Mitt Romney has won Michigan. Sort of, anyway. Since Michigan assigns its delegates to the Republican National Convention two per congressional district, Rick Santorum will win several delegates from the state. But beyond that, what can we make of yesterday's primaries?
We can't make much out of Arizona, as a Romney win was a foregone conclusion. It would be ill advised for either camp among the front runners to make too much of Michigan. Romney's win was not astounding and could be yet another signal of weak support. Santorum definitely looks better after his showing here, but it wasn't exactly a clarion call. What does it all mean?
Obviously, it means that Super Tuesday looms big. Either candidate could emerge next week the clear front runner, while a muddled result would indicate only more uncertainty among those claiming to be Republican voters. Gingrich really out to drop in favor of Santorum, to allow conservative voters a more clear option between Romney and Santorum. Still, why did the Michigan vote go as it did?
Several pundits say that it's because the economy is still the main issue in the minds of most voters, and they're probably right. Santorum has set himself as the man of traditional values, and it is interesting that, while he took the evangelical vote, his fellow Catholics went to Romney. We can argue about what exactly that means (we are skeptical that each and every voter who identifies himself as Catholic is an honest to God practicing, serious Catholic, while Evangelicals are pretty solid as a group) but it surely means something. That something is, quite frankly, vaguely sinister.
The economy is important; it would be stupid to argue otherwise. Still, we wonder if there's a point where the state of the economy becomes too important. When the complementary political issues become in fact secondary to the economy, we need to ask ourselves precisely what is gained and what is lost by that.
If a better economy were to automatically allow ourselves to become better persons then making it the primary bone of contention makes perfect sense. But if a better economy simply allows us to indulge ourselves in the various forms of gluttony, buying too much, eating and drinking too much, sex without regard to the sanctity of life, and all the other forms of selfishness and self indulgence which high times allow (without a proper self discipline, of course) then what do we actually have? Do we have a nation with a solid core of right and wrong, or one which will soon suffer an internal decay which will destroy us?
It is too much of the latter in the United States today, unfortunately. Why are so many voters, even and especially Republicans, so willing to ignore abortion or try to sweep the gay marriage questions under the carpet? Because they are issues which concern human well being in a way which does not address the economy. They get in the way of electoral victory, but, in a more telling way, the might just get in the way of the good times we can otherwise have in a strong economy. Putting economic questions completely separate from the moral ones speak to our baser and not our better instincts.
Such is not a recipe for a strong nation over the long term. Yet if that is the recipe of choice for modern Americans, so be it. Just don't be shocked at the taste it leaves.
Showing posts with label 2010 elections 2012 elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2010 elections 2012 elections. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Ron Paul Stumps the State
Congressman Ron Paul made an appearance in Dearborn last night, and it seemed he was quite a hit. He called for the US to stay out of foreign military entanglements, and for greater liberties at home. They are ideas which certainly merit debate.
When to use military force is perhaps the most important aspect of the foreign policy of any nation the size and scope of ours. We have to agree with Rep. Paul, for example, about the Syrian situation. As bad as it might by for Syrian citizens, we cannot and should not play policeman in each and every trouble spot on the globe. But attacking Iran, which also says we should not do, is trickier. If they have or are close to having nuclear weapons, and given the radical nature of that country, a preemptive strike should not be off the table.
He criticized the Vietnam War as 'fruitless', pointing out that we have essentially won the peace there. But such opinions ignore the very real Soviet and communist threat which was behind the Vietnam War. US involvement there at least arguably (and we say arguable very loosely, for we think it pretty certain) helped drain the Soviets of their power and in the long run should be considered in that light. In short, Paul reeks of that libertarian strain which would allow virtually no military foreign action at all, if it ever even saw fit to engage in war. The fact is that we must sometimes use force even in areas which may not be immediate threats to us or our allies. We must consider our long term security, and that might mean aggressive action, dependent on circumstances.
The Congressman is on firmer ground with internal civil liberties and broader domestic policy. The auto bailouts were wrong and Obamacare merely adds an unnecessary layer to the doctor patient relationship. But what may be most telling in the article on his appearance which is in today's Detroit Free Press, Paul's anti-military comments seemed to be given greater prominence. It's as though the liberal press really wants to like him in certain areas (foreign policy) and not so much on internal questions such as health care. That's not surprising, but it does dilute their vaunted objectivity.
Paul says that 'both left and right undermine our liberties', and to a point he's correct. Unfortunately his ideas effectively undermine American independence and, in the long run, American liberty too. For that, he's bad for the US, and bad for Michigan. If he would moderate at least the more extreme of his views he might become palatable. Until then, he merits the third or fourth place finish he'll get today in our primary.
When to use military force is perhaps the most important aspect of the foreign policy of any nation the size and scope of ours. We have to agree with Rep. Paul, for example, about the Syrian situation. As bad as it might by for Syrian citizens, we cannot and should not play policeman in each and every trouble spot on the globe. But attacking Iran, which also says we should not do, is trickier. If they have or are close to having nuclear weapons, and given the radical nature of that country, a preemptive strike should not be off the table.
