More at VotingForSatan.com.
[via Hit & Run]
Monday, February 4, 2008
Dirty Trick of the Day
Nonsensical (yet still offensive) Homemade Placards:
And if you're hungry for more equally inane examples of Amateur Hour at the Propaganda Club, check out Cracked.
[via Andrew Sullivan]
And if you're hungry for more equally inane examples of Amateur Hour at the Propaganda Club, check out Cracked.
[via Andrew Sullivan]
Textbook Freudian Slip of the Day
Classic:
Relieved officials from Sarkozy's ruling UMP party yesterday hoped the quick wedding and Bruni's new official status would stem his plummeting approval ratings. At 41%, they are his lowest ratings since his election - and owe much to his slowness to push through convincing economic reforms and his very pubic romance.
Not Possible
Fraley wants reporters to disclose who they voted for when reporting a story ...
How?
Should they hold up the voting receipt to verify this with their viewers?
There is simply no way to verify this. Many professional news organizations don't let their reporters contribute time or money to campaign, but it's absurd to suddenly demand that reporters' votes be made public when every other voter gets the privilege of privacy. It creates an instantaneously absurd double standard.
Business journalists do this because the way they report on a given stock could create a conflict of interest that could earn them an immediate financial windfall. Voting for candidate X earns no one any financial gain. Besides, what would happen if a reporter votes for Candidate X and then six months later regrets the decision (as frequently happens with other kinds of voters)? Does he or she have to disclose that too? If you keep going down this path eventually you'll have a disclosure policy that surpasses the actual news of any given event so much that any given story will be a history the reporter's opinion of the newsmaker.
Suggesting mandatory disclosure from reporters is a frivolous idea
How?
Should they hold up the voting receipt to verify this with their viewers?
There is simply no way to verify this. Many professional news organizations don't let their reporters contribute time or money to campaign, but it's absurd to suddenly demand that reporters' votes be made public when every other voter gets the privilege of privacy. It creates an instantaneously absurd double standard.
Business journalists do this because the way they report on a given stock could create a conflict of interest that could earn them an immediate financial windfall. Voting for candidate X earns no one any financial gain. Besides, what would happen if a reporter votes for Candidate X and then six months later regrets the decision (as frequently happens with other kinds of voters)? Does he or she have to disclose that too? If you keep going down this path eventually you'll have a disclosure policy that surpasses the actual news of any given event so much that any given story will be a history the reporter's opinion of the newsmaker.
Suggesting mandatory disclosure from reporters is a frivolous idea
Sunday, February 3, 2008
A Bit Too Cocky
Michael Graham at NRO provides us all with an example of why some people should just keep their mouths shut.
Suck It, New England
I warned you not to tempt fate, Pats fans:
Oh, and way to stay classy in defeat Belichick ...
MORE: Great minds think alike ...
EVEN MORE: Now I'm just thinking the world revolves around Will Ferrell ...
MORE STILL: KSK does the world a service by reminding us what was at stake during last night's Super Bowl ...
Oh, and way to stay classy in defeat Belichick ...
MORE: Great minds think alike ...
EVEN MORE: Now I'm just thinking the world revolves around Will Ferrell ...
MORE STILL: KSK does the world a service by reminding us what was at stake during last night's Super Bowl ...
Nerds on Parade
On a day when most of America celebrates its muscle-bound gladiators of the gridiron, here is some thing for the Stand-up Economist in us all:
[via Greg Mankiw]
And if that isn't nerdy enough for you, then get thee to see this phenomenal review of Rambo, by a Canadian teenager with the single most a propos nom de vlog ever. The whole thing is just over 2 minutes and worth watching from start to finish:
[via Defamer]
Last, and also from Canada, is Terminus, a trippy short film set in Montreal:
[via BoingBoing]
[via Greg Mankiw]
And if that isn't nerdy enough for you, then get thee to see this phenomenal review of Rambo, by a Canadian teenager with the single most a propos nom de vlog ever. The whole thing is just over 2 minutes and worth watching from start to finish:
[via Defamer]
Last, and also from Canada, is Terminus, a trippy short film set in Montreal:
[via BoingBoing]
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Food Fight
Check out this truly inspired short film:
I think my favorite part is the arms race between the Big Mac and beef stroganoff.
[via Danger Room]
I think my favorite part is the arms race between the Big Mac and beef stroganoff.
