Rolling politics thread...

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 13:46:00

dajafi wrote:To expand on that last point--Andrew Sullivan among others compares Huckabee to Bush as a big-spending big-gov't conservative. To me, the overwhelming difference is that Huckabee seems to be a competent manager.

I'd add that competence in government tends to weaken the argument of the Club for Growth wing of the Republicans--it's a lot easier to argue against taxation when all one has to do is turn on the TV or read the paper to see that the government isn't making good use of its revenues. Maybe that's why they fear Huckabee--he could conceivably offer something from government beyond war and zero-sum partisan scat-throwing.

Come to think of it, Huckabee and a Democratic Congress might be a lot better than, say, Hillary and anything...

None of what I'm saying should be taken as an endorsement of Huckabee.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 13:58:06

Here's a take consistent with mine from the Weekly Standard.

by **Disco Stu** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 16:40:33

pacino wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10wxOEZSd6o[/youtube]
McCain was great here, IMO.

Hells no, I like the we busted our way in here first, keep your bitch asses out you filthy dirty dogs answer better.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 17:03:30

Hostage situation in Rochester NH... Man with suspected bomb takes over Clinton campaign office

A man believed to be armed with a bomb took over a campaign office of Democratic Party presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton in northeastern New Hampshire, US police said Friday.

National party chairman Howard Dean confirmed the hostage situation in the state, but said the former first lady was not among them.

"The city of Rochester police department is investigating a subject that has walked into the campaign headquarters of Hillary Clinton and is alleged to have an explosive device on his person," state police major Michael Hambrook said.

"Our understanding from Rochester is that the subject released a couple of people but that there may be other people inside the building," he said.

A spokesman for Clinton's rival, Barack Obama, in New Hampshire told AFP his campaign offices in the area had been evacuated, while it was reported that the offices of another Democratic hopeful John Edwards had also been closed.

by **VoxOrion** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 17:36:22

by **dajafi** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 21:41:32

Pretty interesting take on the other night's Republican debate, from Joe Klein--admittedly returning to his almost-forgotten libburl roots:

In the next segment--the debate between Romney and Mike Huckabee over Huckabee's college scholarships for the deserving children of illegal immigrants--I noticed something really distressing: When Huckabee said, "After all, these are children of God," the dials plummeted. And that happened time and again through the evening: Any time any candidate proposed doing anything nice for anyone poor, the dials plummeted (30s). These Republicans were hard.

But there was worse to come: When John McCain started talking about torture--specifically, about waterboarding--the dials plummeted again. Lower even than for the illegal Children of God. Down to the low 20s, which, given the natural averaging of a focus group, is about as low as you can go. Afterwards, Luntz asked the group why they seemed to be in favor of torture. "I don't have any problem pouring water on the face of a man who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11," said John Shevlin, a retired federal law enforcement officer. The group applauded, appallingly.

They also hated anything that Ron Paul said (high 30s to low 20s), especially on the war in Iraq.

They tended to like Huckabee a lot (60s to 80s anytime he opened his mouth), but afterwards most said he was too extreme, religiously, to be President. Really, they did.

So who won? Romney walked in with 8 members of the group leaning his way and left with 14. The group thought he looked and sounded like a leader. Fred Thompson went from 3 supporters to 7--and I noticed a clever trick he used: he started almost every answer with a joke and the dials would go up and stay up as he meandered through his nondescript answers.

Giuliani lost. He came in with 12 supporters and left with 6. People thought he came off as too much of a ...New Yorker. McCain had one lonely supporter going in and coming out--but the group was just crazy livid about his stands on immigration and torture.

The members of the group were overwhelmingly white. There were two Latinos. They seemed nice, concerned, relatively well informed and entirely intolerant citizens. This level of anger--the topic of my column below--seems likely to be exploited disgracefully by the Republican candidate in the general election campaign, especially if it's Romney.

I'm not sure I agree with this last. Romney just doesn't strike me as the guy who can Bring the Hate--he's had too good and easy of a life, growing up rich and esteemed in every circle from family to faith to business to politics. Even Bush, who was similarly blessed (and much less successful at it, if you consider his pre-politics career), at least had the anger of being an uptight rightie at Yale in the '60s and his endless insecurity/resentment vis-a-vis intellectuals. Romney by contrast clearly believes he's the smartest guy in the world, and he probably is very smart. Repellent as I find him for his slickness and seemingly utter lack of principles, I could imagine him being a fairly competent manager.

