Why a Rudy Giuliani win benefits American politics

Politics is broken. This is agreed upon. The solution to this problem cannot occur until the problem itself becomes crystallized.

The primary process is in tatters. Primary season is becoming shorter ans shorter, and general elections are getting loner and longer. In 2004 America had an 8 month general election. In 2008 it is expected to be 9 months. We spend more time campaigning than governing, and the candidates that win the nominations are often not vetted.

The blame for this falls on the political parties. For some reason, grown men are scared to tell people in Iowa and New Hampshire to shut up, sit down, and quit acting like they matter. The reason they matter now is because the parties are too gutless to tell them otherwise.

Large states such as California got tired of being left out in the cold until June, when nominations were already decided. So they moved their primary up to March a couple election cycles ago. Other states, not wanting to be left irrelevant by California, “leapfrogged” ahead of them. Two days after celebrating the ball dropping into the new year, voters were caucusing. This has got to stop.

Iowa is not representative of America. Neither is New Hampshire. Both of these states are overwhelmingly caucasian. Yes, Nevada and South Carolina have been given some prominence to pacify Hispanic and black voters, respectively, but many candidates have dropped out before these contests. For republicans, Iowa is simply a place for Christian activists to nominate whichever candidate promises to ban abortion and gay marriage. That is how Pat Robertson can do well there, and Ronald Reagan can lose. If only these Christian activists understood that in the other 49 states, the War on Terror, the War on Terror, war in Iraq, and the economy are important. Shouting in the town square about culture wars is all it takes to win the Iowa caucus.

New Hampshire’s state constitution requires that it be the first primary in the nation. Why should the other 49 states be bound by that? In 1996, Delaware tried to have a primary four days after New Hampshire, which demands 7 days space. The candidates boycotted Delaware. This year it was Wyoming that got ignored. Why should Delaware and Wyoming be any less important than New Hampshire and Iowa.

Some say the answer is tradition. That is garbage. Traditions become obsolete. This is why slavery no longer exists, and animal sacrifices are virtually nonexistent. The reason Iowa and New Hampshire get to go first is pure political cowardice. California, New York or Texas should simply break the rules and dare the parties to challenge them. This will destroy the system for good.

This is what Florida is doing now. They are daring the parties to punish them. The parties say they will, but I suspect the parties will back down under fear of losing the state in a general election.

This brings us to Rudy Giuliani.

For the sake of full disclosure, I am backing Mayor Giuliani for President. I believe he is the right man for the job. The fact that he can help destroy the primary process is icing on the cake.

Rudy Giuliani has decided to ignore Iowa and New Hampshire, and bet all his chips on Florida, which holds its primary January 29th. His strategy is that winning Florida will give him momentum going into Super-Duper-Tuesday on February 5th, when large states such as New York, New Jersey and California hold their primaries. All of those states have strong moderate streaks, which benefits him.

This is a risky strategy because it has never been tried before. To simply ignore Iowa and New Hampshire is seen as suicidal. Exceptions can be made, such as in 1992 when Iowa Senator Tom Harkin ran a favorite son campaign. As a general rule, snubbing these states is usually a death sentence.

Some will argue, quite correctly, that Giuliani refused to compete because he knew he could not win. This analysis is completely correct, but it misses the big picture. What does it say when the national frontrunner, ahead in major states with diverse populations, cannot win in Iowa? It says that Iowa is out of wack, not the candidate. Iowa elects Popes. Giuliani is not a Pope. Mike Huckabee, who cannot compete anywhere else, gets a victory in Iowa, simply because he is a religious Christian. If anything, this is borderline bigotry. It is also foolhardy to ignore the War on Terror simply because several thousand people care more about the lives of the unborn to the citizens alive today facing terrorism.

It is not just Huckabee. Pat Robertson’s strong finished should have invalidated the Iowa Caucuses a couple decades ago.

Primaries cater to the extremes. General elections cater to middle America. Giuliani is a general election candidate. He puts states in play that republicans could never win with a candidate such as Mike Huckabee. This forces democrats to spend money defending states they would normally win automatically.

In the past, candidates that have tried to argue that competence was more important than ideology have gotten their heads handed to them. Ideology does matter. On foreign policy and economic issues, Giuliani is a conservative. Yet on social issues, the activists refer to him as a RINO (Republican in name only), which is ironic given that nobody outside of Iowa asks their opinion.

So Giuliani chose to refuse to compete in a state that he knew he could not win. This is much better than trying to compete and losing, which is why the Mitt Romney campaign is supposedly imploding. Romney came in second in Iowa and New Hampshire, yet his not winning was seen as losing, even though he lost to a different opponent in those two states. This is nuts.

With the democrats, Hillary Clinton is inevitable (I still believe she is), then she loses Iowa, then Barack Obama is inevitable, then Hillary wins New Hampshire, and now Hillary is back on top. 48 states have not even decided yet. John Edwards may be the strongest general election candidate, but if he loses South Carolina he is done. This is where he was born, but if not for Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina may not be his very last chance.

I want Giuliani to win because I believe he would be the best man for the job, although John McCain and Fred Thompson are both good men. My reasons for supporting him are based on policy issues, not politics or strategy.

Yet political strategy could be forever altered if Giuliani wins the nomination. More candidates will have the guts to to tell Iowa and New Hampshire to go to hell.

This does not mean big states should trample small states. Retail politicking is important. However, it should be rotated, so that other small states like Maine and North Dakota get a fair chance to choose a President. Alabama can be the first southern state instead of South Carolina. Missouri can be first instead of Iowa.

Rudy Giuliani is engaging in a bold and risky strategy. If he fails, the media pundits will only proclaim the ever important relevance of two irrelevant states. They will cite John McCain as proof. McCain is an American hero, but the only reason he is elevated in this race is due to his winning New Hampshire eight years ago.

I want the primary process in its current form to be destroyed. In 1996, Pat Buchanan won New Hampshire with 27%. Bob Dole had 26%, and Lamar Alexander had 23%. By coming in second, Dole was able to have everybody rally around him to head off Buchanan. Alexander was pressured to drop out, even though he finished only 10,000 votes behind Dole at most. Dole even stated that had he come in third in New Hampshire, he would have dropped out, and perhaps Alexander would have taken his flannel shirts to the White House.

The field is littered with cerebral general election candidates that could not appeal to the hard core activists. The democrats had Paul Tsongas and Bob Kerrey in 1992, and Joe Biden and Bill Richardson in 2008. The republicans had Dick Lugar, Pete Wilson and Lamar Alexander in 1996, and any one of them would have been formidable general election candidates.

If Rudy Giuliani wins the nomination, and then wins the general election, it will be interesting to see how Iowa and New Hampshire vote electorally. Will they be that petty and spiteful regardless of actual issues? Time will tell.

If Rudy Giuliani becomes President, the democrats will start campaigning to defeat him in 2012 before he even takes the Oath of Office. Then the real challenge will be if these democrats have the courage to try to fire him without shoving their heads up the hides of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Primary season used to start in earnest in March and continue through June. Then the summer was a time to relax, and the campaign began after Labor Day, and lasted 10 weeks. Even with an all news all the time cycle, Americans should at least attempt to put the genie back in this political bottle.

Support Rudy Giuliani to win the republican nomination for President. Regardless of ideology and affiliation, it would be a victory for political moderates and a potential death sentence for two small states that have blackmailed politicians for decades.

Rudy Giuliani has stood up to terrorists and won. Now we shall see if standing up to Iowa and New Hampshire activists can be done without committing political hara kiri. For those in the other 48 states, I hope so. I do not trust people to stand up to Islamic lunatics if they cannot stand up to a few thousand middle aged white men who think that God gives them a divine right to choose the leader of the free world, with zero input from the rest of America.

eric

70 Responses to “Why a Rudy Giuliani win benefits American politics”

  1. I completely agree that the presidential nominating process is broken. I completely disagree that the large states should be front loaded in the process, and there’s a good reason for that: retail campaigning the large states is impossible, and so the early large state primaries require huge sums of campaign money to get out the candidates message. Early large state primaries would involve nomination coronations before the people ever had a chance to really get to know the candidates.

    “The blame for this falls on the political parties.”

    No. It falls on the Constitution and the Congress.

    Article One, Section Four: The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators. …

    The Senate cluase was later altered by amendment, but the rest stands today. Congress could step in and make changes, but have been reluctant to do so, perhaps because the current system favors incumbancy, perhaps because picking winner and loser states, so to speak, would be difficult to accomplish on the Hill.

    The GOP tried to change the rules with the Deleware Plan back in 2000, but Rove stepped in and shelved it, where it’s been in limbo ever since. Why, I don’t know. Perhaps he was thinking of ’04 and wanted to maintain the status quo through the Bush administration for strategic purposes, but again, I really am not sure.

