mycatharsis.com

As the presumptive Republican nominee last month, McCain bumped up his fundraising and raised $15 million.  Ron Paul never broke out of the 6% range in the primaries, but he did raise $20 million in December! And was the only Republican to generate any excitement.

A Bob Barr - Ron Paul ticked would seriously get my consideration even if Obama is the Democratic nominee.  Frankly, an Obama, McCain, and Paul three way scrum would be just about a dream for me.  Not so much for the result, but just the fact that we have the three most decent and seemingly competent of the candidates running.  When you think last year at this time,  Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton were essentially being written in by the media as the nominees, we’ve come a heckuva long way, and my faith in the intelligence of the electorate to make smart, individual, choices has been renewed somewhat. With the economy doing what it’s doing, I still think he’d be one of the best stewards of our economy, even if he can be a little unyielding at times in terms of principle vs reality.  As to what ails us, his explanations make the most sense to me and haven’t really been refuted to my mind in any major way …

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 …

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.

CERTAINLY the only best rap video for a Republican presidential candidate I’ve ever seen! It is actually kinda catchy.

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).