council and as the clerk of the municipal court, he was elected Mayor in 1977. As usual in local government, the leader typically appoints friends and acquaintances, particularly around his/her same age. That's what Dennis Kucinich did. However, since Dennis was considered "The Boy Mayor" (he was 31 year old), his entire cabinet was made up of inexperienced peers.
I could rip on his mayoral history for hours, but you can just read it here.
Dennis has been elected to the House five times since his run in 1996, and it appears that he will win yet again.
Just like many Democrats, they rarely show up for their votes. Barack Obama does not. Do you think he has the time to campaign for the presidency AND show up for work? Of course not! The same goes for Dennis. He pretends to care about the needs of the citizens, and they fall for it hook, line, and sinker. If Kucinich really cared, he'd take a break from campaigning and hanging out with Sean Penn and start showing up for his votes. As Joe Cimperman, Dennis's opponent, stated in one of his campaign commercials, "It is not time for a part-time congressman."
I mentioned earlier that Dennis supporters come in different shapes and sizes. Or in this case, from the other side of the spectrum. Gays love him (they think he's adorable), stoners dig him, minority groups think he really cares about those in dire need of help, but most of all, the unions support him. A janitor at Ford will make a ridiculous amount of money, thanks to the Democrats. I believe in capitalism, but the salaries for low-level jobs are too high, causing factories to cease operation or move overseas. And who is there criticizing the outsourcing? The Democrats, of course.
My hatred for Kucinich supporters is comparable to my disdain towards Ron Paul fans. But the outcome is bittersweet. I get a kick out of the fact that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich do not have a shot in Hell at moving into the White House, but instead we'll have some other pea-brain reciting the Oath of Office.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Obama and the looming GOP mistake
By Rick Morris
In one of the clearest indicators yet of the Feiler Faster Thesis, John McCain has put to rest many doubts about his ability to unify the Republican party by bringing around most of his major detractors by Valentine's Day (except those talk-radio dead-enders who will never "heart" him). As some (such as myself) had anticipated, the notion of surrendering the White House to a liberal Democrat for (at least) four years has done much to focus the right-wing mind.
But instead of those largely unfounded fears, McCain, the Republicans and conservatives (and let's not conflate the last two in any way) face a new problem that could be of their own making -- if they let it. In the increasingly likely event that they face Barack Obama in "The Finals" this November, they need to be extremely crafty in how they attack the Illinois senator. Interestingly, this has little to do with race and much to do with the commonly accepted notion that Obama is running the sequel of Bobby Kennedy's 1968 campaign.
One of the most famous prayers in modern society goes as follows: God grant me the strength to accept the things I can't change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference. If John McCain defeats Obama to win the White House this fall, it will come from successful understanding of this beseeching of The Almighty.
Let's start with what can't be changed: the intense emotion attached to Barack Obama as a movement, particularly with the young people. He cannot, he absolutely cannot, be attacked in conventional political terms and have the tactics work at all.
Take for example this column referring to his campaign as a Hallmark card. Every word of it is true. And every word of it is breathtakingly irrelevant.
The author is clearly emitting a very frustrated vibe in terms of trying to find a way to puncture many of the mythical aspects of the Obama candidacy. But he has not learned yet that the sledgehammer is not the tool to use on this candidate, in this climate, in this particular year.
People are yearning for something that is completely different and Obama is tapping into that. Any attack on him that reeks of "politics as usual" is doomed from the start. Even the line that he was ranked as the most liberal US senator by the decidedly non-partisan National Journal is fatally flawed -- not because it's not true, but because anyone you drop it on will only say, "There you go again, putting labels on people."
In terms of the ill-reasoned arguments that talk radio and the right-wing blogosphere were ironically using to promote Mitt Romney at McCain's expense not too long ago, it's safe to be very worried about the intellectual capacity of the conservative movement when it comes to facing their most tricky foe in perhaps decades. A stale, bruised and cranky movement is likely to fall under the mistaken notion that blunt force can tear down Obama, when it will only end up reinforcing his fervent supporters even more. To use a cult analogy here, deprogramming is a very difficult, very delicate process and if Republicans and conservatives are perceived to be having a "WHY WON'T PEOPLE WAKE UP???" temper tantrum about this guy, they're going to end up marginalized everywhere except their Southern base. This is where application of the above prayer comes into play.
