A conservative Republican woman for vice president: To note that SCO called for this more than a year ago.
Yesterday, before McCain’s VP announcement, the Democracy Project blog put put their top 10 reasons why she should be VP. Definitely worth a look. My favorites ones are 9, 7, 5 and 2, but read the whole list.
Not Romney, Pawlenty, and not Lieberman. John McCain has made either party choice in November a historic one by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate. This is so big, the Drudge Report website is overwhelmed with readers (I can’t get a link in edgewise).
Aside from the obvious appeal to history, and the disenchanted Clinton voters, Palin brings experience. “Experience?”, you may say, “She’s not even been governor a full 2 years.” Indeed, but that’s 2 years more executive branch experience that the other 3 candidates — Obama, Biden and McCain — combined. Prior to that (via Wikipedia):
The Wikipedia article has much more about her that I find absolutely excellent. Great job, Senator McCain.
John McCain, after congratulating Barack Obama for his historic nomination, appears to have chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his pick for VP. (see CNN, FoxNews)
Palin, the Barracuda.
CHANGE… we can believe in.
In an essentially 50/50 race, this is an awesome, gutsy, risky, and potentially brilliant move. Can we say… Maverick?
Kind of makes you wonder what Hillary is thinking now, doesn’t it?
(image: McNamee/Getty)
We have a new poll up regarding your viewing habits of the Democratic and Republican national conventions. With their foregone conclusions and political theater, do you bother tuning them in? Are you a political junkie who loves the speeches? Are you a casual observer, using the conventions to gather information before you cast a ballot in November? Did you know that the conventions were this week and next? Let us know.
A sanity check by both parties in the US is desperately needed. Look, I have no love lost for Mr Obama. I think as a President, if elected he will turn out to marginally worse than Jimmy Carter’s 4 year term. He’ll push for a number of programs, continue centralizing healthcare and attempting as much as he might in expanding various entitlements programs a number of fronts. McCain similarly will push for (and against a likely Democratically controlled Congress get somewhat less of what he desires) a different set of programs. But, no Mr Coates is completely loony when he offers that a McCain Presidency is to be equivalent to “sell the freedom of their daughters …” or that for the poor, a McCain Presidency implies … “the outcome will be sickness and death and homelessness and, for those cut off from health coverage and help …”
Look, Presidents have a lot less domestic influence than we pretend. Mr Bush has been in the office for 8 years and gosh, our daughters aren’t slaves and the lot of the poor is not that appreciably different than a decade ago.
But over the top rhetoric and outright demonization of the other side is just unhelpful all around.
Try some sanity on for size. It might help.
I hadn’t really intended to watch last night’s presidential candidate forum hosted by Saddleback Church and their celebrity pastor, Rick Warren. Part of the reason was that I was uncomfortable with the idea of a church being the host of a purely political event.
I’m still not sure how involved churches need to be involved in politics although I agree with those who believe that IRS regulations that restrict pastors from discussing politics should be repealed.
I’m not a big fan of Rick Warren, either. For all the good he has done, I disagree with his whole purpose-driven approach to church. I didn’t care for his bestselling book as I thought it was too theologically shallow. I honestly wasn’t sure that he would be willing to ask tough questions. I doubted Pastor Warren’s motives thinking he was looking for a way to give Senator Barack Obama a chance to make an appeal to evangelical voters who could very much decide the outcome of the election.
The format of the forum with each candidate being asked the same questions separately and not knowing the other’s answers seemed a bit unconventional. I wasn’t sure it would work.
I was wrong.
So John McCain is left to address Phil Gramm’s remarks that we have become a nation of whiners who are merely in a mental recession?
What exactly is a mental recession? Well, let’s do a little comparison of a mental recession with an economic depression.
Below is a photo (courtesy Yahoo!News) in which we see people queued up… waiting.
Now take a look at a photo (courtesy National Park Service) in which we see another group of people queued up… waiting.
The difference?
In the first photo, the people are waiting to buy the latest iPhone (circa 2008), while in the second photo, the people are waiting to be given something to eat (circa 1930s).
First photo = mental recession.
Second photo = economic depression.
First photo = nation of whiners.
Second photo = nation of those eager, but unable, to provide for their families.