[via Danger Room]
That's Right ... Because Voting for Fred Thompson is a Smart Thing to Do
This is just too rich:
So, according to the very unscientific findings of this straw poll, the vote for a guy who is not even running anymore places him in second place?
This isn't going to be a race so much as it will be a ritual human sacrifice.
And now for my impersonation of the Republican party:
I just got back from a women’s lunch/meeting, and we had a straw poll. The first question that was asked when the idea came up, “Can we still vote for Fred?” The answer was yes, since he’s still on the ballot for Tuesday. Now, I’m reading all over the place that either Huckabee will take the South, or McCain will. I find it interesting that Huckabee got NO votes at all in our little straw poll, and McCain only got one. Romney came in first, with the majority of the votes, and Fred came in second.
(emphases added)
So, according to the very unscientific findings of this straw poll, the vote for a guy who is not even running anymore places him in second place?
This isn't going to be a race so much as it will be a ritual human sacrifice.
And now for my impersonation of the Republican party:
Love Day is Nigh!
Ah, Valentine's Day ... the most erotic day of the Hallmark Cards, Inc. fiscal calender.
If you're like me, the feast day of Saint Valentine is a merry occasion for a date with a poorly lit room, the music of Robert Johnson and a bottle of whiskey -- but if you don't suffer from soul-crushing ennui, here are some helpful links to make the festivities more, well, whatever they're supposed to be ... oh, that's right: romantic!
If you're like me, the feast day of Saint Valentine is a merry occasion for a date with a poorly lit room, the music of Robert Johnson and a bottle of whiskey -- but if you don't suffer from soul-crushing ennui, here are some helpful links to make the festivities more, well, whatever they're supposed to be ... oh, that's right: romantic!* Sugar Daddy dating.
* Hey, Derb: Where the ladies at?
* Bald is beautiful.
* A quicky on the holodeck, perhaps?
* How about a menage a trois with Ayn Rand?
* Office nookie.
* Gentlemen, I give you the Field Guide to the Casanova.
* Trying to get that special someone drunk? Do so in the manner God intended: with Sprecher Cupid Weiss.
* Not merely just mail-order brides any more, Russian women are smokin' -- literally.
* Viva La France: a French company actually tailor-makes alibis for couples having affairs.
* And if that doesn't work out for you, The Chief can recommend a few good lawyers.
Saturday Morning Link Orgy
* Hendrik Hertzberg: on the Obama-Clinton fisticuffs. Read now.
* How the Military Conquered the Natives of Subterranean Earth.
* What in God's name is Mike Huckabee doing in San Fransisco?
* Mustaches!
* Clinton advisers think this whole primary thing is going to go on to at least March ...
* Get your Vice Presidents here!
* Of Ambassadors and Strippers.
* Susan Eisenhower -- Ike's granddaughter -- backs Obama.
* Lost Spoilers from New York: here, here, here and here.
* In the event of a post-apocalyptic Armageddon, Mitt Romney will repopulate the Earth by himself -- if necessary.
* Oprah's back.
* ... and so is the Otter Street Fishery.
* How the Military Conquered the Natives of Subterranean Earth.
* What in God's name is Mike Huckabee doing in San Fransisco?
* Mustaches!
* Clinton advisers think this whole primary thing is going to go on to at least March ...
* Get your Vice Presidents here!
* Of Ambassadors and Strippers.
* Susan Eisenhower -- Ike's granddaughter -- backs Obama.
* Lost Spoilers from New York: here, here, here and here.
* In the event of a post-apocalyptic Armageddon, Mitt Romney will repopulate the Earth by himself -- if necessary.
* Oprah's back.
* ... and so is the Otter Street Fishery.
Back to 4
Tim Blake has left the race for 53rd Assembly seat.
It's too bad, really. That seat could use a competitive race (for once) and Blake had the makings of a good candidate.
It's too bad, really. That seat could use a competitive race (for once) and Blake had the makings of a good candidate.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Headlines of the Damned
This edition of Headlines of the Damned has been brought to you by USAToday:
"Bill would make it illegal to feed the obese"This has been another edition of Headlines of the Damned.
The Reagan Coalition is Dead -- Now, What's Next?
I saw this graphic (I think on Steve Clemons' web site) a while back:
Kind of interesting, right? Well, beyond the apparent adherence to the principle that all things in nature act cyclically, it got me thinking. I've been in "the GOP is falling apart at the seams" camp for most of this election season, but have been thinking about the matter in terms of internal Republican division. Lately, however, I think it would be more helpful to look at the crack-up in a more historical context, or at least relative to the two other major American political coalitions that thrived during the 20th Century.