He criticized the Vietnam War as 'fruitless', pointing out that we have essentially won the peace there. But such opinions ignore the very real Soviet and communist threat which was behind the Vietnam War. US involvement there at least arguably (and we say arguable very loosely, for we think it pretty certain) helped drain the Soviets of their power and in the long run should be considered in that light. In short, Paul reeks of that libertarian strain which would allow virtually no military foreign action at all, if it ever even saw fit to engage in war. The fact is that we must sometimes use force even in areas which may not be immediate threats to us or our allies. We must consider our long term security, and that might mean aggressive action, dependent on circumstances.
The Congressman is on firmer ground with internal civil liberties and broader domestic policy. The auto bailouts were wrong and Obamacare merely adds an unnecessary layer to the doctor patient relationship. But what may be most telling in the article on his appearance which is in today's Detroit Free Press, Paul's anti-military comments seemed to be given greater prominence. It's as though the liberal press really wants to like him in certain areas (foreign policy) and not so much on internal questions such as health care. That's not surprising, but it does dilute their vaunted objectivity.
Paul says that 'both left and right undermine our liberties', and to a point he's correct. Unfortunately his ideas effectively undermine American independence and, in the long run, American liberty too. For that, he's bad for the US, and bad for Michigan. If he would moderate at least the more extreme of his views he might become palatable. Until then, he merits the third or fourth place finish he'll get today in our primary.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Kingmakers?
Rick Santorum has cruised to victory in three states: Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri. Sure, no delegates were awarded. But when one of your main rivals can win with majorities, not pluralities, in two of the states in question (and a solid plurality in the third) then Mitt Romney has to take notice.
It certainly shows that confidence in Romney is shallow, especially among conservative voters. Where he has won he's been expected to win: New Hampshire, Nevada, and Florida, and likely Maine this week. Yet that Caucus might become interesting if Ron Paul can make a strong showing there, as he plans to in any state with delegates granted proportional to the vote. If Paul can undercut Romney support there, it would be another chink in the Romney armor.
But what does this all mean for Michigan and Michigan Republican voters? After Maine's results are announced on February 11th, there are no more primaries or caucuses until the 28th, in Arizona, and right here in the Great Lakes State. With Romney hurting, might that put Michigan in a position to make a real difference in the GOP Presidential race?
How often have we been in such an ideal spot to perhaps crown a winner? Is it possible that Michigan could prove pivotal for the eventual nominee? Seeing as Super Tuesday, so called because of all the delegates awarded on that day of many primaries, etc., is the following Tuesday, March 6th, and seeing as momentum is tomorrow's starting pitcher, our fair state may play a more important role in an election than it ever has before. A weak Romney showing in Maine, or especially a Ron Paul upset of some sort, combined with, say, Santorum wins here and in Arizona, would leave Romney in the fight of his political life.
When we examine the states holding elections on Super Tuesday, we see that eight of the 10 are significantly conservative, although as it stands right now only Romney and Paul will appear on the Virginia ballot (for legal reasons local to Virginia). From our vantage point this far away, it would seem that only Vermont and his home state of Massachusetts are locks for Mitt. As such, wins by Santorum or Gingrich or Paul on February 28th might play huge in the long run. A brokered convention, the first since 1976, isn't all that outlandish of a thought.
Will that happen? We have to think no, unfortunately. But not solely because Romney is still the preemptive favorite. A win in Michigan could change the course of the race so much that a non-brokered convention might be someone's else's day in the sun. And we could have created their dawn, while being the gloaming of someone's else's hopes. It is a very nice stool on which we perch.
It certainly shows that confidence in Romney is shallow, especially among conservative voters. Where he has won he's been expected to win: New Hampshire, Nevada, and Florida, and likely Maine this week. Yet that Caucus might become interesting if Ron Paul can make a strong showing there, as he plans to in any state with delegates granted proportional to the vote. If Paul can undercut Romney support there, it would be another chink in the Romney armor.
But what does this all mean for Michigan and Michigan Republican voters? After Maine's results are announced on February 11th, there are no more primaries or caucuses until the 28th, in Arizona, and right here in the Great Lakes State. With Romney hurting, might that put Michigan in a position to make a real difference in the GOP Presidential race?
How often have we been in such an ideal spot to perhaps crown a winner? Is it possible that Michigan could prove pivotal for the eventual nominee? Seeing as Super Tuesday, so called because of all the delegates awarded on that day of many primaries, etc., is the following Tuesday, March 6th, and seeing as momentum is tomorrow's starting pitcher, our fair state may play a more important role in an election than it ever has before. A weak Romney showing in Maine, or especially a Ron Paul upset of some sort, combined with, say, Santorum wins here and in Arizona, would leave Romney in the fight of his political life.
When we examine the states holding elections on Super Tuesday, we see that eight of the 10 are significantly conservative, although as it stands right now only Romney and Paul will appear on the Virginia ballot (for legal reasons local to Virginia). From our vantage point this far away, it would seem that only Vermont and his home state of Massachusetts are locks for Mitt. As such, wins by Santorum or Gingrich or Paul on February 28th might play huge in the long run. A brokered convention, the first since 1976, isn't all that outlandish of a thought.
Will that happen? We have to think no, unfortunately. But not solely because Romney is still the preemptive favorite. A win in Michigan could change the course of the race so much that a non-brokered convention might be someone's else's day in the sun. And we could have created their dawn, while being the gloaming of someone's else's hopes. It is a very nice stool on which we perch.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
No Minority Clout from Michigan?