[tag]phil gramm, nation of whiners, mental recession, obama, john mccain[/tag]
I’m not a great student of recent politics, that is the politics of my lifetime, instead more of a casual observer or johnny come lately, in that my interest in politics is quite young. When I was in college and until just a few years ago, Politics was much like the weather, people talk about it, have opinions and all, but it really didn’t touch me (actually did far less than the weather) and the “little guy” of which I number have about as much effect on the weather as we do on federal politics. I am not well aware of the history of Mr Helms, nor have I walked a mile in his shoes nor understand how he thinks and sees the world. I don’t hate him, I don’t love him (any more than I would another stranger).
Mr Jessie Helms has died. Every single one of the liberal blogs I read have failed to say anything gracious (and some are definitely ungracious) at the passing of a man from this mortal coil. On reflection over their attitude on his passing, I find it a good thing that I hold no American and very few foreigners in a similar regard as the beheld Mr Helms. To reiterarate:
There is no American and very few foreign nationals whose death I would celebrate.
As they did today. I don’t hate as they hate, it seems. I can think of very few men on whose deminse I would react in a similar fashion. I think I had little good to say about the deceased when Mr Hussein and Mr Arafat died. It seems to me, if you are trying to rid the world of hatred and bigotry, one must start with oneself. In our liturgy, we repeat and strive to uphold each week, these words before the anaphora (Eucharist):
I believe and confess, Lord, that You are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first….
The confession/statement goes on, but the important phrase (for this discussion) is emphasized. This does not mean I am a worse sinner than Mr Hussein, Josef Stailn, or perhaps Mr Helms. It does mean however, I am the first person whose sins are my concern. It is not for me to address the “other’s” sins while mine are lying plain before me. And … if you (on the left) hate Mr Helms, Mr Bush, or Mr Cheney then that sin is far more important to you to address than anything that those men have done or do that you find unrighteous. And no, I don’t think that to others your sin of hatred is being compared or worse then perception of the sins of those men whom you hate. What I am suggesting is that it is more important for you to address than the other.
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) slaps his party on the back of the head and tells them to wake up.
As congressional Republicans contemplate the prospect of an electoral disaster this November, much is being written about the supposed soul-searching in the Republican Party. A more accurate description of our state is paralysis and denial.
Many Republicans are waiting for a consultant or party elder to come down from the mountain and, in Moses-like fashion, deliver an agenda and talking points on stone tablets. But the burning bush, so to speak, is delivering a blindingly simple message: Behave like Republicans.
Unfortunately, too many in our party are not yet ready to return to the path of limited government. Instead, we are being told our message must be deficient because, after all, we should be winning in certain areas just by being Republicans. Yet being a Republican isn’t good enough anymore. Voters are tired of buying a GOP package and finding a big-government liberal agenda inside. What we need is not new advertising, but truth in advertising.
Becoming Republicans again will require us to come to grips with what has ailed our party – namely, the triumph of big-government Republicanism and failed experiments like the K Street Project and "compassionate conservatism." If the goal of the K Street Project was to earmark and fund raise our way to a filibuster-proof "governing" majority, the goal of "compassionate conservatism" was to spend our way to a governing majority.
Indeed, Republicans, with control of the purse strings to incredible riches that is the constant lure in a centralized government as huge as ours, turned into the very things they criticized; spendthrifts. In doing so, they further exemplified one of the major problems with government trying to "do something". Each party essentially winds up promising money for votes. A smaller central government, not nearly as flush with cash, would be required to stick more closely to its constitutional boundaries. Instead, regardless of the party, government has, in recent administrations, decided that it knows better how to be "compassionate".
But, as Senator Coburn notes, it’s not "compassion".
Compassionate conservatism’s starting point had merit. The essential argument that Republicans should orient policy around how our ideas will affect the poor, the widow, the orphan, the forgotten and the "other" is indisputable – particularly for those who claim, as I do, to submit to an authority higher than government. Yet conservatives are conservatives because our policies promote deliverance from poverty rather than dependence on government.
Compassionate conservatism’s next step – its implicit claim that charity or compassion translates into a particular style of activist government involving massive spending increases and entitlement expansion – was its undoing. Common sense and the Scriptures show that true giving and compassion require sacrifice by the giver. This is why Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell his possessions, not his neighbor’s possessions. Spending other people’s money is not compassionate.
Precisely. Read the whole thing, especially if you’re a Republican.
