After watching a couple of the debates of both parties and getting to know some of the candidates and their positions and personalities a little better, it's time to take stock and weigh in on the candidates:
Fundamentally, I would prefer to see a candidate not associated with Washington running for both parties. First, these guys are not part of the Beltway mind-set and they are generally closer to and more in tune with the problems of the little guy and the small businessman. Washington is the domain of the big guys, a governor of Arkansas or Massachusetts should have more respect for the rights and responsibilities of the states.
Overall, the Democrats seem like a bunch of folks running for student council President, rather than President of the US. The Republicans seem like a group intent on tearing each other down instead of offering a glimpse into why they are the better candidate and it should only get worse now that all the candidates are engaged and campaigning full throttle. Nice of Fred Thompson and Rudy Guiliani to join the fray in earnest. How can they honestly lead the nation after symbolically writing off a couple of states as unimportant is beyond me, but they must know better than me how to run a national campaign.
DEMOCRATS:
Barack Obama - The Bill Bradley endorsement helps quite a bit in my mind and I would seriously consider voting for him, especially if the Republicans go in the self-destructive direction they seem to want to go. His biggest weakness was exposed when he tried to puff up his accomplishment in the Senate regarding stiff arming Washington lobbyists. Charlie Gibson CORRECTLY pointed out that in reality nothing has changed. Lobbyists can no longer buy a sit-down meal, but could certainly continue to put on a whale of a cocktail party (as long as the recipient was standing up, it's back up the fund raising truck). Still, I would rather see an Obama presidency then a Clinton redux. I think that given the historical ramifications and the institutional shake-ups that would resonate from an Obama presidency, we would experience some long-overdue, fundamental changes that would be healthy for the country.
Hillary Clinton - Her arrogance and hubris sure did turn to tears quickly. Good for her. The baggage of being Mrs. Clinton is just so much more of a minus than a plus. Too much of a socialist for me, much more so than her husband. Sorry, ladies. Hell would have to freeze over first.
John Edwards - I just see a liberal, Democratic version of the Michael J. Fox character. Nice try.
REPUBLICANS:
Ron Paul - Fundamentally, I agree with most of his libertarian positions. But, if I were Guiliani and he went off on one of his 9/11-foreign policy rants, I would probably punch him right in the face. Not literally of course, but I sure as heck would want to. Go home Ron, you're nuttier than a fruitcake.
Rudy Guiliani - Nice of you to join the fray. Talk about more than where you were and what you were doing on 9/11, we know about that, it's probably the main reason you're still here. Don't worry, the other candidates will bring up your NYC record. You remember, how you pretty much trampled civil liberties to get the admirable results you got fighting crime and quality of life issues in NY. Once you win a state or two, the media will turn on you as well. I think the Constitution and the assault on civil liberties have taken a beating under the current administration, I fear a successful Guiliani candidacy would be more than they could bear.
John McCain - just seems like another one-trick pony so far. OK we get it, you were for the surge when it was a gleam in the Bush Administration's eye. What else have you been doing? Campaign Reform? Weren't you once a champion of that cause. Yep, I see the results. See my note about Obmama above, it's more of a joke now than it has ever been. Nice work. Immigration Reform? Your state is on the front line, so you would think you could have brought forth some results in this area. Guess not. Reminds me too much of Bob Dole. Unelectable and will set the Republican Party back a decade or more as a force on the national scene.
Fred Thompson - Nice of you to join the fray as well. Finally opened up in the SC debate. Philosophically and politically, I like Fred. it would be nice if he had put forth some more effort early on. He's the candidate I would vote most likely to have been dragged into the race kicking and screaming and it's hard to build enthusiasm among undecided voters if you yourself seem undecided about running. Thanks for the effort.
Mike Huckabee - A DIRC (Democrat in Republican clothing) or RINO (Republican in Name Only) whichever you prefer. I did love the way he set the questioner straight on the religious question in the SC debate regarding a wife's role and duties within a marriage. Like Romney, I think he is splattered unfairly for his religious zeal when in both cases, I see it as a strength. Still, I have bad flashbacks about Governors from Arkansas. What is it about that state lately? Must be something in the water.
