mycatharsis.com

very weird,  what is this?

saw part of the debate last night,  but missed that highlight unfortunately! I do remember thinking, though, that the very first question,from Brian Williams to Romney, seemed like a total softball question.

And, Governor Romney, I thought we’d begin with you.  The
president just today signed off on this economic stimulus plan that
would send out 116 million checks to American homes.     The plan is somewhat contrary to yours, providing lots of short-
term stimulus to individuals.  Your plan, as you know, focuses as much
on the long term as the short term.

Are you disappointed that your recipe for the economy was not
embraced by the president?  And, as the follow-up, will you now
embrace this plan?

Not really saying it means anything, maybe it was just me, but it seemed really odd phrased and uttered…

Only caught a few minutes of it last night after grabbing some beer at the Great Dane.  Is it just me or is Fox News not even really trying to give a semblance of so-called ‘fair and balanced’?  It doesn’t seem that long ago I used to watch and really appreciate their network, but boy, either I’ve changed or they have, or, most likely, we both have.

There is NO way I believe that Luntz’s focus group was made up of undecided voters.  Of course, maybe it wasn’t, I didn’t catch the beginning, so I don’t know who Fox claimed these guys were.  But they usually claim it’s undecideds in the focus group, so I’m making an assumption.  No way in hell.  First question out of the chute, the group can’t do enough to praise Fred Thompson, using more political buzzwords than you’ll hear on a Chris Mathews show.   “He’s hit his stride”, he sounded “forceful”, basically all the useless stuff political wonks focus on when they’re not talking issues.  They sounded much more like campaign workers or a political junky like myself than undecideds.  Of course, being a fox show, they couldn’t talk to this group without getting them to chorus that Ron Paul was the worst of the night!

Paul’s exchange with Romney, I think, is a seminal point in this campaign so far.  Paul has rightly come down hard on the other Republicans for pushing us into war with Iran.  As he said, are we really so worried about a couple speedboats playing tag with U.S. Navy destroyers that we’re ready to go to war over it?  Romney tried what McCain, Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney himself have all tried before, using humor to dismiss Paul.   Usually humor that falls flat, too.  (McCain tonight tried it as well, and frankly, looked really bad smirking while Paul railed against the casualties that are piling up in the middle east. )  Either way, Romney then launched into his own speech on Iran, and proceeded to make Paul’s point by pushing that aggressive policy against Iran! The GOP now knows, they can’t say they weren’t warned …

Speaking of Paul, that newsletter business, with racist attacks in a newsletter bearing his name, was pretty depressing and revolting to read.  I definitely do not believe those were his words, for many reasons.  Didn’t sound like him stylistically (one paragraph called the LA race riots the most severe problem facing this country, something I just cannot see an economic-minded libertarian such as Paul saying), he had already run for President in 1988 on a semi-major ticket where you think those views would have been previously revealed, either by him or the media (and, I think, he was completely open-borders back then as well, which would not go over well with a racist crowd), and as much as I’ve heard him speak over the last year, what I read does not jive with this man at all.  Still,  if my names plastered on a newsletter, I’m going to make darn sure that what’s in it does not conflict with my beliefs.  If he could get himself to a point of being a serious candidate for the nomination, this scandal will come back and probably would be a fatal blow, unfortunately.  But Paul is still having a great impact on this race.  He is the face of the conflict within the Republican party among neo and paleo conservatives.  Even if he just stays at 5-10% throughout every state he competes in, he will show the GOP there is a significant contingent among their ranks that still care about small government, the Constitution, and personal freedom.

Among these guys, my thinking is I would definitely vote for Paul,  and would consider McCain and Huckabee.  Still, I think I’ll vote for Barack Obama over any of these guys, Paul excepted.  Frankly, those two sometimes seem to be the only adults running this year …

That about sums up the New Hampshire primary for me. Obama was unable to put Clinton away and Ron Paul’s chances for success were doused with cold water.  I wonder why the polls predicting an Obama blowout were so off, maybe with only four days between Iowa and New Hampshire, most people were enamored with Obama, but didn’t feel comfortable enough to vote for them.   Clinton, after all, dominated in most all of the New Hampshire polls until Iowa.  Their speeches pretty clearly illustrated the differences between the two.  Obama’s speech was more to rally the supporters, look towards the next primaries, and, most of all, involve his followers in his campaign, while Clinton’s speech was mostly about her (”I have found my voice … et al”).   It seems typical of most of their speeches, and is partly why I enjoy Obama’s speaking style so much and can’t stand Clinton’s, and dread the thought of listening to that self-centeredness (and, as in the 90s, being praised by a fawning main stream media, no less) for another 8 years.