    The need for small state early primaries as described above (caucuses should be done away with altogether) puts the GOP in an odd position: all the small states vote more religious right, libertarian, or populist mavericks among the GOP candidates in the primaries and caucuses, whereas the large states tend to vote for establishment candidates. The GOP establishment would of course prefer the latter, but without the most of the small states, the GOP would be unable to win the presidency, almost ever. The GOP does not want to upset it’s core voting base.

    For the Dems, I don’t think it matters. Small state or large, the same candidates would probably emerge. The Dems appeal to a much larger tent than the GOP, and the small states that matter to them tend to vote establishment anyway.

    “Mike Huckabee, who cannot compete anywhere else, gets a victory in Iowa, simply because he is a religious Christian.”

    This, in my opinion, is a very naive understanding of Huck’s campaign. It is not “simply” because he is a religious Christian – it’s because he is a populist, and a genuine Christian. Establishment GOP pols all claim to be devout Christians, but few actually act like it. Huckabee does. Also, he’s quick on his feet and very smart and witty. People like him. That makes a big difference in American politics. Just the same, unless he scores big in Florida and South Carolina, he won’t have enough money to compete on Tsunama Tuesday.

    “Rudy Giuliani has stood up to terrorists and won.”

    I have no idea what this statement means.

    All said, it may be possible that a Giuliani win could be the impetus to finally change the electoral system, but it’s hard to say how that would manifest in action. Again, the parties could work this out, but really only the GOP could do it, and they might be taking chances if they did. The Hill could certainly step in, but they won’t – too many small state senators. I don’t expect a Constitutional amendment anytime soon and I don;t expect the states to play nice. But I certainly wouldn’t want to see mass delegate assigning to early in the campaigns, because then ONLY the moneyed candidates could ever win, and that would be appalling.

    We shall see…

    JMJ

  2. “unless he scores big in Florida and South Carolina”

    Oops! I meant Michigan and SC!

    Also, man ‘o man am I already sick of Giulianis fear, fear, fear commercials down hear in Florida. There’s more pressing issues out there than just terrorism. I’m sick of it! What a bunch of wussies we’ve become.

    JMJ

  3. greg says:

    “Rudy … has stood up to terrorists and won.” I agree with JMJ. Yes, he was mayor at the time and said some really nice things but in what manner did he stand up to the terrorists and in what manner did he “win”?

    What he did accomplish regarding 9/11 was to insist on the command center being built in the trade center which caused a lot of rescue workers to die unnecessarily, which partly explains why the firefighters union is so strongly against him.

    We’re also seeing fading poll numbers in Florida so it’s starting to look like it was a failed strategy anyway, which makes this discussion increasingly irrelevant.

  4. Chris says:

    Learn about who the four stooges are;

    Candidate Research – Know Who You’re Voting For ( The Easy Way )
    http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/candidate_research_know_who_youre_voting_for/

    Editors Note: The commenter is backing Fred Thompson for President.

  5. AL says:

    I agree with some of the above arguments – Congress / Constitution responsibilities…also think Jersey’s assessment of Huck is on target. The “fear” dialogue, to me, has an underlying message. Just as the President got hammered for not backing down on his hard-line stance about Iran, I believe some candidates understand the surge is working for at least three reasons: first, GEN Petraeus has enabled commanders to do what it takes in each specific area, thereby decentralizing execution of missions throughout the country. This is a very basic tenet of military operations. Second, there are far more National Police and Military Transition Teams serving as enablers for Iraqis to provide their own security, minimizing their perception of our role as occupiers and allowing our Soldiers a more advisory/humanitarian role. Third, and this is the point relating to the “fear factor”, is it would not be in Al Quaeda’s or Taliban’s best interest to demonstrate capabilities or make any large “statements” while the campaigns are at this stage because it would cause people to lean toward the Republican side.

  6. greg says:

    I think lots of people agree that there needs to be some tweaking or even a major revision of the electoral process in the US. But I’m just not sure what that tweak or revision would look like.

  7. It’s nice to have some agreement with you, Al. I even agree that the surge can be said to be “working” – but with significant caveats: 1) Almost one fifth of the Iraqi population has been displaced, internally and externally. Essentially, there has been a massive “ethnic cleansing” or perhaps “relocation.” How this will play out in the long term, with Iraqs neighbors and the how these relocated and refugees fare, will play an important part in Iraqs future. 2) We can’t keep up the “surge” forever. Eventually we have to deescalate. What happens in Iraq after that is hard to say. 3) From what I’ve read and heard, tere seems to have been a de facto cease fire from the Sadrists, other militias, and resistance. This started even with the anticipation of the surge. how these forces react to eventual withdrawal will have to be seen.

    Bush is trying to get a long-term treaty together with the Iraqi government. If that succeeds, then perhaps we could substantially withdrawal this year. But again, what happens after that is hard to say. Also, the new debaathification law could portend well for future stability, but again it’s hard to say. So far I think it would be far to presumptuous to say that the surge has “worked.” that we won’t know until after the “surge” is completed.

    I do completely disagree that Al Qaeda, et al, terrorists would not want another GOP regime. I believe that’s exactly what they want, and events have shown that they’ve gotten everything they wanted from a GOP regime thus far – a unifying, isolated enemy. One can only hope that because they’ve gotten what they wanted, the terrorists have no motive to strike us here again – for the near future.

    JMJ

  8. AL says:

    We may never know, and at this point, any arguments I make are pure speculation. It defies logic to want a strong adversary, one who will hunt you down and kill you, but it also defies logic, to me, to strap explosives on myself and become a Weapon of Minor Distraction to a crowd….

  9. Jersey McJones says:

    It defies logic to blow yourself up, but they do it. If you’re willing to die for a cause – let alone go out of your way to accomplish the dying part – then tradtion military logic pretty much goes out the window, don’t you think? I believe that Al Qaeda & co wanted an isolated, unifying enemy – and one that in fact would not hunt them down and kill them. Now, if they went after say China, I could see your point. The Chinese have no compunction to react humanely. We do, ate least more than the Chinese and the Russians. The Europeans simply refuse to engage in reactionary war anymore, as they have long since learned the lesson that reactionary, colonial wars always lead to disaster in the end. So that leaves us. Al Qaeda attacked us for that reason.

    JMJ

  10. micky2 says:

    JMJ;
    “and events have shown that they’ve gotten everything they wanted from a GOP regime thus far ‘

    We.ve had this debate before, but of course facts mean nothing to the left.
    It was established that no matter who is running the show, radical Islam has made it abundantly clear will attack us again. This debate stemmed from the statement by Jersey that we were attacked only because of Bush.
    Quotes saying just that from OBL were displayed at this debate.
    If the next administration is lead by the GOP it wont matter.
    Only a fool would think that AlQueda would take a hiatus for any reason other than the complete elimination of anything western along with Israel.

    JMJ;
    “One can only hope that because they’ve gotten what they wanted, the terrorists have no motive to strike us here again – for the near future.

    WTF ? Are you hooked up with FBI or the CIA ?
    Only someone who wont face up to the what Radicals have said is there goal would say such a ridiculous thing.

  11. Jersey McJones says:

    Micky,

    9/11 was by far in a long ways the most audacious and massive attack terrorists ever perpetrated against us. On top of that, Al Qaeda rhetoric has many times informed us of why they attacked us and why when. And they were apparently right in their timing by there own rhetoric. That is why they have no need of further attacks here for now, and that is why we haven’t been attacked “here” since we took the bait and invaded the Middle East. This is not a hiatus, but rather the next step in their plans.

    And everyone wants to take over the world, Micky. The question is who can. They can’t and they know that. You’d have to be a dellusional paranoid to think otherwise. These things seem strikingly obvious to me, and I am certainly not alone in seeing this.

    JMJ

  12. Chris Naron says:

    Eric,

    More on the anti-flyover rhetoric later. Rudy is behind in Florida. Huck is just a few points off the lead. How does that square with your analysis that he only did well because Iowa is one big megachurch? I suppose Huck could be getting all the inbreds in Florida and his support is maxed out at this point. But there’s no way to know that until the results come in.

    If Florida is his firewall, the fire will continue.

  13. micky2 says:

    Only an Al Queda operative could know all that.

    Gee, I guess the patriot act and the hundreds of security measures and the GWOT have nothing to do with why we haven’t been attacked ?

    “All the guards around the perimeter are not the reason we haven’t been attacked, the enemy has accomplished what it set out to do, that’s why.”

    You lost this debate big time Jersey a couple weeks ago. You came out looking incredibly foolish.
    the reason you lost is because you could not provide anything to substantiate your claim.

    Yes, a delusional paranoid would think that everyone wants to take over the world. That would not be me, because I am talking and only worried about radical Islam as the conversation dictates. So don’t stretch it to ridiculous proportions by saying I think everyone want to ake over the world. You’re fabricating crap again Jersey.
    But whats even more delusional is someone who cant read proof and still denies that radical Islam has said that its goal is to…
    And I quote ;
    Jersey McJones said,
    January 1, 2008 at 12:05 pm

    Micky, just read what Al Qaeda and OBL have said:

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/index.html

    “We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah…”

    You yourself pulled this a couple weeks ago and it clearly says from even YOUR OWN SOURCE that Al Queda has said they will continue !

