In an attempt to secure the final and complete alienation of the Republican party from mainstream American politics for at least a generation, Chip Saltzman, the former bumble-fuck of a campaign manager for Mike Huckabee, is now running for chairmanship of the RNC and trying to woo supporters by sending them a CD with the song "Barack the Magic Negro."
Apparently, Mr. Saltzman, who's sole credential seems to be that he comes from a rich Tennessee family, thought it would be funny, and that Republicans would get the joke.
It's precisely that insularity, that belief that GOP insiders think racism is funny and that the rest of the world simply hasn't caught on yet, that is responsible for its drubbing in the past two national elections. If the GOP fails to understand that the basis for its failure is not the lack of conservatism on the part of its candidates, but rather its dogged adherence to failed and rejected conservative principles, it will not only fail to regain the power it's lost, but may relegate itself to the margins of American politics for a generation.
Those who doubt the truth of this need only look to the Oregon Republican Party, and its failure to mount a credible major-office candidate state-wide in 20 years. The Oregon GOP went far right in the 80s, and has never recovered, deciding that it would rather field candiates that would remain true to far-right dogma and lose, than move to the governable center and win.
Showing posts with label oregon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oregon. Show all posts
Friday, December 26, 2008
Friday, February 29, 2008
The Death and Re-Birth of Conservatism
Conservatism is dead, long live Conservatism.
In this day of highly polarized politics, no one philosophy has garnered more attention and acquired more influence than what is most commonly referred to as "right-wing extremism." Fueled in part by evangelical Christians 30-year conversion to the Republican party, and in part by talk radio hosts who appeal to the lowest common denominator (and by extension the least thoughtful/intelligent members of the electorate), this particular brand of social (as opposed to fiscal) conservatism has taken hold at every level of government, including most recently the White House.
The social conservative movement really hit its stride after September 11, providing a galvanizing call to arms in defense of a "new" and overt culture war. The American Christian Nation (ACN), the spearhead of Western European Christian Civilization, came into the light in order to defend against the Radical Fascist Islamic Fundamentalist movement that was sweeping the Middle East and the sub-Asian continent.
For years the ACN had been rallying against domestic moral failings - abortion, homosexuality, rock and rap music, and whatever else they didn't understand or like. They were (and are) intolerant, because tolerance equals acceptance, acceptance equals surrender, and surrender equals damnation. The issues were divisive and the ACN could do no more than preach to the choir - it was a total failure at converting the majority of Americans. 9-11 however gave them a cause that all Americans could get behind, or at least could not publically decry. And as a result, they believe they had crossed that last hurdle and had wrested control of America from the heathen majority.
Then came John McCain.
Conventional wisdom has long held that to win a party's nomination, a presidential candidate must carry the South, and in the case of Republicans, must carry the ACN (which is fairly headquartered in the South). In order to carry that vote, a Republican candidate must campaign on issues that make the ACN happy - anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, God in the classroom, and lip service to tax/spending control.
McCain is not a member of the ACN, and is not a true believer in the ACN movement. Rather, he is a pragmatist who holds his own opinions and rejects extremism is any form. And while his beliefs may not line up with yours or mine or the guy down the street, he does a pretty good job of keeping the pandering to a minimum.
With his pending nomination as the Republican presidential nominee, the ACN is going through a series of spasmodic seizures, trying to figure out what happened and how their party's nominee doesn't share their values. In particular, the ACN radio-show talking heads, i.e. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and the nameless ass-clown who got dissed by McCain earlier in the week, are all spitting mad that they have failed to sway the vote as they have in the past. (In fact, their vehement denials of such frustration only reinforces the fact of its presence - they doth protest too much).
It is pretty clear to anyone who has been paying attention for the past three years - America is fed up with the ACN and is about to re-assert its status as the majority. If Conservatism is not dead, it is at least Terri Schivo (or at least the ACN's opionion of Terri Schivo). A McCain victory in November would effectively pull the plug. Yes, McCain has campaigned on a platform of maintaining some elements of Bush's policies - that can hardly be a surprise. And yet it does not make him a Bush clone, as much as some might like to suggest. McCain is a moderate pragmatist - the antithesis of and an anathema to the ACN.
On the other hand, if McCain loses, the ACN will be able to rally and point out "see, without us the GOP cannot win." The result will be a shift in the GOP so far to the right that it might even rival the Oregon GOP. The ACN will gain not just control, but absolute control of the GOP for decades to come.