In the interests of contributing a workable tactic towards the effort, I suggest that McCain play to his greatest strength, safeguarding the future security of this country -- and specifically in this instance, fiscal security. He should have a pitch to the most fervent Obama supporters (who tend disproportionately to be young) that goes something like this: "At some point in your lifetime, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be bankrupt (produce figures to back this up). Senator Obama proposes hundreds of billions of dollars in additional spending (again, produce figures to back this up) -- and the net result of his plans would be to bump up our national day of reckoning significantly closer. On the other hand, I have a record as one of the most tight-fisted people in the Senate with tax dollars. I don't even take any special federal earmarks for my district, just to prove that I am serious. I know that you are looking for change. I am too, or else I wouldn't be running for president. Senator Obama and I agree that the country needs change. We disagree on the specifics and in which direction. The direction I propose safeguards your future, because it demands that our country stop spending your national inheritance like a drunken soldier and gets us on a path to turn things around. Change is good, change is necessary. But please vote for the right kind of change this November, the kind that puts us on a prosperous, sustainable course."
Agreeing with Obama on the need for change while challenging him on the direction and on the specifics is the way to victory in November, assuming that it can be procured in the face of what can only be called a juggernaut movement. Attacking Obama with tin-ear attacks will only ensure a repeat of the Nineties when Slick Willie was eating their lunch.
In one of the clearest indicators yet of the Feiler Faster Thesis, John McCain has put to rest many doubts about his ability to unify the Republican party by bringing around most of his major detractors by Valentine's Day (except those talk-radio dead-enders who will never "heart" him). As some (such as myself) had anticipated, the notion of surrendering the White House to a liberal Democrat for (at least) four years has done much to focus the right-wing mind.
But instead of those largely unfounded fears, McCain, the Republicans and conservatives (and let's not conflate the last two in any way) face a new problem that could be of their own making -- if they let it. In the increasingly likely event that they face Barack Obama in "The Finals" this November, they need to be extremely crafty in how they attack the Illinois senator. Interestingly, this has little to do with race and much to do with the commonly accepted notion that Obama is running the sequel of Bobby Kennedy's 1968 campaign.
One of the most famous prayers in modern society goes as follows: God grant me the strength to accept the things I can't change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference. If John McCain defeats Obama to win the White House this fall, it will come from successful understanding of this beseeching of The Almighty.
Let's start with what can't be changed: the intense emotion attached to Barack Obama as a movement, particularly with the young people. He cannot, he absolutely cannot, be attacked in conventional political terms and have the tactics work at all.
Take for example this column referring to his campaign as a Hallmark card. Every word of it is true. And every word of it is breathtakingly irrelevant.
The author is clearly emitting a very frustrated vibe in terms of trying to find a way to puncture many of the mythical aspects of the Obama candidacy. But he has not learned yet that the sledgehammer is not the tool to use on this candidate, in this climate, in this particular year.
People are yearning for something that is completely different and Obama is tapping into that. Any attack on him that reeks of "politics as usual" is doomed from the start. Even the line that he was ranked as the most liberal US senator by the decidedly non-partisan National Journal is fatally flawed -- not because it's not true, but because anyone you drop it on will only say, "There you go again, putting labels on people."
In terms of the ill-reasoned arguments that talk radio and the right-wing blogosphere were ironically using to promote Mitt Romney at McCain's expense not too long ago, it's safe to be very worried about the intellectual capacity of the conservative movement when it comes to facing their most tricky foe in perhaps decades. A stale, bruised and cranky movement is likely to fall under the mistaken notion that blunt force can tear down Obama, when it will only end up reinforcing his fervent supporters even more. To use a cult analogy here, deprogramming is a very difficult, very delicate process and if Republicans and conservatives are perceived to be having a "WHY WON'T PEOPLE WAKE UP???" temper tantrum about this guy, they're going to end up marginalized everywhere except their Southern base. This is where application of the above prayer comes into play.
