State of the Presidential Race
Thursday, January 31st, 2008Well, the 2008 Presidential Election looks like its been whittled down to four candidates and two also-rans. Giuliani’s grand strategy of skipping the first few contests to focus on the large number of delegates in Florida turned out to be a mistake. Instead of the huge amount of momentum he expected to get for winning Florida, his third place finish guaranteed that he would be a non-factor in this Election cycle. Edwards finally put his campaign out of its misery the same day, once he had gotten enough face time on television to sooth his ego.
Now, as you know, there are actually four Republicans left in the primaries. However, I don’t count Huckabee or Paul because they do not have any legitimate chance to win the nomination. Ron Paul has been rightfully seen as a fringe nutjob ever since he publicly supported the “9/11 was an Inside Job” crowd. Also, his supporters have gone way beyond the bounds of political campaigning with their Internet poll-stuffing and vicious on-line rebuttals of almost anyone who didn’t agree with them. As for Huckabee, he started out great with the win in Iowa, and then he started to believe in his own press releases as he talked about changing the Constitution to reflect his interpretation of the Bible. If you want support from Conservatives and Republicans, you can’t talk like you’re going to create a theocracy. Look for him to disappear a few days after he looses big-time on Super Tuesday.
So that leaves McCain and Romney for the right and Clinton and Obama for the left. Here’s what I think of them:
Senator John McCain: While calling himself a Republican, Senator McCain has voted against the Bush Tax Cuts, proposed an Immigration Reform Bill which amounted to amnesty for close to 20 million Illegal Aliens, proposed and got passed a bill which takes away a large part of the American Public’s First Amendment rights when it comes to political speech, and has become an object of affection for those on the far left. Yet, he says he is a conservative. While moderates and financially conservative liberals love McCain, the true conservatives, who he claims to represent, can’t stand him or his position on the issues. If true conservatives ever decide to get off of their lazy butts and go to the voting booth during the rest of the Primary Season, McCain’s bid would go down in flames. If they stay at home, they will find themselves with a huge problem come Election Day — Will they stay home again and help elect Clinton or Obama, or will they hold their nose and vote for McCain?
Governor Mitt Romney: Governor Romney took some heat early in the primaries over some changes to his positions since declaring his run for the Presidency. However, these few issues aside, Romney has been a steady voice for both Republicans and conservatives. Certainly, he isn’t perfect, but I think that Republicans could all rally around him for the battle against the left. His business experience, not just with turning around failing companies, but knowing how to make a payroll and keep a business thriving so that workers have some job security is something that will serve him well in the Oval Office. None of the remaining candidates has even a tenth of his business experience, and a lack of understanding of business could spell disaster for the economy. Romney is my choice right now, and I hope to be able to support him in the general election.
Senator Hillary Clinton: Whitewater. Cattle-Gate. File-Gate. Travel-Gate. When you think of a Clinton, any Clinton, all that comes to mind is scandal. Except for grabbing the few pieces of furniture they left behind in the White House when Billy-Jeff left town in 2001, I can think of no possible reason for the Clintons to ever sully the White House grounds again.
Senator Barack Obama: One of the very few things that Obama has done well enough to be recognized for in his short political life was give a speech at the 2000 Democrat Convention. Other than that, I can’t seem to find anything to recommend him for the job of being the leader of the free world. No important legislative achievements, no noteworthy Senatorial leadership, and absolutely no foreign policy experience to speak of. Yet, he claims he knows how to end the War in Iraq without leaving America open to future terrorist attacks. Really?
When the dust settles and the primaries are over, I think the the Republicans will be supporting Romney. The Democrats, however, are a different story. They are not only fighting themselves in these primaries, but they are fighting history. Their party is left with a choice between the first female Presidential Candidate and the first Black Presidential Candidate. Feminists and minorities are two of the biggest special interest groups that the Democrats pander to every election, so their base is highly divided. Some people think they should base their support on race; others gender. This growing divide on the left dwarfs anything that is happening between conservatives and moderates on the right.
If the left decides to support a candidate based on gender, blacks will feel betrayed and forgotten. If they support a candidate based on color, feminists will riot in the street. The upcoming Democrat Convention may just be a throwback to the 1968 Chicago Convention. If I had to pick a winner on the left, I’d pick Obama. I’d rather that Clinton get the nomination, because Romney would have a better chance of defeating her than Obama. A Romney/Obama race would be another election which would be too close to call.