The heat is on for the August elections in Michigan, and the most interesting races may just be in the new 13th and 14th Congressional Districts in and around the Detroit area. With the Democrats having been aced out of at least one seat as a result of the redrawing of districts based on the 2010 Census, Democratic incumbents Gary Peters and Hansen Clarke are facing a showdown against each other in the 14th. Meanwhile, the 13th features a battle between long time Congress man John Conyers and a Detroit State Senator, Detroit State Representative, and a Westland State Senator. Senators Bert Johnson of Highland Park and Glenn Anderson of Westland, along with Representative Shanelle Jackson of Detroit. Also facing off in the 14th are Southfield Mayor Brenda Lawrence and former State Representative Mary Waters of Detroit.
Gary Peters has the ability to outspend Clarke, and Mayor Lawrence is being called a tough campaigner. Representative Conyers may be facing the toughest challenge of his political career. But perhaps the most interesting possibility, with both districts being wildly gerrymandered, is that Michigan will not lose one but both minority representatives in Congress.
With the various voting rights laws in place, it was widely thought that Conyers and Clarke would be given relatively safe seats to defend. Yet with the 14th District wildly (and even absurdly) stretched narrowly along the Detroit River, through the Grosse Pointes then back across northern Detroit, and finally up into Oakland County before finishing in Pontiac, Clarke's fate is nowhere near certain. Especially with the minority vote possibly spread quite thin among three candidates for the primary, he appears more than vulnerable.
Conyers' district on the other hand is probably safer. He retains a huge swath of Detroit, from the southwest and central parts of the City through the northwest. But the new 13th also contains a large part of suburban Wayne County, through Redford, Westland and Wayne. If Senator Johnson can split the Detroit vote it might just open the door for Glenn Anderson.
Before blaming all this on the GOP, one should remember that it is the mass exodus from Detroit and the effective dispersal of the minority vote which is the real culprit here. A point is reached where mere statistical reality can make it impossible to create secure seats for any given person, let alone group. Demanding particular outcomes can never be certain anyway. Criticize the Republicans if you wish; the Democrats would have gerrymandered too, yet been subject to the same statistical realities.
In the end, expect Conyers to win and Clarke to lose. The seats themselves will stay Democratic, unless both Conyers and Clarke should lose. That won't happen.
But the GOP can dream, can't it?
Gary Peters has the ability to outspend Clarke, and Mayor Lawrence is being called a tough campaigner. Representative Conyers may be facing the toughest challenge of his political career. But perhaps the most interesting possibility, with both districts being wildly gerrymandered, is that Michigan will not lose one but both minority representatives in Congress.
With the various voting rights laws in place, it was widely thought that Conyers and Clarke would be given relatively safe seats to defend. Yet with the 14th District wildly (and even absurdly) stretched narrowly along the Detroit River, through the Grosse Pointes then back across northern Detroit, and finally up into Oakland County before finishing in Pontiac, Clarke's fate is nowhere near certain. Especially with the minority vote possibly spread quite thin among three candidates for the primary, he appears more than vulnerable.
Conyers' district on the other hand is probably safer. He retains a huge swath of Detroit, from the southwest and central parts of the City through the northwest. But the new 13th also contains a large part of suburban Wayne County, through Redford, Westland and Wayne. If Senator Johnson can split the Detroit vote it might just open the door for Glenn Anderson.
Before blaming all this on the GOP, one should remember that it is the mass exodus from Detroit and the effective dispersal of the minority vote which is the real culprit here. A point is reached where mere statistical reality can make it impossible to create secure seats for any given person, let alone group. Demanding particular outcomes can never be certain anyway. Criticize the Republicans if you wish; the Democrats would have gerrymandered too, yet been subject to the same statistical realities.
In the end, expect Conyers to win and Clarke to lose. The seats themselves will stay Democratic, unless both Conyers and Clarke should lose. That won't happen.
But the GOP can dream, can't it?
Sunday, January 1, 2012
New Year's Expectations
We find ourselves this morning at the start of a New Year, when everything is supposed to be fresh and, well, of course, new. So, not entire unlike the fluff journals found conveniently at the checkout line of your favorite grocery store, it seems fitting to make a few predictions about what 2012 will bring. What can it hurt? If we're right, we get points for courage. If we're wrong, then the crystal ball was a spot of dirt on it. We call that a win/win.
Detroit will fall under the direction of a state emergency manager. There will be great convolutions as all involved try to keep that from happening, but in the end it will. Detroit is simply too messed up and wrought by infighting for any other result to be expected. The rest of Michigan will be labeled racist; it will yawn in response with the only the barest attempts at hiding the yawn from Detroit. Michigan as a state isn't racist; Detroit as a city is incompetent.
November 2012 will see the election of a Republican President and a Republican Senate. Yet unless the GOP finds a headliner with the ability to really energize the electorate, it will not be with the same excitement as the 2010 debacle suffered by the Democrats. To wit, it will be another election where people vote against certain people and ideas rather than for great new leadership. Mitt Romney will benefit from not being Barack Obama. Unless Ron Paul can truly stir things up in the primaries and force the Republicans towards a more truly libertarian/conservative, smaller government focus, our next President will be Obama lite.
Hopefully, a strongly conservative GOP led Congress will keep that in check, but, as you know, power corrupts. It would not be a huge surprise to find the Republicans drifting leftwards once in power, as the Democrats tend to drift right. Sadly, our feeling is with the former. But that may be more of a 2013 prediction than a 2012.