In the interests of contributing a workable tactic towards the effort, I suggest that McCain play to his greatest strength, safeguarding the future security of this country -- and specifically in this instance, fiscal security. He should have a pitch to the most fervent Obama supporters (who tend disproportionately to be young) that goes something like this: "At some point in your lifetime, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be bankrupt (produce figures to back this up). Senator Obama proposes hundreds of billions of dollars in additional spending (again, produce figures to back this up) -- and the net result of his plans would be to bump up our national day of reckoning significantly closer. On the other hand, I have a record as one of the most tight-fisted people in the Senate with tax dollars. I don't even take any special federal earmarks for my district, just to prove that I am serious. I know that you are looking for change. I am too, or else I wouldn't be running for president. Senator Obama and I agree that the country needs change. We disagree on the specifics and in which direction. The direction I propose safeguards your future, because it demands that our country stop spending your national inheritance like a drunken soldier and gets us on a path to turn things around. Change is good, change is necessary. But please vote for the right kind of change this November, the kind that puts us on a prosperous, sustainable course."
Agreeing with Obama on the need for change while challenging him on the direction and on the specifics is the way to victory in November, assuming that it can be procured in the face of what can only be called a juggernaut movement. Attacking Obama with tin-ear attacks will only ensure a repeat of the Nineties when Slick Willie was eating their lunch.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
My Hatred Toward Ron Paul Supporters
By Tony Mazur
As Rick Morris stated in the post below, Ron Paul will withdraw from the presidential race. I know, I know, it's sad for us all, but I guess he didn't appeal to the majority of the people.
Ron Paul has been described as a Constitutionalist, libertarian, and, although I don't believe it, a conservative. Personally, I think he's a goof. There is no redeeming quality about Ron Paul.
However, I do not know what's more annoying, Ron Paul's political positions, or his idiotic supporters. When referring to the 2008 presidential race, I heard someone say that "Ron Paul is the only true conservative". As a fellow conservative, I am offended to be classified with this numskull. I support the War in Iraq. I greatly support the Patriot Act. How can you not support the Patriot Act? There are savages who want to kill us, and these dummies think our rights are being infringed upon.
Ron Paul backers are all the same, no matter what age they may be. He's quite popular among college students and ex-hippies. The typical supporter is usually a liberal or libertarian. He/she probably smokes a lot of pot, and believes in ridiculous conspiracies, like UFOs and the "bombing" of the World Trade Center on September 11th. That's kind of why there actually is a chunk of people who follow Dennis Kucinich. Chances are, they do a lot of internet blogging. Also, they are usually offended by anything remotely resembling criticism against Ron Paul. These are the people who shout to the world that they are moving to Canada if [insert Republican candidate] wins the election, but never follows through.
I'm already hearing phony conspiracies about how the government is keeping Ron Paul out of the public eye. He's not Ross Perot. Ron Paul cannot affect the outcome of this coming election, even if he ran as a third-party candidate. Unfortunately, it's going to be either McCain or Obama, two candidates I'm dreading to see in the White House. I wish a viable candidate can go up against them, but it won't be the case. And Ron Paul isn't the guy.
As Rick Morris stated in the post below, Ron Paul will withdraw from the presidential race. I know, I know, it's sad for us all, but I guess he didn't appeal to the majority of the people.
Ron Paul has been described as a Constitutionalist, libertarian, and, although I don't believe it, a conservative. Personally, I think he's a goof. There is no redeeming quality about Ron Paul.
However, I do not know what's more annoying, Ron Paul's political positions, or his idiotic supporters. When referring to the 2008 presidential race, I heard someone say that "Ron Paul is the only true conservative". As a fellow conservative, I am offended to be classified with this numskull. I support the War in Iraq. I greatly support the Patriot Act. How can you not support the Patriot Act? There are savages who want to kill us, and these dummies think our rights are being infringed upon.
Ron Paul backers are all the same, no matter what age they may be. He's quite popular among college students and ex-hippies. The typical supporter is usually a liberal or libertarian. He/she probably smokes a lot of pot, and believes in ridiculous conspiracies, like UFOs and the "bombing" of the World Trade Center on September 11th. That's kind of why there actually is a chunk of people who follow Dennis Kucinich. Chances are, they do a lot of internet blogging. Also, they are usually offended by anything remotely resembling criticism against Ron Paul. These are the people who shout to the world that they are moving to Canada if [insert Republican candidate] wins the election, but never follows through.