Print This Post
January 31st, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you.
Mike Harmon
February 1st, 2008 at 9:39 am
“at the 2000 Democrat Convention.”
Well Mike, there’s your answer. Civil discourse is difficult, if not impossible when one party persists in using a perjorative that the other has pointed out (respectfully and with citation) is offensive. Although why you would expect any better from someone who claims his mission is “Removing Liberal Waste From The American Bloodstream” I don’t know.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:56 am
Mike and Ann:
While you have shown me sources which indicate that liberals don’t like it when you leave the “ic” off of the party name, you have yet to explain how calling it the “Democrat” Party is offensive or an insult. I mean, you are a Democrat, correct? If I call you a Democrat am I using a pejorative? Should I, instead, call you a “Democratic”?
Liberals have been using names line “Repugs” and “Neo-cons” for years now as a way to offend Republicans and Conservatives. I don’t hear you or see you yelling at them for using pejoratives.
But then again, since it is against the right you probably think its just fine.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
“Neo-cons” is considered a slur? Heh.
Nick, it’s your blog of course and you are free to use whatever demeaning terms you want. But Mike is attempting to engage with you in a mutually respectful dialogue, and you claim to be interested in that as well. I’m afraid Mike is on a fool’s errand in this forum, but I’d love to be wrong and I wish you both well.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Nick,
I thought I went over this already. “Democratic” is the official name of the Party. It is not and never has been the “Democrat” Party. Just like the Republican Party is not the “Republic” Party. After that, it becomes a matter of grammar. The term Democratic, when used outside the context of the formal name of the party, is an adjective. The term “Democrat” is a noun. When you interchange them, you are being ungrammatical. The reason it is considered offensive, is because Republicans have insisted on using the terms improperly not because they are ignorant of the correct usage, but because they want to articulate disrespect for the political opposition.
It’s like when Aggies want to tweak people from the University of Texas by referring to their school as t.u. Sometimes that kind of thing can be done in good fun. The problem in this case is that Republicans have carried it to the point where the President regularly uses the terms improperly in formal speeches, or Members of Congress use the improper terms on the floor of the House and Senate, and now the media is picking it up and putting it into newstories seemingly unaware of the impropriety or the reasoning behind it.
I have tried to refrain from using terms like Repug or Rethug mainly because my whole purpose in blogging is to try and persuade other people with my views and I find that insulting them from the outset is an ineffective means to that end. However, I will admit that I have used the term “wingnut” in the past largely because the group of people I used to discourse with were regularly referring to me as a “moonbat”. But more recently I have tried to refrain from that usage as well.
That said, however, I will respect your right to use whatever terms you choose on your blog and I will not raise this issue again.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Nick,
I’m at a loss on the remaining Republican candidates. When Fred Thompson bowed out, I was left without a good choice. I find myself in the unenviable position of waiting out the primary, and voting “R” more as a vote against either Clinton or Obama, than for our eventual candidate.
As for Obama’s notable accomplishments (or, lack thereof), he does have the distinction of having the most liberal voting record of 2007.
And finally, with all due respect to Ann and Mike Thomas, I contend that civil discourse is difficult, if not impossible, when those with whom we attempt that discourse are unnecessarily and unreasonably sensitive and/or thin-skinned. While the use of “Democrat Party” may not be technically correct, the claim that its use is intended to be offensive or pejorative is specious. Given that a member of the Democratic Party are referred to as a “Democrat”, it is obvious that use of the term “Democrat” is not inherently offensive or pejorative.
If you desire civil discourse, learn to get past non-offenses and engage the author on the substance of his post. Not all Republicans wish to offend you at every turn. Don’t look for offenses where none are intended – and quite clearly, Nick intended no offense here.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Chip, with all due respect, I assume you didn’t read the link Mike provided either. Here are some relevant parts:
The ungrammatical conversion of the noun “Democrat” to an adjective was the brainchild of Republican partisans, presumably an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being “democratic” — or in the words of New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg, “to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation.” In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urging of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word “Democrat” as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans.
and:
Further, Hertzberg wrote that “among those of the Republican persuasion,” the use of ” ‘Democrat Party’ is now nearly universal” thanks to “Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo ‘Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,’ and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz.”
