1946, 1994, 2010 => 1948, 1996, 2012?

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 \PM\.\Tue\.

Picture it: Upper East Side of Manhattan, November 9, 1994.  There is a buzz throughout the halls of Regis High School, and it’s not just because today is student exchange day and there will actually be girls in our school.  The previous night the Republicans had won control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years, and my friends and I – little Republicans in training that we all were – were quite joyous.

First period was US History, and our teacher knows that I am certainly excited about the election.  So he writes on the board the following:

1994=1946

His point?  As was the case in 1946, the Republican victory would be short-lived.  Republican gains in 1946 were wiped out – and then some – in 1948.  On top of that, Harry Truman was re-elected.  History would repeat itself.

I scoffed at this ridiculous notion.  There was certainly no way that Slick Willy Clinton could possibly earn a second term as US President.  I had been counting the days to his 1996 electoral humiliation since roughly November 7, 1992.  Surely this was the first stage on the road to that inevitable defeat.

Fast forward to November 5, 1996.  Needless to say I was as disappointed on that night as all us Regians were at the end of that November day in senior year. (I mean come on, we’re talking about a bunch of nerdy kids from an all boys school.  It took most of us a full year of college before we could properly talk to members of the opposite sex.)  Mr. Anselme was right.

But not entirely.  Though Bill Clinton had indeed won re-election, the election was not a total repeat of 1948.  The Republicans lost a few seats, but in the end they retained control of both houses of Congress – something they had not done in successive cycles since the Hoover administration.

History is informative, and we certainly should be aware of the lessons of elections past when we think about what will happen down the line.  But we should refrain from assuming that events will necessarily repeat themselves. Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

White Tea Party Racist to Run for 2012 US Presidency

Friday, September 24, 2010 \PM\.\Fri\.

[Update:  There is already a Draft Cain 2012 website up!]

Oh wait, the picture doesn’t follow the mainstream meme does it!

I guess Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann’s running narrative of extremists running the Tea Party doesn’t quite fit the pic.

Read the rest of this entry »


Who is Running for Prez in 2012?

Tuesday, September 14, 2010 \PM\.\Tue\.

This is meant to be a fun post speculating about who might run for the Republican Presidential Nomination. Here’s my list, who do you think will run?

Likely Running:

Rick Santorum-former Senator from Pennsylvania

Tim Pawlenty- Governor of Minnesota

Mitt Romney-former Governor of Massachusetts

Still looking into it:

Mike Huckabee- former Governor of Arkansas

Mitch Daniels-Governor of Indiana

Sarah Palin-former Governor of Alaska

Newt Gingrich-former Speaker of the House

Long shots:

Bobby Jindal-Governor of Louisiana

Paul Ryan- Congressman from Wisconsin

Mike Pence-Congressman from Indiana

Tom Tancredo-former Congressman from Colorado

Ron Paul-Congressman from Texas

John Thune-Senator from South Dakota

Jeb Bush-former Governor of Florida

Analysis:

I think potential candidates like Huckabee and Palin have to be considered front runners in Iowa because of that state’s social and culture conservative leanings. Pawlenty may have an advantage in Iowa since he governs a neighboring state.  Meanwhile, I think potential candidates like Romney and Daniels will play well in New Hampshire. I think all the candidates are going to have to build their war chests for the remaining candidates. I don’t really see any one of the current candidates running away with the nomination early on, so it may be a long drawn out battle. I don’t think it will go the distance like Obama-Clinton, but its not going to be wrapped up in a few primaries. What do you think?


ObamaCare: How to Defeat It

Thursday, March 25, 2010 \AM\.\Thu\.

Normally when a law is enacted in this country, that is that, and the debate is ended.  Not always however.  Sometimes laws are so ill-considered, so destructive of values held dear by large segments of the population, that the passage of the law only creates a new stage for an ongoing struggle over the law.  Most polls show that most of the public opposes ObamaCare.  Here are some thoughts on how this law can be defeated.  Like most campaigns in the public square it will involve agitation, legal challenges and political action.  Unlike most such campaigns we will add to it the element of prayer.

1.   Legal Challenges: 13 states are pledged to bring litigation against ObamaCare.  Individuals and groups should join in, the more, the merrier.  ObamaCare is a highly complicated Act and the litigation could take years to play out.   Whether it would ultimately succeed would depend I think largely on the political atmosphere by the time all of this reaches the Supreme Court.  If there is unending public outrage over this, and if the American people have strongly indicated their rejection of ObamaCare at the ballot box, that will have an impact upon the Court, based upon the prior history of the Court.

