Electability

One of the most entertaining moments in the (too) many debates was addressed to Ron Paul – “Let’s talk about electability …. do you have any?” (Answer: no) But at this point in the process, both Democrats and Republicans turn to one issue – who can win in November? It’s useless to nominate someone who can’t win; at this point in the primaries one issue usually comes to the front – electability.

For Democrats, Clinton is a Republican fund-raisers dream; her polarizing figure makes her an easier person to defeat and would stimulate the Republican base, while most Republicans believe Obama is a tougher candidate to handle, even though he lacks the machine of the Clintons. It’s close, but give the edge to Obama in the electability department. Clinton’s machine and rabid base can’t make up for all the baggage she’s carrying around.

For Republicans, the situation is clearer – Huckabee and McCain can win, Romney can’t. According to Rasmussen polls in potential match-ups the Rasmussen Poll says McCain leads Clinton by eight, and Obama by six, while a similar poll with Romney has Hillary beating Romney by 5%, and Obama beating Romney by 9%.

You can argue selecting a candidate based on electability isn’t wise, but why put forth a candidate who you know can’t win? If you’re trying to make a statement to change the political system, it’s way too late by the time the primaries come around. You might as well write-in Mickey Mouse – it has the same impact.

If you want to change the political process, you’ve got to be involved before the primary season. It’s too late now to be idealistic – you’ve only got two Democrats and three Republicans to choose from. None of them are perfect (some would say not even good), but the bottom line is one of those five will be the next President. And in potential match-ups between the five, some fare better than others.

On the question of electability, Romney isn’t the answer. Is there a point to nominating someone who can’t win the big race?

And Then There Were Three – More on Superdelegates

With Rudy dropping out, Republicans are down to three – Huckabee, McCain and Romney. But the tide is beginning to turn McCain’s way – not just because he won Florida (and Romney underperformed, despite his vast fortunes), but Republicans are down to one question – which candidate can hold the White House against Clinton/Obama? (Hint: It ain’t Romney). A Rasmussen Poll says McCain leads Clinton by eight, and Obama by six. If the question is electability, Romney isn’t the answer.

Romney’s flip-flopping is going to hurt him down the stretch. Pro-choice to pro-life, avid hunter to not, pro-gay to defense of marriage, and so on. The question for anyone supporting Romney is simple: do you know what he really believes? Not what he says now, but what his convictions are?

We thought not. Flip-flop.

But more interesting (as we wrote a while ago) is the battle over superdelegates. We wrote about superdelegates before, but the mainstream press is beginning to ask a simple question: What if Clinton/Romney both lose the primary vote, but win the nomination? It could happen. All either candidate has to do is be close, and the back-room deals put them over the top.

As the Washington Post Reports:

The high-profile supporters will also play key roles in the backroom battle over superdelegates, also known as unpledged delegates. Mainly members of Congress, governors, party elders and grass-roots activists, they are free to back any candidate they choose. Clinton, former president Bill Clinton (a superdelegate himself) and their allies have been working aggressively for months to court the superdelegates, drawing on old loyalties to open a huge advantage for the senator from New York in total delegates amassed.

“One person, one vote? Forget about it. Some votes are worth more than others. You have to know the rules,” said Donna Brazile, the campaign manager for Al Gore in the 2000 presidential race and a D.C. superdelegate.

What will voters think if the person who wins the primary doesn’t get the nomination? Right now, it’s a real possibility. As the establishment picks, Clinton/Romney have a huge advantage. We’ll see how this plays out, and how voters react if their choices fail to win the nomination.

Language and a Failure to Communicate

Communication only occurs if people agree on language; French and Germans can’t talk unless they agree on common language. But problems occur even if both speak the same language like English; language is only possible because we agree on the meanings of words. There’s no reason “table” could not be called “squid”, except for the reason we all agree on which is which. Yet in discussion (especially in politics and religion) not everyone uses words with the same definition – some people use different meanings (not commonly held) of words which prohibit communication and cause confusion.