The Detroit Lions will not win the Super Bowl. But they might snag a playoff game for the first time since, 1991, was it? Yes, we know this isn't a political prediction. But why would they all have to be?
The new Iraq will survive without a strong US presence. Call it a hunch, for that's all it really is, the old gut feeling at work, but something has to change in the Middle East. We feel that, on the whole, the US excursion there went well. We think it will prove of lasting benefit to the people there.
The American economy will not exactly boom this year, but it will improve. Much of the reason for that will be the anticipated change in Washington. You see, the world really doesn't work on particular initiatives but on broad principle. Say all you want about analyzing the economy or the political atmosphere or whatever, people and businesses (who are moral people, moral in the sense that we must see them as a types of persons in order to judge their actions and intentions) tend to work on much more vague ideals. For businesses, even, quite frankly, for the general populace, it's GOP good, Democrats bad for business. As money makes the world go round, there will be hedging on long term financial workings until the Republicans are in control, but enough short term action to make things begin to improve.
That's five of our best guesses on what 2012 will look like. For what really will happen, keep reading. We will score ourselves honestly, we promise, if for no other reason than, we will be called on it when we err. Happy New year!
Detroit will fall under the direction of a state emergency manager. There will be great convolutions as all involved try to keep that from happening, but in the end it will. Detroit is simply too messed up and wrought by infighting for any other result to be expected. The rest of Michigan will be labeled racist; it will yawn in response with the only the barest attempts at hiding the yawn from Detroit. Michigan as a state isn't racist; Detroit as a city is incompetent.
November 2012 will see the election of a Republican President and a Republican Senate. Yet unless the GOP finds a headliner with the ability to really energize the electorate, it will not be with the same excitement as the 2010 debacle suffered by the Democrats. To wit, it will be another election where people vote against certain people and ideas rather than for great new leadership. Mitt Romney will benefit from not being Barack Obama. Unless Ron Paul can truly stir things up in the primaries and force the Republicans towards a more truly libertarian/conservative, smaller government focus, our next President will be Obama lite.
Hopefully, a strongly conservative GOP led Congress will keep that in check, but, as you know, power corrupts. It would not be a huge surprise to find the Republicans drifting leftwards once in power, as the Democrats tend to drift right. Sadly, our feeling is with the former. But that may be more of a 2013 prediction than a 2012.
The Detroit Lions will not win the Super Bowl. But they might snag a playoff game for the first time since, 1991, was it? Yes, we know this isn't a political prediction. But why would they all have to be?
The new Iraq will survive without a strong US presence. Call it a hunch, for that's all it really is, the old gut feeling at work, but something has to change in the Middle East. We feel that, on the whole, the US excursion there went well. We think it will prove of lasting benefit to the people there.
The American economy will not exactly boom this year, but it will improve. Much of the reason for that will be the anticipated change in Washington. You see, the world really doesn't work on particular initiatives but on broad principle. Say all you want about analyzing the economy or the political atmosphere or whatever, people and businesses (who are moral people, moral in the sense that we must see them as a types of persons in order to judge their actions and intentions) tend to work on much more vague ideals. For businesses, even, quite frankly, for the general populace, it's GOP good, Democrats bad for business. As money makes the world go round, there will be hedging on long term financial workings until the Republicans are in control, but enough short term action to make things begin to improve.
That's five of our best guesses on what 2012 will look like. For what really will happen, keep reading. We will score ourselves honestly, we promise, if for no other reason than, we will be called on it when we err. Happy New year!
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Polls: Still Meaningless
Just a few days ago, we argued in this column that pools mean little, especially so early in an election cycle (as we are well ahead of the 2012 Presidential election). With two recently released polls, one showing that President Barack Obama would lose to the kind of favorite son (he was born and raised here in Michigan) Mitt Romney while another right on its heels said the President would win, it seems appropriate to examine them in a bit greater detail.
The first poll had Romney winning 46 to 41 percent, with a margin of error of 4%. What this translates into is that he could win bigger, say, 50 to 37 percent, if the whole margin for error goes his way, or lose 45 to 42 percent if the error factor goes towards the President.
The second poll, which plays into Mr. Obama's favor, had him winning 47% of the vote to Governor Romney's 42. Yet the with the same 4% margin of error, that could mean a win of 51-38 for the President, or a win of 46-43 for Romney. Of course, neither projection really factors in how the remaining percentages would go. Yet that only exacerbates the problem. Winning margins could go wildly off course either way depending on how the rest of the voters, those not committing to either projected candidate in the polls in question, cast a ballot.
An interesting aside is that the polls agree that marginal candidates, such as Thaddeus McCotter and Herman Cain, are unknown by around 48% of the voting public.
So what have we here? Two polls which effectively tell us nothing about who would actually win the Presidency (if left up to Michigan) in 2012, with the caveat of something which common sense would have told us immediately if we would take a second to listen: nobody knows Livonia Congressman McCotter or businessman Cain.
Yet both poll results were big news locally. It had to be a slow day.
The first poll had Romney winning 46 to 41 percent, with a margin of error of 4%. What this translates into is that he could win bigger, say, 50 to 37 percent, if the whole margin for error goes his way, or lose 45 to 42 percent if the error factor goes towards the President.