Even more impressive, 83% of his supporters are “certain” they’ll vote for him, fully 19% more than either of the two guys ahead of him!  Flashing on Drudge right now is Obama 37, Clinton 27 which is just as exciting, but that link’s not up yet, that I can find at least …

They’re even threatening to pull their sponsorship of Sunday’s Fox debate. Apparently FoxNews is more concerned about their own hold on power than in bringing new voters to a party that got trounced in the last election. A candidate places in the top 5 in Iowa’s caucus, seems to be the CLEAR frontrunner for the GOP in last quarters fundraising, seems to be the type who would do great in New Hampshire, has the strong support of the states party the debate purportedly is for, and he doesn’t meet Fox’s unspecified ‘criteria’ for inclusion? It really is remarkable. They get trounced in 2006, with bleak prospects for 08, and how do they treat the only candidate who appears to be bringing them new voters, the only candidate who’s showing any signs of grassroots support and enthusiasm? Fox and the GOP power structure would much prefer to be a big fish in a rapidly evaporating pond.

Obama’s speech last night was amazing. Inspiring, patriotic, reasonable and hopeful. You know he’s liberal, but you also get the impression that he’s pragmatic and will do what is best for the country, as opposed to what is good for him or the party.  A goosebumps kind of speech.  I sure hope he’s the Dem’s pick, I mean the difference between him and Clinton/Edwards? Wow, just leaps and bounds. I enjoyed watching the returns, but really wasn’t putting much stock in what happened, remembering Tom Harkin got 70 some percent in 1992.  But Obama just about had me believing I was watching history.  He brought to my mind the eloquence of Reagan and Kennedy, a once in a generation kind of candidate.  If he wins New Hampshire, he may successfully take the mantle of inevitability away from Senator Clinton, which would leave her with, politically speaking, nothing that I can think of.

Huckabee’s speech was excellent as well,  on content very close to Obama’s.  His urging not to hate, but to love seemed to me at least somewhat a repudiation of the angry nativism most all the other candidates are so eager to pander to.  I like his views on immigration, taxes, and abortion, but worry about him on the economy, which I think may be THE issue of 08, even if Iraq takes a turn for the worse.  But I like that he’s convinced me that he would try to do the ‘good’ thing as president, which goes a long way when his main competitors will do whatever is best for his own popularity, no matter the expense to others (Romney), seems rather uninterested in running (Thompson) or seems like he would make President Bush look like a beacon of openness and accountability in comparison (Giuliani).

And Ron Paul might be disappointed with 10%, but he did end up at the maximum level of his polling numbers. Double figures in Iowa, for him, really isn’t bad.  I wanna see how he does in Wyoming on Saturday, I think he has a legitimate shot at a top 3 or even higher finish among the GOP there…

Hugh Hewitt mentioned in his column something I’ve been saying for awhile, but not many people seem to be considering.

Maybe illegal immigration doesn’t matter that much after all?

Nope, I really don’t think it does, and I can’t understand why the talking heads  don’t notice it.  The one candidate seen as most soft on immigration won 95% white Iowa.  The one candidate who defined nativism as his pet cause didn’t even make it to Iowa, never rising above 1% in the polls.      Huckabee was the only GOP candidate talking about compassion for illegals, and he was the only candidate to come from nowhere and rise to the top of the pack!  In short, a vocal minority is still a minority ….

Useful to remember with the first vote about to take place, and with media enterprises like Faux News and ABC trying to decide for us who ’should’ win the election, and who ’should’ be allowed to debate …

The 1992 Iowa Democratic caucus results …

Tom Harkin - 76%

Paul Tsongas - 4%

Bill Clinton - 3%

Bob Kerrey - 2%

Jerry Brown - 2%

That is not a misprint; the 1992 nominee and winner at 3 freakin percent!  And to show that 92 wasn’t simply a freak occurrence, the 1988 Republican Caucus results …

Bob Dole - 37%

Pat Robertson - 25%

George H.W. Bush - 19%

Clearly, simply winning Iowa tomorrow will not be enough.  But more importantly, look at Clinton’s numbers in his first 1992 primary. 3% !!!! That’s Duncan Hunter territory.  Fox and ABC trying to restrict candidates by certain criteria looks pretty foolish in that context.  But even ABC’s more formal criteria of 5% looks bad in this context.    They would have dropped a winning candidate from their debates if this was 1992.  And the polls, especially the national ones, don’t count for a single thing! So why are they used to narrow the field?  Including Fred Thompson over Ron Paul looks simply foolish, as Thompson continues a free-fall and Paul’s numbers only rise.  But that’s assuming these companies have no agenda with the candidates they select, and it seems pretty well accepted, by left and right,  that that is not the case.  A sad state of affairs, to say the least.  No wonder people even trust politicians more than they do the media!

