To me, a shockingly large and diverse group of B List Republicans -- Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo, and even in their ways Paul and Thompson -- are more impressive than the official "big three." They all seemed to me to come much closer than Giuliani, McCain, or Romney to be coming at things from a principle, coherent point of view. The top contenders are all "Reagan! Terror! Bush! Terror! Reagan! Terreagan!" and weirdly busy running away from their actual records.
« Stay Classy, Politico | Main | Do We Think This Will Work? »
Debate Wrap-Up
05 Jun 2007 08:58 pm
Comments (23)
"the ordinary American voter does not object to mediocrity. He has a lower conception of the qualities requisite to make a statesman than those who direct public opinion in Europe have. He likes his candidate to be sensible, vigorous, and, above all, what he calls “magnetic,” and does not value, because he sees no need for, originality or profundity, a fine culture or a wide knowledge."
"the ordinary American voter does not object to mediocrity. He has a lower conception of the qualities requisite to make a statesman than those who direct public opinion in Europe have. He likes his candidate to be sensible, vigorous, and, above all, what he calls “magnetic,” and does not value, because he sees no need for, originality or profundity, a fine culture or a wide knowledge."
Or in other words, we elect Presidents, not Prime Ministers.
The Republicans figured this out around the time television entered the picture, which is just about when the Democrats forgot about it.
And why is no one noting that Tommy Thompson said we would wind down Iraq?
To the best of my knowledge, that's news.
"The Republicans figured this out around the time television entered the picture, which is just about when the Democrats forgot about it."
Actually, considering that Warren G. Harding was elected President, I'd say the Republicans knew it long before television. Indeed, Republicans knew and even stated that Harding was second-rate--but they nominated him anyway. He was handsome and senatorial in bearing and could give a good speech. The fact that he was an incompetent, morally weak, and a raving hypocrite were minor issues.
(The more I look at the modern Republican party, the more I am reminded of Harding's era.)
What is astonishing is that Giuliani can blather on about terrorism despite being an ardent supporter of the IRA when it was trying to murder Margaret Thatcher and the rest of the British cabinet along with her.
Does Giuliani still support terrorism? Or does he claim that the IRA are freedom fighters who just happen to bomb shopping malls? Or perhaps he plays that cute game of claiming that NORAID and Sinn Fein are not part of the IRA, in which case he is either a liar or a fool.
Giuliani does not want to speak to terrorists, he just wants to give them medals. He gave Gerry Adams the 'Crystal Apple' while he was Major of NYC. His stated reason was to try to force the Whitehouse to meet him. It didn't work and a few months later Adam's boys blew up a shopping mall in Birmingham.
Thanks to Bush the US has only two allies left who will support her without question and are not looking for a handout. They are Britain and Australia. If the US were to elect IRA appologist and supporter Giuliani President both might have second thoughts and conclude that they might just do better fighting the war on terror without his help.
In another debate post, MattY says: McCain is fairly persuasive on immigration.
Assuming MattY is talking about McCain's claim that it's dangerous to have 12 million illegal aliens here, my take is just slightly different.
I interpret that as akin to McCain admitting that our country has been invaded and settled and we have no choice but to capitulate. And, due to his past promotion of illegal immigration, he's not just partly responsible, he's a Quisling as well.
Like I said, just slightly different, but, then again, unlike Matt I'm actually familiar with this issue.
"unlike Matt I'm actually familiar with this issue."
Or, you're a crazy racist. One or the other.
Harding gets a bad rap to some extent. He ended, as promised, the worst features of the Woodrow Wilson adminstration (among other things, he released Debs and signed a peace treaty with Germany), and he made some good appointments. The economy did well during his administration. His problems were corruption and moral weakness. Substitute "avoided" for "ended" and Dubya for Wilson, and all this makes Harding about even with Clinton in my book.
It would be a big improvement if more leading Republicans were like Harding. Maybe Huckabee will fit the bill.
I interpret that as akin to McCain admitting that our country has been invaded and settled and we have no choice but to capitulate.
Absolutely. Let's kick out all the fucking Irish before they turn into a fifth column.
That Simon piece is very good, not least for the aside on why no 'hands-raised' questions (a slight tip o'the hat to Blitzer) but also the McCain quote: "One of the biggest problems with immigration reform is that it takes so long to explain it."
Well, there are other problems, but it's true that the rhetoric of piss-pants Know-Nothings like Wack O' -- 'OH NOES!1! The scary Mescans will kill us all!1!1!' -- is certainly more succinct.