    They have not bled America dry yet !
    But now, today, you say they have no reason anymore for now to attack us !

  14. Jersey McJones says:

    Micky, after this, can we get back to the point of Eric’s post. I think it’s very interesting.

    “Only an Al Queda operative could know all that.”

    I’m simply deducing from the preponderance of evidence, Micky.

    “Gee, I guess the patriot act and the hundreds of security measures and the GWOT have nothing to do with why we haven’t been attacked?”

    Actually, I would count both of those as victories for the terrorists, therefore negating the need for a further attack for now.

    “All the guards around the perimeter are not the reason we haven’t been attacked, the enemy has accomplished what it set out to do, that’s why.”

    Who said that? It wasn’t me.

    Micky, we have different opinions on this matter. there’s no need to get all huffy about it.

    “You yourself pulled this a couple weeks ago and it clearly says from even YOUR OWN SOURCE that Al Queda has said they will continue!”

    Yes, and we have ensured that they have the endless opportunity and motive by invading and occupying in the Middle East.

    “They have not bled America dry yet!”

    They’ve donw a pretty good job of it so far, thanks to people like you.

    JMJ

  15. micky2 says:

    JMJ;
    “I’m simply deducing from the preponderance of evidence, Micky.”

    Show me your evidence.

    JMJ;
    “Who said that? It wasn’t me. (it was an example of your mentallity)

    JMJ;
    “Actually, I would count both of those as victories for the terrorists, therefore negating the need for a further attack for now.”

    Your own source said that it is and was their goal. And they are not done yet, obviously.
    And your view of Al Queda victory is plain stupid.

    JMJ;
    “Micky, after this, can we get back to the point of Eric’s post. I think it’s very interesting.”

    BS ! You made statement that is assinine and keep saying it no matter how many times you are proven wrong. And I know you dont want to deal with me only because I constantly hold your feet to ther fire.

    Since you seem to have all the answers you should go to work for the pentagon, cia, fbi,nia and even secret service. You sigle handedly could of prevented 911 with all you know.

    Your own source says they’re not done yet. And yet you wont admit it.
    Ontop of the fact that we get videos every other week calling for attacks on America.
    And so I will continue to expose you as delusional hypocrite.

    At first you said it was only because of Bush that we were attacked.
    Myself and others proved that to be one of the dumbest things anyone has ever said.

    Now, wheres this evidence you based your statement on?

  16. Jersey McJones says:

    Micky, please. We have been through all this already. I disagree with you, you disagree with me.

    I think you’re not offering anything other than obfuscations, pedantics, and standard, boiler plate, rightwing rhetoric. You think I’m just making stuff up out of whole cloth. Whatever. I am certainly not the only person who thinks as I do, and you are certainly not the only person who sees things the way you do. Only history may tell who was right, if anyone. It’s all too late now.

    Let it be for another day, will ya?

    JMJ

  17. AL says:

    Reference Chris’ point about Huck – lest anyone accuse me of evoking Reagan’s name – it’s not for policies or what he did or didn’t do as President – it’s the comfort people get from hearing him talk and thinking they know where he stands. Thompson has a similar attribute. Mitt has been more obvious in switching sides, McCain has a temper, and Rudy is quite representative of New Yorkers…as is Hillary – so one of the two guys who makes us “feel good” and/or doesn’t scare us, has my bet. Before anyone slings what Huck did here or Fred did there, that’s not the point – as evidenced by some of the arguments on this forum from people who are seemingly well-read, positions are all over the map and not based on logic or history – they are mostly based on how someone feels about something…which goes back a few days to why I’m thankful for the Republic…

  18. micky2 says:

    JMJ;
    “One can only hope that because they’ve gotten what they wanted, the terrorists have no motive to strike us here again – for the near future.

    JMJ;
    “Let it be for another day, will ya? ”

    In your dreams. Are you tired of getting railed every time you come around the corner?
    Then stop saying things that arent true or you cant prove.

    I lost my voting rights due to my own mistakes. but I can make up for it by at least chopping down one moonbat statement a day. And if just one impressionable mind who is able to vote gets to see what the truth is then its just as good as me placing the right vote at the booth. And gives me the satisfaction of knowing that I helped to save American lives.
    So no! I will not save it for another day and you know damn well I never have and never will.

    OBL;
    “The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

    (a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them – peace be upon them all.

    It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah’s Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language. ”

    OBL;
    “Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs. ”

    OBL;
    “Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!! ”

    OBL;
    “The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.”

    Zawahiri;
    “As they fight us everywhere, we will fight them everywhere; everyone who has joined in the crime must pay the price; we can’t stand by and monitor these rockets spewing their fire on the people of Lebanon and remain quiet,” Zawahiri continued. “The war with Israel is not based on any agreements or any border disputes … it is jihad for the sake of Allah, to free all of Palestine from occupation and to rid all the homes of Islam from the crusaders. The whole world is our battlefield.”

    OBL said;
    “Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential nominee John] Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.”

    DOES IT SOUND LIKE THEY GOT EVERYTHING THEY WANT ?

    JMJ;
    “I’m simply deducing from the preponderance of evidence, Micky.”

    If your gonna talk about evidence , then show it 1 put up or shut up !

  19. Jersey McJones says:

    Al,

    You lost me here…

    “… – lest anyone accuse me of evoking Reagan’s name – it’s not for policies or what he did or didn’t do as President – it’s the comfort people get from hearing him talk and thinking they know where he stands.”

    “… Before anyone slings what Huck did here or Fred did there, that’s not the point – as evidenced by some of the arguments on this forum from people who are seemingly well-read, positions are all over the map and not based on logic or history – …”

    May I ask what you mean by these statements?

    “not based on logic or history”

    Especially this.

    Micky,

    What? We’ve been through this whole debate. I showed you my evidence, you showed me yours. We’ve probably both heard or read these facts and theories before. I looked at all the evidence over the years and came to my conclusion. I showed you why. You’re welcome to disagree, and a lot of voters apparently agree with you on this. Some feel my way. I know here you’re coming from about losing the plebiscite. I think you should have it, and am proud of my governor, Charlie Christ, for at least taking some action to remedy that injustice. You should have the vote.

    As for logic. I look at the various sets of rhetoric from all the different actors. I look at real facts on the ground, that are reliably available. I read and hear as much as I can from other perspectives. I compare and weigh known interests and variables. I do this a lot. I come to a conclusion. I change my mind whenever any of these considerations change. What exactly is wrong with that?

    As for the megalomania of the Islamists. We want the whole world to be “Democratic,” or at least what we call democracy. They want the whole world to be “Islamic,” at least what a radical minority considers Islamic. Kim Jong Il wants a big penis. Some people want the whole world and a big penis. Sadly for all, it probably isn’t possible to have it all one way or the other. It certainly seems improbable to me that the Muslim World poses a serious threat to the existance of the Western world. It just seems so ridiculously unlikely anywhere in the foreseeable future.

    As for Giuliani and his incessant FEAR compaign. We in the West are the premier civilization of todays world. The rest are usually referred to as Second World, at best. The majority of the Muslim people are nice folks, just as bright, charasmatic, and funny as everyone else. But every culture suffers corruption and their’s is producing modern terrorism. Ostensibly, they’re upset about the state of affairs in their own countries, but as usual, they’re rhetorically they’re blaming us for it. And no one but a fool would say the West has been a straight dealer with the people of the Middle East. And so these “Islamists” kill us. On the other hand, we kill each other more than they kill us – so what does that tell you?

    As for us. A key theme of modern history will inform you that over-armed, over-religious, over-zealous people have a hard time getting along, and they take advantage of overwrought people to press their cause. Such is too much of todays Muslim World. You can say that we’re fixing the problem, but I don’t see it happening. he West had lots of time to effect Westernizing change in the Middle East and it never got anywhere good. Name me just one Muslim country in which you’d like to reside, and be proud to do so. So what have we accomplished in all these years? Oh yeah. Blowback.

    JMJ

  20. AL says:

    Jersey,… Ref, “You lost me here…

    “… – lest anyone accuse me of evoking Reagan’s name – it’s not for policies or what he did or didn’t do as President – it’s the comfort people get from hearing him talk and thinking they know where he stands.” In other words, I think people genuinely liked Reagan, and for the most part, they believed that whatever he did was for the benefit of people. Regardless of backseat quarterbacking or hindsight history, people voted for him because they liked what they thought he stood for – their best interests. Both Huck and Thompson have those likeable characteristics.

    “… Before anyone slings what Huck did here or Fred did there, that’s not the point – as evidenced by some of the arguments on this forum from people who are seemingly well-read, positions are all over the map and not based on logic or history – …”
    What I mean by this is, it would be easy to inundate me with weblinks that show Huck is a closet tax raiser or immigrant friendly freak or Thompson is in bed with Hollywood hoodies, but that’s all irrelevant to the point that we are still a nation of emotions – and no matter how well read or educated we may be – many will still vote for what feels right versus what seeming “facts” tell us – which is why I’m thankful for a representative government.