The first -- and this is straight from the Karl Rove textbook of American history -- was the McKinley organized Republican coalition of industrialists that held the White House for all but eight of the 37 years between 1897 -1933. This was a group of voters who agreed with the Coolidge adage that "the business of America is business." Entrepreneurs, businessmen, free marketers, capitalists, industrialists, people who saw there was money to be made from the Industrial revolution or at least those who wanted the chance to try and get rich. They ran against populists like William Jennings Bryan who talked about fighting for the "common working man," but never could get that guy to vote for them.
The coalition lasted a little longer than a generation and came to an abrupt end with the onset of the Great Depression. Enter FDR and the New Deal Coalition, a conglomerate of urban & southern whites, minorities, city machines, and labor unions. This coalition lasted from about 1932 to either signing of the Civil Rights Act in 1965 or when LBJ left office in 1969 (take your pick), when the white Southern vote began to splinter from the Democratic party. But, again, it's essentially the same thing: another coalition that lasts for a little longer than a generation.
Then there came the 1970's -- a decade where America tried to get its shit together and so did its political alliances. The conservative movement was clearly inspired by Barry Goldwater's run for the White House in '64, but really started to take shape in the national identity crisis which was the decade that followed [I'll explain more of this a little later]. At various points during the '70s what would later become the Reagan Coalition Began to germinate: there was the founding of such thinks tanks as the Heritage Foundation in 1973, which came to serve as a model for conservative intellectual apparatus thereafter; there was Roe v. Wade that same year, which motivated many social conservatives to action; all the while the Evangelical movement was gaining steam. Reagan saw what he had to work with and was smart enough to add a national security/"American Exceptionalism" element to it. That seems to have lasted for least 30 years -- again, a little over a generation.
So the historical evidence suggests that the shelf-life of a massive, well-organized and hugely successful political coalition in America during the the last 100+ years seems to be roughly 30 years, which would mean that the Reagan coalition is about due to end soon.
Also, each of the two prior coalitions ended with a Commander-in-Chief who could not solve serious national issues that heretofore their parties had been believed to be superior in addressing (LBJ could not pass the Great Society and win Vietnam the way FDR pushed through the New Deal and won WWII, Herbert Hoover's policies seemed inept during the onset of the Depression). George W. Bush has ruined the GOP's brand as the party of national security "adults" by going into Iraq, as well as his party's image as the guardians of America's economy with a slavish devotion to tax cuts that have produced debatable results. If we graft the historical pattern on to the present day, I think we can safely assume that G.W.B. will mark the end of the Reagan Coalition.
So what's next? We're probably still a few years away from knowing for sure. The next President, who will almost certainly be a Democrat, will probably spend a good chunk of his or her first term in office molding the first New Great American Political Coalition of the 21st Century. This new coalition will likely resemble the last three in so far as it is composed of parties who have recently been left out of power, such as (in no particular order):
What does that leave the Republicans? Pretty much a regional party that dominates vast swathes of the Southeast that don't have significant representation by any the aforementioned groups above. That is, if they continue down this road of knuckle-dragging conservatism.
The new Democratic conglomeration, on the other hand, will look something like the New Deal Coalition, but it will be more "economically diverse." That used to mean poor people, but this go-around it will mean wealthy people. Don't plan on hearing as much 'class-warfare' rhetoric from the next coalition, for better and for worse -- and here it will be wise to learn the lessons of the of the Reagan Coalitions' break-up.
One of the major fault-lines in the Reagan Coalition was the alliance between the religious fundamentalists and the libertarians (and this would include the anti-tax establishment). The first group wanted to use government to promote Christian ideals, the latter wanted government to stay the hell away. Those are irreconcilable beliefs. The next coalition may succeed in ushering in a "post-racial" or "post-gender" (whatever either of those mean) society, but it will do so by bringing together to elements of the economy that traditionally don't get along: labor and the wealthy -- and that may ultimately prove to be its undoing a generation hence.
Then again, this might be a safer marriage than one would suspect because it's not a partnership between labor and "management." Much of the "Creative Class" as outlined above will operate without a blue-collar workforce or will have developed their businesses by off-shoring that kind of labor. It's difficult to anticipate how people will feel about that in the future and how that will affect their politics, but no society has ever bridged the divide between the rich and the working/middle-class and unless the new coalition does it with actual dollars and cents, the "class gap" in the party may be the proverbial elephant in the room that no wants to talk about until its too late.
