Rolling politics thread...

by **dajafi** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:33:40

VoxOrion wrote:I suspect Peggy Noonan is on the "EVIL, FROM THE FRUITS OF THE DEVIL" list, but I thought some of you might like this analogy:

Peggy Noonan wrote:The way it was supposed to work, the logic, was this: People miss Bill. They miss the '90s. They miss the pre-9/11 world. So they'll love seeing him back in the White House. So they'll vote for Hillary. Because she'll bring him. "Two for the price of one."

It appears not to be working. Might it be that they don't miss Bill as much as everyone thought? That they don't actually want Bill back in the White House?

Maybe. But maybe it's this. Maybe they'd love to have him back in the White House. Maybe they just don't want him to bring her. Maybe they miss the Cuckoo's Nest and they'd love having Jack Nicholson's McMurphy running through the halls. Maybe they just don't miss Nurse Ratched. Does she have to come?

Link to the whole thing - she asks another good question - could Reagan ascend in this modern Republican party?

She's not evil so much as stupid. Painfully, embarrassingly stupid. At least she's not writing about communing with the dolphins.

The Reagan question is interesting, though. It seems to me that another way in which Bush has fouled your party is that he's made it difficult for anybody who isn't a Bush--that is, who can turn on both the Greed Wing and the God Wing--to lead a strong coalition into November. (Maybe the more interesting question is whether Bush, were he eligible, could win nomination for a third term.) That said, I think Reagan, if he emerged today, would be just fine simply because he was a superb politician, and people liked him. When they like you, they'll forgive your deviations.

Similarly, people seem to like Huckabee. (Hell, I kind of like Huckabee.) So for all his downsides, he might skate to the nomination simply by virtue of being "the guy you'd rather have a beer with," assuming he drinks, than the psychotic and sleazy Giuliani, the plastic Mittster or the somnambulant TV's Fred. Ironic, no?

For that matter, he could beat Hillary for the same reason. The more likable candidate doesn't quite always win (Nixon > Humphrey), but that's usually the way to bet, and Clinton's operation certainly doesn't look as good on the blocking and tackling of day-to-day tactics as they did two months ago.

by **VoxOrion** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:43:46

Well - there's also that whole Governors do better than Senators rule going back to 1960. Rules exist to be broken, but this is one that I think has some more merit than odd-ball stats like "the tallest candidate has won the popular vote since the TV era".

Huckabee is bad news. Last thing I need are two out of two candidates that support federal activism.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:56:51

Stu Rothenberg, who I think might be the smartest guy on national politics, on Huckabee.

First, journalists like Huckabee and say he sounds "reasonable." Yes, he's socially conservative, but they like his views on immigration, taxes and government, as well as his sense of humor and appreciation for popular culture. They find him charming. For conservatives who see most journalists as the enemy, those words are faint praise.

Second, and of far greater importance, Huckabee has zero experience and credibility on foreign policy and national security -- the top issue to many Republicans since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and the one issue that the Republican nominee may be able to use to hold onto the White House.

With wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia looking like the old Soviet Union, the president of Venezuela sounding like a crackpot and terrorist forces still looking to inflict pain on the United States and its allies, defense and national security issues are certain to be important in next year's election.

Given the importance of these issues, does anyone think Huckabee has the gravitas, experience and credentials to carry an argument to Democrats on foreign policy? It's hard to see how he could make Sen. Barack Obama's (Ill.) inexperience in foreign affairs an issue or challenge Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (N.Y.) credentials to lead the war against terror.

And if electability truly is an important issue for the GOP, Huckabee could be a disaster. While some have argued that he could hold conservatives on abortion and civil unions and appeal to swing voters and even Democrats on immigration, spending and domestic priorities, it is more likely that he would lose conservatives on taxes, spending and immigration and alienate moderates and Democrats on social issues.

He has no money and no organization. I really hope the house of cards falls soon. He's starting to get hit finally.

by **dajafi** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:21:05

The "no money and no organization" thing is probably what will do him in. On the Dem side, there's an emerging debate about Edwards--who's still the darling of the Dem activist base--and his non-viability because he's accepted public financing. And he's got to be better-resourced than Huck.

The "no experience in foreign policy" charge, though, is something where Huckabee is no worse off than Rudy or Romney; any of them will get beaten up by Clinton or Obama in that debate. The only semi-viable Republican who has an argument there is McCain, whom most Republican voters seem to detest anyway.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:43:19

I've had dinner with Huckabee (well, me and about 50 other political scientists) and he is a nice guy. He doesn't drink, and doesn't eat food that's bad for you anymore either.

But he is funny. I also think one of the things about him that's appealing at least at first is the way he'll say things that are inappropriate--things that politicians running for office typically don't say for fear of offending someone. After awhile, though, the trait become annoying.