    I can only surmise it is also why the FEAR campaigns turn you off…but fear is an emotion that touches a great majority…fear of losing one’s job, fear that someone is going to get something I don’t get, fear of losing our security, fear of change, fear of you name it… and some people simply fear being held accountable for themselves.

  21. Jersey McJones says:

    Okay I got you now. And I have to admit that I understand exactly now what you’re saying.

    Now get me. By FEAR I meant the insipid fear of terrorism in America. We have bigger priorities.

    JMJ

  22. chris naron says:

    Here’s the aforementioned “more” on middle-America: http://www.rightnation.us/forums/blog/mr__naron/index.php?showentry=2274

    I’m assuming we don’t take this stuff personally.

  23. Jersey McJones says:

    I think Chris sees the GOP’s Catch 22 in this election mess.

    JMJ

  24. micky2 says:

    Jersey, your so full of it !

    You’re not going to minimize the threat of our enemy by talking out of your butt and not being able to back up what you said.

    “One can only hope that because they’ve gotten what they wanted, the terrorists have no motive to strike us here again – for the near future.”

    There is absolutely nothing that indicates, points to or even suggests in the slightest that radical Islam or Al Queda has gotten what they want. It was one of dumbest things I have ever heard anyone say. Honestly.
    Who the hell do you think you are to come out and say something like that when we’ve got men and women dying to make sure that they don’t get what they want ?
    I have made it perfectly clear with Osama Bin Laden’s own words that you are as wrong as Brittany Spears running a day care center.
    As far as your claims that you had evidence in the last debate over this to prove your point THAT IS A LIE !
    Because I just went over that debate with a magnifying glass and you only presented two links of which I ended up using against you because you lied through omission by not disclosing everything in that document.. As a matter of fact there were statements in those two links that actually supported my position and not yours.
    You tried to pull a fast one and I busted you !
    You presented nothing but your opinion and rhetoric.
    I on the other hand put out numerous pieces of evidence that shredded your claim.
    I had proved without a doubt that Al Queda did not attack us just because Bush was in office, But also that they are not done and that it does not matter who is in office.

  25. micky2 says:

    Also on this thread are quotes directly from Bin Laden himself from his letter to America. Proving you wrong again !

    And here is the thread from the last debate. This thread like I said has absolutely nothing NOTHING to back up your claims at all !

    I suggest you start making clear what is fact and provable and what is your opinion.
    You will never ever be taken seriously by anyone if you can never stand behind your word or say sh** is true when you know it isn’t.
    When someone you are debating asks for something to substantiate your claims you had better be ready to produce or be looked at as a hack and a liar.
    Do you honestly believe that we should just chalk it all up to “its too late now” or” The enemy has no motive to strike us now or in the near future ?”
    Yea right ! lets just take your word for it and kick back right ?
    And I would suggest to anyone reading this to do the same.
    There is entirely too much crap flying around out there that is deceiving , misleading and naive. And we should all approach the assinine statement and challenge it !
    I don’t want some kid who just turned 18 to go to the polls with a bunch of crap in his head , like the kind Jersey Cones spreads and end up voting for someone who gets us or our soldiers killed !
    Its upon all of us to make this our duty as Americans. To demand the truth ! Even if its just right here on Eric’s blog . Because you never know who’s reading. And don’t think it doesn’t matter if you only get through to one or two people. If everyone did it , it would truly make difference.
    We have a lot more to loose if we don’t.

  26. micky2 says:

    I cant get the limks to submit.

    The previous thread would be the Pakistan thread form Jan1st.
    And the other one was directly from BinLadens “Letter to America”

  27. Jersey McJones says:

    The only people who voted for someone who got our soldiers killed, Micky, are those who voted for Bush. And that is a fact. I want 18 year olds to vote for someone that won’t get them killed.

    I have reviewed all of your posts. None of them whatsoever have proven me wrong.

    JMJ

  28. micky2 says:

    When you accuse someone of something and cant prove it, you are wrong.
    You are a delusional liar and a fraud.

    Right here is one and the most recent example.

    JMJ;
    “JMJ said;
    “Personally, Micky, I am quite convinced that Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 BECAUSE Bush and the GOP became the one party ruling majority.”

    You conviction was proven wrong not just my me but others as well.
    We all showed more than enough historically documented facts to make you look like you were talking out of your butt.
    With quotes from the enemy himself.

    And here is a example of how you justify your lies and misguidance, follow closely.
    ==================================================================
    JMJ ;
    “I showed you my evidence,”
    This is a lie.
    Where is the evidence that the enemy has gotten what they wanted and wont strike us again?

    This is what you call evidence;

    “As for logic. I look at the various sets of rhetoric from all the different actors. I look at real facts on the ground, that are reliably available. I read and hear as much as I can from other perspectives. I compare and weigh known interests and variables. I do this a lot. I come to a conclusion. I change my mind whenever any of these considerations change. What exactly is wrong with that? ”

    I will break it down for you.
    ==================================================================
    “As for logic. I look at the various sets of rhetoric from all the different actors. ”

    Unfortunatly what you see in some rhetoric is not what others see.
    So, you interpretation of the rhetoric will be esatablished as nothing other that your opinion.
    Peoples rhetoric is worthless and does not establish the enimies standing as far as their accomplishments go. Whether they are satisfied with their progress or not.
    THAT STATEMENT HAS NOW BEEN RENDERD USELESS AS PROOF.
    ==================================================================
    ” I look at real facts on the ground, that are reliably available. I read and hear as much as I can from other perspectives.”

    Where are these facts ? I asked you for them, but instead you give me the above paragraph claiming its evidence.
    As far as other perspectives go. This is also subjective to personal interpretation.
    We all read and hear different perspectives. I have shown you actuall transcripts ,NOT PERSPECTIVES !
    And so this line has also been renderd useless as any kind of proof.
    ==================================================================
    ” I compare and weigh known interests and variables. I do this a lot. I come to a conclusion. ”

    BFD ! We all do this also. But anyone is capable of coming to a conclusion that appeals to their best interest. No matter what interests they look at.
    SO ! That line is also worth about as much as your opinion.
    ==================================================================

    JMJ;
    ““One can only hope that because they’ve gotten what they wanted, the terrorists have no motive to strike us here again – for the near future.”

    NOW PROVE IT !
    I dont want any of your partisan bias Sherlock Holmes crap !
    Give me something that is confirmable and reliable that will make this true !

  29. Jersey McJones says:

    “You are a delusional liar and a fraud.”

    Now, now. Be civil Micky.

    “You conviction was proven wrong not just my me but others as well.”

    No, it wasn’t.

    “Where is the evidence that the enemy has gotten what they wanted and wont strike us again?”

    I never said they wouldn’t strike us again. I said that for now it seems to me they’ve gotten everything they wanted and that is why haven’t hot us here again since 9/11. They don’t have to. They accomplished what they wanted on 9/11. When they want to accomplish something else, perhaps they will hit us again.

    Micky, you’re annoyiong me now. I am not in the CIA. I am not GWB. I am not OBL. I can not climb into these guys heads, and neither can you. You have not made a convincing argument to me, and I obviously haven’t made one to you. I feel that I am probably close to right and that you are closer to wrong. That’s it. I’m not going on about this forever.

    JMJ

  30. micky2 says:

    JMJ ;
    “The only people who voted for someone who got our soldiers killed, Micky, are those who voted for Bush. And that is a fact. I want 18 year olds to vote for someone that won’t get them killed.”

    And you people voted for Clinton, who let things go untill 3000 Americans died.
    And if you get your way, the same thing will probably happen again.

  31. Chris Naron says:

    I’m going to make two new miis for my Nintendo Wii. They’re going to be Mickey and JMJ. And I’m going to make them box.

  32. AL says:

    “The only people who voted for someone who got our soldiers killed, Micky, are those who voted for Bush. And that is a fact. I want 18 year olds to vote for someone that won’t get them killed.”

    I would have to agree that most, if not all, of your arguments have been dismantled and proven to be narrow-minded opinion versus substantial.

    The above statement is simply stupid. So, a vote for someone other than President Bush would NOT have gotten them killed? Maybe they were killed because the enemy sniped them or placed an IED in the road for the express purpose of killing them. The enemy is taking actions to kill people – Soldiers, contractors, and US citizens – both here and abroad.

    It’s a Volunteer Army, and the majority of Soldiers voted for President Bush. So, what you want and what most of the Soldiers want are two different things. I want a President whose actions won’t get anyone killed…and I want world peace. Neither of these two statements makes me smart – they make me look stupid.

  33. micky2 says:

    ““One can only hope that because they’ve gotten what they wanted, the terrorists have no motive to strike us here again – for the near future.”