All of this is absent the anticipation of any kind of foreign policy calamity or economic catastrophe or natural disaster that can change everything in a heart-beat, as the last seven years have taught us all too well. While unforeseen events make the duration of the next coalition difficult to predict we can say that it will likely last no longer than 30-35 years at the absolute most. Technology could play a significant role in making the longevity of this new political order much shorter. As we become more connected to events faster than ever before our opinions might change at a correspondingly quicker rate. That remains to be seen, however.
As for the Republicans: 16 years passed between Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. During that time the GOP almost imploded with Richard Nixon, but successfully established a rigid infrastructure of think tanks, advocacy groups, conferences, partnerships, and party-building activities that they have been relying on ever since. That infrastructure may need some serious reconstruction in the next few years and change isn't something Republicans are either used to or good at these days, so it might take a while before they get back into the game.
I don't know if this is some kind of World-Historical moment in the Hegelian sense of the phrase or if this is just another cycle in American history, but it sure as hell is an exciting time to be watching the changing of the guard in America. This election may turn out to be the kind of event that happens once in a generation and something that lays the groundwork for the political organization in this country for decades to come.
Kind of interesting, right? Well, beyond the apparent adherence to the principle that all things in nature act cyclically, it got me thinking. I've been in "the GOP is falling apart at the seams" camp for most of this election season, but have been thinking about the matter in terms of internal Republican division. Lately, however, I think it would be more helpful to look at the crack-up in a more historical context, or at least relative to the two other major American political coalitions that thrived during the 20th Century.
The first -- and this is straight from the Karl Rove textbook of American history -- was the McKinley organized Republican coalition of industrialists that held the White House for all but eight of the 37 years between 1897 -1933. This was a group of voters who agreed with the Coolidge adage that "the business of America is business." Entrepreneurs, businessmen, free marketers, capitalists, industrialists, people who saw there was money to be made from the Industrial revolution or at least those who wanted the chance to try and get rich. They ran against populists like William Jennings Bryan who talked about fighting for the "common working man," but never could get that guy to vote for them.
The coalition lasted a little longer than a generation and came to an abrupt end with the onset of the Great Depression. Enter FDR and the New Deal Coalition, a conglomerate of urban & southern whites, minorities, city machines, and labor unions. This coalition lasted from about 1932 to either signing of the Civil Rights Act in 1965 or when LBJ left office in 1969 (take your pick), when the white Southern vote began to splinter from the Democratic party. But, again, it's essentially the same thing: another coalition that lasts for a little longer than a generation.
Then there came the 1970's -- a decade where America tried to get its shit together and so did its political alliances. The conservative movement was clearly inspired by Barry Goldwater's run for the White House in '64, but really started to take shape in the national identity crisis which was the decade that followed [I'll explain more of this a little later]. At various points during the '70s what would later become the Reagan Coalition Began to germinate: there was the founding of such thinks tanks as the Heritage Foundation in 1973, which came to serve as a model for conservative intellectual apparatus thereafter; there was Roe v. Wade that same year, which motivated many social conservatives to action; all the while the Evangelical movement was gaining steam. Reagan saw what he had to work with and was smart enough to add a national security/"American Exceptionalism" element to it. That seems to have lasted for least 30 years -- again, a little over a generation.
So the historical evidence suggests that the shelf-life of a massive, well-organized and hugely successful political coalition in America during the the last 100+ years seems to be roughly 30 years, which would mean that the Reagan coalition is about due to end soon.
Also, each of the two prior coalitions ended with a Commander-in-Chief who could not solve serious national issues that heretofore their parties had been believed to be superior in addressing (LBJ could not pass the Great Society and win Vietnam the way FDR pushed through the New Deal and won WWII, Herbert Hoover's policies seemed inept during the onset of the Depression). George W. Bush has ruined the GOP's brand as the party of national security "adults" by going into Iraq, as well as his party's image as the guardians of America's economy with a slavish devotion to tax cuts that have produced debatable results. If we graft the historical pattern on to the present day, I think we can safely assume that G.W.B. will mark the end of the Reagan Coalition.