The true Hater in the group, aside from the bug-crap crazy hate-addled Tancredo and Hunter, is Rudy Giuliani. Trust me on this. But I'd like to think that fiscal conservatives (who aren't as angry anyway) still have a problem with taxpayer funds going toward Rudy's adulterous sexcapades. As someone who paid some of those taxes, I sure as hell do.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 23:20:01

dajafi wrote:.... Romney just doesn't strike me as the guy who can Bring the Hate--he's had too good and easy of a life....The true Hater in the group, aside from the bug-crap crazy hate-addled Tancredo and Hunter, is Rudy Giuliani....But I'd like to think that fiscal conservatives (who aren't as angry anyway) still have a problem with taxpayer funds going toward Rudy's adulterous sexcapades. As someone who paid some of those taxes, I sure as hell do.

Waidaminit, waidaminit - the evidence you present sez Rudi Brings the Luuuurrve, and yet you say he's the true Bringer of Hate...? so confusing.

By the way, do we know the MSA of Klein's focus group? Because I wanna be moving another zip code away from there if possible (tho I'm afraid I may be smack dab in their middle).

by **dajafi** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 03:25:28

drsmooth wrote:
dajafi wrote:.... Romney just doesn't strike me as the guy who can Bring the Hate--he's had too good and easy of a life....The true Hater in the group, aside from the bug-crap crazy hate-addled Tancredo and Hunter, is Rudy Giuliani....But I'd like to think that fiscal conservatives (who aren't as angry anyway) still have a problem with taxpayer funds going toward Rudy's adulterous sexcapades. As someone who paid some of those taxes, I sure as hell do.

Waidaminit, waidaminit - the evidence you present sez Rudi Brings the Luuuurrve, and yet you say he's the true Bringer of Hate...? so confusing.

By the way, do we know the MSA of Klein's focus group? Because I wanna be moving another zip code away from there if possible (tho I'm afraid I may be smack dab in their middle).

Granting that the situation to which you refer is, literally, the very last thing in the world I want to picture or think about... you still gotta figure he's angry even in that context.

by **pacino** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:47:19

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Hostage situation in Rochester NH... Man with suspected bomb takes over Clinton campaign office

A man believed to be armed with a bomb took over a campaign office of Democratic Party presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton in northeastern New Hampshire, US police said Friday.

National party chairman Howard Dean confirmed the hostage situation in the state, but said the former first lady was not among them.

"The city of Rochester police department is investigating a subject that has walked into the campaign headquarters of Hillary Clinton and is alleged to have an explosive device on his person," state police major Michael Hambrook said.

"Our understanding from Rochester is that the subject released a couple of people but that there may be other people inside the building," he said.

A spokesman for Clinton's rival, Barack Obama, in New Hampshire told AFP his campaign offices in the area had been evacuated, while it was reported that the offices of another Democratic hopeful John Edwards had also been closed.

everything got taken care of peacefully, luckily. Dude apparently had a lot of problems and wanted attention...he got it. He was medicating his mental and life problems with alcohol. That always makes one come out smelling like roses.

by **dsp** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 14:11:45

joe bidens offices remained open, as any kind of attention to the campaign would have been welcomed.

by **mpmcgraw** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 14:18:33

Ron Paul is seriously far and away the best candidate from the republican side.

by **dajafi** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 14:35:14

mpmcgraw wrote:Ron Paul is seriously far and away the best candidate from the republican side.

My take on Ron Paul: he has at least one very important point to make–and progressives should be intellectually honest enough to observe that he makes it more clearly than any of our candidates.

That point: it’s untenable, if not impossible, to preserve a Republic at home while pursuing Empire abroad. I think Obama and some of the Dems get this, but for whatever reason are too cowed to say so. I respect Paul for his bravery and clarity on this point–wrong though I think he is about so very many other things.

Paul is annoying largely because his cult followers are so intensely annoying–though I also think Libertarianism is the the Never-neverland of political philosophy, and Paul is its Peter Pan. You can’t build a better America by dismantling the government–whether it’s Paul, who’s probably well intentioned about doing this, or Grover Norquist, who clearly isn’t.

Rather, you need to reassert small-d democratic control and managerial competence over that government. I support Obama, and I’d be almost as happy to see Edwards or Dodd somehow win, because I think that’s their idea too. I deplore Clinton because she seems to think Government by Interest Group is just swell, and merely seeks to replace one gang of crony capitalists wearing Elephant pins with another wearing Donkeys.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 14:50:46

dajafi wrote:
mpmcgraw wrote:Ron Paul is seriously far and away the best candidate from the republican side.

