Archive for: November, 2007

Unity08 and Political Capital

Nov 02 2007 Published by under Politics, Unity08

It’s not clear if this was an attempt to be satirical or an attempt to make fun of President Bush’s now infamous “Political Capital” speech, but the strangest e-mail I’ve received in a while came to me today from Unity08.

Dear Michael,

Wow! The response to our new web site has been fantastic! Many of you have sent us compliments and excellent feedback on how to make it even better! Thank you!

If you’ve discovered “Political Capital” points then you are ahead of the game. If not, then you should start earning them now! Political Capital allows members to earn points by being active on the site and in the real world. On the site, you gain Political Capital by ranking the issues, inviting others to the movement, and participating in groups. In the real world, you gain Political Capital by attending meetings. As we continue to build the site there will be more ways to earn and use your Political Capital.

The last guy that talked about spending the political capital he acquired is still trying to live it down. To be sure, in the 48 hours after an election, it was a great “In your face!” moment. However, it cost him dearly when he discovered during the Social Security fight that it’s much easier to raise political capital than it is to spend it.

No responses yet

Most Influential ‘Conservatives’

Nov 02 2007 Published by under Candidates, Craziness, Pandering, Politics, Republicans

The Telegraph of London has an interesting article up on the “Most Influential Conservatives“. It’s really sort of a bizarre read and I can’t quite figure out what definition of conservatism they’re using.

Rudy Giuliani (who by all accounts is fiscally conservative, but not at all socially conservative) comes in at number one. Ok, so they must be basing this on fiscal conservatism, right? Well, apparently not. President Bush comes in at #21, despite an almost total absence on matters of fiscal conservatism for the last 7 years. With the explosion of spending by the federal government that he presided over, and the runaway sending of Congress that he rubber-stamped, it’s clear that fiscal constraint is not necessary to get you on the list, but non-stop pandering to the religious right is.

So what, in the Telegraph’s opinion is a conservative?

P.J. O’Rourke made the list, as did Drew Carey, with their libertarian conservatism. Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer both made the list (as did Mike Huckabee) with a solid record on social issues, but little in the fiscal ledger.

In explaining the fact that 43 didn’t make the top 20, the Telegraph explains:

So why isn’t George W. Bush, president of the most powerful nation in the world, wartime commander-in chief and leader of the Republican party not even in the top 20 of the Telegraph’s list of influential American conservatives? That’s a fair question. The short answer: the list is about the future rather than the past.

It also appears to be about perceptions of conservatism, versus actual conservatism. By listing, as ‘conservative’ both people who oppose social conservatism and people uncommitted to fiscal conservatism, the article actually serves to muddy the waters and confuse people who want to understand what conservatism really means.

If I were to make a list, I would argue that conservatism is defined by three things:

  • A recognition that political power in the US begins with the people, and ever smaller amounts are passed down to the federal government. Too often our politicians seem to get that backwards, and lately that includes a lot of ‘conservatives’.
  • A recognition that, as Milt Friedman said, “The government solution to a problem is usually worse than the problem.” That applies to government mandates in any aspect of life from economic policy down to the politics of abortion.
  • An understanding that it’s not the government’s responsibility to save me from going to hell. That’s between me and my God. If I screw it up, I have nobody to blame but myself. The constitution is quite clear on this matter. A law that codifies your religious beliefs about my behavior is a law that establishes a religion.

I will readily admit, however, that my belief in these three principles is what often sets me at odds with much the party is doing. However, I still maintain hope that the party will return to a belief in small government and fiscal responsibility first and foremost. If they do, there will be no misunderstanding of what does and does not make someone conservative.

No responses yet

Hillary and Obama: A Study in Contrasts

Nov 02 2007 Published by under Barack Obama, Candidates, Debates, Democrats, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Politics

Not that I think Hillary’s gender-baiting rhetoric from the last 72 hours needs more coverage, but I think there is a larger point being lost in this. Sure, it’s sort of ridiculous to keep telling us that a woman is tough enough to stand up to the bullying of dictators around the world, and then squeal about the sexism of her opponents attacking her for being woefully unimpressive in a debate. That’s not what really stands out to me, though.

What really stands out is the difference in Obama and Hillary. Obama could have played the race card against Hillary early on. When he first questioned the coronation process that many argue is taking place, Hillary sent her minions to savage him – to accuse him of breaking some imaginary pledge to run a campaign without uttering her name.

Obama, in turn, could easily have replied that this was an attempt by the monochromatic cast of Hillary’s campaign to keep the black man down. He could have arranged a conference call filled with African-American supporters claiming this was ‘an attempt to make Obama be the white man’s slave.” They didn’t. They didn’t dredge up the imagery of black on white crime. They didn’t try to make the campaign about race. They fought about the substance of the charges, and defended themselves without resorting to stereotypes.

Honestly, it leaves me even more convinced that this race is Obama’s to lose. Regardless of Mark Penn’s pronouncement that women are going to be all over this, I think the more they try to play that card, the worse they’re going to do.

Hillary’s numbers are already very soft with men. A recent poll I read (and forgive me for not being able to find the source) indicated that 40% of men already believe that Hillary is absoutely unacceptable as a candidate. This was before her women vs. men rhetoric kicked in. It’s unlikely that this will earn her more favor among men. That aside, however, I have heard grumblings from a lot of women that this does them all a disservice. That Hillary’s crocodile tears belittle the cause of feminism by hiding behind it.

Perhaps this entire scene was choreographed. Somewhere in the deep bowels of Camp Hillary, they may have seen an eventual stumble as inevitable and believed they could make hay out of a charge of sexism. It would not surprise me. In fact, I suspect that’s the case. It does not change the fact that it is politics of the lowest order.

It will be interesting to see if there is a price to be paid by Hillary for this tactic. Obama doesn’t feel the need to enlist the politics of race to elect the first Black President. Does Hillary believe she has to cry sexism in order to unite a political sisterhood? If so, will it get her enough women who agree to counter the number turned off by her methods?

One response so far

« Newer posts