Of course, even if, as it now looks, Ron Paul beats Rudy Giuliani in both Iowa AND New Hampshire, Rudy does not have to worry about Fox News forgetting about him.  Well before I was aware of the parasitic/symbiotic relationship between the two, I was confused as to why FoxNews seemed to be shilling so hard for Giuliani.  The only confusion I have now is why I used to watch them in the first place.

All in all, though, I think I’m more disillusioned than ever with the debate process.  The questions picked by the moderators have bordered on absurd, especially considering the precarious situations we find ourselves in both militarily and economically nowadays. Even when these important issues are raised, the candidates are only allowed a few minutes, tops, to promote their vision.  I think we’d do much better with a round table format, questions picked by popular vote over the internet to ensure the candidates are asked the questions voters want to hear,  and much longer response times, say 10 to 15 minutes apiece. And to make it really interesting, combine the Democratic and Republican debates into one.

It’s something I’ve been wondering about, and there is some reason to think there’s something to it.  He has been the most positive voice in these debates,  and has sounded the most moderate as Giuliani and Romney have been racing to the right. Huckabee, meanwhile, has stated that while he’s conservative, he’s not ‘angry’ about it, has sounded very moderate and positive in the debates, even defending compassion towards illegal immigrants.  At the same time, he has surged to front-runner status, while all others, Ron Paul excepted, have faltered or languished in the polls.  Going off topic for a moment, even to someone like me that believes the immigration issue is not nearly as important as people think, I’ve really found it surprising that Tom Tancredo can’t muster more than 1 or 2% support in polls.  And that is 1 or 2% of the populace MOST likely to support his nativist views, GOP primary voters.  As Tancredo said in the last debate, the candidates are trying to ‘out-Tancredo’ Tancredo, and that is pretty baffling to me when Tancredo has not ever been out of the GOP basement, poll-wise.

It will be interesting to see if Huckabee’s new found support lasts.  He has not handled the increased scrutiny particularly well, at least to me.  Refusing to back down from his 1992 statement that AIDS patients be essentially quarantined, and now throwing out the first attacks at an opponent’s religion sure have not endeared himself to me personally.  If his support continues to grow, he may be on to something, but if his boom does not last, it may well be that his bump may come from a strongly moderate part of the GOP electorate, who, while conservative economically, feel left out of the process with the current crop of candidates and are looking for someone who has a positive and traditionally American message, something Huckabee has excelled at in the debates.

The one candidate that still intriques me is Mitt Romney,  GOVERNOR Romney, I spose I should say, as opposed to presidential candidate Romney.  His remarks about doubling the size of Gitmo and his recent strident nativism have really turned me off to him, as does his support for ‘three-strikes’ and a national ID system.   As does his seeming complete lack of political principles, opting for political expediency instead.  On the other hand, extreme adherence to principles turns me off as well, as that only displays an unwillingness to acknowledge reality.  But Romney does seem to go too far the other direction,  making it hard to see what principles he really has.  But he does have a strong track record of success, including in the private sector, and seems willing to listen to others and the public in making the right decision.  I think back to his debate statement that he’d consult with his lawyers before deciding to declare war.  While completely wrong constitutionally, as Ron Paul correctly pointed out, I think he was trying to convey a willingness to listen to advisors and not make a decision to plunge us into war willy-nilly.  Perhaps that’s wishful think and I should just admit how little I have in common with these GOP candidates, again Paul excluded.  But I REALLY don’t want another 4 (or god forbid, 8)  years of a Clinton in office, and all the self-centered policy positions, scandals, focus group tested responses, and lack of conviction that comes with it.

Maybe I’ll get lucky and Obama’s poll surge will continue,  I can barely describe how sweet a sight that would be.  I can’t say I agree with all his views, but he is by far the most refreshing candidate in the field, and simply eliminating the possibility of four more years of the Clinton/Bush dynasty would elevate him to near-sainthood in my book!

After sitting thru the entire debate last night, I have to admit to myself what a huge political geek I am!  That said, it WAS a lot of fun to watch.

A spirited and lively debate. The format is, I think, a big winner. I love a debate with tough questions, and Anderson Cooper was as effective as any moderator I’ve seen at keeping the candidates on topic and answering the questions they were asked. Mike Huckabee’s eloquence really impressed me. His answer regarding illegal immigration was excellent in turning away the nativist wing of the party. I’m slowly becoming comfortable enough with him to consider voting for him if he’s the nominee.