If you know anything about the Oregon GOP, you know that it is controlled by a cabal of ACN fanatics what have for decades proven incapable of winning a statewide general election for any office. Why? Because they field candidates who are true-blue ACN followers, while Oregon generally is about 160-degrees the opposite (the ACN does have some minor local traction throughout Oregon, but not much). The Oregon GOP would rather field candidates who will rigidly adhere to their ACN principles than candidates who can win. And if McCain loses, it is likely the national GOP will go the same route. Conservatism will thus be re-born, but will find itself flailing against the current for many years to come (or until the Democrats screw things up so badly that once again voters will chose change for the sake of change, consequences be damned).
McCain's nomination has dealt a near-fatal blow to Conservatism. His election will kill it entirely. His defeat will revive it and give rise to a Frankenstein's-monster version of the GOP.
Either way, it'll be a hell of a show.
In this day of highly polarized politics, no one philosophy has garnered more attention and acquired more influence than what is most commonly referred to as "right-wing extremism." Fueled in part by evangelical Christians 30-year conversion to the Republican party, and in part by talk radio hosts who appeal to the lowest common denominator (and by extension the least thoughtful/intelligent members of the electorate), this particular brand of social (as opposed to fiscal) conservatism has taken hold at every level of government, including most recently the White House.
The social conservative movement really hit its stride after September 11, providing a galvanizing call to arms in defense of a "new" and overt culture war. The American Christian Nation (ACN), the spearhead of Western European Christian Civilization, came into the light in order to defend against the Radical Fascist Islamic Fundamentalist movement that was sweeping the Middle East and the sub-Asian continent.
For years the ACN had been rallying against domestic moral failings - abortion, homosexuality, rock and rap music, and whatever else they didn't understand or like. They were (and are) intolerant, because tolerance equals acceptance, acceptance equals surrender, and surrender equals damnation. The issues were divisive and the ACN could do no more than preach to the choir - it was a total failure at converting the majority of Americans. 9-11 however gave them a cause that all Americans could get behind, or at least could not publically decry. And as a result, they believe they had crossed that last hurdle and had wrested control of America from the heathen majority.
Then came John McCain.
Conventional wisdom has long held that to win a party's nomination, a presidential candidate must carry the South, and in the case of Republicans, must carry the ACN (which is fairly headquartered in the South). In order to carry that vote, a Republican candidate must campaign on issues that make the ACN happy - anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, God in the classroom, and lip service to tax/spending control.
McCain is not a member of the ACN, and is not a true believer in the ACN movement. Rather, he is a pragmatist who holds his own opinions and rejects extremism is any form. And while his beliefs may not line up with yours or mine or the guy down the street, he does a pretty good job of keeping the pandering to a minimum.
With his pending nomination as the Republican presidential nominee, the ACN is going through a series of spasmodic seizures, trying to figure out what happened and how their party's nominee doesn't share their values. In particular, the ACN radio-show talking heads, i.e. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and the nameless ass-clown who got dissed by McCain earlier in the week, are all spitting mad that they have failed to sway the vote as they have in the past. (In fact, their vehement denials of such frustration only reinforces the fact of its presence - they doth protest too much).
It is pretty clear to anyone who has been paying attention for the past three years - America is fed up with the ACN and is about to re-assert its status as the majority. If Conservatism is not dead, it is at least Terri Schivo (or at least the ACN's opionion of Terri Schivo). A McCain victory in November would effectively pull the plug. Yes, McCain has campaigned on a platform of maintaining some elements of Bush's policies - that can hardly be a surprise. And yet it does not make him a Bush clone, as much as some might like to suggest. McCain is a moderate pragmatist - the antithesis of and an anathema to the ACN.
On the other hand, if McCain loses, the ACN will be able to rally and point out "see, without us the GOP cannot win." The result will be a shift in the GOP so far to the right that it might even rival the Oregon GOP. The ACN will gain not just control, but absolute control of the GOP for decades to come.
If you know anything about the Oregon GOP, you know that it is controlled by a cabal of ACN fanatics what have for decades proven incapable of winning a statewide general election for any office. Why? Because they field candidates who are true-blue ACN followers, while Oregon generally is about 160-degrees the opposite (the ACN does have some minor local traction throughout Oregon, but not much). The Oregon GOP would rather field candidates who will rigidly adhere to their ACN principles than candidates who can win. And if McCain loses, it is likely the national GOP will go the same route. Conservatism will thus be re-born, but will find itself flailing against the current for many years to come (or until the Democrats screw things up so badly that once again voters will chose change for the sake of change, consequences be damned).
