Thursday, January 03, 2008
Ouch
The Hawkeye State has not been helpful. If the nominees really turn out to be Huckabee and Obama, the paternalists will have won long before November. And the jihadis will not have done too badly either.
MORE: I agree with this -- especially the last bit about the question on everybody's mind -- and this, too -- especially the part about Hillary's speech.
ANOTHER BIT: Obama's speech is good. If one of the non-Hillarys have to win the Democratic nomination, I would much prefer to listen to Obama for four months, or years, than John Edwards, who I cannot abide.
33 Comments:
By 
Christopher Chambers, at
Thu Jan 03, 10:21:00 PM:
Umm...explain to me why you, a graduate of Princeton University (like Michelle Obama) would make such a lame and silly Sean Hannity-like comment like "the jihadis will have won." OK, so Mike Huckabee is about as close as we can come to the Christian Taliban, but Barack's not so bad, right? Like I said, give the man a chance. If you have a problem, vote him out of office in four years.
But take heart. Huckabee will get killed in NH (that's Mitt territory and McCain's strong there). By the time the southern primaries come perhaps the right wing evangelical tools will have run out of gas. But I'm hoping not. Nothing would please me more than the GOP nominee being a true card-carrying fanatic; even Hillary could best that.
What happened to Rudi? I guess all of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes' muscle couldn't sway the John Deere crowd.
Also, what is a "paternalist?" I guess that anyone who doesn't pander to folk with $2M in bonuses and stick options? LOL
I bet if you sat down with Barack Obama over a beer and a burger you'd have a little more faith.
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Jan 03, 10:24:00 PM:
Well, I would far prefer Obama to Edwards, if that makes you feel better Chris. But it is clear I think to all my readers that I believe in a forward and aggressive prosecution of the war against the Islamist jihad, and Obama and Huckabee do not. So my point of view is presumably not surprising.
By ellie, at
Fri Jan 04, 12:10:00 AM:
"if you sat down with Barack Obama over a beer and a burger"
Huh? Apart from John Kerry's wife what's-her-name, Obama would have to win the "least likely to have a beer and a burger" award for the decade so far in politics.
By newscaper, at
Fri Jan 04, 12:21:00 AM:
Concerned about reports about Huckabee's actual record, I took the time tonight to read the issues section of his website.
Ugh. A lot of it is superficially good sounding, but vague or naive.
The talk about energy independence is good but pretty fatuous. Pros - mention nukes, Cons - hydrogen fantasies, no mention of domestic drilling.
No comments on skepticism about the global warming hysteria.
Treating Saudi Arabia like Sweden with the oil issue gone? bah! If we didn't need them there sure as hell would be no reason to treat the hellhole the same as the Swedes!
Working with Iraq's neighbors? Bah. Sound slike Carter after all.
Farm subsidies? Eesh.
Not a SINGLE mention of entrepeneurs, the market or capitalism.
All telling IMO.
By 
, at
Fri Jan 04, 12:30:00 AM:
After years of wading through the lukewarm scummy bathwater of the Clinton's campaigns, Barack Obama must seem like a cleansing shower to many Democrats.
Charismatic and personable without the phony, smarmy charm of Bill; a nice wife who is not shrewish, overbearing and ambitious (Hillary? No!). Barack Obama is an attractive candidate with Democrats who are tired of "Clintonism"; and Edwards is Clintonism light.
This primary win might give him a boost in the eyes of many Democrats who are less than enthused by H.R. Clinton and never thought Obama was electable, and Hillary was inevitable. However, the general election is not the Democratic primary season, and he and his views will be under more scrutiny if he should manage to win the Democrat nomination. Good luck with that.
The Republican picture is cloudy. Huckabee did well in the total retail politics of Iowa. He doesn't have much money or organization in New Hampshire, so look for him to get clocked their. I think he will fade quickly. He is not strong with many mainstream Republican opnions.
It is possible that their will not be a clear winner in Republican field, and they will have a brokered convention. This is not all bad, as long as they keep the personal nastiness to a minimum. If could very well be a real horserace, generating quite a bit of interest and getting the Republican base fired up.
-David
By , at
Fri Jan 04, 12:49:00 AM:
You said it. Choosing between Huck and Obama is like choosing between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber, respectively or the reverse, take your pick, makes no difference to me. Jimmy Carter redux. Don't we ever learn?
By M. Simon, at
Fri Jan 04, 02:52:00 AM:
I’m from Illinois and closely followed Obama’s ’004 Campaign. He is more Marxist than Hillary. It does not bode well for the future of our country.
At least for the time being we have our choice of Commissars. Obama seems like a nice Commissar.
Choose Your Commissar
Jimmy Carter was what? 28 years ago? Who remembers that far back? Only old farts.
By , at
Fri Jan 04, 02:54:00 AM:
Just like 2006, this year is shaping up to be a perception driven election. By this I mean opinion shapers - ie, the MSM - are deciding what the people want.
For example, when people are polled about their oen lives, they;re very happy. But when asked about Bush or congress or the economy, they are highly negative. Just as in 2006, independent measures of these perceptions are false or very misleading.