    And now you say this
    I said that for now it seems to me they’ve gotten everything they wanted and that is why haven’t hot us here again since 9/11. They don’t have to. They accomplished what they wanted on 9/11. When they want to accomplish something else, perhaps they will hit us again.

    Now you back down and change it a little and throw in the word “seems”

    Its right there in your face, you cant back up what you
    ORIGINALLY said.
    You say that you are not going to go on about this forever.
    As a matter of fact I’ll bet good money you will.
    Because you constantly on a regular basis say things you cannot back up with anything but opinion and wild speculation. Almost daily. And its usually the same thing too.

    JMJ;
    ““You conviction was proven wrong not just my me but others as well.”

    No, it wasn’t. ”

    heres the link. You never had an answer to any of it other than what you think.
    http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/pakistan-analysis-from-the-axis-of-antisemitism/#comments

    Numerous people shot you down and you never came back with anything to prove any of us wrong

  34. micky2 says:

    Chris Naron;
    “I’m going to make two new miis for my Nintendo Wii. They’re going to be Mickey and JMJ. And I’m going to make them box.”

    Jersey will get knocked out 10 sec, into the first round.
    And will tell everyone that Bush rigged the fight.
    Of course there will be nothing to substatiate his claim.
    But whats important is that Jersey knows its true.

  35. BrianR says:

    A Giuliani win would redefine the GOP as the Dem-Lite Party. It’s bad enough now; it would be even worse then. It would mean the total abandonment by the GOP of any truly conservative principles.

    Here in California we have a purportedly “Republican” Governator who caucuses with the Sacramento Dems, ignores the other Republicans, and treats conervatves like they have rabies. He proposes his own horribly leftist initiatives, like a state “Greenhouse Gas” law (went into effect, and will bankrupt the state) and UHC.

    Is that what you want for the rest of the country? Then vote for Baldy.

    Here he is in his own words:

    “Mayor Giuliani, when he was mayor of New York, basically said I’m not a Reagan Republican anymore, I’m a moderate Republican; I’m pro-choice, I’m for the Brady Bill, I’m for the assault weapons ban”
    CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/04/06/national/main181115.shtml)

    “But the contrast is not as sharp in Mrs. Clinton’s expected contest with Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. The mayor and the first lady hold almost identical views on gun control, which could complicate any effort by Mrs. Clinton to draw a contrast. Mr. Giuliani’s campaign manager, Bruce J. Teitelbaum, said, “As a senator, New Yorkers will know exactly what Mayor Giuliani will do because he doesn’t just talk about gun control, he actually has a record of taking an historic number of guns off the streets.”
    NY Times on the Web, 10 May 2000

    “Abortion Fits GOP Philosophy, Says Giuliani
    By Jeff McKay
    CNS Correspondent
    April 09, 2001”

    “Giuliani Touts Senate’s ‘Comprehensive’ Approach to Immigration Policy

    By IRA STOLL – Staff Reporter of the Sun
    April 27, 2006

    Mayor Giuliani is wading into the debate over America’s immigration policy with the argument that the comprehensive approach being pursued by the Senate is better for American security than what he called the “punitive” approach being pressed by the House of Representatives.”

    He still stands behind his support of taxpayer funding for abortions. He believes the Second Amendment is subject to federalism and local interpretation; in other words, he’s still a gun-grabber.

    If he’s nominated, I’ll either sit out the Presidential General Election, or cast my vote Third Party or for the Dem, depending on how POed I am that day.

  36. jayhawker says:

    This is ludicrous. So, you would vote to allow America to be destroyed from within, rather than from without. Terrorists need to be stopped, but so does our moral suicide. Voting for anyone who would redefine marriage, take away our second ammendment rights, and appoint judges who would perpetuate the fraud of Roe v. Wade on this nation is a vote for political terrorism.

  37. Jersey McJones says:

    Micky,

    “And you people voted for Clinton, who let things go untill 3000 Americans died.
    And if you get your way, the same thing will probably happen again.”

    LOL! Yeah, right! Blame Clinton! Puh-lease. I’m no Clintonista, but I certainly don’t blame him for 9/11, regardless of his handling of terrorism. Again, all you have is maintsream rightwing talking points, and I’m sorry, but I weigh those very lightly against all the other evidence.

    Chris,

    “I’m going to make two new miis for my Nintendo Wii. They’re going to be Mickey and JMJ. And I’m going to make them box.”

    I think our debates are as close to boxing as you can actually come on the internet!

    Al,

    “So, a vote for someone other than President Bush would NOT have gotten them killed?”

    Yes, in all likelyhood.

    Bush is a hawk, Al. His administartion and advisors were almost all old Cold Warriors with close ties to the Military Industrial Complex and Big Oil. I believe they were just itching for war. 9/11 gave them an excuse. I don’t know for sure, but I seriously doubt a president Gore would have bumbled into invading Iraq as he spoke out against it from the beginning. So I stand by my statement.

    Micky, your testosterone is showing again. Better zip it up before you burn it on something.

    JMJ

  38. Jersey McJones says:

    Brian,

    What choice does the GOP have? All of the top tier GOP candidates are outside mainstream conservatism to one extent or another, and even those that are more establishment have been outside of it in the past. You have a populist (Huckabee), and maverick (McCain), and two pragmatists (Giuliani and Romney). Running as a “conservative” is a guarented loss for the GOP in ’08. Look what happened to the “conservatives” in ’06! Thin about Santorum. Think about all the drop-uots and resigners. Do you really think Giuliani could ever have won in NY is he didn’t take stong pro-choice, pro-equal rights, pro-gun reg? No way in heck! If anything, I believe the only reason the top tier GOPers are running to the right is to get the nomination. I get the distinct feeling that once in office, any of them would govern to the left of their current candidacy positions.

    JMJ

  39. micky2 says:

    At least I have testosterone.
    Now, back your sh** up or spare me any more of your fumbled opinions.

    Blaming clinton was a hell of a lot more appropriate that blaming Bush.
    Clinton has opportunity to implement preventative measures.
    Clinton had Bin laden in his cross hairs more than once , and did nothing !

    JMJ;
    ‘Yes, in all likelyhood.’

    Acoording to you its likely that Al Queda attacked us only because of Bush. And you have nothing NOTHING ! to contrvert the butt whooping you got on that one.
    Go ahead ! try to beat that without and opinion or some unprovable accusation.

    Your staement that you stand by has been chopped up and spit out.
    You have nothing but opinion. You must grow up and realize the difference between opinion and fact.
    I am not your wife or your kid and I dont have any emotional ties leading me to trust your word, it wont work.
    So dont ask me to take your word for it, its meaningless and useless.

    maybe one day you will learn.
    This last paragraph is a sign that there may be hope.
    Because you used the terms “I believe” and “I dont know for sure”
    As far as Gore goes. His life has boiled down to being one of the worst weathermen in the world.
    He’s trying to sell us all on the idea that we are our own worst enemy instead of the one that actually runs around killing us.
    Stop crapping on the table and then trying to convince everyone that its meatloaf.

  40. BrianR says:

    Yeah, Jersey, it’s problematic.

    But I live in California, under the Governator as I described, and at least I can take comfort in the fact that I refused to vote for him either time.

    It may well be that the GOP needs to get their butt solidly kicked in the election this year to learn the lesson that they can’t win by running Left after some mythical and non-existent uncommitted independant demographic. They sure didn’t learn a single thing from losing both houses of Congress last year.

    I’d rather see the Dems win than a liberal Repub. If there’s going to be a lib in the WH, let there be a (D) behind the name, rather than an (R); at least then that way the proper party has to take the blame for the forthcoming disastrous policies.

    The lesson’s staring them in the face. Bobby Jindahl, a rock-solid conservative, swept to gubernatorial victory in Louisiana by huge margins, a soldly Democrat state. Sarah Palin, another staunch and unaplogotetic conservative, took the governorship in Alaska.

    What do we have on the national arena? A bunch of mealy-mouthed RINOs trying to claim the mantle of Reagan, who’s either rolling over in his grave or laughing his butt off.

    There are a couple of pretty good conservatives on the scene, who get absolutely no support from the party poo-bahs. Thompson, Hunter, Tancredo (who’s now dropped out).

    We may be seeing the death of the GOP as we know it, and the time when a truly viable new party emerges, possibly as a third party.

    But Giuliani, McCain… thse guys are not going to get any support from the conservatives, the gun owners, Christian conservatives, right-to-lifers, anti-illegal alien people… none of the traditional blocs the GOP needs to win elections.

    In an era when the presidential outcome’s determined by a few thousand votes in a few precincts in a couple of states, these guys are gonna lose big time.

    As well they should, IMO.

  41. BrianR says:

    PS, Jersey.

