FeedSo It Begins
January 3, 2008 in Overset
This evening, they will be caucusing in Iowa. Whether you love or hate the system we have, the process to elect a new POTUS has begun. In just over a year, on January 20, 2009, we will have a new president installed in the White House.
First, as much absolute hate there is out there for the current President, I absolutely guarantee that he will not attempt to stay in office one minute past the Constitutionally mandated time. He will not attempt to use the Army or police forces to intimidate voters. He will not sanction, for even a moment, the assassination any candidate.
Second, I believe that the election and transition of power will occur without violence, no matter who wins. Any acts of violence will be denounced, the actors will not be harbored, nor will they be treated heroes by even the smallest percentages of the population.
Third, complain as we might, the system has not been significantly changed in a long, long time. No significant attempt to change the Electoral College has been made.*
Fourth, Americans will, yet again, get exactly what they deserve with the president they elect -just as we have for the previous 55 presidential elections.
Fifth, the United States of America one country where the individual citizen sometimes most effects the outcome of the election by not voting. It’s crazy, but it is true.
I’ll be up late tonight, watching the returns roll in. I won’t be watching the winner and losers so much as how the results.
*Worthy of several posts by itself.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
You forgot to put “irrational” before “hate”.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Putting aside the fact that Bush makes Nixon look like good king Wenceslaus, that America has forfeited international good will recklessly, that the Iraq war was founded on willful deceit and has wasted lives and moey sinfully, and that waterboarding certainly is torture, the fact remains that due to the daft aberration of the Electoral College and a 5-4 vote of a politicized Supreme Court has led to the most disastrous Presidency in this nation’s history.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Alan,
What exactly did you do to attempt to change the system in the ensuing 8 years?
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:36 pm
“Democracy is the belief that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard.” — H.L. Mencken
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Thanks for illustrating my point, Al.
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Hannity (don’t judge me, nothing else was on) just said that Sen. Clinton will finish third in Iowa. Her handlers are out in force today trying to lower expectations. Richardson asked his supporters to back Obama if he (Richardson) doesn’t get the required 15 percent.
Anon, I vouch for Alan having contributed to the good of society.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Alan,
“…the most disastrous Presidency in this nation’s history” was that of our 39th president, whose spinelessness we are stilling paying for 28 years later.
Among the current president’s biggest flaws is his inability to communicate his successes (booming economy and security), but history will be kinder to him than one would think at present.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:29 pm
As far as I know, no one has ever asked Ray LaHood what happened to the constitutional amendment he co-sponsored in the late ’90s to eliminate the Electoral College and have direct election of the president. He never spoke of it after the 2000 election. Coincidence?
I told Molly Parker several times that she should ask him about it, but I don’t think she ever did.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Holy Crap!
I had actually written a different response to Alan Francis that I determined to be “off topic” so I delete it and went with my question about changing the system.
My original comment was “I always considered Jimmy Carter to have been the worst president in the history of the United States”
Well said, Mr. Jordan!
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Booming economy? Booming security?
Are you serious? Seriously, are you serious?
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:52 pm
In defense of J.C., he was following what was considered to be the wise course of action since the beginning of the cold war: Do what it takes to avoid a shooting war. Carter was villified for actually trying a military solution (howeverly poorly executed). And where is the blame for Ronald Reagan? The United States had NO legal or moral responsibility to honor any agreements we made to get those hostages out. RR could have carpetbombed Tehran after they landed on safe soil. Many people advocated it.
To GWB’s credit, his actions in Afghanistan establisned the Bush Doctrine that the U.S. will go after its enemies even though they hide out inside the borders of nations with whom we are nominally at peace.
Nixon’s great flaw was paranoia.. Bush’s failure comes from his penchant for surrounding himself with yes-men and sycophants, and his tendency to believe what he wants to hear.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Vonster, no reply to Bill?
And congrats, you made no mention of “Clinton” in either of your responses.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Who’d a thunk it? The people of Iowa actually chose the two best candidates for president. It’s gonna be a fun year.
January 4th, 2008 at 7:36 am
B. J.,
Booming economy AND security. And yes…that’s the situation in which Caterpillar hires 4,500 locally in just two years and the country has suffered no further terrorist attacks in more than six years.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:06 am
In all the comotion last night about how this was the beginning of the end for Clinton’s and Romney’s campaigns I was shocked that no one seemed to be talking about Guiliani’s horrible single digit performance.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:35 am
The nation that forfeits liberty for the sake of security will lose both and deserves neither.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:29 am
David…when your President gives a speech on the impending recession (he did that yesterday), and when he has overseen the greatest number of bankruptcies in American history, and when only three states (Illinois among them) report a DROP in the latest unemployment rate, and when malls and strip centers nationwide sit 15-30% empty, I wouldn’t call that a “booming economy”.