Rambo Verses Walker

On the lighter side, most people know Chuck Norris endorses Mike Huckabee for President. But FoxNews reports Sylvester Stallone is supporting McCain, which brings up the eternal question – In Rambo vs. Walker, who wins?

Fox News

The Great American Giveaway

As the primary season is now in full-swing, we’re seeing candidates promise more and more stuff to more and more people; Romney won Michigan in part by claiming he’ll save their jobs, fix the economy and cure cancer (OK, the last one is a joke). McCain, meanwhile, gave the answer some jobs aren’t coming back, but we’ll invest and create new jobs. Guess which message is more popular? Romney’s of course. But we should not elect a president because he tells us what we want to hear, we need to elect a president who tells the truth (That’s why we’ve eliminated Romney from consideration — what exactly does he believe? Do you get pro-choice Romney, or pro-life Romney? And so on. He lacks stability in policy and doesn’t appear to have any conviction to his positions, saying anything for votes. But we digress).

If you’ve followed the auto industry you know they’re in trouble. McCain is likely right — some jobs won’t be back. But through education and new technology different jobs will emerge — it’s not hopeless, but the return to the old days where the big three dominated is unlikely. Yet Romney won because he told people what they wanted to hear (not necessarily the truth).

We expect Democrats to always have the biggest giveaways, and they never disappoint. It’s been the Republicans who have been for fiscal responsibility. But that ship has sailed, never to return.

What we need is a candidate who will tell it like it is, not what’s popular. As Michelle Malkin says:

Latest National Republican Poll

Rasmussen released their latest presidential poll (Jan 15) showing McCain at 22%, Huckabee at 21%, and nobody else above 13%. Right now, it’s shaping up to be a national battle between McCain and Huckabee. However, as our last article on why change is difficult, Romney has a huge advantage – and it’s not just his vast personal fortune, so stay tuned. Polls are fluid things.

Romney is a must-win in Michigan, so we’ll see what happens after that.

Why Real Change is Hard (or Impossible)

You’ve heard a lot about party elites, the establishment and so on, but is it true? Does Clinton/Romney actually have a secret advantage by being the pick of the elite party establishment? Can the political machines of each party push their pick over the top? You bet (although it’s not a super-secret, just not well-known), and it’s easier than you think – here’s one way the establishment picks can come out on top, even if voters reject them.

Before we reveal the secret about the political party elites, suppose you’ve been studying the candidates and issues, trying to make an informed selection and thinking your vote counts. Au contraire, mon ami – perhaps you’ve never heard of a superdelegate. If not, it’s because the political parties don’t really want you to know this as it’s one way they use their influence to pick the establishment candidate and minimize the voters intent.

Problems with Ron Paul and his Political Report

A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks – including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went “to pick up their welfare checks.”

CNN recently obtained the newsletters – written in the 1990s and one from the late 1980s – after a report was published about their existence in The New Republic.

Oops – not good Mr. Paul. Character matters.

The vast majority of voters have rejected Paul and his message, but for those who support Paul (or are considering it), the following questions must be answered regarding the views contained in his newsletter (Ron Paul Political Report) over a period of many years – this was not an isolated incident.

• If Paul wrote or endorses these views, he’s disqualified. No further discussion is needed.
• If you believe Paul didn’t write, know or endorse what his newsletter contained (for many years), is a man who can’t handle publishing a newsletter qualified to run the country?
• Is this the kind of character which should run the country?

Read the newsletter for yourself (or just Google “Ron Paul Political Report”), but be warned, much of it is nasty and indefensible stuff.