I'm already hearing phony conspiracies about how the government is keeping Ron Paul out of the public eye. He's not Ross Perot. Ron Paul cannot affect the outcome of this coming election, even if he ran as a third-party candidate. Unfortunately, it's going to be either McCain or Obama, two candidates I'm dreading to see in the White House. I wish a viable candidate can go up against them, but it won't be the case. And Ron Paul isn't the guy.
Ron Paul to withdraw from presidential race
By Rick Morris
UPDATE: This was published as a straight news story, devoid of any editorializing. However, in response to many of the know-nothing reactions that this story has engendered in many quarters, we have created an FAQ section so that people may at least choose to avail themselves of basic facts and not embarrass themselves with baseless assertions.
Troubled by internal polls showing insurgent challenger Chris Peden having pulled ahead shockingly in the Texas 14th congressional district, Congressman Ron Paul will be pulling out of the Republican presidential race in advance of his home state's March 4 primary, The FDH Lounge blog has learned. This news comes from a source with access to Paul's congressional campaign and it parallels a recent move on the Democratic side of the White House run as fellow party establishment irritant Dennis Kucinich was forced to abandon his efforts in order to focus on a threat to his congressional seat. The key difference? Longtime Kucinich ally North Olmsted mayor Thomas O'Grady entered the race to split the vote, while Paul's refusal to engage in such tactics has backfired on him.
Peden's lead is extremely surprising given the vast disparity in resources between the campaigns, a divide that will only grow as Paul is able to divert funds contributed by his large base of small contributors to his presidential race back into the House of Representatives campaign. Over the past year, Paul's libertarian-based platform struck the most fiscally conservative note of any of the Republican aspirants, but it also contained an isolationist streak that put him at odds with the party base -- and those foreign policy views are currently the biggest problem for Paul in an extraordinarily conservative district. The irony is that Paul positioned himself as a determined upstart out to topple the powerful national establishment, but he himself has been the Goliath of the Texas 14th until very recently -- when the district's David, Chris Peden, amazed the world by forcing an end to his crusade for the White House, dubbed by his followers The Ron Paul Revolution.
UPDATE: This was published as a straight news story, devoid of any editorializing. However, in response to many of the know-nothing reactions that this story has engendered in many quarters, we have created an FAQ section so that people may at least choose to avail themselves of basic facts and not embarrass themselves with baseless assertions.
Troubled by internal polls showing insurgent challenger Chris Peden having pulled ahead shockingly in the Texas 14th congressional district, Congressman Ron Paul will be pulling out of the Republican presidential race in advance of his home state's March 4 primary, The FDH Lounge blog has learned. This news comes from a source with access to Paul's congressional campaign and it parallels a recent move on the Democratic side of the White House run as fellow party establishment irritant Dennis Kucinich was forced to abandon his efforts in order to focus on a threat to his congressional seat. The key difference? Longtime Kucinich ally North Olmsted mayor Thomas O'Grady entered the race to split the vote, while Paul's refusal to engage in such tactics has backfired on him.
Peden's lead is extremely surprising given the vast disparity in resources between the campaigns, a divide that will only grow as Paul is able to divert funds contributed by his large base of small contributors to his presidential race back into the House of Representatives campaign. Over the past year, Paul's libertarian-based platform struck the most fiscally conservative note of any of the Republican aspirants, but it also contained an isolationist streak that put him at odds with the party base -- and those foreign policy views are currently the biggest problem for Paul in an extraordinarily conservative district. The irony is that Paul positioned himself as a determined upstart out to topple the powerful national establishment, but he himself has been the Goliath of the Texas 14th until very recently -- when the district's David, Chris Peden, amazed the world by forcing an end to his crusade for the White House, dubbed by his followers The Ron Paul Revolution.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
1-2-3-4 Hillary wants a race war
By Rick Morris
Here's a swell example of "progressive" bring-us-together racial harmony. The Clintons are actively using the prospect of so-called "black vs. brown" conflict to use Hispanics as a firewall to help stop what would be the first American president of color.
Dare I believe that this is going to be enough to reverse the stupid narrative of "liberals revere black people, conservatives want to drag them by their genitals from the back of moving vehicles" that gets constantly perpetuated? Nah, it's pretty much just the way the world works. Look at how long "waving the bloody shirt" worked after the Civil War. A great deal of elected conservatives were on the wrong side of civil rights legislation in the 1960s, and even though 99% of them are now either deceased or feeding the pigeons in a Florida nursing home right now, the right wing is still going to be paying the price no matter what for a long time to come, fair or not (hint: it's not!). Like so much idiocy from the political and media classes in this country, all you can do is laugh about it if you want to stay sane.
