Skip to main content

Some thoughts on Super Tuesday Eve

The jamming together of all the primaries and caucuses into a month-long period has created a media frenzy that has the virtue of unpredictability and the vice of trivializing real issues.

I'm coming around to the position that we need to move toward either a national primary or a series of regional primaries, even though I worry that this will forever eliminate the possibility of a viable national third party.

On the other hand, I love seeing the mainstream media having to admit--as James Carville did on CNN while I was waiting with my wife in the doctor's office (so I don't have a URL for it)--that nobody really knows what's going to happen.

I snicker at Huckabee bristling over the repeated "God questions" being asked of a candidate who pandered to the Christian right at every step of his campaign.

I'm still trying to decide if Ron Paul is or is not a clueless racist (or just clueless, or just racist), but it doesn't matter. The prevailing script was to trivialize him, and if it had not been the newsletters there would have been something else.

At first I thought John Edwards dropped out too early to benefit Obama, but then I reconsidered; his instincts were good, and he probably timed it just right.

My heart thrills at the thought of a joint Ann Coulter-Hillary Clinton campaign appearance.

I still think Hillary will out-organize Obama at the very end, and seize the nomination. Thereafter, even if Obama accepts the VP nod, I don't think more than a fraction of the people he's energized will still be there in November, which brings me to my least favorite prediction:

In a McCain-Clinton campaign everybody loses, because both are insider politicians who will actually change little or nothing.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...