• CNN Review
• CNN quotes newsletters
• Tammy Bruce on Ron Paul
• HotAir – lots of links/discussion
• HotAir – Problem with Paul
• Paul on CNN with Wolf Blitzer

Real Change Requires Real Change

“Real change requires real change” – that’s Newt Gingrich in his newsletter with a theme he’s been talking about for a while. Newt was perhaps the first to note people are mad with the party elites, and want real change, not a theme from a campaign meeting (see more of what Newt says at americansolutions.com). He’s put together a list of issues both Republicans and Democrats can agree on, calling it “The Platform of the American People”.

High School Students Request Maternity Leave

Let’s take a break from presidential politics for this other news, from the Denver Post.

Pregnant students in a Denver high school are asking for at least four weeks of maternity leave so they can heal, bond with their newborns and not be penalized with unexcused absences.

We’ll refrain from comment; you can draw your own conclusions. But we remember the first time we heard of a High School with a daycare center.

Romney Flip-Flops on Change

Mr. flip-flop is getting old (but funny) when he stated he’s the only candidate for change, then associated McCain with old-time Washington. But everyone knows a Romney flip-flop is out there, and here it is (from CNN):

“There’s no way that Sen. McCain is going to be able to come to New Hampshire and say that he’s the candidate that represents change – that he’ll change Washington. He is Washington,” Romney said on the campaign trail Friday.

Shortly afterwards, the McCain camp circulated comments Romney made when he was running for governor of Massachusetts more than five years ago.

“One of the reasons the people of America honor Sen. McCain and why I’m so proud to have him standing with me today is that he has brought American values to the debate on the issues we care about,” Romney said at the time. “He [McCain] has always stood for reform and change.”

It looks like the Romney campaign didn’t have time to properly research his comments. You’d think with all the accusations of flip-flop, he’d research his statements more to avoid such contradictions. After all, it’s sad when you can’t even be consistent on change.

A Political Tempest for Change

Now that the dust has settled on the huge wins of Huckabee and Obama (and the stunning defeat of the political establishments picks from both parties), it’s interesting some of the media has finally picked up on what we’ve been saying for a while – citizens are mad as hell about politics as usual and aren’t going to take it anymore. We’ve been reporting about Obama and Huckabee’s surge and the central theme is the same for both men: it’s time for new faces and a change in Washington.

DES MOINES, Iowa – Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee rearranged the landscape of the presidential race Thursday with stunning victories in the Iowa caucuses.

“We are choosing hope over fear,” Mr. Obama told supporters after his victory, as a raucous crowd chanted, “Obama, Obama.” “We are choosing unity over division and sending a powerful message that change is coming to America.

Mr. Huckabee sounded a similar theme.

“Tonight what we have seen is a new day in American politics … tonight, it starts here in Iowa, but it doesn’t end here,” he said. … “He has work to do,” said Tim Hagle, a political science professor at the University of Iowa. “But it’s clear that there are voters who like his approach.”

Romney Now Candidate of Change

Romney has now jumped on the “change” bandwagon, borrowing some lines from Obama’s speech.

The former governor of Massachusetts who finished a distant and disappointing second in Iowa, landed in New Hampshire declaring that, like Obama, he is a candidate of change. Romney pointed to the Iowa victories of Obama, a Senate neophyte, and Mike Huckabee from Arkansas as proof that “people in this country are angry at Washington.”

“People want change,” he told reporters in Portsmouth. “Everywhere I have been, I have brought change.”

He changed from pro-choice to pro-life, from pro gay-rights to defense of marriage, always been a hunter to hunting a few times …. you know the story.

That’s one thing we agree with Romney on, he’s always changing – it’s amazing what can happen on the flight from Iowa to New Hampshire after a stunning loss.

Huckabee and Obama Win Iowa

NBC and Fox called Iowa for Huckabee, and it looks like Romney is in second. For Democrats it looks like Obama wins. Interesting results, as we’ve reported before Obama/Huckabee have run positive campaigns with messages of hope and the future and it looks like both will win, if the media’s projections hold. Perhaps it’s time for a shift in politics. We for one welcome the change.