Here's a swell example of "progressive" bring-us-together racial harmony. The Clintons are actively using the prospect of so-called "black vs. brown" conflict to use Hispanics as a firewall to help stop what would be the first American president of color.
Dare I believe that this is going to be enough to reverse the stupid narrative of "liberals revere black people, conservatives want to drag them by their genitals from the back of moving vehicles" that gets constantly perpetuated? Nah, it's pretty much just the way the world works. Look at how long "waving the bloody shirt" worked after the Civil War. A great deal of elected conservatives were on the wrong side of civil rights legislation in the 1960s, and even though 99% of them are now either deceased or feeding the pigeons in a Florida nursing home right now, the right wing is still going to be paying the price no matter what for a long time to come, fair or not (hint: it's not!). Like so much idiocy from the political and media classes in this country, all you can do is laugh about it if you want to stay sane.
Obamunist? Obamunism?
By Rick Morris
Apparently Stevie Wonder is feeling a bit challenged when it comes to penning lyrics for his favorite presidential candidate, as you will see below. I understand his conundrum, as people aren't voting for him for specific policy reasons, but for the fact that they mistakenly believe they are casting a preference for the Messiah himself. Nonetheless, just to show what a nice guy I am, I offer Mr. Wonder FREE use of the two words in my headline (well, I'm hoping someone around him will consent to read him those words, anyway) if he'd like to use them in subsequent Obama campaign songs. The first word rhymes with Obama's political views ...
Apparently Stevie Wonder is feeling a bit challenged when it comes to penning lyrics for his favorite presidential candidate, as you will see below. I understand his conundrum, as people aren't voting for him for specific policy reasons, but for the fact that they mistakenly believe they are casting a preference for the Messiah himself. Nonetheless, just to show what a nice guy I am, I offer Mr. Wonder FREE use of the two words in my headline (well, I'm hoping someone around him will consent to read him those words, anyway) if he'd like to use them in subsequent Obama campaign songs. The first word rhymes with Obama's political views ...
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Super Tuesday Liveblogging Part IV
By Rick Morris
This will be my final post of the evening and I will be revising my previous assessment, at least on the Republican side. While I still think the race will go on for at least another few weeks, McCain comes out of tonight extending his already strong lead having just won California and Missouri. Also, at the time of my last post, I confess that I had not seen some of the internal numbers in the polling down South -- Romney, who was being propped up by so many right-wing "opinion leaders," ran in third place across wide swaths of Dixie. His enablers will cry anti-Mormon racism, I'll retort that those voters just know a slick Northern Yankee phony when they see one, but regardless, a candidate trying so hard to be Goldwater 2K8 cannot afford to be repudiated so soundly by such a significant part of the base. So my prediction in the last liveblog installment was wrong; McCain comes out of today much stronger, Romney is weaker and Huckabee is in better shape but still a distant third and almost completely a regional candidate. And the Mitt-Bot meme about McCain only winning states dominated by Northeastern fru-fru elites (I never understood how South Carolina and Florida fit into that narrative?) -- well, McCain wins Illinois and Missouri among other states. How do you like them apples, Chowds?
The Democratic picture is still quite muddled. Obama's going to come out of the night with more states won, but Hillary just won the Big Casino, California. That Clinton win proved a bit disquieting for Claire McCaskill ... at least from the looks of her creepy, wrinkled Oompa Loompa visage.
Late note from MSNBC: Team Mittens is having "frank discussions about the future" on Wednesday. Turn out the lights, Dandy Don, the party's over.
This will be my final post of the evening and I will be revising my previous assessment, at least on the Republican side. While I still think the race will go on for at least another few weeks, McCain comes out of tonight extending his already strong lead having just won California and Missouri. Also, at the time of my last post, I confess that I had not seen some of the internal numbers in the polling down South -- Romney, who was being propped up by so many right-wing "opinion leaders," ran in third place across wide swaths of Dixie. His enablers will cry anti-Mormon racism, I'll retort that those voters just know a slick Northern Yankee phony when they see one, but regardless, a candidate trying so hard to be Goldwater 2K8 cannot afford to be repudiated so soundly by such a significant part of the base. So my prediction in the last liveblog installment was wrong; McCain comes out of today much stronger, Romney is weaker and Huckabee is in better shape but still a distant third and almost completely a regional candidate. And the Mitt-Bot meme about McCain only winning states dominated by Northeastern fru-fru elites (I never understood how South Carolina and Florida fit into that narrative?) -- well, McCain wins Illinois and Missouri among other states. How do you like them apples, Chowds?
