Enter the Christmas Quietus
I think the politicking is done for a week. Maybe tomorrow morning yet (Friday) people will pay some attention to the news --but not anybody who's got a life. There's are no votes to be got at this height of the season, only votes lost, so I see things as stable until the last week's assault and so will make one more attempt at expressing the dynamics of this race as I see them.
Hillary and Romney, one I dislike, the other I distrust. While there are political and philosophical differences supporting these two feelings, fundamentally it's just instinct, it's just the way I respond. I claim that my instincts are normal, and that means that the way I feel is the way most people feel. The difference is in how they respond. This does have to do with convictions and presumptions and in this way I am tremendously different from many. But still there is the instinct, and if that instinct, that natural human feeling somehow becomes dominant throughout entire groups as the determinant of their vote, then there might be a huge change in the dynamics of the race, and I claim that these are presumptions (not values) that can collapse, and if that happens and people begin to pay more attention to their own good sense, it's then that we have a new race.
With Hillary the presumptions are: inevitability, "competence and experience", and "the natural order of things."
There's a massive presumption that she will be the next nominee. This is a habit of presumption and it has existed, at least subterraneanly, since Bill left office. It's supported as "the way things are" because: She wants it, Bill wants it, and what Bill wants the party gets because Bill is the Party. That this ineffective man is the Party is a creation of media fantasy, Of Bill as the slayer of Republicans, but nevertheless it exists. So, what he wants, that his wife be the nominee, follows as an inevitability. And with the inevitability follows all else: the toughness, the intelligence, the competence, the experience. Never mind that without Bill Hill wouldn't even be bright. What is, is, and that is that Hillary is competent to be president.
Bill could change that in an instant. He could get in a squabble with her. If he ever dropped his support the gestalt would collapse, and Hillary on her own would have no support at all. --It could happen. Vanity. Does he really want his wife to be president when he's not?
The other manner of crumble of course, is the one we're all watching. Can Barrack Obama pop the bubble? Maybe. Their are Democrats not entranced. They know they want someone different. If somehow they can gain a victory, then while the bubble may not yet be burst, it sure will have a whooshing gap. The probability that she will maintain great popular support if she can once be defeated (or maybe twice, because possibly New Hampshire might be necessary as the first true primary) is I would say, nearly non existent. She'll have an apparatus yet, but no enthusiasm. And then if Bill once says: "Hillary, you blew it", the race is all over.
The situation with Romney is not nearly so "magical". He is a "candidate". Fundamentally, that's all he is, because he's accomplished nothing nationally that anybody knows anything about. For this reason if he's beaten he's whipped, he just has no sustaining reputation and accomplishment to draw on (as opposed to Rudy or McCain). So, not liking him, I want him defeated in Iowa and New Hampshire. I would be stunned if he were able to withstand those two losses, because he would have been defeated in the only qualification that he has, that of a "candidate".
His weakness is his veracity, or lack thereof: Who trusts him? If he wins in Iowa, that's something of an endorsement: A man not defeated is possibly a man not untrustworthy. This will hardly create enthusiasm, but it will pull the tooth of his greatest negative. If he wins Iowa he probably wins New Hampshire, if he loses Iowa he probably loses New Hampshire, and everything else, because then the great negative of distrust would have kicked in, and in NH at least, he would be going against a man who's image, whatever other negatives he might have, is that of trust.
So by what dynamism does Romney lose Iowa?
He could lose to both McCain and Huckabee. To Huckabee because he has his constituency, excites emotion, and is "genuine"; to McCain, again, simply because McCain is Trustworthy. A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Huckabee, a vote for McCain is a vote against Romney.
It could happen.
The dynamic of this race is Romney's negatives. Or, more simply, that he's fake.
--I might note that Fred, as disappointing as he's been, is definitely not fake. Neither for that matter is Rudy. Romney's negative's are going up against an extraordinarily strong field.
-------------
This is funny
A New York Times piece favorably reporting on Huckabee's positve reception on the campaign trail. He's respected as a man of conviction, a man who says what he believes. But sometimes he slips, and becomes a mere politician...
----------------
Some fun numbers I just emailed to a friend...
11:15 PM
K,
These are some fun numbers. I don't take any of them very seriously, in that they bop up and down so much. But to summarize:
--Romney comes in third in Iowa,
--Is tied with McCain in New Hampshire,
--Nationally McCain beats Hillary,
--Hillary beats all other Republicans.
American Research Group
Iowa
12/16 - 12/19
Huckabee 28, McCain 20, Romney 17, Guiliani 13, Thompson 5
Same group,
New Hampshire
12/16 - 12/19
McCain 26, Romney 26, Guiliani 16, Huckabee 11, Thompson 4
Fox News
Nationally
12/18 - 12/19
McCain 47%, Hillary 42%
The numbers will be different next week. (On the Dem side things aren't so volitile, just some tightening.)
See you, --Mouse
------------------
Depends On What the Meaning of Is, Is
From The Corner on National Review Online
To See Or Not To See [Mark Hemingway]
There's a bit of controversy brewing today over Mitt Romney — apparently the Boston Phoenix and the Detroit Free Press are reporting that Romney's father George, the former Governor of Michigan never actually marched with Martin Luther King Jr. as had been previously claimed. (Though by all accounts George Romney was supportive of King's efforts.) In his now famous speech in College Station, Romney said “I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.” The New York Times asked him about his statement today and this was his response:
Hillary and Romney, one I dislike, the other I distrust. While there are political and philosophical differences supporting these two feelings, fundamentally it's just instinct, it's just the way I respond. I claim that my instincts are normal, and that means that the way I feel is the way most people feel. The difference is in how they respond. This does have to do with convictions and presumptions and in this way I am tremendously different from many. But still there is the instinct, and if that instinct, that natural human feeling somehow becomes dominant throughout entire groups as the determinant of their vote, then there might be a huge change in the dynamics of the race, and I claim that these are presumptions (not values) that can collapse, and if that happens and people begin to pay more attention to their own good sense, it's then that we have a new race.