McCain's nomination has dealt a near-fatal blow to Conservatism. His election will kill it entirely. His defeat will revive it and give rise to a Frankenstein's-monster version of the GOP.
Either way, it'll be a hell of a show.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Iowa Caucuses - Who cares?
Tonight a bunch of people representing a minority of whatever political party in which they claim membership will join with others in a state of absolutely no political importance whatsoever and "vote" for who they believe their party should nominate for president.
And my interest in their opinions is far less than the length of the above sentence. In a state that reflects absolutely nothing about any part of America I am familiar with, in a state with only seven electoral votes, the major political parties will decide which candidates are worthy of continued support.
Why is this so ridiculous? Aside from the fact that, seriously, does anybody outside of Iowa care what people in Iowa think?, wouldn't it make more sense to ensure that the candidates being supported are capable of winning the states that actually matter come general election time?
A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to become president. That total is reached with just the 11 following states: California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27), Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (15), North Carolina (15), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and any one of the remaining 39 states.
Yes, that's right - to become president a candidate must win a grand total of 12 of the 50 states. So why, I ask, does anybody give a crap about the other 38? Seriously, wouldn't the wise candidate focus on the states that matter and win those primaries? If you can carry the states that would get you elected in the general election, then it would seem that your party would have a pretty good incentive to fund your campaign.
Instead, over the next few weeks we'll hear about Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina - states that account for a mere 19 electoral votes. States of absolutely no individual political relevance.
Why not simply run a six week primary system where you start at the top of the list and hold primaries in two states per week, with the remaining 38 states holding their primary on the last week - allowing each candidate to pick whatever camel-back-breaking-state they choose (since they only need one, it doesn't really matter). Then, based on those results, decide what two candidates you'll send to the convention and let the remaining states battle it out on the convention floor - the way it used to be.
UPDATE:
Iowa caucuses are over, and, best I can tell, Kansas pulled it out over Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl. In a game full of turnovers and big plays, it became more and more clear that if Oregon had remained healthy, they would truly have been a juggernaut. Nobody in the country could have laid a hand on them.
Oh, and I think Barak Obama and Mike Huckabee won something tonight too.
And my interest in their opinions is far less than the length of the above sentence. In a state that reflects absolutely nothing about any part of America I am familiar with, in a state with only seven electoral votes, the major political parties will decide which candidates are worthy of continued support.
Why is this so ridiculous? Aside from the fact that, seriously, does anybody outside of Iowa care what people in Iowa think?, wouldn't it make more sense to ensure that the candidates being supported are capable of winning the states that actually matter come general election time?
A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to become president. That total is reached with just the 11 following states: California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27), Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (15), North Carolina (15), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and any one of the remaining 39 states.
Yes, that's right - to become president a candidate must win a grand total of 12 of the 50 states. So why, I ask, does anybody give a crap about the other 38? Seriously, wouldn't the wise candidate focus on the states that matter and win those primaries? If you can carry the states that would get you elected in the general election, then it would seem that your party would have a pretty good incentive to fund your campaign.
Instead, over the next few weeks we'll hear about Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina - states that account for a mere 19 electoral votes. States of absolutely no individual political relevance.
Why not simply run a six week primary system where you start at the top of the list and hold primaries in two states per week, with the remaining 38 states holding their primary on the last week - allowing each candidate to pick whatever camel-back-breaking-state they choose (since they only need one, it doesn't really matter). Then, based on those results, decide what two candidates you'll send to the convention and let the remaining states battle it out on the convention floor - the way it used to be.
UPDATE:
Iowa caucuses are over, and, best I can tell, Kansas pulled it out over Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl. In a game full of turnovers and big plays, it became more and more clear that if Oregon had remained healthy, they would truly have been a juggernaut. Nobody in the country could have laid a hand on them.
Oh, and I think Barak Obama and Mike Huckabee won something tonight too.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Pac-10 week three - oh well
So I was off in my predictions last week. I knew UCLA was overrated and Arizona was still a distant threat to be consistent, but come on - Utah was 0-2 and throttled by OSU, while New Mexico had only beaten a Pac-10 team one other time in its history.