    The only reason presidential races are so close is the lack of real conservatism shown by any candidates in recent times. As Jindahl and Palin — and the historic races of Reagan — clearly illustrate, conservatism wins. Bush 1’s first race was a huge win, because he rode Reagan’s conservative coattails. When he ran on his own more liberal record, he lost. Bush 2’s elections were both squeekers, because of his “compassionate conservatism”; he only won because both his opponents were terribly worse, and the gun issue played a big part in that. Clinton himself credited gun owners with Gore’s loss, but it was close because Bush himself wasn’t very trusted on the issue. In his first term, he turned out well on thie issue. He’s failed pretty badly in his second term.

    Giuliani and McCain both suck on the Second Amendment; they won’t get gun owner support. That’s a HUGE problem for them.

    Since 1980 the Republican candidate has won every time, and only if, endorsed by the NRA.

  42. Jersey McJones says:

    Brian, I thought the Governator was doing a pretty good job? What happened? I could understand not voting for him in the first silly recall election, but why would you have voted aginst him in the seond race?

    “some mythical and non-existent uncommitted independant demographic.”

    Mythical? It’s a HUGE voting bloc! Reagan would not have won in ’80 were it not for independent “swing voters.” And their declared numbers are greater than ever!

    And Jindahl is a horrible example. Louisiana is (and always was) a huge, wet mess. The Dem Machine in LA was an abject failure. Micky Mouse could have run and won. Wouldn’t better examples be Santorum, Talent, Burns, DeWine, and Allen? I mean, how can I spell this out any more clearly? Voters are very displeased with “conservatives” right now. I heard a poll today that showed 3/4ths of the respondents say the economy is in trouble. Most people are now against the war. The failures of the de- and non- regulation regime of the GOP have infuriated the voters. You can’t run as a “conservative” and win the nationals this year! Nobody cares about the NRA this time around. Nobody cares about abortion or gays. Even the war now ranks below the economy, in ALL polls. The GOP would be committing suicide with a “conservative” candidate. That’s why Brownback flumped. And immigration is a non-starter – neither party does anything about it and the voters darned well know it. I just don’t see what you’re thinking here.

    JMJ

  43. Jersey McJones says:

    Oh and another thing – registered GOP voters are down to 36% of the electorate! You can’t win with that!

    JMJ

  44. BrianR says:

    Jersey,

    Ah-nuld’s terrible. I outlined what he’s done in my first post, and he continues. He’s done nothing to cut spending. He proposes UHC. He proposed and signed into law a state “Greenhouse Gas” initiative. He caucuses with the Dems. He’s anti-gun. He won’t do anything about illegal aliens, a HUGE problem in this state. On the budget he ignores the Reps and conservatives, claiming he can “work with” the Dems, and so this year we have a $14 BILLION deficit; that’s EXACTLY the issue Gray Davis was recalled over. His self-proclaimed “post-partisanship” is killing us!

    The “uncommitted” demographic is mythical, absolutely. That’s the key word you missed in that description… as does the GOP, evidently. Let me further illustrate. Party registration used to be about 50% for each party; now it’s still about 50% Dem, but only 36% GOP. Where do you think those people went? The independant demo isn’t “uncommitted”; it’s conservatives who are sick of both parties, and many of whom simply refuse to vote for either. That’s a CONSERVATIVE group, and the GOP misreads it all the time. That’s why election turnouts are generally so dismal.

    As to your characterization of the Jindahl win, you’re kidding yourself if that’s your interpretation. People like to do that when they hear news they don’t like. But notice it’s also reinforced by the Palin win, which I notice you chose to ignore. The head in the sand is a great approach… until the cheetah bites you on the butt.

    You can belittle the influence of the NRA all you want, but you’re sadly mistaken if you think gun owners don’t pay attention to not only the NRA, but the gun issue itself. Again, feel free to belittle it. The cheetah’s just getting closer.

  45. BrianR says:

    BTW, Jersey.

    Your tack isn’t anything new. I’ve heard it a thousand times. But the reality is that conservatives aren’t going to turn out for the Bald Hillary or McCain; they’re a sure-fire recipe for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    So when that happens, don’t complain that you weren’t given plenty of warning.

    Last year, the GOP failed to listen to the grumbling in the ranks, and plowed ahead with absurd spending, earmarks, scamnesty, refused to build the fence, ignored all the warnings, with the net result that they lost both houses of Congress.

    All the warnings are again going out this year about the presidential campaign. You want to repeat history? Ignore us again, and see what happens.

  46. Jersey McJones says:

    “claiming he can “work with” the Dems”

    Brian, realistically speaking, where is Arnold wrong there?

    “The “uncommitted” demographic is mythical, absolutely. …it’s conservatives who are sick of both parties”

    I don’t buy that. I happen to be an independent, and I’m more like a European Social Democrat. They come in many different stripes. Now, on the other hand, I think a majority of them do lean conservative, but the ways in which they lean vary greatly. This is Nixon’s “Silent Majority,” but also Perot voters – it’s hard to pin them down. I think these are people that are motivated by their circumstances. Crime was a huge issue for the bloc, for example, in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. Now that issue has subsided. Trade was a huge issue in ’92, and sure enough Perot stole the election from GHWB. Now that issue, like immigration, has become an unfortunately intransigent issue. I would contend that the economy, healthcare, education, and the war are their prime concerns this time around, and I would think that the establishment GOP answers to those concerns are not going to play. They’ve already failed as far as that bloc is concerned.

    Now, you and I may understand that the abuse of power by the one-party GOP state was anything but “conservative,” but what about the great masses out there? Can they separate the ideology of conservatism from the actions of the GOP? That is the question. I contend that they will see the rhetoric and the ideology as one, and that spells huge trouble for the GOP.

    The only thing the GOP can hope for is that the Dems nominate Hillary or Obama and huge numbers of “undecided” mysogynists or racists come out specifically to vote against them.

    JMJ

  47. BrianR says:

    Well, Jersey, I’ll tell you what’s wrong with Ah-nuld’s claim: the net result… as I clearly itemized. Res ipsa loquitur.

    As to the independants, you are ONE PERSON. That doesn’t at all mean YOU represent ALL independants, by any stretch of the imagination. The demographic itself is conservative. In evidence: the 14% registered Republicans that have gone somewhere, if they weren’t scooped up by aliens. The fact that when truly conservative candidates run, they win, and by huge margins. When RINOs run, they’re lucky to eke out a victory at all. The fact that you, a self-proclaimed Social Democrat, like Giuliani tells me he’s poison for me, if I had any doubts at all. That’s not a criticism of you; you’re entitled to vote how you like. It IS a criticism of Giuliani, who’s trying to convince conservatives he’s acceptable (Hahahahahahaha!), and is actually running in the wrong party, in my estimation. He actually wouldn’t be a bad Dem candidate.

    I agree with much of your assessment of conservatism; it is a principle-driven, not party-driven, philosophy. But it’s also essential for a GOP win. Therefore a candidate ignores it at his peril, and he’s got to motivate a LOT of them to win. My driving issue is the Second Amendment; I won’t vote for any candidate under any circumstances who won’t support it. Of course, most candidates who are strong on that issue almost by definition are right on the other issues important to me, though Huckabee’s a great exception to prove that rule.

    I don’t agree that Perot’s win was simply an issue about jobs and trade. Bush had alienated conservatives on a host of issues, and one of the biggies, again, was when he renounced the NRA. That was a whopper of a mistake, as then gun owners saw him as no better than Clinton, and Perot was a strong gun supporter. Further, Bush was an ignoramus on a host of issues, and he signed into law a massive tax increase in spite of his “no new taxes” pledge. That alone killed him with conservatives.

    As to abuse of power, bear in mind I’m a true conservative, which means I don’t like it any better when the GOP uses the bludgeon of government power to reinforce their social visions than I do when the Dems do it. I’m a “small government” guy. If you visit my blog and read some of my essays, you’ll see what I mean. I won’t go into all of it here.

  48. Jersey McJones says:

    “As to the independants, you are ONE PERSON. That doesn’t at all mean YOU represent ALL independants, by any stretch of the imagination. ”

    C’mon Brian, don’t give me that. You’re “one person” also. I was just giving an example of just how many demographics could fit into the “undecided” catagory. Ticket splitters – like, me, Silent Majoritarians – as you described, Greens, Libertarians, Religious Fanatics, etc. And I most certainly would NOT dwescribe Giuliani as “like me” or a “Social Democrat.” If you truly believe tyat, then you truly do not understand any of those things.

    “But (conservatism is) also essential for a GOP win.”

    If that were true, then wouldn’t there be a real conservative on top of the ticket? The GOP establishment knows full well that America has no stomache for another “conservative” right now.

    “I don’t agree that Perot’s win was simply an issue about jobs and trade.”

    Then you’re too young or weren’t payion attention. Go back and read the polls from ’92. The NRA had NOTHING to do with Bush’s loss. The gun issue didn’t even register (pun intended) with Perot voters. It was NAFTA, and it was the GOP establishment’s abandonment of Bush after the Bush/Foley/Rostenkowsky tax rise – the “read my lips” incident, as you pointed out. As the GOP did with Nixon when Watergate hit, the GOP abandoned Bush when he put aside wrong ideology for practical solutions. Sure enough, that tax bill had lead to the budget surpluses of the 90’s, proving that supply-siders were wrong. That infuriated the GOP. Clinton picked up on the bipartisan practical governance, and sure enough we had a pretty good economy in the 90’s, and a balanced budget and strong dolar, unlike the debacle we have today.