With Hillary the presumptions are: inevitability, "competence and experience", and "the natural order of things."
There's a massive presumption that she will be the next nominee. This is a habit of presumption and it has existed, at least subterraneanly, since Bill left office. It's supported as "the way things are" because: She wants it, Bill wants it, and what Bill wants the party gets because Bill is the Party. That this ineffective man is the Party is a creation of media fantasy, Of Bill as the slayer of Republicans, but nevertheless it exists. So, what he wants, that his wife be the nominee, follows as an inevitability. And with the inevitability follows all else: the toughness, the intelligence, the competence, the experience. Never mind that without Bill Hill wouldn't even be bright. What is, is, and that is that Hillary is competent to be president.
Bill could change that in an instant. He could get in a squabble with her. If he ever dropped his support the gestalt would collapse, and Hillary on her own would have no support at all. --It could happen. Vanity. Does he really want his wife to be president when he's not?
The other manner of crumble of course, is the one we're all watching. Can Barrack Obama pop the bubble? Maybe. Their are Democrats not entranced. They know they want someone different. If somehow they can gain a victory, then while the bubble may not yet be burst, it sure will have a whooshing gap. The probability that she will maintain great popular support if she can once be defeated (or maybe twice, because possibly New Hampshire might be necessary as the first true primary) is I would say, nearly non existent. She'll have an apparatus yet, but no enthusiasm. And then if Bill once says: "Hillary, you blew it", the race is all over.
The situation with Romney is not nearly so "magical". He is a "candidate". Fundamentally, that's all he is, because he's accomplished nothing nationally that anybody knows anything about. For this reason if he's beaten he's whipped, he just has no sustaining reputation and accomplishment to draw on (as opposed to Rudy or McCain). So, not liking him, I want him defeated in Iowa and New Hampshire. I would be stunned if he were able to withstand those two losses, because he would have been defeated in the only qualification that he has, that of a "candidate".
His weakness is his veracity, or lack thereof: Who trusts him? If he wins in Iowa, that's something of an endorsement: A man not defeated is possibly a man not untrustworthy. This will hardly create enthusiasm, but it will pull the tooth of his greatest negative. If he wins Iowa he probably wins New Hampshire, if he loses Iowa he probably loses New Hampshire, and everything else, because then the great negative of distrust would have kicked in, and in NH at least, he would be going against a man who's image, whatever other negatives he might have, is that of trust.
So by what dynamism does Romney lose Iowa?
He could lose to both McCain and Huckabee. To Huckabee because he has his constituency, excites emotion, and is "genuine"; to McCain, again, simply because McCain is Trustworthy. A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Huckabee, a vote for McCain is a vote against Romney.
It could happen.
The dynamic of this race is Romney's negatives. Or, more simply, that he's fake.
--I might note that Fred, as disappointing as he's been, is definitely not fake. Neither for that matter is Rudy. Romney's negative's are going up against an extraordinarily strong field.
-------------
This is funny
A New York Times piece favorably reporting on Huckabee's positve reception on the campaign trail. He's respected as a man of conviction, a man who says what he believes. But sometimes he slips, and becomes a mere politician...
His appeal is mainly to people who like the idea of “a man of convictions,” not one who behaves like a conventional, pandering politician. But there are times when even the purest of truth-speakers must bow before the demands of a campaign for the highest office.
“Who is your favorite author?” Aleya Deatsch, 7, of West Des Moines asked Mr. Huckabee in one of those posing-like-a-shopping-mall-Santa moments.
Mr. Huckabee paused, then said his favorite author was Dr. Seuss.
In an interview afterward with the news media, Aleya said she was somewhat surprised. She thought the candidate would be reading at a higher level.
“My favorite author is C. S. Lewis,” she said.
----------------
Some fun numbers I just emailed to a friend...
11:15 PM
K,
These are some fun numbers. I don't take any of them very seriously, in that they bop up and down so much. But to summarize:
--Romney comes in third in Iowa,
--Is tied with McCain in New Hampshire,
--Nationally McCain beats Hillary,
--Hillary beats all other Republicans.
American Research Group
Iowa
12/16 - 12/19
Huckabee 28, McCain 20, Romney 17, Guiliani 13, Thompson 5
Same group,
New Hampshire
12/16 - 12/19
McCain 26, Romney 26, Guiliani 16, Huckabee 11, Thompson 4
Fox News
Nationally
12/18 - 12/19
McCain 47%, Hillary 42%
The numbers will be different next week. (On the Dem side things aren't so volitile, just some tightening.)
See you, --Mouse
------------------
Depends On What the Meaning of Is, Is
From The Corner on National Review Online
To See Or Not To See [Mark Hemingway]
There's a bit of controversy brewing today over Mitt Romney — apparently the Boston Phoenix and the Detroit Free Press are reporting that Romney's father George, the former Governor of Michigan never actually marched with Martin Luther King Jr. as had been previously claimed. (Though by all accounts George Romney was supportive of King's efforts.) In his now famous speech in College Station, Romney said “I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.” The New York Times asked him about his statement today and this was his response:
Mr. Romney said today that he had been using the word “saw” in a “figurative sense.” “If you look at the literature, if you look at the dictionary, the term ‘saw’ includes being aware of in the sense I’ve described,” he said. “It’s a figure of speech and very familiar and it’s very common and I saw my dad march with Martin Luther King. I did not see it with my own eyes but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great effort.”Geraghty has a lot more on this here.
posted by mouse at 9:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home