Furthermore, while Nick may have used the term initially without intent to offend, that certainly can’t be said after Mike informed him that it’s use is indeed offensive and one of his “pet peeves” whereupon Nick proceeded to use the term again. At that point, the the insult can be none other than intentional.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Chip,
I agree with you that Nick was not intending to be insulting. And rather than being thin-skinned, I was attempting to answer Nick’s questions about why anyone would take offense at the improper usage in the first place. I don’t care if he wants to continue swapping nouns and adjectives on his blog. I’m not going to take offense.
Also, I know that civil discourse can be difficult in these times, but I’m happy to say that we’ve gotten off to a good start here and Nick has been very accommodating and willing to engage in thoughtful argument. I do not expect to be able to change people’s minds (or have my mind changed) in the course of a few e-mail exchanges or blog commentaries. But I am interested in hearing what other people have to say and hearing their respons to some of my thoughts and comments.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Hmm, wonder why my last post was deleted. Whatever, good luck to all of you in your quest for civil discourse.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Ann, I don’t delete comments unless they are a personal attack or unless the content is so offensive as to have no value. In fact, I have not deleted anything you have posted here. Chances are that your comment had not been approved yet. Since you do not use an email address on your comments, all of your comments have to be manually approved, and due to real-life sometimes it takes me a while to get to the site and approve them.
That being said, if something you have posted is not here, please let me know so I can track it down and find out why it happened.
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:53 am
Good to know. Thanks Nick.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Ann,
I read some of what Mike linked, and even did some googling of my own. You know what? I honestly thought the party was founded as the “Democrat Party.” That’s why I would use the term, if ever I did. Now that I know otherwise, I’ll use “Democratic” – primarily to be semantically correct.
My point – and my problem with your reaction to the use of “Democrat” – is that I *understand* that you find it offensive, but the reasoning is, IMHO, asinine.
I don’t know anyone who uses the term pejoratively. And again IMHO, trying to do so would be about as effective as the immature, “Your Mom!” come-back from my junior high days. There is nothing “offensive” about “Your Mom!” – just as there is nothing inherently offensive with “Democrat.”
Said another way: believing that every Republican use of the term “Democrat” is pejorative is equivalent to believing that Ron Paul is representative of anything more than some kooks who comprise about 0.5% of our party.
The bottom line is this: I fail to find any intended offense in the use of “Democrat” in lieu of “Democratic”. The closest I’ve seen is some suggestion that “Democrat” evokes “rat”… is that the most offensive thing about the use of “Democrat”?
It is not intended to be offensive. It shouldn’t be inferred as such, either – for that matter, it shouldn’t be inferred as such, even if it were intended.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Chip,
I appreciate your desire to be semantically correct and I agree with you that most of the misuses of the term are not done with any malice intended.
The only reason it rubs me the wrong way is because I know that the recent push in the GOP to misuse the term was instigated by Newt Gingrich, the author of the infamous memo Language: A Key Mechanism of Control back when he was Speaker. You can’t tell me that he did not intend malice back then when he was urging fellow Republicans to always refer to Democrats as “sick” “corrupt” and “pathetic”.
Nevertheless, you are correct that to anyone not in on Gingrich’s “language as a weapon” scheme, the misuse of the term does not come across as a pejorative.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Mike:
I looked at the provided link re: Language, and the terms “Democrat Party” and “Democrat” are not even mentioned. In fact, in the one paragraph where it talks about the party, it uses the term “Democratic Party.”
Did you accidentally leave the wrong link, or am I missing something?
February 7th, 2008 at 8:41 am
You are correct that the memo I linked to does not mention the Democrat-ic issue. He dealt with that separately from this memo. My point was that Gingrich was very keen on manipulating language as a partisan political tool and when I learned that he was behind the push to misuse the terms Democrat and Democratic, it ticked me off.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Mike,
Maybe we’ve come to the root of Democrat’s ire over the issue: Gingrich initiated it.
In all seriousness, though – if it is true that Gingrich initiated the use of “Democrat Party” in a pejorative manner, then I think that he was misguided (as I said above).
Ultimately, my issue is that focusing on such a non-issue detracts from discussion of the real matters of importance; this thread is a perfect example.