    I’ll read your blog.

    JMJ

  49. BrianR says:

    Hahahahaha, Jersey! The “too young” line cracked me up!

    Buddy, I turn 59 next month. I campaigned for Nixon’s re-election in Chicago. I was part of the steering committe of the Young Republicans here in LA County back in the day. I know what I’m talking about regarding Perot. I’m sorry, pard, but you have WAY over-simplified that race, and apparently YOU may be too young to actually and accurately remember the whole political scenario and how it played out at the time. I was in the middle of it.

    As to the makeup of the “independants”, I suspect you didn’t read that whole paragraph before commenting, so I’ll let that go.

    The reason we don’t have true conservatives at the top of the ticket is something I touched on earlier, but it’s because the powers in the National GOP keep making the mistake I talk about: chasing after the mythic “uncommitted” independant demographic.

    Let me illustrate. As I mentioned, I used to be one of the Young Republicans. Well, back in the 80s, the California party was going through a schism between conservatives and what we now call RINOs. The RINOs won (which is why I quit the YRs). The state GOP makes all the decisions on the allocation of party resources, the money, volunteers, paid staff’s time, etc. How they allocate those resources will really determine a candidate’s chance of winning. If a conservative runs but gets no party backing, he’s dead in the water. Doesn’t mean the other guy’s going to win the general election, but without party support a candidate’s got about a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the primary.

    Same thing holds true at the national level, and that’s what we’re seeing play out with boneheads like Giuliani and McCain “doing” so well as “front-runners”. Romney’s played a bit of a different game because early on he decided to make his play at the various state levels, and it’s done him some good.

    Hunter and Tancredo were both viewed by the national GOP as not being “team players”, and so got no support at all; hence their standings. Thompson also hasn’t played the “party game”.

    That’s the world of realpolitik at the party level, my friend. The national GOP is comprised mainly of RINO hacks like Martinez et al, so they’re backing the RINO faction. Hence our “front runners”.

  50. Jersey McJones says:

    59? Oh man, you’re oooooooooold! LOL! 😉 Well, at least you’re get your SS.

    I followed the Perot phenomena quite closing, reading his books and everything else I could regarding him and that election. I stand by what I said. I am completely unconvinced that the NRA had anything to do with the results of the ’92 election.

    “The reason we don’t have true conservatives at the top of the ticket is something I touched on earlier, but it’s because the powers in the National GOP keep making the mistake I talk about: chasing after the mythic “uncommitted” independant demographic.”

    I still do not see the swing vote as mythic.

    “Let me illustrate. As I mentioned, I used to be one of the Young Republicans. Well, back in the 80s, the California party was going through a schism between conservatives and what we now call RINOs.”

    I remember. I was there. 😉 If I recall, it was the only way they could win.

    “Hunter and Tancredo were both viewed by the national GOP as not being “team players”, and so got no support at all; hence their standings. Thompson also hasn’t played the “party game”.”

    Hunter and Tancredo weren’t up for the job of running, let along being president! Neither one of them have the creds (or the brians, IMHO). They are one trick ponies, and nothing more.

    “The national GOP is comprised mainly of RINO hacks like Martinez et al, so they’re backing the RINO faction. Hence our “front runners”.”

    I sort of agree. But I think that you put too much in the conservatism of republicans. The republican party sold it’s soul when it took the South, as I’ve said many times. The old GOP was the party of the wealthy elites coasts and the west. They were socially moderate and laizzez faire. The Dixiecrats, back then as you should recall, were the party of “conservative values,” be they as they were. The GOP absobed the old Dixiecrats by taking on their social agenda. But the Dixiecrats were otherwise economic populists, and so the GOP had to sell them on wealthy elitist, laizzez faire governance. The conundrum has since been this: How do you have small government and a big daddy state at the same time? They balanced these attitudes with a nationalist rhetoric. They couldn’t actually resolve social issues, like crime, abortion, etc, because without those issues the Dixiecrat base would wonder back to it’s populist roots. That strategy has now come to haunt them. And that’s why a conservative can’t win right now. The base is disillusioned.

    JMJ

  51. BrianR says:

    Well, Jersey, I can’t agree. And you still seem to fail to understand what I write.

    First of all, I’m not talking about any “swing” vote. I’m talking about the idea that independants aren’t “uncommitted”. As I’ve written twice, now, they are by and large the disillusioned conservatives who aren’t represented by either party. THAT’S what explains the fact that when real conservatives run, they win by significant margins. That’s the ONLY thing that explains that phenomenon.

    As to Perot, you once again don’t read what I write; you put words in my mouth. For the last time: the race was much more complex than the simple issue of jobs that you portrayed. It was a race determined by Bush’s desertion of conservative principles, of which the gun issue was only ONE. I never said it was the only one; I also mentioned his breaking his tax pledge, and that was probably the single largest issue.

    As to the 80s switch here in California to supporting RINOs, and your assertion that it “was the only way they could win”, if that’s the case, it hasn’t been working out too well for them, has it? Permanent minorities on both houses of the legislature, and the last truly Republican Governor was Pete Wilson; the last one before him Deukmejian. That was a looong time ago.

    Doesn’t sound like it worked out as such a hot idea after all.

    Your assessment of Hunter and Tancredo doesn’t even rate a response. It’s ludicrous.

    As to your closing paras, let me say this: I’m a conservative first, and a Republican a far distant second. I’m concerned about my principles, and I’ll vote for the candidate that I think will serve them. If Democrat Zell Miller were running, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat. When no candidate from either party serves my principles, I don’t vote for any of them; I have no dog in that race. I couldn’t care less about “party victory”. That’s a meaningless concept to me if the party doesn’t represent my beliefs and values.

    Which brings me back to where I started: Giuliani and McCain will never get my vote, and I strongly doubt if they get enough support from conservatives like me to win an election, regardless of whom the Dem candidate ends up being. If the GOP nominates either of these guys, they are begging for disaster.

    But maybe that’s okay. We had to get through Carter to get Reagan. This country can stand 4 years of some loser Dem, if it helps them remember what this country’s supposed to be about. Particularly if it’s a split government, which the electorate has a tendency to do in times like these. The Dems’ assumption of the majorities in Congress has been pretty cool. They’ve managed to shoot themselves in both feet and the head. I suspect a Dem Prez will carry on that tradition.

    Further, there’s no God-given guarantee of our survival. If the electorate wants to make bad decisions, they certainly can. Now and then they need a kick in the head to wake them up.

  52. Jersey McJones says:

    “First of all, I’m not talking about any “swing” vote. I’m talking about the idea that independants aren’t “uncommitted”.”

    Okay, I was confused, but now I’ve got you. “Independents,” “Swing Voters,” “Reagan Democrats,” “Undecideds,” are popularly coined but are ill defined, probably because they are so hard to define. As I understood “undecided” it is a poller term that refers to people who answer questions with “I don’t know.” These people either don’t vote, or when they do, they probably always knew who they were going to vote for from the beginning (“beginning” meaning whenever the heck they decided to start thinking about it). Now certainly all that in and of itself makes the earlier the poll, the less reliable, but even later polls are often very wrong as well.

    We also have to consider why people are telling pollsters what. I firmly believe that exit and telephone polls, especially, are oftened answered incorrectly (re: with a lie) by people who are saying things around other people (family, friends, the caller, the reporter) what they think these people want to hear.

    So, in a way, if these are the kinds of “undecideds” that you are talking about, I half agree. Maybe there’s only about half as many of these folks as we popularly think.

    “Your assessment of Hunter and Tancredo doesn’t even rate a response. It’s ludicrous.”

    Oh, c’mon. I’ve watched these guys for years. I’v been a C-Span juny half my life. My friends have always thought I was insane for this, of course. But it’s true. That’s why, like you it seems, I mostly write from my head without reference. I’ve followed those guys for years. Neither was a serious contender, IMHO.

    I respect your politcal attitude. I share it, except I’m a liberal.

    You may well have a great point about losing to win, but I have a different view of the future. Whoever becomes the next president will be inheriting very serious national problems. We are probably on the verge of a recession. Bush is about to lay down his final strategy in Iraq, and its risky, and whether or not it is sucessful, the next president is going to own it. The dismantling of the regulatory infrastructure will be hard to undue, and politically risky. Partisan squabbling could diminish if gains in the Senate and House are as large as they seem they could be, but regardless, the Dems are not going to get 60 seats in the senate. If they do, then all cards are off the table. Likely it will be the senate that parses out any major future changes, let alone UHC or K-14 education or the like.