It's easier to have a clear, coherent, principled approach to things when you have no realistic chance of winning. But take any of the more promising members of the Republican B-team, put them in the first tier, and everyone will be horrified at these 'obsessive, single issue candidates'. That's exactly what happened to Dean way back; super-attractive in the background, but terrifying when seen close-up.
The key to success for any modern Presidential contender is the same as that for any contemporary porn star: that you look halfway decent when viewed through a microscopic camera lens.
If you're Fred Thompson you have to ask yourself: yes, I'm a pretty good qua elderly porn star. But will that translate into the political realm?
PHB - Your points about Guilliani are well made (though I thought that the IRA bombed a Manchester shopping centre not Birmingham, it's better to get these things right if you're trying to score political points).
However, how does this differ from support of Israel's actions in the West Bank. Israel justifies this on national security, many people do not accept that in the rest of the world but there is a fiar constituency in NY which does. Hence the Mayor of NY generally accepts it too. The IRA justified their acts on the basis of national self determination - many in NY accepted this and not surprisingly Mayors of NY have a history of being sympathetic to the likes of Noraid...
I am not trying to turn this into a ME discussion - I am just saying that Guilianni's position wrt Irish Republicans was a popular position in NY in the 1990's
The IRA justified their acts on the basis of national self determination - many in NY accepted this
Well, they were fuckwits.
To be honest, the timeline excuses Rudy somewhat: the IRA declared a ceasefire a few weeks before the Crystal Apple ceremony in 1994, and it lasted until the Docklands bombing in 1996. Then came the truck bombing of the Arndale Centre, and the ceasefire was reimposed in 1997.
(The reasons for the brief return to violence are complicated, and relate both to the reliance of John Major on unionist votes to retain a parliamentary majority and the internal politics of the IRA.)
Peter King, on the other hand, was much deeper in with Noraid, and he's curiously avoided questions about thatever since he jumped on the Homeland Security bandwagon. He was lucky that the ceasefire was in effect in 2001, because it would have been pretty hard to square his support for the Provos with the many, many funeral processions for Irish-surnamed FDNY and NYPD officers.
Anyway, British politicians have come to terms with American pols who supported Noraid before the ceasefire. They just consider them ignorant fools for doing so.
Isn't it always the case that the no-hopers have (on average) a more coherent, principled point of view? That's why they're no-hopers - they haven't made the compromises and about turns needed to become part of the establishment power structure.
If you had their actual records, you'd run away, too.
I don't know why you'd be suprised: The top three are the top three because the party establishment likes them, no matter how much they might revolt the base after a close examination. And back in the 1990's, the lesson the party establishment chose to take from the failed government shutdown was that principles were poltical suicide. (The correct lesson was "Don't let Bob Dole get behind your back unless you want a knife in your kidney.")
They've been working against any candidate who shows even a smidgen of principle ever since. That's how the Republican caucus and especially the leadership ended up so corrupt. It didn't happen by accident, but instead as a result of a deliberate effort on the part of party leaders to purge the party of principles.
Focusing exclusively on the IRA when discussing terror in Ireland doesn't work.
American politics has been seriously messed by the solid 30% hard winger vote. The Republicans need to convince 21% from the non-wingers to vote with the wingers, and they've been amazingly successful so far. But the wingers are only so stupid, and they're starting to get suspicious and make demands which will frighten away the 21%, so the Republicans are flailing desperately.
The same 30% destroys the possibility of the kind of centrism Broder, the Post, the Times, et. al. dream of. The "majority of the majority" was not interested in splitting the difference.
"Big Three?" Come on, gang, we're falling down on the job. It's the THREE STOOGES! Nothing else is acceptable. We have to push the Three Stooges theme until it sticks.
Focusing exclusively on the IRA when discussing terror in Ireland doesn't work.
True: though I don't remember leading lights of the 'Scotch-Irish' community, or people at Bob Jones U and Clemson for that matter, passing the hat for the UDA and UVF.
Comments closed June 19, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I agree.
However, among the lower tier Democrats, Gravel and Kucinich have coherent world views. Richardson has the best resume for the job.
Among the big three, each has been in the Senate anywhere from two to eight years, and only one held another elective office. Mike Gravel has more experience than that. And the frontrunner, Hilary Clinton, hasn't really expressed a coherent world view (unless you count the notion that things were good during her husband's adminstration, lets restore that), and probably has the biggest weaknesses for the general election.
And something like this happens every cycle, though this time its really obvious on the Republican side.
Posted by Ed | June 5, 2007 9:28 PM