"Who will tell the people?" The MSM won't - they've wanted this 'poll position' since the summer of 2004. Now they have it!
By M. Simon, at
Fri Jan 04, 02:58:00 AM:
In three to six months this will be a campaign issue:
Bussard Fusion Update
It will be interesting to see if any of the politicians can explain it.
They will all be wanting to fund it.
By , at
Fri Jan 04, 03:00:00 AM:
now you guys have let one really slip by...huckabee has really angry eyes underneath all the down home bonhommie...i see a hawk of hawks underneath all that evangel...kind of reminds me of sen joe mccarthy. or nixon.
obama likes JFK its obvious. and jfk wasn't afraid of war...so in neither of these guys is there a jimmy carter...
like all good demogogues, they're tougher than you think.
By , at
Fri Jan 04, 07:23:00 AM:
I think Obama has a lot of wood to chop before we're calling him President. He's black, has the Muslim connection, and most of what he says doesn't resonate. Iowa's a neat state, but let's face it. Not exactly representative.
In the end, these two unlikely winners are good news for all of us. It should make things a bit nastier for the candidates who think they're more entitled to win, and perhaps now we take the gloves off. It'll give funding to Obama and Huck. With any luck, Obama does so well that he splits the vote. If I'm Hillary, I take no smack from him.
lol
I might actually have to write a check this year.
JT
By , at
Fri Jan 04, 08:34:00 AM:
Can someone please say Fred Thompson...out loud...really loud! He is the best man for the job.
By , at
Fri Jan 04, 10:17:00 AM:
Are you from Russia or China? Why do you hate Americans so much?
By , at
Fri Jan 04, 10:27:00 AM:
um, excuse me (troll here), what "Muslim connection" would that be, exactly? that he spent time sitting next to some when he was a teenager?
...you must be scared to sit anywhere...are you a homophobe as well?
By , at
Fri Jan 04, 10:28:00 AM:
Can someone please say Fred Thompson...out loud...really loud! He is the best man for the job.
He would be the best man for the job if he didn't nap so much. Seriously, when is he going to get off his ass and actually, y'know, campaign for it?
By , at
Fri Jan 04, 10:33:00 AM:
"...And the jihadis will not have done too badly either"
yee-hah! Dirka Dirka Jihad! We Win!
By paul a'barge, at
Fri Jan 04, 10:52:00 AM:
Huh? Apart from John Kerry's wife what's-her-name, Obama would have to win the "least likely to have a beer and a burger" award for the decade so far in politics
Dude, do you always walk around with a copper-clad bottom Revereware pot over your head so you can focus exclusively on the sound of your own echo?
Do some reading, for goodness sake. Check out what Dean Barnett has written about Obama over at Townhall.com and the Hewitt blog.
Apparently, Obama is precisely the guy (wait for it) _EVERYONE_ who knows him wants to sit down with over a beer, and that includes the Repubs he went to law school with.
Doesn't the pain of being completely wrong ever wake you up, even just a little?
By M. Simon, at
Fri Jan 04, 11:02:00 AM:
Fred Thompson asleep has so far done better than Ron Paul awake. And on a much smaller budget. He has come from "not a snowball's chance in hell" to "possible".
In his previous campaigns he was always known as a slow starter and strong finisher.
Plus, he has one important attribute none of the other candidates has. He is right on the issues.
Plus Jeri as First Lady. Yum.
By , at
Fri Jan 04, 11:19:00 AM:
I agree with the comment that in Iowa last night, "Economic populism is a winner". Whether that issue has wheels in other states is a fascinating question. Certainly, Edwards and Hucks agreement on the issue will give it a full airing on both sides.
As far as the quick-draw judgements on who "won" and who "lost", the tightly compressed primary schedule will mean that even marginal candidates will be able to say in the race for another few weeks, if they choose to do so, hoping to get lucky in one state or another and pick up some momentum and refresh their money. We could conceivably continue to see a four or five man race on the GOP side for another month or longer.
By , at
Fri Jan 04, 12:06:00 PM:
"And the jihadis will not have done too badly either." Please how juvenile and asinine.
And don't get me started on the "marxist" b.s.
By , at
Fri Jan 04, 12:08:00 PM:
"And the jihadis will not have done too badly either."
Why don't all you CHICKENHAWK wusses grow some balls and put some skin in this war?
Every time you keyboard warriors walk past a recruiting station without signing up, you're giving the terrorists hope.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com
By M. Simon, at
Fri Jan 04, 12:31:00 PM:
Dearest ANNON,
Chickenpoop.
I had some skin in the last big one. The best I can do is cover the sixes on the home front of the people now engaged.
Hope you don't mind.
Simon - Reactor Operator USS Bainbridge DLGN-25 - Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club '66.
By , at
Fri Jan 04, 01:12:00 PM:
Anon,
I been to the sand pit, and will be going back, so just get off that ole' tired horse, ok?
Tim
USN, IA, Basra '06-'07
By , at
Fri Jan 04, 02:08:00 PM:
M. Simon and Tim,
Thank you for your service. I'm wondering if you've considered asking your heroes on talk radio and rightie blogs to enlist, or to send their kids?
