mans_best_friend's Blog

Thoughts on yesterday, today and tomorrow.

2008-11-05T16:22:13Z

Over the last several months I've been asking people the following question: "Who, in relatively recent times, have been the greatest Presidents?" I've asked a lot of different people with a variety of different views, but by far the most frequently named were Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. The consistency with which these three were named is striking. The obvious question is "What do these three have in common?" It's clearly not their politics - Reagan is as different from the other two as night and day. It's not their accomplishments - Kennedy was President for less than three years, which was too short to actually accomplish very much. Johnson actually accomplished most of what Kennedy started, and no one named him for the list. I think the quality they all had in common can be summed up in one word: charisma. Throughout history, charismatic leaders have had a special place. They're transformative. Whatever you might think of their politics, these three men transformed the way Americans thought of themselves and their country at a time when Americans had serious doubts about our ability to shape our lives and our future.

There is as saying that, I believe, is traced to Buddhism: "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear." I think the same is true of politics: "When the country is ready, the leader will appear." There is no doubt that Barack Obama is a charismatic figure with the potential to be transformative. Whether the transformation actually happens remains to be seen. The forces of the status quo are formidable indeed and are already lining up to oppose him.

The nature of the transformation is clearly a rejection of the politics of division. More than that, though, I think it is that the nature of 21st century problems are such that they cannot be solved by a laissez-faire approach of each person working in his own self-interest. They will require a shared commitment, a shared purpose and a shared sacrifice.

If we really believe that it's time to put the smallness of our politics behind us, we must walk the walk. To those who have disagreed, whether Republicans, Democrats, independents, PUMAs or whatever, we must extend a hand and ask them to join us in moving forward. Those who refuse will need to be dragged kicking and screaming, because the future calls us all. The operative word in "Yes we can" is "we".

If you expect change to be sudden or dramatic, you're going to be disappointed. Tomorrow will look pretty much like yesterday. Real change is slow and hard. But today is the first day of the future so today is where we must begin.

Let us begin together.

Snowball fights in Hell today.

2008-10-17T21:34:05Z

In its entire 161 year history, the Chicago Tribune has never endorsed a Democratic candidate for President of the United States - until today.

Conservatism vs. the Republican Party

2008-10-15T13:42:52Z

You may have seen this little tidbit of news. Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Buckley, has resigned from the National Review after endorsing Barack Obama. In the article he says the following:

"While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of "conservative" government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.
"So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven't left the Republican Party. It left me."

If, as it seems likely, the Republican party gets slammed on November 4, there will undoubtedly be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, not to mention finger-pointing as they try to sort out what went wrong with their "movement". It seems to me that if they want to know what went wrong, Buckley just pointed it out to them: they've betrayed pretty much every conservative principle they ever stood for.

As to where they go from here, it's anyone's guess. A schism seems likely. The various factions will inevitably blame each other and it may take a few years before a new coalition forms, but coalitions are born of necessity, and being out of power will provide the sort of kick in the pants they need to get rid of the more parasitic elements.

In the meantime, the Democrats have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do big things without Republican obstruction. The window will be short. Don't blow it, guys.

Do you live in the USA? Are you SURE?

2008-07-01T18:12:26Z

No one has yet satisfactorily explained to me why it is that John McCain, having been born on a US Military base in Panama, can be considered a "natural born citizen", yet Constitutional protections do not apply on a US Military base in Cuba because it's not US soil.

Now there's this. Apparently, Kennedy Airport is no longer technically a part of the United States.

So my advice is, no matter where you live, make sure your passport is up to date. You never know when you're going to find your location declared outside the US and you'll need the passport to get back in.

Malkin still has marbles left to lose?

2008-05-29T15:23:54Z

It's hard to know what to say about this, really. Michelle Malkin and assorted other crazies are on a new tizzy. They're all over noted Islamic radical Rachel Ray over a scarf she's wearing in a Dunkin Donuts commercial. What's really sad is that DD knuckled under and pulled the ad.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/29/news/companies/dunkin_donuts.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008052910

Future of the GOP

2008-05-16T22:06:06Z

A couple of posts in another thread got me thinking again about what happens after this year's elections. Right now it appears the Democrats could be poised for a coast-to-coast landslide of epic proportions. A lot can happen between now and November, but assuming this landslide materializes and the Republicans are routed across the country, how will they respond?

As presently constituted, the Republican party is essentially a coalition of the following groups:

1. Wall Street Republicans
2. Neocons
3. Religious Right and social conservatives
4. Assorted racists and other neanderthals

Will they regroup and try to go on as before or will a stunning defeat catalyze internecine warfare in the GOP? Will the coalition fracture?

There's gold in them thar' exit polls.

2008-05-07T15:27:29Z

Much has been made of how many Clinton voters would vote for Obama in the general election and vice versa. But there's another question that begs to be asked: "How many of those who voted for a particular candidate did so with no intention of actually voting for that candidate in the general election?" In Indiana, 10% of the voters identified themselves as Republicans and those broke for Hillary Clinton 53-47. In North Carolina the number of self-identified Republicans was only 5%, but they broke even more strongly for Clinton: 61-32. But how many of these Republicans would actually vote Democratic in November? How many independents would vote Democratic in November? How much mischief was caused by people voting in the Democratic primary who had no intention of voting for that candidate in November? In both states' exit polls, voters were asked who they would vote for in a two-way race between Clinton and McCain. They were also asked in a separate question who they would vote for in a two-way race between Obama and McCain. Regardless of who the Democratic nominee was, between 23 and 26% of the respondants said they would vote for John McCain or not vote at all. It is the breakdown of these voters, when analyzed, that is quite illuminating.

In Indiana, 13.8% of those who voted for Hillary Clinton said they would either vote for John McCain or not vote at all in November. Let that sink in for a second. Almost one in seven who voted for her in the primary said they would not vote for her in the general election. For Obama the number was considerably smaller: only 4.8% of those who voted for him said they would not vote for him in November. Who would vote for a candidate in the primary when they had no intention of voting for him in the general election? They can only be Republican crossover votes, but more importantly, crossover votes who had no intention of voting Democratic in the fall. As a group, they broke 75%-25% for Hillary Clinton in Indiana.

In North Carolina the numbers are even more extreme. More than one in six (17.2%) of those who voted for Hillary Clinton said they would not vote for her in the general election, while only 3.7% of Obama voters said they would not vote for him in November. Clinton captured 78% of these voters in North Carolina, which is a similar percentage to what was observed in Indiana.

It's impossible to tell whether this group is part of Operation Chaos, voting for a candidate who they deem more beatable in November or just registering a second choice. Regardless, since these people had no intention of voting Democratic in the fall, it's reasonable when addressing the "electability" argument to ask what the totals would be without them. Given that these voters amount to 10% of the votes cast, it's not surprising to find that their impact was considerable. Counting only voters who said they would vote for their candidate in November if he/she were the nominee, Obama would have won Indiana 52%-48% and his margin in North Carolina would have expanded to 61%-39%.

Have at it.