The second poll, which plays into Mr. Obama's favor, had him winning 47% of the vote to Governor Romney's 42. Yet the with the same 4% margin of error, that could mean a win of 51-38 for the President, or a win of 46-43 for Romney. Of course, neither projection really factors in how the remaining percentages would go. Yet that only exacerbates the problem. Winning margins could go wildly off course either way depending on how the rest of the voters, those not committing to either projected candidate in the polls in question, cast a ballot.
An interesting aside is that the polls agree that marginal candidates, such as Thaddeus McCotter and Herman Cain, are unknown by around 48% of the voting public.
So what have we here? Two polls which effectively tell us nothing about who would actually win the Presidency (if left up to Michigan) in 2012, with the caveat of something which common sense would have told us immediately if we would take a second to listen: nobody knows Livonia Congressman McCotter or businessman Cain.
Yet both poll results were big news locally. It had to be a slow day.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
The Field Narrows
Former Congressman Peter Hoekstra steps into the rung a scant few days ago, announcing his intention to challenge Democrat Debbie Stabenow in next November's Senate election here in Michigan, and already the Republican field is narrowing. Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner John McCulloch has announced that he is ending his candidacy for the GOP spot on the ticket, saying that he will throw his support, however much that may be, behind Hoekstra. Others already having announced an intention to run or said to beconsidering it are Kent County Probate Judge Randy Hekman and northern Michigan businessman Peter Konetchy, Gary Glenn of the Campaign for Michigan Families, and charter school executive Clark Durant.
Of the bunch, there's no real doubt that Hoekstra has the greatest name recognition. At this admittedly early juncture, that may be the linchpin. It is easy to dismiss outstate candidates of little stature such as Hekman and Konetchy. Hekman, being a judge, might garner local support in the Grand Rapids area, and it may be that Konetchy is of the Rick Snyder school of outsider governing and wants to run Congress like a business. Good luck with that; still, his website looks as though it would read well to tea partiers, and he may play a bit of a spoiler role if the conservative vote shows up en masse at the primary. Being from the same part of the state as Hoekstra, Hekman may take a few votes from the former Congressman there.
While Clark Durant may have name recognition among long time Republicans in Michigan, it seems unlikely that that would translate into the amount of support needed to win a statewide race, even only an internal one. Gary Glenn's effort, should it come to be, has all the appearances of mere symbolism. That isn't to take away from the social issues agenda of his group. But it is to say, sadly, that social issues don't appear to be on the agenda of the major parties as of today.
What is most likely happening now is that the Republican Party is slowly lining up being Hoekstra. That's a good thing, politically, anyway: Stabenow will certainly run a strong campaign and the earlier the GOP sets up its candidate the more time it can take go after the junior Senator. A primary battle likely would only help her while tearing down Republican hopes for a Senate gain in November 2012. The question then becomes: can Hoekstra, an outstater himself, win, and will it be worth it to conservatives if he does?
Of the bunch, there's no real doubt that Hoekstra has the greatest name recognition. At this admittedly early juncture, that may be the linchpin. It is easy to dismiss outstate candidates of little stature such as Hekman and Konetchy. Hekman, being a judge, might garner local support in the Grand Rapids area, and it may be that Konetchy is of the Rick Snyder school of outsider governing and wants to run Congress like a business. Good luck with that; still, his website looks as though it would read well to tea partiers, and he may play a bit of a spoiler role if the conservative vote shows up en masse at the primary. Being from the same part of the state as Hoekstra, Hekman may take a few votes from the former Congressman there.
While Clark Durant may have name recognition among long time Republicans in Michigan, it seems unlikely that that would translate into the amount of support needed to win a statewide race, even only an internal one. Gary Glenn's effort, should it come to be, has all the appearances of mere symbolism. That isn't to take away from the social issues agenda of his group. But it is to say, sadly, that social issues don't appear to be on the agenda of the major parties as of today.
What is most likely happening now is that the Republican Party is slowly lining up being Hoekstra. That's a good thing, politically, anyway: Stabenow will certainly run a strong campaign and the earlier the GOP sets up its candidate the more time it can take go after the junior Senator. A primary battle likely would only help her while tearing down Republican hopes for a Senate gain in November 2012. The question then becomes: can Hoekstra, an outstater himself, win, and will it be worth it to conservatives if he does?
Monday, July 11, 2011
Why Do It, Mr. McCotter?
Livonia Republican Thaddeus McCotter is apparently quite serious about becoming our next President. A week ago he launched his campaign, intended to make sure conservative principles are at the least discussed during the coming race to be the GOP nominee in 2012.
That is perhaps the only worthwhile reason for the Congressman to run. Yet even with that, it remains worth questioning whether a fight with a windmill is really noble. It's more than the fact that no one other than James Garfield has ever made the leap to the Oval Office from the House of Representatives. It is rather a question of, perhaps he may be better off serving right wing principles by staying put and concentrating on their application instead of trying to add to a discussion which shal certainly occur anyway.
McCotter has great philosophic credentials. Indeed, his stands on such issues as opposing Wall Street buyouts in the name of the little guy do set him apart from most conservative standard bearers. But we do wonder whether a bit of ego is getting in the way with his Presidential run. We understand that anyone who wants to hold the nation's highest office must have a certain ego about them. But this campaign has the markings of little more than that. It is disappointing that a good conservative would let ego play him.