So what's next? We're probably still a few years away from knowing for sure. The next President, who will almost certainly be a Democrat, will probably spend a good chunk of his or her first term in office molding the first New Great American Political Coalition of the 21st Century. This new coalition will likely resemble the last three in so far as it is composed of parties who have recently been left out of power, such as (in no particular order):
* "The Creative Class:" The gears that make the new economy run: young people who work with a computer-based platform doing software design, running internet businesses, "green" entrepreneurs, even some people who work in the financial sector making money using previously undiscovered means of monetary witchcraft. These people will be essential to financing the first political organization in the 21st Century -- they will be the industrialists of the turn of the 20st Century.Of course, there will be others.
* Latinos: The GOP has lost this group for at least a generation, likely longer. With the sole exception of Cuban-Americans (who alone among Latin-Americans have access to American citizenship via the wet-foot-dry-foot policy), there is no reason for Latinos to consider the GOP a desirable place to do business in its current state -- there is simply too much xenophobia.
Other minority groups will continue their support, as well.
* Women: The only real outreach the GOP has tried to do with women over the last 40 years has been their targeted attempt to reach "security moms" in 2002 and 2004. Other than that, there's not much. And if Roe should ever be overturned, all hell will break loose.
* "Globalists": I hate to use the phrase used so derisively by members of the far right, but, frankly, I don't know what these people call themselves ... "Global Citizens," perhaps? These folks are, essentially, the opposites of the neocons. They will have grown up in a world where communication transcends boarders and where a global economy is factored into every business plan. The idea of "American Exceptionalism" will not mean as much to them as it has to people of the last 30 years, but not for bad reasons: these folks will have studied and traveled abroad in ways previously not done. Let's put it this way: these people will not be mistaken for "Ugly Americans" when abroad.
* Labor Unions: Part of the job of the new coalition will be helping unions make the transition from a membership that is based in a manufacturing-based economy to one that is serviced-based. If the Democrats can do that successfully, they will keep the middle class firmly on their side.
What does that leave the Republicans? Pretty much a regional party that dominates vast swathes of the Southeast that don't have significant representation by any the aforementioned groups above. That is, if they continue down this road of knuckle-dragging conservatism.
The new Democratic conglomeration, on the other hand, will look something like the New Deal Coalition, but it will be more "economically diverse." That used to mean poor people, but this go-around it will mean wealthy people. Don't plan on hearing as much 'class-warfare' rhetoric from the next coalition, for better and for worse -- and here it will be wise to learn the lessons of the of the Reagan Coalitions' break-up.
One of the major fault-lines in the Reagan Coalition was the alliance between the religious fundamentalists and the libertarians (and this would include the anti-tax establishment). The first group wanted to use government to promote Christian ideals, the latter wanted government to stay the hell away. Those are irreconcilable beliefs. The next coalition may succeed in ushering in a "post-racial" or "post-gender" (whatever either of those mean) society, but it will do so by bringing together to elements of the economy that traditionally don't get along: labor and the wealthy -- and that may ultimately prove to be its undoing a generation hence.
Then again, this might be a safer marriage than one would suspect because it's not a partnership between labor and "management." Much of the "Creative Class" as outlined above will operate without a blue-collar workforce or will have developed their businesses by off-shoring that kind of labor. It's difficult to anticipate how people will feel about that in the future and how that will affect their politics, but no society has ever bridged the divide between the rich and the working/middle-class and unless the new coalition does it with actual dollars and cents, the "class gap" in the party may be the proverbial elephant in the room that no wants to talk about until its too late.
All of this is absent the anticipation of any kind of foreign policy calamity or economic catastrophe or natural disaster that can change everything in a heart-beat, as the last seven years have taught us all too well. While unforeseen events make the duration of the next coalition difficult to predict we can say that it will likely last no longer than 30-35 years at the absolute most. Technology could play a significant role in making the longevity of this new political order much shorter. As we become more connected to events faster than ever before our opinions might change at a correspondingly quicker rate. That remains to be seen, however.
As for the Republicans: 16 years passed between Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. During that time the GOP almost imploded with Richard Nixon, but successfully established a rigid infrastructure of think tanks, advocacy groups, conferences, partnerships, and party-building activities that they have been relying on ever since. That infrastructure may need some serious reconstruction in the next few years and change isn't something Republicans are either used to or good at these days, so it might take a while before they get back into the game.
I don't know if this is some kind of World-Historical moment in the Hegelian sense of the phrase or if this is just another cycle in American history, but it sure as hell is an exciting time to be watching the changing of the guard in America. This election may turn out to be the kind of event that happens once in a generation and something that lays the groundwork for the political organization in this country for decades to come.
Tim Harford on the Colbert Report
If you missed it last night, here's Tim Harford's appearance on the Colbert Report.