My take on Ron Paul: he has at least one very important point to make–and progressives should be intellectually honest enough to observe that he makes it more clearly than any of our candidates.

That point: it’s untenable, if not impossible, to preserve a Republic at home while pursuing Empire abroad. I think Obama and some of the Dems get this, but for whatever reason are too cowed to say so. I respect Paul for his bravery and clarity on this point–wrong though I think he is about so very many other things.

I'd go a bit further--there's no way you can have "small government" and a powerful military. Eisenhower understood this, it doesn't seem like any of today's so-called small government conservatives do.

Fact is, the US military is the largest and most successful socialist organization the world has ever seen.

by **dajafi** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 14:51:33

TenuredVulture wrote:Fact is, the US military is the largest and most successful socialist organization the world has ever seen.

SHHHHH!!!

by **mpmcgraw** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 15:34:14

I don't think some of the things Paul wants to achieve is possible even if he is president, but he believes in limited government intereference in people's lives, hates globalization with a passion, and wants to bring troops home to protect our borders.

These things are the three points I care about most, do you think there is a better candidate that believes these things? I don't.

by **dajafi** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 15:59:58

mpmcgraw wrote:I don't think some of the things Paul wants to achieve is possible even if he is president, but he believes in limited government intereference in people's lives, hates globalization with a passion, and wants to bring troops home to protect our borders.

These things are the three points I care about most, do you think there is a better candidate that believes these things? I don't.

Maybe not. But I think there's a calculus in which you have to balance "believes exactly what I believe" with "has enough political capital, savvy and broad appeal to act on those beliefs."

There's literally never been a candidate who really "believed what I believe"--a well-informed balance between growth and equity, emphasizing level playing fields rather than equal outcomes; very "liberal" on some social issues (gay marriage), very hands-off on others (gun control); balancing "realism" and "idealism" in foreign policy and willing to accept that sometimes the result will look hypocritical. Bill Bradley might have come the closest, and he was a pretty lousy politician.

The guy I'm supporting this time is Obama, and I devoutly wish he spoke more about what I think is Paul's big point as well as how his "process" agenda could directly lead to better policy outcomes that really help people in their lives. (Thankfully, he's starting to do this second one at least.)

Oversimplifying a bit, Paul and Obama make somewhat similar arguments--the system is busted and big changes are necessary. To me, putting aside Paul's other views that make him a non-option for me anyway, I think Obama's critique is stronger AND that he's much more likely, if he wins, to create change in the direction I'd like to see it go.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 02:25:26

Here ya go... StopHerNow.com

by **pacino** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 02:32:54

hahaha its funny cause shes like the opposite of radicalzzz shes mrs establishment

by **dajafi** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 03:08:53

Pretty sure that group was founded by Arthur Finkelstein, the legendarily reclusive and legendarily negative Republican operative based in NY (upstate I think).

Finkelstein's MO was to label the opponents of his clients "liberal" and never, ever, ever stop. I forget who in NJ Finkelstein was working for, but I swear I thought his opponent's name was "Liberal Bob Torricelli."

Finkelstein, a close confident of former Senator Al D'Amato, is also gay, and was in some kind of wedding ceremony in MA a couple years back. At that point I believe his active Republican operative days came to an end.

(Actually, now that I see the wiki entry, the site may or may not be affiliated with Finkelstein--he started the PAC.)

by **Monkeyboy** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 06:40:24

TenuredVulture wrote:
dajafi wrote:
mpmcgraw wrote:Ron Paul is seriously far and away the best candidate from the republican side.

My take on Ron Paul: he has at least one very important point to make–and progressives should be intellectually honest enough to observe that he makes it more clearly than any of our candidates.

That point: it’s untenable, if not impossible, to preserve a Republic at home while pursuing Empire abroad. I think Obama and some of the Dems get this, but for whatever reason are too cowed to say so. I respect Paul for his bravery and clarity on this point–wrong though I think he is about so very many other things.

I'd go a bit further--there's no way you can have "small government" and a powerful military. Eisenhower understood this, it doesn't seem like any of today's so-called small government conservatives do.

Fact is, the US military is the largest and most successful socialist organization the world has ever seen.

You just made the list, pal.

Archived

Rolling politics thread...