On an entirely unrelated note, we see that the US women have beaten Brazil in the Women's World Cup, which is being played out in Germany. It was supposedly a great game, the best of the tournament. And the US won...in a shootout. The best game of the event was won by nothing more than dumb luck: attackers outguessing a goalie. That's hardly the way a 'good' game ought to end, and speaks volumes about soccer. We wonder if the game so popular in so much of the world can ever be taken seriously when supposed great matches end on mere chance.
That is perhaps the only worthwhile reason for the Congressman to run. Yet even with that, it remains worth questioning whether a fight with a windmill is really noble. It's more than the fact that no one other than James Garfield has ever made the leap to the Oval Office from the House of Representatives. It is rather a question of, perhaps he may be better off serving right wing principles by staying put and concentrating on their application instead of trying to add to a discussion which shal certainly occur anyway.
McCotter has great philosophic credentials. Indeed, his stands on such issues as opposing Wall Street buyouts in the name of the little guy do set him apart from most conservative standard bearers. But we do wonder whether a bit of ego is getting in the way with his Presidential run. We understand that anyone who wants to hold the nation's highest office must have a certain ego about them. But this campaign has the markings of little more than that. It is disappointing that a good conservative would let ego play him.
On an entirely unrelated note, we see that the US women have beaten Brazil in the Women's World Cup, which is being played out in Germany. It was supposedly a great game, the best of the tournament. And the US won...in a shootout. The best game of the event was won by nothing more than dumb luck: attackers outguessing a goalie. That's hardly the way a 'good' game ought to end, and speaks volumes about soccer. We wonder if the game so popular in so much of the world can ever be taken seriously when supposed great matches end on mere chance.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Should McCotter Run?
Thaddeus McCotter, a five term Congressman from here in Michigan, is considering a run for President. He's waiting to see what might happen in the next couple of weeks, but feels that there isn't very much excitement among Republican voters within the current batch of GOP hopefuls.
He's certainly right about that. No one in the Republican field is generating any decent press, and this when the sitting Democratic President is weak. The last time we were in a similar situation, Ronald Reagan came out and decimated Jimmy Carter, a fate Barack Obama surely merits. No Reagan is on the horizon to this point, though.
Does this mean that a fellow like McCotter, a great conservative to be sure, has any reasonable chance to grab the nomination? The easy and obvious answer is no. If nothing else, history is against him: no one has leapt from the House of Representatives to the Oval Office since James Garfield in 1880, and he's actually the only one who manged the jump. The Lower House simply doesn't serve as a particularly great base for such an effort. It isn't enough of a national platform. That doesn't mean he can't do it (Michelle Bachmann seems to at least be thinking about it herself) but only that it would be an uphill battle on a steep grade.
McCotter definitely is the type of guy who ought to be President. He's a staunch conservative, well read both intellectually and in terms of the current society (well, he likes Led Zeppelin, if that's not terribly passe), and unafraid to take what the liberal media would paint as controversial stands. But can he win a national race? Not that winning isn't everything on a case by case basis; he could well serve merely to insure that conservative values are at least given cursory treatment in 2012, or plants seeds for later, whether for himself of the broader, truer, right wing movement.
It would probably be better for him to stay in the House, though, building seniority within what will hopefully develop into a long term Republican dominance of that body. Still, the idea of a McCotter candidacy is intriguing. A little window shopping by the GOP electorate might not hurt.
He's certainly right about that. No one in the Republican field is generating any decent press, and this when the sitting Democratic President is weak. The last time we were in a similar situation, Ronald Reagan came out and decimated Jimmy Carter, a fate Barack Obama surely merits. No Reagan is on the horizon to this point, though.
Does this mean that a fellow like McCotter, a great conservative to be sure, has any reasonable chance to grab the nomination? The easy and obvious answer is no. If nothing else, history is against him: no one has leapt from the House of Representatives to the Oval Office since James Garfield in 1880, and he's actually the only one who manged the jump. The Lower House simply doesn't serve as a particularly great base for such an effort. It isn't enough of a national platform. That doesn't mean he can't do it (Michelle Bachmann seems to at least be thinking about it herself) but only that it would be an uphill battle on a steep grade.
McCotter definitely is the type of guy who ought to be President. He's a staunch conservative, well read both intellectually and in terms of the current society (well, he likes Led Zeppelin, if that's not terribly passe), and unafraid to take what the liberal media would paint as controversial stands. But can he win a national race? Not that winning isn't everything on a case by case basis; he could well serve merely to insure that conservative values are at least given cursory treatment in 2012, or plants seeds for later, whether for himself of the broader, truer, right wing movement.
It would probably be better for him to stay in the House, though, building seniority within what will hopefully develop into a long term Republican dominance of that body. Still, the idea of a McCotter candidacy is intriguing. A little window shopping by the GOP electorate might not hurt.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
The Trump Card
Just how seriously are we to take Donald Trump's presumed decision to run for President? That is a question which will leave the nation hanging for the next few weeks, it seems. But a quick analysis may help to put the possibility in a better light.
If he does run, he will of course be a factor, to the detriment of the other Republican candidates who may be considering a run themselves. The Donald (is he still called that?) may well cast a shadow on any and all who seek the same nomination. This is not necessarily good, and indeed points to one of the flaws in the current American system: that an outsider could well force himself upon the GOP. Sat what you will, neither major party ought to have a potential tasteless candidate forced upon them. Such is not democracy: it is the tyranny of the majority, in this case the mere numbers who may call themselves Republican who would not otherwise or who do not really contribute anything to the Party except an occasional vote. If the formal organization of a political party, any political party, we must stress, must accept a candidate as their standard bearer due to overdemocratized laws, our political system is weaker, not stronger.