No sacrifice too great to win, right?
By M. Simon, at
Fri Jan 04, 02:30:00 PM:
Annon,
What branch did you serve in? If the answer is none. STFU.
ChickenCoward.
What you fail to understand is tooth to tail. The shaft has more mass than the pointy end of the spear. The only question is - does the shaft support the spear?
From what I am able to discern you are balsa not oak.
My condolences.
BTW look at the Fusion link I provided above. I'm working on something that will strangle the oil tics. Certainly something even the most rabid anti-war scum can support. In fact I'm working with a KOS kid among others on it. Care to join up?
The KOSite is fully aware of my positions on the issues of the day. So it is possible for reasonable Men to disagree and still work together without pitching arguments that would have been sorry excuses for real repartee even on usenet.
Ready to Man up?
By , at
Fri Jan 04, 04:42:00 PM:
Why aren't you guys urging all the brave Churchillian neo con pundits to enlist? Are they hippie wusses? Do they want to give the terrorists therapy?
By , at
Fri Jan 04, 04:45:00 PM:
Also, I commend any efforts at teamwork and collaboration to solve our oil problems.
Our president, George W. Bush, has launched a war in Iraq to "make America safer." We obviously need a larger army in Iraq to win. Therefore I am doing my part by urging war supporters to enlist. If we shame enough war supporters into enlistment, we will have enough troops to win. Do you agree?
By M. Simon, at
Fri Jan 04, 05:07:00 PM:
Why aren't you guys urging all the brave Churchillian neo con pundits to enlist? Are they hippie wusses? Do they want to give the terrorists therapy?
Because supporting the troops is just as important as being a trooper.
And Bush is doing the right thing. Until we can deploy these reactors to the oil shale fields to extract the oil we are going to need ME oil to keep the poor of America and the world from hurting.
You are such a shallow thinker anon.
Now tell me. You support alternatives what would you like to do to make them happen besides whine?
Why not get up to speed on the fusion project and start promoting it instead of whining to your betters about the war?
Here is the KOS Diary on the subject. You might want to be careful though. It has a link to a dreaded NeoCon site - mine.
By , at
Fri Jan 04, 07:34:00 PM:
"Because supporting the troops is just as important as being a trooper."
No, it's not. Blogging in support of the war doesn't do anything substantial, and is not productive toward helping us win. That's why college Republicans who claim to be fighting the "war of ideas" deserve to be called Chickenhawks. There's no comparison to the very real sacrifices made by our brave soldiers.
Thank you for the links to alternative energy resources, I will be checking them out.
By M. Simon, at
Fri Jan 04, 07:56:00 PM:
Anon,
The moral is to the material as 3 to 1.
General Giap of North Vietnam admitted that his forces never won a major battle against US troops. He also said it didn't matter.
He forced a political decision in his favor without a single major military victory.
Which is why home front morale matters.
The successes of the anti-war movement have not gone unnoticed by America's enemies. General Vo Nguyen Giap, who led North Vietnamese forces during the Vietnam war, had a warm place in his heart for his allies in America. In referring to the anti-war movement, he recently stated, "I would like to thank them." A colonel, Bui Tin, who served under Giap, said that the actions of his anti-war allies were "essential to our strategy." Thanks to war protestors' efforts to undermine the war at home, the North Vietnamese knew that they did not have to win any battles on the ground in order to win the war.
In fact, the most notorious battle of the entire war, the so-called "Tet offensive," was an American victory that smashed the North Vietnamese. Many military historians have written about the utter defeat of the North Vietnamese during the operation. "Tet was a historical anomaly: a battlefield defeat that ultimately yielded victory. In fact, in strictly military terms, the two-month struggle known as the Tet Offensive was a disaster for the attackers. It ended with the expulsion of the North Vietnamese Army and the southern-based insurgent troops, known in the West as Vietcong, from each place they invaded." And "Viet Cong units not only did not reach a single one of their objectives... they lost some 50,000 killed and at least as many wounded... Tet was an unmitigated military disaster for Hanoi and its Viet Cong troops in South Vietnam." Tet was only a victory for the Communists in the liberal media and in the minds of peace-mongers.
The Communists lost battle after battle, but none of this could demoralize them; they knew that they did not need to win battles. All they had to do was demoralize Americans at home so that they would put pressure on the government to retreat from the war.
Some Nice Jewish Boys.
Battle field victories are important. However, in a democracy if the people are not supporting the troops all the battle field victories count as nothing.
You should study history more.
BTW I take the balsa comment back. Balsa has way more strength than you do.
By , at
Fri Jan 04, 09:28:00 PM:
Congratulations on being the 12 thousandth neo con blogger to use the Giap quote. You guys are so proud of this argument. Do you really think the terrorists pay much attention to American news media? Blogging in support of the war doesn't do anything productive towards helping win. Because I want to win, I am urging war supporters to enlist.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Jan 04, 10:03:00 PM:
I hope you are enjoying your great adventure among the grown-ups, Anonymous. I was in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War.
By , at
Sat Jan 05, 11:27:00 PM:
"Do you really think the terrorists pay much attention to American news media?"
Yes.