And security? Six years? So what? Take away attacks perpetrated by our own citizens (Okie City, ‘95), and the last foriegn terrorist attacks on our soil would either be Pearl Harbor (1941) or maybe when the Puerto Rican seperatists snuck into congress in the 50’s.
I’m sorry, I just don’t see where “six years since we’ve been attacked” should be something to hang your hat on.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:31 am
I forgot the pathetic housing market when it comes to the “booming economy”.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:49 am
The Hillary spinners were out in force for the past week lowering expectations. Still, Third Place, while not a death knell by any means, in a place where the polls showed her fairing well two months ago and, up until the actual results began to come in was expected to be a dead heat, she finished 9 points back of the leader with less than 30% of the vote FROM HER OWN PARTY. The reality is, Hillary’s vote were pretty equal to what she polled. That is EXTREMELY significant. While her supporters are loyal, they do not attract the undecided. Edwards picked up 4 points and Obama nearly double that. I think those are more indicative of electability in a general election.
The other “dead heat” race on the Republican side was settled by a similar margin. Guiliani did not put out an extensive effort, and in many caucuses did not poll the needed 15% and his supporters went elsewhere - one suspects Huckabee. McCain and Thompson pulled about 2% better than they polled. Romney pulled a little worse than he polled. Huckabee’s wide margin may have been associated with turnout in some places.
BTW, we heard a lot about the polls. The most accurate poll, recently, was the Des Moines Register poll - called all the races right (except for the wide margin of victory for the winners).
New Hampshire on Tuesday. It will be interesting to see how the candidates react and how the polls change this weekend.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:13 am
B. J., you’ve spent to much time in the briar patch!
Your assertions lack credibility until you cite sources, and it appears that you’re jumping to conclusions based on selective “facts.”
http://www.bls.gov/
The truth is, we’ve had more than four solid years of economic growth; we’ve had real wage growth (mine included) and exports are up, just like other periods of economic growth (1983-1990 and 1992-2000) under presidents of both parties.
The national press tried to talk down the economy this Christmas but sales were up, and like always, the housing market will recover.
As for security, the Shoe Bomber, and 9-11-style attacks for 2002 that included ramming a plane into Los Angeles’ U. S. Bank Tower were thwarted, as were, I’m sure, many others.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:38 am
BJ makes me giggle because I know if they was a NeoCom in the WH he’d be spinning things 180 degrees.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
A lot of heat and no light in much this discourse.
To reiterate one point for the Dubya Ducklings: the misadventure in Iraq was based on misinformation that was either deliberately or ignorantly embraced as an excuse for an egregious action that has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars. The fact that Bush has stated [in debate with Kerry in 2004] that he has never made a mistake in his life is either delusional or megalomaniac. Either way, good riddance.
But we’ve seen the damage done.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
BDS is treatable, Alan.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Alan, you’re never going to win with this bunch.
But don’t worry. A Republican in the White House in 2009? That’s unpossible!
January 4th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Floyd,
I’m catching on to that fact: knee-jerk reaction with the accent on the second syllable.
Please note that Vonster et alia haven’t addressed the Iraq question at all.
Meanwhile, back in the real journalistic world, the NEW YORKER has more reasons not to vote for Giuliani if any of this crew needs a few.
Cheers,
Al
January 4th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Alan,
It’s obvious that you and Stone have lost the argument. Furthermore, you’ve become a walking cliche, espousing the usual mantras of the BDS left. Having said that, let’s set the record straight:
The UN sanctions against Saddam Hussein’s regime were falling apart 1998-2001 after weapons inspectors had been kicked out of the the country. Russian and French peace groups, among others, even violated the embargo in 2001. Now if anyone thinks that Saddam would not take advantage of this situation is naive. Extremely Naive.
Then came 9-11 and 3,000 murdered by Islamists. Suddenly, the real threat of international terrorism hit home and it was clear that ALL threats to the United States had to be dealt with. Thus, the War on Terror is NOT EXCLUSIVE TO AL QAIDA.
We ousted the Taliban in Afghanistan for harboring Al Qaida; we invaded Iraq so we could get rid of Saddam Hussein’s regime and withdraw our forces from Saudi Arabia (one of bin Laden’s gripes); and we sent advisors to help the Philippine government destroy Abu Sayef terrorists.
As the world’s last superpower, we have enough forces to do all of these things and more.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Alan,
Please dispense with the mind-numbed mantras…it’s as if you realized that your side has lost the debate
January 4th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
David P.,
Remind me again, Dubya Daveykins, why the invasion of Iraq was [1] justified [2] successful [3] a well-planned investment of American lives and money [4] a good idea.