Perhaps this is merely a publicity stunt by Mr. Trump. Perhaps; but it would seem that of anybody in America today he least needs more attention. If he does feel that way himself, then we must conclude that it is ego talking more than anything else.
So he questions President Barack Obama's birth. If that is meant to attract people to him then we must believe all the more that he may only be feeding his own sense of self worth. This can only attract the precise element which least needs more attention itself today. We do not need the fringe partisans having greater attention heaped on them. It will do nothing less than distract us from the real work of the 2012 election cycle.
It doesn't seem likely that the GOP would want him as their candidate. As bad as we may look to the rest of the world with our elections (thank you Al Gore for be such a graceless loser) the potential for debacle which a Trump/Obama race would offer is far greater than we as a nation ought to have to suffer. A socialist against a socialite. Who could blame the rest of the world for guffawing at such a race?
Let's hope he doesn't run. Our own regular party candidates on each side of the aisle do a decent enough job of embarrassing America without an inflated ego added to the mix. The Libertarians may get our support after all if Trump actually leads the ticket.
If he does run, he will of course be a factor, to the detriment of the other Republican candidates who may be considering a run themselves. The Donald (is he still called that?) may well cast a shadow on any and all who seek the same nomination. This is not necessarily good, and indeed points to one of the flaws in the current American system: that an outsider could well force himself upon the GOP. Sat what you will, neither major party ought to have a potential tasteless candidate forced upon them. Such is not democracy: it is the tyranny of the majority, in this case the mere numbers who may call themselves Republican who would not otherwise or who do not really contribute anything to the Party except an occasional vote. If the formal organization of a political party, any political party, we must stress, must accept a candidate as their standard bearer due to overdemocratized laws, our political system is weaker, not stronger.
Perhaps this is merely a publicity stunt by Mr. Trump. Perhaps; but it would seem that of anybody in America today he least needs more attention. If he does feel that way himself, then we must conclude that it is ego talking more than anything else.
So he questions President Barack Obama's birth. If that is meant to attract people to him then we must believe all the more that he may only be feeding his own sense of self worth. This can only attract the precise element which least needs more attention itself today. We do not need the fringe partisans having greater attention heaped on them. It will do nothing less than distract us from the real work of the 2012 election cycle.
It doesn't seem likely that the GOP would want him as their candidate. As bad as we may look to the rest of the world with our elections (thank you Al Gore for be such a graceless loser) the potential for debacle which a Trump/Obama race would offer is far greater than we as a nation ought to have to suffer. A socialist against a socialite. Who could blame the rest of the world for guffawing at such a race?
Let's hope he doesn't run. Our own regular party candidates on each side of the aisle do a decent enough job of embarrassing America without an inflated ego added to the mix. The Libertarians may get our support after all if Trump actually leads the ticket.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Conyers, Dingell to Run Again
Representative John Conyers announced today that he intends to seek a twenty fifth term in Congress in the 2012 election. This was not an unexpected move, as it fits hand in glove with the fact that John Dingell, the only member of Congress around longer than Conyers, is going for re-election as well.
These liberal lions should surely win wherever they're put, but as likely as not what they are doing is, basically, staking claims to two of the seats which will almost certainly be kept by the Democrats even after redistricting. Seeing as the GOP will control the redrawing of Congressional districts, it is expected that two Democrats will be pitted against each other somewhere, somehow.
It is doubtful that the Republicans would even try to oust one or the other of either Conyers or Dingell, or shuffle them into the same district. The outcry against such a tactic would be too shrill. Nor should Conyers expect to be challenged by the newly elected Hansen Clarke, who holds the state's other minority seat. With those three seats presumably safe, it is most likely that an outstate Democrat will effectively go on the chopping block, or at least have to run against a Republican in what will surely be an area carved out to the GOP's benefit.
The outcome will be interesting but not surprising. Michigan will probably gain one Republican seat when all is said and done. It is another worry that the Democrats must face in the next elections. They should not have hacked off so many folks with their political over-reaching pf the last two years. They are paying the price.
These liberal lions should surely win wherever they're put, but as likely as not what they are doing is, basically, staking claims to two of the seats which will almost certainly be kept by the Democrats even after redistricting. Seeing as the GOP will control the redrawing of Congressional districts, it is expected that two Democrats will be pitted against each other somewhere, somehow.
It is doubtful that the Republicans would even try to oust one or the other of either Conyers or Dingell, or shuffle them into the same district. The outcry against such a tactic would be too shrill. Nor should Conyers expect to be challenged by the newly elected Hansen Clarke, who holds the state's other minority seat. With those three seats presumably safe, it is most likely that an outstate Democrat will effectively go on the chopping block, or at least have to run against a Republican in what will surely be an area carved out to the GOP's benefit.
The outcome will be interesting but not surprising. Michigan will probably gain one Republican seat when all is said and done. It is another worry that the Democrats must face in the next elections. They should not have hacked off so many folks with their political over-reaching pf the last two years. They are paying the price.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
2012 doesn't look good for the President
It is far too early to write off President Barack Obama's chances of reelection in 2012. Still, in light of the November 2010 elections, the early call has to be that his chances are not particularly good.