It's funny, because after 10 years of Huck as Gov, (and he was a pretty good governor) many Arkansans, left, right, and center have Huckabee fatigue.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 02:20:56

Melting Arctic may be ice free by 2012

Hmm... 2012... the Mayan calendar, "Mr. Energy" Dutch Daulton...

ZOMG! The Phils are really on a short timetable to win the WS!

by **dajafi** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 17:09:52

Bill Clinton spins his own head off

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 17:32:00

dajafi wrote:The "no money and no organization" thing is probably what will do him in.

Big winner here is daughter Sarah. She's been running the campaign, and so is probably getting all kinds of credit for this surge,regardless of how things turn out.

by **Disco Stu** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 01:52:14

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DA-M_OzB6Y&eurl=http://www.crooksandliars.com/page/2/?rand=%7B20071215210415%7D[/youtube]

by **Phight On!** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 02:22:38

Which candidate would bring us closer to legalizing pot?

Well besides Ed Forchion?

by **TenuredVulture** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:22:56

Foreign policy doesn't decide elections. And you can buy the necessary experience. The only thing you have to do is listen to it.

Voters don't care, and few Presidents It didn't hurt Bush in 2000, it didn't hurt Clinton in 1992, it didn't hurt Carter in '76, Truman managed ok without know much either. And even though Reagan had a pretty clear idea of what he wanted to do foreign policy wise, he surely had little experience on the implementation side of things.

Kennedy had experience, and his foreign policy was more or less a disaster. (He may have created the Cuban Missile Crisis).

by **Rococo4** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 14:27:51

When someone rises as fast as Huckabee, they usually fall just as swiftly. Will probably be the case here.

by **pacino** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 14:37:30

hahaha, I was flipping around the radio and found Rush Limbaugh. I listened for a few minutes and some guy called up and said that he told his kids that if a science teacher starts to talk about evolution that 'my kid is to stand up and say 'sir if you want to believe you came from apes that is fine, but the hickmans did not.'"

hhahaha

by **Trent Steele** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 14:51:12

pacino wrote:hahaha, I was flipping around the radio and found Rush Limbaugh. I listened for a few minutes and some guy called up and said that he told his kids that if a science teacher starts to talk about evolution that 'my kid is to stand up and say 'sir if you want to believe you came from apes that is fine, but the hickmans did not.'"

hhahaha

My honest opinion is that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution should not be allowed to vote let alone be President.

by **CrashburnAlley** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 15:07:39

Trent Steele wrote:My honest opinion is that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution should not be allowed to vote let alone be President.

As much as the quality of our political system would go up as a result of restricting morons from voting, it'd be going against what this country was founded on.

I'd rather live in a god-fearing country where creationists vote, than live in a secular country where you have to be of a certain grade of intelligence to vote.

by **Trent Steele** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 15:21:23

CrashburnAlley wrote:
Trent Steele wrote:My honest opinion is that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution should not be allowed to vote let alone be President.

As much as the quality of our political system would go up as a result of restricting morons from voting, it'd be going against what this country was founded on.

I'd rather live in a god-fearing country where creationists vote, than live in a secular country where you have to be of a certain grade of intelligence to vote.

Hmmm. You may be right, but I like the sound of that country.

According to some guy who wrote some article, the 20 happiest nations in the World are either among the least religous or next to the ocean with chicks in bikinis or Malaysia:

1. Denmark
2. Switzerland
3. Austria
4. Iceland
5. The Bahamas
6. Finland
7. Sweden
8. Bhutan
9. Brunei
10. Canada
11. Ireland
12. Luxembourg
13. Costa Rica
14. Malta
15. The Netherlands
16. Antigua and Barbuda
17. Malaysia
18. New Zealand
19. Norway
20. The Seychelles

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 15:23:02

I thought the stereotype of Fins and Swedes was determinedly depressed.

by **Trent Steele** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 15:25:04

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I thought the stereotype of Fins and Swedes was determinedly depressed.

by **BuddyGroom** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 15:30:25

Sen. Mitch McConnell to a Kentucky paper in recent days:

"Nobody is happy about losing lives but remember these are not draftees, these are full-time professional soldiers."

by **CrashburnAlley** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 15:48:54

Trent Steele wrote:Hmmm. You may be right, but I like the sound of that country.

Don't get me wrong, there are 4,000 times more things wrong with the U.S. than right with it, but it is not a democracy if you are not letting everyone vote (I believe criminals are absolved of their right to vote depending on their crime, but I don't think anyone will disagree with this).

Those 20 countries you listed aren't happy just because they're not religious, they're happy because they have decent economies, good climates, a broad culture, etc.

If you controlled all of those factors, and you basically had two identical countries, but one had standards to pass before you could vote, and the other had no standards (like it is now), which one would you choose? :wink:

Archived

Rolling politics thread...