And then assure us that you sleep more soundly every night knowing that Dick Cheney is a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Guiliani did not put out an extensive effort, and in many caucuses did not poll the needed 15% and his supporters went elsewhere - one suspects Huckabee.
…
Only the Dems had a 15% initial threshold and second-chance voting.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Vonster,
If BDS = Bush Disdain Syndrome, public opinion polls reveal that it is spreading throughout the population.
January 5th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Alan,
Your irrational hatred based on false premises obvious. But here it goes:
(1) See my January 4 post at 3:53pm. read carefully.
(2) Saddam Hussein is dead. A consensual government has been elected. The vast majority of Iraqi’s do not support Al Qaida or Sunni or Shi’ite terrorists. The surge strategy is working and violence has declined precipitously during the past six months. So much so that media coverage has declined just as precipitously.
(3) No longer do USAF and USN fighter crews have to risk their lives patrolling the no-fly zone over Iraq; nor do we have to maintain forward bases in Saudi Arabia (where two bombings in the mid-1990’s killed our servicemen); no longer can Saddam Hussein fund terrorists in Israel (which have killed Americans) or revive his NBC programs when the world isn’t looking.
(4) Saddam Hussein is longer around to support international terrorism which threatens Israel, Europe and the US.
January 5th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
David,
Contrarily, David my disdain for the disastrous Bush administration is much more irrational than your flimsy defense of same.
1] I did. Tell me again where those weapons of mass destruction were. It’s really hard to find something when it’s not there, such as common sense and regard for the truth in the Bush administration.
2] And Osama Bin Laden is still alive and well. He, not Saddam, was the villain behind 9/11. Whatever happened to our Texan drugstore cowboy’s determination to bring him back dead or alive?
3] Tell that balderdash to the families of the US soldiers and the Iraqi citizens who died this week “Who wants to be the last person to die for a mistake?”–I’m sure you know who said that. Hint: he was a combat warrior, not a Air Force Reserve flyboy ducking out on his duties.
4] See #2 above.
Sigh. I should know better. Trying to influence you neocons who are counting your tax-break shekels and rejoicing because you don’t have one of those great new minimum wage jobs is like talking to a bandersnatch. “When ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.”
January 5th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
A self-correction:
The posting above should begin:
“my disdain for the disastrous Bush administration is much more rational than your flimsy defense of same.”
My apologies. Once again the ready-Fire!-aim of swift response caused an momentary error.
But at least it’s not the Deep Error of thinking that the Iraq invasion was a really good idea that has Osama bin Laden shaking in his sandals.
‘In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.’
January 5th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Alan,
You didn’t read my comments carefully. You’re still wound up on false premises. I’ll try make this clear:
IRAQ NEED NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9-11. ISLAMIC EXTREMISM IS THE THREAT AND AL QAIDA IS ONLY PART OF IT.
WMD’S WERE ONE OF 22 REASONS GIVEN TO REMOVE SADDAM HUSSEIN FROM POWER. THE WMD ISSUE RECIEVED THE MAJORITY OF PUBLICITY BECAUSE IT WAS USED IN SEEKING U. N. SECURITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION TO USE FORCE.
TRYING TO HUNT DOWN AND KILL ONE PERSON IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, AND INVADING PAKISTAN - A NATION OF 161.5 MILLION PEOPLE - IS NOT AN OPTION.
When a Democrat president fails to get Osama bin Laden, we’ll see how much you complain.
“Who wants to be the last person to die for a mistake?”
- Senator John Forbes Kerry (loser of 2004 presidential election, and fraud who publicly accused fellow servicemen of war crimes that did not happen).
January 5th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
ALAN FRANCIS WROTE: Sigh. I should know better. Trying to influence you neocons who are counting your tax-break shekels and rejoicing because you don’t have one of those great new minimum wage jobs is like talking to a bandersnatch. “When ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.”
Mininum wage jobs? Are you that ignorant? Let me educate you.
Caterpillar and John Deere have been on a hiring spree for several years to replace retiring workers and to keep up with demand for their product. Komatsu is at full production. Shuttered plants have been purchased and jobs created - Mittal Steel now operates the old LTV plant at Hennepin, Radian Corp operates the old Rohn plant at Bellevue, and the Peoria area has seen new manufacturing facilities - Homeway Homes, Excel Crusher Systems, Reed Minerals. I could go on.
We’ve had good and bad economic times under both Democratic and Republican presidents, so the problem, Alan, is you. You’re perpetually negative.
January 6th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Seeing the Iraq war for what it is–a hideously costly misadventure spurred on by a misled and/or misleading Bush administration–is not irrational and negative; it’s realistic and rational.