I really enjoyed watching Romney and Giuliani go after each other, if only to see them tear each other down. Romney seemed as slick as always to me, but not nearly as charming. His answer on his abortion flip-flop was quite good, but was also neutralized with me by his ineffective attempts at explaining another flip-flop on the issue of gays in the military.  By the way, the hullabaloo over the Brigadier General being a Hillary Clinton plant is a non-issue with me. The gay General who asked the question was quite clearly biased, and was the low point of the night for me, as he was obviously a shill pushing an agenda. I tuned out his post-answer rants, and figure most people watching this debate may have as well. And frankly, dedicating as much time as they did to ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ was ludicrous, with so many other important issues ignored, such as the plummeting dollar. Giuliani, on the other hand, did quite well, I think. I still am least comfortable with him above all others, but I respected his answers on abortion and New York as a ’sanctuary city’. He seemed to try to answer as honestly as possible, unlike Romney, who seemingly would not let a word escape his mouth that might possibly upset the far right. Giuliani even mentioned states rights a time or two, although unconvincing, it’s reassuring to know he’s at least aware of the concept.

Ron Paul was amazing, which was all the more impressive because of the ridiculous nature of the questions asked of him. The first had to do with the Council of Foreign Relations, and that tells you pretty much all you need to know. I am a huge fan of Paul and his views, but have long wondered if he is more of a policy wonk than an effective campaigner. But his answer to this attempt to portray him as a conspiracy nut was BRILLIANT, deftly turning away any insinuation that he has tinfoil hats in his closet, while directly answering the question that was asked, in an honest way, no less! For political and rhetorical skill, it was an amazingly effective answer. He also deftly turned away McCain’s attack, again having to repeat that simply because he doesn’t want to bomb everybody doesn’t make him an isolationist. McCain’s attack is a good sign for Paul, a sign that his views are finally being heard, even by deafest Republicans of all, many of whom, unfortunately, happen to be running for President. He also had the second or third to last question of the night, asking him to run as an independent. Again, his answer showed a skillful political touch, answering the question while also giving himself a chance to tout his fundraising prowess and the excitement building among his supporters, and doing it all in a humble manner, expressing simply that he’s lucky ‘to be a part of it’. A huge part, Mr. Paul!

McCain did quite well, I felt, although Paul did get the best of him on their exchange. I missed most of Romney’s hemming on torture, but McCain’s answer was quite good. I also liked his answer on the role of the Vice President, and got the feeling from him that, ever so slightly, he is trying to return to the agitator role he had in 2000. He seems like a natural fighter, politically speaking, and it’s a horse race between him and Huckabee for number two in my book (behind Mr. Paul).

Mitt Romney has been defending himself recently from charges that one of his appointed judges allowed a murderer ‘walk’, a murderer who recently has been accused of killing again.  From what I had heard on the news and talk shows, I had assumed the judge let him walk on some sort of technicality or appeal.  Not the case.  Actually, he had already finished serving his sentence, and the prosecutors were trying to keep him in prison by bringing up new charges.   After reading this piece on solitary confinement that includes an interview with him, I can’t say I really blame prosecutors for trying to do just that.

While in the DDU, Tavares has had many disputes with officers, some of them physical, which have resulted in repeated extensions of his DDU sentence as well as the loss of radio and television. Tavares, 37, has a graying, thinning crewcut and jagged teeth. He talks slowly and deliberately, and behind heavy eyelids, he seems to struggle to contain his anger. Prison officials view him as a troublemaker.

It sounds like everyone knew this guy was trouble.  Nonetheless, any blame to be laid at Romney’s feet should be minimal, at best.  First and foremost, those of us who believe in personal responsibility have to first lay the blame at the feet of the dirtball who did the killing.   Yes Romney appointed the judge that let him go, and it could be argued that her appointment was based as much on a need for ‘diversity’ as anything else.  She did, though, require him to check in with a parole officer three times a week, but he probably got lost in the system when he stopped doing just that.   While I stridently oppose mandatory minimums and feel that sentencing for most crimes, in general, is overly harsh, the fact is that this guy served only 16 years for killing his own mother.  That is what seems most out of whack to me.

The legal system is complex, and every person and case in that system is unique.  Criticism of it is most often leveled at it with the benefit of hindsight, a benefit the system itself does not have when it actually has to make these decisions.  I do have to think, though, that if we stopped locking up nonviolent offenders and stopped worrying about behavioral crimes like drugs, prostitution, etc,  that the corrections system in general would have a lot more time to dedicate to worrying about those we want them to worry about.