Archive for: October, 2007

Is Barack The New Pink?

Oct 19 2007 Published by under Barack Obama, Candidates, Democrats, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Republicans

I was tripping through RedState and stumbled upon an interesting comment.

My liberal friends have been existing on the narrative that Bush is the New Nixon — from the time he first ran for president. That got me thinking, that if it’s true, then we have to endure another Carter BEFORE our New Reagan… As much as I HATE having a New Carter, we may have to endure one before the country realizes we need a New Reagan.

I hadn’t spent much time considering the Bush=Nixon meme, but it opens up some interesting doors. The current incarnation of the Democratic Party aligns itself with the far left wing – just as it did in 1976. It’s facing off against a Republican Party that has been battered by an unpopular war and scandals and a slowing economy. In 1976, a huge number of Democrats crowded the ballot to compete for the nomination. Carter, who was relatively unknown at the time, emerged from the pack.

Another interesting coincidence is the importance of the primary calendar. In 1976, the system was new, and people didn’t quite know how to operate under the different system. In 2008, the primary calendar is the big difference, and it has caused as much confusion. Everyone is making assumptions about how the lineup will impact the parties’ final choices, but nobody knows for sure.

It is entirely possible that we could see exactly the same outcome. A relative newcomer (Barack) defeats the establishment candidate (Hillary) and goes on to the general election. If the GOP can’t address its issues, and capitalize on the open seat and the anti-incumbent mood, the inexperienced and very liberal Obama could walk to the Presidency.

I suspect that an Obama Administration (which would believe it owes its presidency to the far left) would be almost as horrific as Carter.

The dynamics of the election certainly bear some resemblance to 1976. However, as I said yesterday, I think the GOP has some opportunities it didn’t have in ’76. While the war is just as unpopular, there are overarching security concerns that we didn’t have then. The Cold War, while raging, didn’t impact us the same way the 9-11 attacks did. The Soviet Union didn’t kill 3,000 people in New York. Whether you believe Al Qaeda was in Iraq in 2002 or not, they certainly are today. Not many people are us up to bailing out as they were in Vietnam (where we had almost no vested interests).

It will be interesting to see how 2008 plays out. Under normal circumstances, I’d almost lay odds on Hillary not getting the nod. The fact is the Democrats rarely nominate the person you expect. In December of 2003, Howard Dean was a forgone conclusion and John Kerry was a nobody. In 1992, nobody was betting on the guy from Arkansas. In 1976, nobody expected Carter.

I’m not sure that holds true this year. There are some good contenders in the form of Obama and Edwards, but Hillary is too polished to make the kind of rookie mistakes that cost Dean. She’s also wired into the establishment and in Democrat nominating processes, you can’t underestimate the power of the super delegates. The super delegate system was establish to prevent another Jimmy Carter from winning the nomination. When 40 percent of your delegates ARE the establishment, you only need 10 percent of the popular vote to win the nomination.

Hillary should be able to swing that.

If it does end up being another 1976, and we have to wait until 2012 for our Reagan, I’m not sure who that would be. The commenter at RedState suggested it was Brownback, but I’m not sure I agree. As a proud member of the Libertarian wing of the Party, I have to admit two things. First, I see Brownback as a so-con first and foremost. Second, because that is the impression he has left, I have taken little time to explore his libertarian cred. While I may not be typical of the libertarian wing, I like to think I have a pretty good bead on things. I suspect there are a lot of my little “l” brothers and sisters who are automatically distrustful of Brownback simply because of the so-con popularity.

Who then? I’m not honestly sure, but you can bet I’ll be looking for my candidate in the event the days of malaise return.

No responses yet

Hurdles

Oct 18 2007 Published by under Candidates, Democrats, Elections, Fundraising, Politics, Polls, Republicans

In an apparent nod to the old adage “It’s always darkest before the dawn”, Patrick Ruffini today has a post titled, “The GOP: Dawn Breaks?” While I think his argument has some merit, and I agree with him that 2008 is more about discontent than a Democrat wave, I have concerns with our ability to capitalize on that.

If the national environment does improve somewhat, and the nominee starts close to slightly behind, we won’t have the steady demoralizing drumbeat we had in 2006. Rank-and-file Republicans will be too focused on beating up Hillary. Democrats in red districts could be cross-pressured.

No Bush to Kick Around Anymore: 2006 was the last year in which a Democrat could effectively run against Bush. It is not possible to do more political damage to Bush. People know he’s leaving.

Is this a case for 2008 as a Republican year? Not yet. But the Democrats’ best-case scenario is probably a muted change election like 2000 or 1976.

The Democrats have – without a doubt – gotten just about all the mileage out of Bush that they can get. They’re in charge now, and the public knows it. Whether the public opinion polls that show Americans with a near-record low approval for Congress are due to their unwillingness to fulfill any of what they ran on, or whether it is simply a distaste for all things political is unclear. What is apparent, though, is a sentiment that Congress, as a whole, is dysfunctional.

It used to be that you could pretty much rely on voters to believe, “My Congressman is ok, but the rest of them are crooks.” That doesn’t seem to hold anymore. I haven’t seen that question asked in some time, but I suspect more and more people would believe there guy is crooked, too.

So what does 2008 look like? I think the likelihood is an anti-incumbent wave. Not anti-GOP and not anti-Dem. I also think that holds true regardless of who the candidates at the top of the ticket are. The fact is, there just aren’t that many people left who vote a straight slate anymore.