    If the GOP gets the White House, then what? A bigger Dem majority on the Hill, and the same problems. And so the next president may be doomed to fail – like Carter – or they may take up the fight and win again, like Nixon or Truman (well, sort of like Truman). I have a blogger friend, Lazy Iguana, who actually theorized about a year or so ago that neither party wanted to win. At first I thought it was a nutty conspiracy theory, but I’d swear he’s looking more prescient every day!

    JMJ

  53. Jersey McJones says:

    Oops – I meant “undecided” to be “uncommited.” Freudian slip. I assume those are the same things.

    JMJ

  54. BrianR says:

    Well, I’ve got to tell ya, Jersey, I’ve never yet lived through an election that wasn’t touted as being the most important election since Man discovered fire. Pardon me if I don’t get too excited.

    BTW, like you, I put little faith in polls, other than the one that takes place the first Tuesday in November every Leap Year.

    After all, Dewey beat Truman, right?

    LOL

    I gotta tell you, judging by the field of candidates this year, your friend may be right. I’m pretty motivated to vote for NOTA (None Of The Above).

  55. greg says:

    As I have been reading this, I wonder about a couple of things: BrianR you never responded to Jersey’s examples of Santorum, Talent, Burns, DeWine, and Allen getting beaten. Don’t they negate the examples of Jindahl and Palin?

    Also, Californians did have a credible and clearly conservative candidate in the last couple of elections in Tom McClintock who lost both times. Gray Davis was recalled because of his poor handling of the energy crisis and his over-the-top “pay to play” attitude.

    Of course I’m only 51 and I’ve only been actively involved in California politics for 33 years, so perhaps I’m the baby here 🙂

  56. BrianR says:

    No, Greg, they don’t, because they’re localized races, essentially, not executive offices. Or atl east that’s the case with the only name there I recognize, which is Santorum. The historical record bears me out. Reagan won twice handily. Bush 1 succeeded on his coattails, then lost when he went lib. Dole lost. Bush 2 barely squeeked by.

    Further, there’s nothing in politics that’s 100%. But I stand by my assessment.

    As to McClintock, he would probably have won the recall election if Ah-nuld hadn’t decided he needed his ego massaged and threw his hat into the ring. That’s the only time McClintock ran for Governor, BTW.

    Further, the reasons you stated for Davis’s recall were also part of the mix…. but he had us in a very deep deficit position. Just like Ah-nuld does now. I stand by that assessment, too.

  57. Hallowed says:

    Ah-node is the finest example of a moderate democrat running as a Republican. Har!

    Anyhoo, does Rudy enough enough money to hold out?

  58. Hallowed says:

    Ah-node is the finest example of a moderate democrat running as a Republican. Har!

    Anyhoo, does Rudy enough enough money to hold out?

  59. BrianR says:

    LOL, Hallowed.

    Excellent characterization!

    Rudy’s staff is working without pay… not a healthy sign for a campaign.

    Good!

  60. greg says:

    How can the US Senate be any more localized than governor? All of the examples Jersey gave were incumbent US Senators elected state-wide, exactly the same as a governor. They are indeed legislative not executive offices but arguably just as prominent and in most cases probably more powerful than governor. And I am quite sure if I tried I could find other recent examples of conservatives running for governor who got beat.

    If Arnold had not run it is likely Gray Davis would have survived the recall altogether. McClintock ran for Lt. Gov in the last election and lost. He placed a very very distant third in the 2003 recall election (18 points behind the 2nd place finisher) and has also lost elections for state controller twice and the House.

  61. Jersey McJones says:

    I hear ya’ Brian.

    And Greg’s right. The examples I used were all powerful, incumbant, conservative GOP senators. Conrad Burns had been around forever – John Tester, a Dem populist beat him. in Montana, of all places, George Allen had been pegged by the GOP establishment to run for president in ’08. He’s nowhere to be seen now – and that was in super-red Virginia. Mike DeWine suffered from GOP scandals in Ohio, so perhaps he wasn’t the finest example, but he had been a very powerful senator. Jim Talent was caught up in the Delay scandal, and though Missouri is notoriously hard to call, he had been a GOP rising star until his loss to Claire McCaskill.

    But all these senators had one thing in common – the were all establishment “conservatives” who ran as such and lost in ’06 in statewide races.

    I don’t follow all the gubenatorial elections, but I did follow the Jindahl race, if only because I was curious to see if a Punjabi could win a statewide office in the South. Seeing him win was actually quite a boost to my faith in humanity. But Jindahl was already a popular figure in LA and mostly thanks to a multibillion dollar tobacco settlement that he was able to play around with to fix some government programs there, and he had been a popular figure in the state for some years. His opponents were all unknowns and the race was cluttered with relatively strong third party candidates. But again, even though he is a consumate conservative, I can’t help but note that LA was in such bad shape, so dilapidated and screwed up, so infamously corrupt for so long, that any one other than a Democrat would have won that election. I’m surprised David Duke didn’t go for it! The people of LA were just plain embarrassed and wanted a change. I just don’t see him as a good example, whereas the examples I gave were conservatives from conservative states who were thrown out not because of local despair, but because the people of those states were sick of the conservative GOP status quo.

    JMJ

  62. KC says:

    Rudy for 2008. I agree that Rudy is only serious well-rounded candidate in this race. I also believe that he is elected president we will see a major turn around in this country because of the no-nonsesne goal oriented approach that Rudy posess. It appears that voters are in line with momentum and media coverage and this may work against Rudy because he has not been on center stage with these two factors. I’m hoping Nevada will turn this all around and turn in a win for Rudy. We need Rudy to be in this race….America need someone like Rudy to be in this race.

  63. BrianR says:

    Nope, not analogous. A Senator is not an executive office, and there’s an entirely different dynamic involved in the election and the assessment voters make of a Senator compared to a Governor or President. A Senator is one of a group; a Guv or Prez is viewed as the Bossman.

    This is why we very often see Congress and the Presidency controlled by opposing parties.

    Further, I can’t comment on all those senatorial names, because I don’t know the issues they were addressing, or anything about them personally. I know a little bit about Santorum, and that’s it.

    I stand by my assessment.

  64. Jersey McJones says:

    Brian,

    C’mon, you can’t just negate statewide races just because they’re not “executive.” Senators run just as governors do, with the same demographics and voters in mind. I think you just don’t want to confront an uncomfortable reality here – running as a “conservative” will get you nowhere in statewide of national races these days.

    JMJ

  65. greg says:

    And Brian, you never did respond to the Tom McClintock example in California. Yes, he did win election as a state senator, but lost a House race, and lost all four attempts at the “executive” positions you think are so much more different.

    Also, I’m not sure what this adds to the discussion but California has a long history of ticket splitting in the governor and lt. governor positions. If a Republican holds one office, it has often been a Democrat in the other, and that goes back many years.

  66. BrianR says:

    Jersey and Greg,

    I don’t know how long threads here stay alive; I don’t hang around too long on stuff as I have a lot of other threads on other blogs and columns active. Further, I’m not by nature one who will respond to every nit someone wants to pick. I’m a Macro, not a Micro, kind of guy.

    Jersey, not only CAN I differentiate between the type of statewide race, but I do. Are you telling me people look at the State Comptroller, or State Insurance Commissioner, the same way they do the State Governor or President?

    If so, you need some re-education.

    Greg, I did respond to that issue, and I don’t feel inclined to repeat myself. Further, you can simply read what I wrote to Jersey.

    Enough of this. If one looks hard enough at anything, one can find exceptions. When I was in engineering school, I learned how to mathematically prove bumblebees couldn’t possibly fly.

    And yet…. they insist on doing it.

  67. I used to live in Thousand Oaks. I keep up the times there once in a while. What a small world that you would mention McClintock.

    McClintock sells his shtick like my latest representative, Ginny Brown-Waite. Why is it that the farther I get from home, the less likely I am to be represented by someone with whom I agre? Oh yeah. Duh.

    And Greg, you are so right on. McClintock is a lock on his current, and probably endless, state senate seat, but he can’t win a bigger race because he is an establishment conservative. No one is pleased with that crowd, save for the most narrow, local interests.

    Chris Smith is a rep from Jersey – wanna guess how many Jerseyites agree with that screwball, Brian?

    Look, if it makes you conservatives feel any better, I don’t think the people are any more comfortable with status quo Democrats either. I know there are lots of divisive issues out there, but with a balanced government, perhaps we can get as close to progress as we can. If we go all one party or the other, we’ll probably be disappointed with the results.

    JMJ

  68. Greg, what’s your blog?

    JMJ

  69. greg says:

    Actually we have term limits in California so Tom will be out of office at some point in the near future. There’s a measure on the ballot on Feb 5 that may extend some of the limits by a couple of years but even so he won’t be there forever.

    Brian, face it, your argument just doesn’t hold up, especially when you consider conservative governor candidates in 2006 getting beaten badly in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Ohio, and elsewhere.

    My blog is The World According to Greg and can be found at http://envirojustice.org/gregsworld but I really don’t post as often as I should. One of my New Year’s resolutions has been to get much more involved in my own blogging.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.