Mitt Romney - I like his background and credentials. I don't hold his religion against him at all, but I think he is going to get hurt by it. That's too bad, I thought we've progressed a bit further a nation, but maybe not. Still it's the wrong reason to exclude the man. If he was not a Morman, if he was a member of one of the more mainstream religions, is there any doubt that he would be fairing better? Don't give me the flip-flop garbage, Clinton flip-flopped all the way from Arkansas to Washington. Most people can't site more than one example of an issue Romney flip-flopped on, so how important can it be. They do know he's a Morman though. An unfortunate victim of religious bigotry. Shameful.
Anyway, if the Republicans nominate McCain or Guiliani or Huckabee especially, I would have to seriously consider going against a promise I made to myself years ago about voting for a Democrat again. Romney or Thompson would be OK, Paul is simply unelectable. On the Dems side, Obama is becoming an intriguing candidate. His choice of VP down the road would be critical. If he picks Bradley, I'm on board.
Speaking of Bradley, I read this interesting story at the blog site "Baseball Crank" from the 2000 election, that "allegedly" was stolen from AlGore by George Bush. In hindsight, isn't that giving GW credit for more intelligence than he has displayed?
Anyway, based on this story, apparently it takes one to know one. If true, file this story under poetic justice. Or karma. Or whatever.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.baseballcrank.com/
I could swear I posted this years ago, but it came to mind on the morning after a crafty veteran pol defeated a people-powered insurgent in NH in the face of polls showing the contrary . . . Let's just say it's a reminder that in Democratic primaries, not all is necessarily as it seems on the surface.
Vice-President Al Gore may have won the 2000 New Hampshire primary - and subsequent primaries, which fed on the New Hampshire–generated momentum - thanks to a traffic jam. At least that's what many Democratic operatives with experience in New Hampshire seem to think. Today, when people look back at the 2000 Democratic-primary season, the prevailing memory is of Gore trouncing former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley. But he beat Bradley in New Hampshire by just four points, a relatively narrow margin of 6395 votes. The bulk of these votes - more than 3000 - came from Hillsborough County, home to Nashua and Manchester, as well as abutting suburbs like Bedford, Goffstown, and Merrimack. This is a small, relatively compact area where political foot soldiers can provide the margin of victory. And, many believe, during the last New Hampshire primary, they did.
As late as 3 p.m. that day, Gore operatives had access to exit polls showing the vice-president being defeated by Bradley. They also learned that while Democratic voters were voting in large numbers for Gore, independents, many of them upscale suburban voters, were voting for Bradley's sophisticated brand of liberalism. Knowing that Bradley's strength came from tony tech havens such as Bedford, the Gore team organized a caravan to clog highway I-93 with traffic so as to discourage potential Bradley voters from getting to the polls. (Michael Whouley, a chief Gore strategist, recounted the Gore team's Election Day field efforts at a Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics symposium, and his comments are included in a book compiled by the Institute titled Campaign for President: The Managers Look at 2000. He knocked down the rumor that they considered overturning an 18-wheeler to clog up traffic.) The caravan - spoken of with awe by operatives who worked on the campaign - had the desired effect. It was harder for Bradley voters to get the polls.
------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. - A great example of how polling numbers and results can be skewed depending on the methodology used or the way a question is asked was on display for all to see after the FoxNews Republican Debate in South Carolina.
After the debate, viewers were urged to vote on "which candidate won the debate". Viewers had to text message a certain number to vote for their candidate of choice. This skewed the results towards the candidate whose supporters are a) cell phone users and b) avid text messagers. I would assume most Republicans are cell-phone owners but my guess would be that the candidate whose base text messages the most would be, the eventual winner, Ron Paul. I wouldn't send a text message to the fire department if my butt was on fire.
The pundits were all over themselves after the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire when we saw some rather violent shifts between the poll numbers vs. actual results. I think people are starting to mess with the pollsters a little as well. I mean if could just once walk from one end of the mall to the other without one of them getting in your face it would be all right, but I guess they have a job to do too.
No comments:
Post a Comment