My guess is a lot of the internal polling numbers have made that case for a fair number of GOPers who are weighing their re-election chances. I don’t believe it is a coincidence that a slew of Members who likely just benchmarked their races are saying, “Umm… Maybe not.”

Ok, so if that’s true, why aren’t Democrats doing the same thing? Why aren’t we seeing more retirements? Well, to Patrick’s point, I think they’re misreading the cards. I think they’re assuming that this is a down year for Republicans, and the retirements have them giddy with the possibility of big numbers in 2009.

I have bad news and worse news. The bad news is you have two days to live. The worse news is I was supposed to tell you yesterday.

So let’s assume Patrick and I are right, and we are actually looking at an election that we could, under normal circumstances, capitalize on. What’s the worse news?

The worse news is two-fold. First, we have a boatload of seats to protect. Going into the 2008 elections, we have to protect 2/3 of the seats up for election. The house, with a raft of retirements comes a lot of open seats. Open seats are normally harder to keep than incumbent seats, unless the incumbents are particularly disliked. Second, we have a serious problem with our base.

Trouble with your droids?

It’s no secret that the GOP base is unhappy. It’s no secret that they’re not engaging. It’s no secret that a lot of people are unhappy with our slate of candidates for President. It’s also no secret that we have a significant fundraising problem.

Does all of that add up to the Perfect Storm? Will it all conspire to steal what should, under normal circumstances, be an anti-incumbent (and therefore, favorable for the minority party) election? It may well. This is where I don’t share Patrick’s muted optimism. I think he’s right that the tealeaves are more favorable for us than a lot of people are acknowledging, but I think our hurdles are great, and I’m not sure that we’re fast or limber enough to clear them.

One response so far

If Google Earth Wanted To Be Useful…

Oct 16 2007 Published by under Hunting, Miscellany, The Internet

I’ve been using Google Earth in an attempt to pinpoint our hunting area. It helps to see an aerial view so I can get a sense of where there are thick pockets of tress, saddles and draws that might house an unsuspecting deer. Unfortunately, Google is limited in its ability to be helpful because a good deal of the satellite imagery is outdated.

Google, in an effort to provide more and better data, should enter into an agreement with a company providing such imagery (or simply launch their own satellites, after all, they’ve got the dough) and allow users of Google Earth to request a fly-by of a specific area. You could enter the lat/long of the area you wanted to see, and submit a request. To prevent some idiot from snapping ever more recent photos of his house on their dime, they could charge for priority imaging. The upside is two-fold.

First, Google makes even more money by charging you for the imaging. Second, Google makes the newly snapped image available to everyone else, thereby enhancing the value of the service (better, newer maps underwritten by those who want them most would still carry value for others). The newer. more reliable maps would drive more traffic and more users.

Granted, the land we’re hunting is private land, so the marginal value it gets under the second point is less. For hunters on public lands, however, it would benefit anyone getting a tag there next year because the map is only six months old, not six years.

3 responses so far

Netiquette For Dummies (Tancredo, This Means You!)

Oct 15 2007 Published by under Candidates, Marketing, Miscellany, Politics, Republicans, The Internet

The downside to being on just about every political e-mail list I can find is that I see some really bad examples of campaigns violating basic rules of Netiquette. Chief among these violators is Tom Tancredo’s campaign and their ridiculous insistence that every e-mail subject be written in all caps. From the IETF RFC:

Use mixed case. UPPER CASE LOOKS AS IF YOU’RE SHOUTING.

It’s a simple rule, and one which most people have learned and internalized. Rarely do you see people sending messages in all caps unless they are a) new to the Internet or b) fully aware of what caps mean and pissed off. The two exceptions to this seem to be Tom Tancredo and a certain former Chairwoman of the New Mexico GOP (whom I served briefly as the ED).

I used to get these rambling all cap messages from her when she thought something was important. She would often copy the RNC’s RPD for the state as well. One afternoon he and I had a long conversation about that fact that both of us, on separate occasions, had sat her down and explained the all caps rule. No matter…. She continued to send her raging missives for no readily apparent reason.

Tancredo’s base may be slightly unhinged anyway, so it’s possible they haven’t noticed that his e-mails come across like he’s a lunatic. Screaming at your supporters is a strange tactic, even if you are worked up about the topic du jour. I would urge Tancredo, if for no other reason than out of respect for the traditions of the ‘Net, to lay off the all cap subject lines. It makes your campaign look less than serious when you can’t adhere to even the simplest rules of common courtesy.

(see image of his ranting e-mail after the jump).

Continue Reading »

No responses yet

Where The Hell Is Leopard?

Oct 15 2007 Published by under Apple, Craziness, Technology

Ok, I bought my Mac. I have to admit, I’m enjoying it. The lack of a right click on the touchpad, the constant struggle to remember whether I have to hold CTRL or the Apple Key with the button, and the fact that you can’t close a program by closing the window are still kind of annoying, but overall, my Mac experience has been good. I’m no longer radically opposed to all that is Mac.

However, I have a major beef with Apple.

I was told when I bought the Mac that the new OS (OS X Leopard) would be out in October and give me the ability to dual boot Windows without having to buy additional software. While I didn’t buy the Mac to be a PC, there are a couple of games I have on my Win machine that I like to kill time with in airports. It would be nice to have the flexibility.

Well, Apple says that Leopard will be released in October. Here we are on the 15th with no release date publicly announced.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t one of the big knocks against MS the constantly moving release dates and failure to deliver on their promises?

C’mon, Steve! Where the hell is Leopard?

2 responses so far

« Newer posts Older posts »