2.   Mass Rallies: Opponents should stage mass rallies at least one every few months to keep this issue front and center.  Frequent rallies at the local level, a la the tea party rallies, must become a feature of American life in the months and years ahead.

3.   State Action: State legislatures should draft petitions to Congress calling for the repeal of ObamaCare.  Governors should draft proclamations calling for the repeal of ObamaCare.  State legislation should be enacted to attack ObamaCare wherever possible.  In legislation this complicated there will be many avenues of attack on the state level.

4.   Education: A non-stop campaign must be mounted to educate the public about the provisions of ObamaCare, and the cost of implementing the provisions.   Blogs can be especially useful in accomplishing this.

5.   Citizen action: Activists should appear en masse at every town hall meeting of every Congress Critter in this country and peacefully demand the repeal of ObamaCare.  Endless petitions should be submitted to Congress calling for the repeal of ObamaCare.

Read the rest of this entry »


Sarah Palin’s Teleprompter

Monday, February 8, 2010 \PM\.\Mon\.

Sarah Palin in her speech at the Tea Party Convention mocked President Obama’s use of teleprompters. She herself was however caught with notes written on her left hand. The words “Energy”, “Tax,” and “Lift American Spirits” are clearly visible. There also appears to be the phrase “Budget Cuts” with the word “budget” crossed out.

To be clear, these notes were not for her speech, for which she used prepared remarks, but for the Q&A session that followed afterward, during which she glanced at her hand. Inevitably one must ask, how is this not worse?

Nothing in her hand is specific, but rather just general concepts of things that she supports as a political conservative. This same woman on “FOX News Sunday” declared she won’t “close the door” on a presidential bid in 2012.

Put another way: the leading contender, according to a recent poll, for the GOP nomination in 2012 cannot remember her own core principles as a conservative and must employ a cheat-sheet when asked about her beliefs.

In all honesty, I would vote for copy toner before I would ever think of voting for this woman.


Scott Brown: Good News for Obama 2012?

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 \AM\.\Wed\.

At first glance, it would appear that Scott Brown’s unlikely victory is bad news for President Obama’s long-term political future. Senator-elect Brown explicitly ran against the current health care reform bill, favoring federalist experimentation rather than a one-size-fits-all national approach. As health care reform was the central focus of President Obama’s first year in office, and Massachusettes is one of the most liberal states in the country, Brown’s victory there is a clear repudiation of the leadership of President Obama and Congressional Democrats during the past year. Nevertheless, I think a case could be made that Scott Brown’s victory will help the President in the long run. There are three main reasons:

1) Brown’s victory was too stunning to ignore. No one would have predicted it even a month ago, and I was still skeptical yesterday that Massachusetts was going to elect a Republican senator for the first time since 1972 – and to replace Ted Kennedy, of all people. Congressional Democratic leadership and the Administration will no longer be able to convince Blue Dog Democrats they know best and that Obama will be able to leverage his popularity to preserve their seats. That card has been played – not only in Massachusetts, but also in Virginia and New Jersey – and it wasn’t  a winner. This means that the Administration and the Congressional leadership will have to adjust their strategy, and pay more attention to voter sentiment. It’s probably too late at this point for this to help the Democrats much in November; they will take a well-deserved beating in this election. Nevertheless, it’s a lesson the Obama Administration will keep in mind going forward, just as the Clinton Administration pivoted after the Hillarycare debacle. President Obama will be forced to govern more like the moderate, fiscally responsible Democrat he campaigned as. And that is likely to increase his odds of re-election.

Read the rest of this entry »


Senator Nelson Sells Out Unborn, Health Care Bill Heads to Vote

Saturday, December 19, 2009 \PM\.\Sat\.

(Updates at the bottom of this article.)

Harry Reid was able to make huge concessions to the state of Nebraska and bought Senator Ben Nelson’s vote a la Mary Landrieu.  The vote seems headed to the floor with all 60 votes secured to impose on American’s draconian laws that would hike insurance rates and begin the downward slope towards European style socialism.

Nelson secured full federal funding for his state to expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Other states must pay a small portion of the additional cost. He won concessions for qualifying nonprofit insurers and for Medigap providers from a new insurance tax. He also was able to roll back cuts to health savings accounts.

What’s in the bill that I’m aware of?  I’ve broken down the Washington Post article almost verbatim below:

Read the rest of this entry »