With Bush’s approval rating hovering at around 30% and sentiment in favor of continuing the Iraq war at about the same, David, you are quixotic in your continued championing of the same.
Cheers,
Al
January 6th, 2008 at 11:30 am
So…Anon E. Mouse believes that since we don’t live under a tyranny, we are ok. “nothing to see here….move along”….as long as we vote, things will change..right…as evidenced by the 2000 vote.
There’s really no need to illustrate the deficiencies of the current administration…they are well known, except to those who like to drink the turd soup that the Repblicans serve after every trip and fall….
We need someone with a good strategery for global peace in mind…heh heh heh….
January 6th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Alan,
I don’t go by polls.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
David,
Let’s see, you’ve ruled out history, rational analysis, international opinion, and polls.
What does that leave you with?
Al
January 6th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Mike - thank you for correcting me.
January 6th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
It is surreal to such whero orship of this administration still going on. However, to tout the “booming economy” that the Bushies have brought us, one must truly be living in some alternate universe. You embarass yourself, David.
January 6th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Wow, my post was about the current election and it turned into a debate on George W. Bush.
The 2000 election has been mentioned but really nothing has changed as far as the electoral process. The decision to go to war in Iraq has been discussed but little about the fact that we are there and what direction we should take from here.
I seriously think that those who are holding on to their anger - be it anger at the current administration or at the preceding administration - are going to be the real losers in this election.
Instead of intelligent discussion of what matters, we get “I Told You So”’s lobbed back and forth.
May I suggest we speak about the affect Iowa has had on New Hampshire?
January 7th, 2008 at 2:32 am
Mouse: Gladly.
You cannot under estimate the effect expectations have on elections.
In a perfect world, everyone would look at candidates’ records, backgrounds, positions, personalities, character and make the choice for the candidate they think is best, and have these things be the only considerations.
But they don’t, for a variety of reasons, will try to vote strategically. They might feel that the guy they really like hasn’t a chance in Hell, and that it they don’t vote for the person who’s second, third of fourth on their list might lose to the guy who’s last.
All a mediocre candidate has to do is convince enough people that they are the last best hope for a leader that doesn’t suck too bad, they win.
And then there’s the attitude that some have that one wastes one’ vote by not voting for someone who doesn’t have a good chance of winning.
Because this is the reality in which we operate, Obama’s win in Iowa is vastly more important than the paltry number of electoral votes he receives.A win in New Hampshire (again, with relatively few electoral votes) would have the same effect.
Every pundit show I saw today had people gushing all over Obama. It’s like after spending 18 months gushing over the inevitability of Hillary, these guys felt like they had to start making up for lost time, lest they have no friends inside the Obama administration.
The convention is a loooooong way off. Obama is in good shape, and looks poised to capture N.H. Beyond that, I have to think Edwards will do well in South Carolina. Clinton has to do well soon, somewhere, or her campaign based on her inevitability will fade away. No one in politics wants to sink their wagon on a sinking ship.
As far as the Huckabee juggernaut … I’ll wait until there’s been a primary in which both Rudy Giuliani AND John McCain actually put up a fight before I declare Huckabee the inevitable nominee.
January 7th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Bill, New Hampshire is likely to be that place for the Republican battle you want. Huckabee is not enjoying the same post-Iowa “bounce” or “surge” that Obama is.
You are right about the ‘perception’ issue as well. People are much more likely to vote for a ‘winner’. Everyone wants to be on the winning team. I was involved with dissecting some polling data in college and what amazed me was some fo the post-election polling - it always ran with a 5% difference. If a candidate received 51% of the vote, 56% of the people will say they voted for them. Obviously they did not.
With huckabee, He is getting a little bounce in NH. Obama’s is more of a tidal wave, with something like 15% turnaround (down by 7% now up by 8%). I think it is equal parts that Obama has proven his ‘viability’ now and also that there is a significant section of people who are looking for an alternative to HRC.
No new polling is available for South Carolina or Michigan yet to is there was an aftershock there.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Mouse’s two points are well-taken.
First, the electoral college is an aberration, as 2000 election showed. When I’ve tried to explain it to British friends–how the person with the most votes can still lose the election–they look at me in silent confirmation of the view that Yanks are barmy. It was support of Bush in Iraq, by the way, that brought Tony Blair down.
As to Iraq, there seem to be no good solutions, only less bad solutions.
Not long after the Tet offensive scored a stunning setback for US efforts in Vietnam 40 years ago this month, Sen George Aiken of Vermont suggested that the US should declare that we had won and go home. That essentially is what happened over six years later.
In that time, three former classmates of mine were killed–not the last men to die for that mistake.