[tags]Senator Tom Coburn,Republicans,compassionate conservatism,K Street Project,small government[/tags]
2008 is shaping up to be an odd election season. For the first time in recent memory, both parties’ nominees for President will have secured their nominations without winning an overwhelming majority of their respective parties’ votes. Both Barack Obama and John McCain will have a lot of work ahead of them to unite their parties. But they also share another similarity: both of them may need to select a running mate more conservative than they are in order to win the election.
(And I’m not sure whether it should be routed through the Self-Delusion Agency or Committee on Unwarranted Optimism…)
Bob Barr has just announced his candidacy for President on the LIbertarian ticket.
“My name is Bob Barr and I’m a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America,” he told a small room of reporters, pre-empting them by raising the obvious question himself: “You might say Bob Barr, why are you running for president?”
[…]
“Look, I’m in it to win it,” said Barr. “I’m not getting in this race to make a point. … I’m not getting into this race to be a spoiler — I’ve got better things to do.”
Well, apparently not.
This is the counterbalance to Ralph Nader that, I’m sure, Democrats have been waiting for. But Barr, while he has name recognition going for him, is dropping another name that may make some folks wary of voting for him.
remains a candidate for president even though Sen. John McCain has surpassed the minimum number of delegates to win the nomination.
"Ron Paul tapped into a great deal of that dissatisfaction and that awareness," Barr said on the website. "Unfortunately, working through the Republican party structure, it became impossible for him to really move forward with his movement. But we have to have … a rallying point out there to harness that energy, that freedom, in this election cycle."
Of course, that name could also tap into a constituency that has been trying to "revolt" against the presumptive nominee, to little or no avail. My hunch (and that’s all it is) is that Barr could indeed become a real spoiler for McCain if he can successfully get the Paul supporters on his side. For now, they’re rather busy, so the extent of this support will probably only be known after the Republican convention.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution article notes that the Libertarian candidate in 2004 got a little over 3% of the vote with no name recognition. (Anyone know who Michael Badnarik is?) Barr could easily do better.
With John McCain’s victory tonight in Wisconsin, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee will undoubtedly receive a renewed barrage of questions about when he’s going to drop out of the presidential race. After all, he’s trailing McCain by almost 600 delegates. Senator McCain needs to win only about 200 of the remaining delegates in order to get to the magic number of 1,191.
I don’t think Huckabee will drop out. He’s said many times that until Senator McCain reaches the magic number he’s not going to drop out.
To quote Yogi Berra, “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”
It’s highly unlikely that Huckabee could win enough delegates to deny McCain winning the nomination. But that doesn’t mean that he should give up, either.
In fact, Mike Huckabee strikes me as a person who finishes what he starts. Anyone who commits to losing over 100 pounds has to have a firm sense of dedication not only to achieve that goal but to continue to do the things day by day that allow him to keep the weight off.
Mike Huckabee won’t win the Republican nomination this year. But he will have shown something far greater: the strength of character to finish what he started.
John McCain scored a huge victory in yesterday’s Virginia Republican primary winning nearly 51% of the vote and defeating Mike Huckabee by a double-digit margin. But a closer look at the results reveals McCain’s biggest weakness: his inability to win conservative voters.
McCain won the primary by over 50,000 votes. However, when you look at the individual city and county results McCain’s problems are immediately obvious to anyone who is familiar with the state’s demographics.
Mike Huckabee won in more rural and suburban counties which are the more conservative areas of the state. McCain won the larger cities and urban counties that traditionally lean more towards Democratic candidates. Even though McCain won a big victory8 he still did not do well in traditionally Republican areas.
Virginia has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1952. However, this year may be the year that Virginia turns blue. Consider this: the last two governors of Virginia have been Democrats (Mark Warner and current governor Tim Kaine). The last time Virginia elected a senator they picked Democrat Jim Webb over incumbent Republican George Allen. This year, long-time Republican senator John Warner (a RINO in every sense of the term, by the way) will retire and the aforementioned Mark Warner is a heavy favorite to win his seat over former Republican governor and one-time presidential candidate Jim Gilmore.
Unless McCain can figure out a way to get the conservative Republican base behind him, he’ll have a hard time winning Virginia. If he cannot win Virginia, he won’t be able to win the White House no matter who the Democrats decide to nominate.