Harford would be a regular if he didn't live in frickin' England.
Harford would be a regular if he didn't live in frickin' England.
Petty Cash
How money will be spent on advertising in the run-up to Super Tuesday.
BONUS: An interesting look at spending thus far by an in-state PR firm.
BONUS: An interesting look at spending thus far by an in-state PR firm.
The Perfect Symbol of the Reagan Coalition Crack-up
Do You Know Where Bill Clinton is Today?
He's in Arkansas ... all day:
There is a strong argument that, even if Obama gets a handful of delegates in Arkansas, he has won by taking Hillary and Bill Clinton away from true battleground states. On the other hand, in a week where Bill Clinton's every move and statement is being watched carefully, sending him to the state where he is most at home campaigning and where he will see his friendliest audiences could be the safest place for the surrogate-in-chief to spend the vital hours before February 5th.
4Q Fundraising Numbers
Let's just call it an election right now, shall we -- or at least let's wait for the Democrats to choose their nominee and then save ourselves the sturm und drang of the rest of the election?
Just look at some of these numbers:
And now the GOP:
The GOP numbers here are just the money contributors gave to each campaign and doesn't include the (at least) $18 million Romney lent to his own campaign or the $19.7 million Ron Paul raised by himself.
Now think about the $32 million Obama raised just in January alone ...
Romney's finished, I don't care about the recent ad buy -- the only person willing to give his campaign any money these days is himself. (I haven't seen one solicitation for money for all the people in Cheddarsphere who have recently started pulling for Romney over McCain, even they aren't bothering to chip in.) McCain won't be able to raise money from the shrill far right who like to bitch about him being a "RINO."
I don't believe I'm saying this, but Freedom Eden finally got one right: this sounds a lot like defeatism to me ... a dirty word the GOP has been flinging at Democrats since, oh I don't know, March of 2003 ... (Which leads me to ask the obvious question: if Republicans are so defeatist in their attitudes about the American election, how can they be trusted to remain confident about the war in Iraq?)
This is going to be an expensive election, everyone knows that, but where are the Bush Pioneers and Rangers? What happened to the vaunted fund-raising machine the GOP developed over the last generation? With numbers this anemic it would appear as if it has just disappeared into thin air.
Here's the good news for the GOP: John McCain is probably the only candidate they can nominate who will fight on through the campaign no matter how depleted his funds are and how far behind in the polls he is. He proved that in the primaries. In fact, if you're so inclined to dip into the collective subconscious of the Republican party, I'd like to think that GOP voters know they're sending a lamb to slaughter this election and that they're picking someone who can do that with a show of honor and a good fight to the end. McCain, after all, has been through a lot worse.
Just look at some of these numbers:
Hillary: $26.9 million
Obama: $22.8 million
And now the GOP:
McCain: $6.8 million
Huckabee: $9 million
Romney: $6.6 million
The GOP numbers here are just the money contributors gave to each campaign and doesn't include the (at least) $18 million Romney lent to his own campaign or the $19.7 million Ron Paul raised by himself.
Now think about the $32 million Obama raised just in January alone ...
Romney's finished, I don't care about the recent ad buy -- the only person willing to give his campaign any money these days is himself. (I haven't seen one solicitation for money for all the people in Cheddarsphere who have recently started pulling for Romney over McCain, even they aren't bothering to chip in.) McCain won't be able to raise money from the shrill far right who like to bitch about him being a "RINO."
I don't believe I'm saying this, but Freedom Eden finally got one right: this sounds a lot like defeatism to me ... a dirty word the GOP has been flinging at Democrats since, oh I don't know, March of 2003 ... (Which leads me to ask the obvious question: if Republicans are so defeatist in their attitudes about the American election, how can they be trusted to remain confident about the war in Iraq?)
This is going to be an expensive election, everyone knows that, but where are the Bush Pioneers and Rangers? What happened to the vaunted fund-raising machine the GOP developed over the last generation? With numbers this anemic it would appear as if it has just disappeared into thin air.
Here's the good news for the GOP: John McCain is probably the only candidate they can nominate who will fight on through the campaign no matter how depleted his funds are and how far behind in the polls he is. He proved that in the primaries. In fact, if you're so inclined to dip into the collective subconscious of the Republican party, I'd like to think that GOP voters know they're sending a lamb to slaughter this election and that they're picking someone who can do that with a show of honor and a good fight to the end. McCain, after all, has been through a lot worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