The Democratic picture is still quite muddled. Obama's going to come out of the night with more states won, but Hillary just won the Big Casino, California. That Clinton win proved a bit disquieting for Claire McCaskill ... at least from the looks of her creepy, wrinkled Oompa Loompa visage.
Late note from MSNBC: Team Mittens is having "frank discussions about the future" on Wednesday. Turn out the lights, Dandy Don, the party's over.
Super Tuesday Liveblogging-Waiting on California
by Jason Jones
Almost 2 hours since the last post, the results have changed more closely toward my favor. I want to address the delegate issue. Clearly, I do not agree with the delegate aspect at all. The House of Representatives members are determined by population per state. The American way is to have balance, that balance is found in the Senate; 2 across the board. In my simplistic way of thinking, whoever wins the most states wins, period. This happens in some fantasy sports. If one person dominates, we alter the rules to make it fair. The analogy is this, if Barack Obama wins 46 states and Hillary Clinton gets 4, there should be no wayClinton California Texas New York Florida
Almost 2 hours since the last post, the results have changed more closely toward my favor. I want to address the delegate issue. Clearly, I do not agree with the delegate aspect at all. The House of Representatives members are determined by population per state. The American way is to have balance, that balance is found in the Senate; 2 across the board. In my simplistic way of thinking, whoever wins the most states wins, period. This happens in some fantasy sports. If one person dominates, we alter the rules to make it fair. The analogy is this, if Barack Obama wins 46 states and Hillary Clinton gets 4, there should be no way
I am still, like most of you, waiting for
John McCain-AZ, CT, DE, IL, NJ, NY, OK
Mittens
Mike
Barack Obama-AL, CO, CT, DE, GA, ID, IL, KS, MN, ND, UT
Hillary Clinton-AZ, AR, MA, NJ, NY, OK, TN
The math nerds at Fox News are reporting that even if McCain/Obama lose
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Super Tuesday Liveblogging Part III
By Rick Morris
RealClearPolitics is still on top of the big picture.
Arizona went for McCain and by a bigger margin than was anticipated, so there goes the Mittens spin.
I spent about an hour on the phone tonight with our Senior Editor Jason Jones just chewing over what we're seeing so far. I have to say that, for what has been billed as the biggest primary/caucus day in American history in terms of delegates up for grabs on both sides, this day does not seem like it's going to change the race drastically on either side. That could be famous last words on my part, but if it is, it is, I'm not afraid to stick my neck out there. A very persuasive column surfaced today (referenced here) that suggests that the Democrats are on a trajectory to have their fight either last all the way to the convention or at a bare minimum, come down to a bloody, superdelegate-by-superdelegate struggle that casts aside all results decided at the polls. On the Republican side, as of now, McCain seems poised to come out of the day not losing any ground in terms of having a strong upper hand, but he's not going to put it away tonight.
CNN just called Georgia for Huck in an excruciating three-way between McCain and Willard. Dare I suggest that my brother and sister-in-law may have provided the margin of victory?
Missouri and Cali are too close to call still, but the polls on the West Coast have not been closed for very long.
Again, I could be wrong, but I think the anticipated impact of this day will prove to be at least slightly overrated on both sides -- and in a season of monstrous political surprises, having The Most Super Tuesday in the history of the nominating process amount to a fart in a thunderstorm relative to the momentous level of expected drama would have to be one of the biggest shocks.
RealClearPolitics is still on top of the big picture.
Arizona went for McCain and by a bigger margin than was anticipated, so there goes the Mittens spin.