For starters, conservative voters tend to be more true to their candidates than their liberal counterparts. Some political wags are also saying that Obama supporters are 'exhausted': he simply hasn't done enough good to merit continued support. Factor into this that the Tea party and the GOP clearly still have the momentum and 2012 cannot appear very bright for the Chief Executive.
The recent surge in popularity not withstanding, the fact is that the nation's view of Obama's economic policies is still under 50% positive. Taken along with the unprecedented growth of the national debt, this too bodes ill for the President.
The GOP will almost surely gain seats in the House in 2012, and should take the Senate. This may lead to a sort of backwards coattail effect will only help the GOP Presidential nominee. Then, too, we need to remember that in an election where the Democrats absolutely romped back in 2008, the President only won 53% of the vote. That his showing in his initial election was so comparatively poor (one wonders what might have happened with a stronger Republican than John McCain heading the ticket) must mean that his personal support was in truth somewhat shallow even then. Mr. Obama simply didn't rock and roll when so many lesser Democrats did. How can things go better for him facing a continued onslaught from 2010?
In short, the President's reelection bid looks bleak. All the better for the country.
For starters, conservative voters tend to be more true to their candidates than their liberal counterparts. Some political wags are also saying that Obama supporters are 'exhausted': he simply hasn't done enough good to merit continued support. Factor into this that the Tea party and the GOP clearly still have the momentum and 2012 cannot appear very bright for the Chief Executive.
The recent surge in popularity not withstanding, the fact is that the nation's view of Obama's economic policies is still under 50% positive. Taken along with the unprecedented growth of the national debt, this too bodes ill for the President.
The GOP will almost surely gain seats in the House in 2012, and should take the Senate. This may lead to a sort of backwards coattail effect will only help the GOP Presidential nominee. Then, too, we need to remember that in an election where the Democrats absolutely romped back in 2008, the President only won 53% of the vote. That his showing in his initial election was so comparatively poor (one wonders what might have happened with a stronger Republican than John McCain heading the ticket) must mean that his personal support was in truth somewhat shallow even then. Mr. Obama simply didn't rock and roll when so many lesser Democrats did. How can things go better for him facing a continued onslaught from 2010?
In short, the President's reelection bid looks bleak. All the better for the country.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Redistricting and Detroit
The numbers are in: Michigan will lose one Congressional seat. But from where will it be taken? The most likely spot would be southeast Michigan, within the Detroit metropolitan area. If the Republicans in Lansing who control the redistricting process have any backbone at all, this is where they will look.
Somewhere and somehow, two Democrats will be pitted against each other while all nine seats currently held by the GOP will be put in districts as safe as possible. The Detroit area is home to several old warhorses of the Democratic left: John Dingell, John Conyers, Dale Kildee, and Sander Levin. Will any of those be willing to step aside for a political youngster such as Gary Peters or Hansen Clarke?
It's a good question. One that will not likely be asked when the inevitable Republican gerrymandering begins. You see, the GOP is evil while the existing Democrats cannot possibly be. Why should the lions with all their pork barrel clout pass the torch when they can do so much more themselves in Congress, such as keep the perks and prestige of Congressmen? This selfishness of the old guard will not be seen as an obstacle to civil politics, although it should. Yet Dingell, Conyers, et al, are little more than self serving robber barons of government: their entire lives are politics. They are nothing without the public trough from which to fill their bellies and feed their egos.
Yet what would make the redistricting process really interesting would be if the GOP should draw districts forcing John Conyers against newly elected Hansen Clarke. They are under no compulsion to maintain minority representation during this Census cycle: the state legislature can pit two minority Congressmen against one another. How much would affect the potential for lawsuits? Or will the GOP simply avoid that hassle and look elsewhere to cut Democratic power?
Regardless of the path chosen, 2011 will be interesting politically. Just remember that it will not merely be the Republicans acting in their own interest. Democratic selfishness will be the great issue from which we shall be expected to avert our eyes.
Somewhere and somehow, two Democrats will be pitted against each other while all nine seats currently held by the GOP will be put in districts as safe as possible. The Detroit area is home to several old warhorses of the Democratic left: John Dingell, John Conyers, Dale Kildee, and Sander Levin. Will any of those be willing to step aside for a political youngster such as Gary Peters or Hansen Clarke?
It's a good question. One that will not likely be asked when the inevitable Republican gerrymandering begins. You see, the GOP is evil while the existing Democrats cannot possibly be. Why should the lions with all their pork barrel clout pass the torch when they can do so much more themselves in Congress, such as keep the perks and prestige of Congressmen? This selfishness of the old guard will not be seen as an obstacle to civil politics, although it should. Yet Dingell, Conyers, et al, are little more than self serving robber barons of government: their entire lives are politics. They are nothing without the public trough from which to fill their bellies and feed their egos.
Yet what would make the redistricting process really interesting would be if the GOP should draw districts forcing John Conyers against newly elected Hansen Clarke. They are under no compulsion to maintain minority representation during this Census cycle: the state legislature can pit two minority Congressmen against one another. How much would affect the potential for lawsuits? Or will the GOP simply avoid that hassle and look elsewhere to cut Democratic power?
Regardless of the path chosen, 2011 will be interesting politically. Just remember that it will not merely be the Republicans acting in their own interest. Democratic selfishness will be the great issue from which we shall be expected to avert our eyes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