Rather than the 7-1 outcome I predicted (with Stanford losing to San Jose State), UCLA chokes (not really), Arizona just can't quite get there, and Stanford rolls. So we went 6-2. Still not bad, but should've been better.
Most notable, however, was UCLA's tremendous beatdown at the hands (or hooves) of the Utes. But stop for a moment and think about UCLA. Sure, they had moved up to No. 11 in the polls. But did anybody stop to ask why? Two reasons - 1) they beat USC last year and 2) they have 20 returning starters.
So? Oregon State beat USC too. The Beavs are hardly worthy of a ranking. 20 returning starters? From what, a mediocre to poor team? UCLA wasn't anything to write home about last year (or the year before that) and there was no reason to think that had changed. They got lucky one game at the end of the season when USC was looking past them. UCLA has a not-very-good football team, a not-very-good coach, a not-very-good quarterback, and return 20 not-very-good starters. What's it mean? It means they're not very good.
But should they have got taken behind the woodshed at Utah? An 0-2 Mountain West team should not, EVER, lay the beatdown on a Pac-10 team - not even Stanford. It is thus only fitting that UCLA plummeted from number 11 to being unranked, ala Michigan post Appy State.
Anyhow, the Pac-1o improved its non-conference performance to 20-6 (.7692), although the Beavs' "big" win was against 1-AA Idaho State. As I predicted, the conference went 1-1 against the Big-10 and Big-12, with Washington losing to Ohio State and USC thumping Nebraska. Note to Nebraska - football doesn't live there anymore. It moved away years ago. Try competitive corn-shucking.
Meanwhile, the Big-12 went 27-9 (.75), the Big-10 went 26-7 (.7878), while the SEC went 15-3 (.8333). Oddly, the SEC played a bunch of confernce games, so it's tough to really evaluate it with the same view as the other conferences, who other than UCLA v. Stanford have yet to play within their own conferences.
So my predictions for the coming week:
Pac-10: Arizona at Cal - Cal, 52-10.
WSU at USC - USC, 32-17
UO at Stanford - UO, 49-3
OSU at ASU - ASU, 17-13
UW at UCLA - UW, 38-20
Rather than the 7-1 outcome I predicted (with Stanford losing to San Jose State), UCLA chokes (not really), Arizona just can't quite get there, and Stanford rolls. So we went 6-2. Still not bad, but should've been better.
Most notable, however, was UCLA's tremendous beatdown at the hands (or hooves) of the Utes. But stop for a moment and think about UCLA. Sure, they had moved up to No. 11 in the polls. But did anybody stop to ask why? Two reasons - 1) they beat USC last year and 2) they have 20 returning starters.
So? Oregon State beat USC too. The Beavs are hardly worthy of a ranking. 20 returning starters? From what, a mediocre to poor team? UCLA wasn't anything to write home about last year (or the year before that) and there was no reason to think that had changed. They got lucky one game at the end of the season when USC was looking past them. UCLA has a not-very-good football team, a not-very-good coach, a not-very-good quarterback, and return 20 not-very-good starters. What's it mean? It means they're not very good.
But should they have got taken behind the woodshed at Utah? An 0-2 Mountain West team should not, EVER, lay the beatdown on a Pac-10 team - not even Stanford. It is thus only fitting that UCLA plummeted from number 11 to being unranked, ala Michigan post Appy State.
Anyhow, the Pac-1o improved its non-conference performance to 20-6 (.7692), although the Beavs' "big" win was against 1-AA Idaho State. As I predicted, the conference went 1-1 against the Big-10 and Big-12, with Washington losing to Ohio State and USC thumping Nebraska. Note to Nebraska - football doesn't live there anymore. It moved away years ago. Try competitive corn-shucking.
Meanwhile, the Big-12 went 27-9 (.75), the Big-10 went 26-7 (.7878), while the SEC went 15-3 (.8333). Oddly, the SEC played a bunch of confernce games, so it's tough to really evaluate it with the same view as the other conferences, who other than UCLA v. Stanford have yet to play within their own conferences.
So my predictions for the coming week:
Pac-10: Arizona at Cal - Cal, 52-10.
WSU at USC - USC, 32-17
UO at Stanford - UO, 49-3
OSU at ASU - ASU, 17-13
UW at UCLA - UW, 38-20
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