I spent about an hour on the phone tonight with our Senior Editor Jason Jones just chewing over what we're seeing so far. I have to say that, for what has been billed as the biggest primary/caucus day in American history in terms of delegates up for grabs on both sides, this day does not seem like it's going to change the race drastically on either side. That could be famous last words on my part, but if it is, it is, I'm not afraid to stick my neck out there. A very persuasive column surfaced today (referenced here) that suggests that the Democrats are on a trajectory to have their fight either last all the way to the convention or at a bare minimum, come down to a bloody, superdelegate-by-superdelegate struggle that casts aside all results decided at the polls. On the Republican side, as of now, McCain seems poised to come out of the day not losing any ground in terms of having a strong upper hand, but he's not going to put it away tonight.
CNN just called Georgia for Huck in an excruciating three-way between McCain and Willard. Dare I suggest that my brother and sister-in-law may have provided the margin of victory?
Missouri and Cali are too close to call still, but the polls on the West Coast have not been closed for very long.
Again, I could be wrong, but I think the anticipated impact of this day will prove to be at least slightly overrated on both sides -- and in a season of monstrous political surprises, having The Most Super Tuesday in the history of the nominating process amount to a fart in a thunderstorm relative to the momentous level of expected drama would have to be one of the biggest shocks.
Super Tuesday Liveblogging-Early Impressions
by Jason Jones
I must preface the following by saying, I have never watched Super Tuesday or any other final 2 nominees' coverage as I am now. With the9pm est
I must preface the following by saying, I have never watched Super Tuesday or any other final 2 nominees' coverage as I am now. With the
Mittens Romney-Massachusetts (still in
Mike Huckabee-West Virginia (still in
Hillary Clinton-
Democratic states too close to call at the moment:
1. McCain MUST SEPARATE from Mittens Romney.
2. Obama MUST REMAIN RELAVENT versus Hillary Clinton.
Clinton and Romney are bad for
John McCain just won
Romney crushing McCain in
Super Tuesday Liveblogging Part II
By Rick Morris
Real Clear Politics has, as their name would indicate, the clearest election scoreboard you will find anywhere right on their front page.
On Hugh Hewitt's radio show right now, he's asking people who they voted for and, get this, apparently it's nothing but Mitt-bots calling in right now. Shocking! Wait, some little old lady just got on and called him a character assassin. How'd she get past the call screener? That was funnier than any 1,000 "Baba-Booey" phone calls combined.
No results thus far have really changed the narrative we saw coming into the night. Arizona remains too close to call, which Eye Candy Megyn Kelly claimed to be a big blow to McCain. I see somebody got their Romney talking points email today!
Notes from The Corner on National Review's website:
^ Hillary's peeps are sending out emails bragging about the red states she's winning? Uh, Hill? You're running against a guy whose middle name is "Hussein." Ever stop to think that those wins in Reagan Country may be by default?
^ Georgia is having troubles tabulating the vote.
^ Mitt Romney kissing Bob Dole's arse after being dumb enough to attack him today is getting spun like there's no tomorrow on NRO.
I just read Jason's first live-blog of the night comparing the candidates to drug use. To me, Mittens is black tar heroin, Hillary is crack (I chose her for crack so I wouldn't have the Reverend Al picketing me) and Obama is a pile of whippits.
Real Clear Politics has, as their name would indicate, the clearest election scoreboard you will find anywhere right on their front page.
On Hugh Hewitt's radio show right now, he's asking people who they voted for and, get this, apparently it's nothing but Mitt-bots calling in right now. Shocking! Wait, some little old lady just got on and called him a character assassin. How'd she get past the call screener? That was funnier than any 1,000 "Baba-Booey" phone calls combined.
No results thus far have really changed the narrative we saw coming into the night. Arizona remains too close to call, which Eye Candy Megyn Kelly claimed to be a big blow to McCain. I see somebody got their Romney talking points email today!
Notes from The Corner on National Review's website:
^ Hillary's peeps are sending out emails bragging about the red states she's winning? Uh, Hill? You're running against a guy whose middle name is "Hussein." Ever stop to think that those wins in Reagan Country may be by default?
^ Georgia is having troubles tabulating the vote.
^ Mitt Romney kissing Bob Dole's arse after being dumb enough to attack him today is getting spun like there's no tomorrow on NRO.
I just read Jason's first live-blog of the night comparing the candidates to drug use. To me, Mittens is black tar heroin, Hillary is crack (I chose her for crack so I wouldn't have the Reverend Al picketing me) and Obama is a pile of whippits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)