Dead Men Two
Mitt and Fred, dead dead dead. Mitt because he said he was a great businessman and would buy two states and tried and didn't and failed; Fred because he said he had great wisdom and didn't need to play the political game like the others and didn't and with his vast, self-pleased brain got one percent of the vote in New Hampshire. Dead Fred, dope.
So the race is now to McCain and Huck. And maybe Rudy. Rudy isn't dead yet because he hasn't failed yet. He said his race began late, he said he would win Florida. He might. Once Florida is in focus he's relevant again, and when he's relevant he's strong. He does have a resume'.
Mitt will be wiped out in Michigan, Fred in South Carolina. Mitt has the ignorant arrogance of the sheltered board room boss and Fred the stupidity of the intellectual memorizing his lines. Neither has had political experience, neither has a political brain. People in time get tired of twits.
On the Demo side it's Hill and Obama, the lady of experience with no experience and the man of vision with no vision. Vacant words, and fairy tale. Edwards has some slight viability yet, at least he's still None of the Above.
But that won't last long. It is a two man race, with a lot of bad blood. It's the ego of Hill opposed by those who have had enough of Bill. The stake is control of the Party. There is no principle involved, only power, and no principle will be shown. Somebody, for example, is soon going to discover that Barack is a black man, and somebody will mention it.
On the Republican side there is the struggle of principle, but the Reagan conservatives have no champion --probably because it's a dead philosophy. It's probably dead because the great God, Free Market, is a jealous god and leaves no room for ordinary human decency or minimally adaptive intelligence. 'Course, this is a false God, or at least falsely understood, created by a strange priestly class that strangely calls itself "conservative". Fortunately they will soon be dead too. In a year or so we will have a new Republican party, hopefully led by a Christian who recognizes a mere theory when he sees one.
----------------
It's my argument that men who have established they are losers, against the benchmarks they established for themselves, will be dismissed by the public. These Michigan polls don't agree. The order of the results listed is:
McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Paul, Giuliani, Thompson
Detroit News
01/09 - 01/12
M 27, R 26, H 19, P 4, G 6, T 5, McCain +1.0
Mitchell Research
01/09 - 01/12
M 22, R 21, H 12, P 7, G 7, T 3, McCain +1.0
Detroit Free Press
01/09 - 01/11
M 22, R 27, H 16, P 5, G 4, T 4, Romney +5.0
I don't agree with these polls, though they were taken after New Hampshire. They still show Romney with life. Maybe a lot of people think they're voting for his dad. --Earlier polls had shown McCain way down on occasion, and sometimes Huckabee even in the lead, so possibly it's just a matter of becoming focused just before the vote.
-------------------
Dan Riehl, a Huckabee hater ("He's thin-skinned and relatively shallow." "For all his preaching, Huckabee seems like a very low-minded, mean individual. That should be a concern. Character counts and Huckabee doesn't have very much of it." ) is encouraged by these reports and has a great many posts on the matter, and a scenario of Romney winning Michigan, and maybe Nevada, by passing South Carolina, perhaps Florida (they don't really matter anyway) and then using his superior advertising budget (no others can compete, they can't do retail politics in so many states at once) to do well on Super Tuesday, after which he will be ahead of everyone on the delegate count (or very high) and everyone will have forgotten the embarrassment of his early state losses, thenceforth on to triumph. --At least he recognizes that the early state losses are an embarrassment.
-----------------
And Thompson in South Carolina, with all the political touch of a dyspeptic bulldog, continues to attack Mike Huckabee:
I suspect Fred's tone of bitching will be about as effective as Romney's negative ads in Iowa. If you want to criticize a man substantively you have to do more than just say he isn't Reagan. Reagan wouldn't still be Reagan after thirty years of change.
So the race is now to McCain and Huck. And maybe Rudy. Rudy isn't dead yet because he hasn't failed yet. He said his race began late, he said he would win Florida. He might. Once Florida is in focus he's relevant again, and when he's relevant he's strong. He does have a resume'.
Mitt will be wiped out in Michigan, Fred in South Carolina. Mitt has the ignorant arrogance of the sheltered board room boss and Fred the stupidity of the intellectual memorizing his lines. Neither has had political experience, neither has a political brain. People in time get tired of twits.
On the Demo side it's Hill and Obama, the lady of experience with no experience and the man of vision with no vision. Vacant words, and fairy tale. Edwards has some slight viability yet, at least he's still None of the Above.
But that won't last long. It is a two man race, with a lot of bad blood. It's the ego of Hill opposed by those who have had enough of Bill. The stake is control of the Party. There is no principle involved, only power, and no principle will be shown. Somebody, for example, is soon going to discover that Barack is a black man, and somebody will mention it.
On the Republican side there is the struggle of principle, but the Reagan conservatives have no champion --probably because it's a dead philosophy. It's probably dead because the great God, Free Market, is a jealous god and leaves no room for ordinary human decency or minimally adaptive intelligence. 'Course, this is a false God, or at least falsely understood, created by a strange priestly class that strangely calls itself "conservative". Fortunately they will soon be dead too. In a year or so we will have a new Republican party, hopefully led by a Christian who recognizes a mere theory when he sees one.
----------------
It's my argument that men who have established they are losers, against the benchmarks they established for themselves, will be dismissed by the public. These Michigan polls don't agree. The order of the results listed is:
McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Paul, Giuliani, Thompson
Detroit News
01/09 - 01/12
M 27, R 26, H 19, P 4, G 6, T 5, McCain +1.0
Mitchell Research
01/09 - 01/12
M 22, R 21, H 12, P 7, G 7, T 3, McCain +1.0
Detroit Free Press
01/09 - 01/11
M 22, R 27, H 16, P 5, G 4, T 4, Romney +5.0
I don't agree with these polls, though they were taken after New Hampshire. They still show Romney with life. Maybe a lot of people think they're voting for his dad. --Earlier polls had shown McCain way down on occasion, and sometimes Huckabee even in the lead, so possibly it's just a matter of becoming focused just before the vote.
-------------------
Dan Riehl, a Huckabee hater ("He's thin-skinned and relatively shallow." "For all his preaching, Huckabee seems like a very low-minded, mean individual. That should be a concern. Character counts and Huckabee doesn't have very much of it." ) is encouraged by these reports and has a great many posts on the matter, and a scenario of Romney winning Michigan, and maybe Nevada, by passing South Carolina, perhaps Florida (they don't really matter anyway) and then using his superior advertising budget (no others can compete, they can't do retail politics in so many states at once) to do well on Super Tuesday, after which he will be ahead of everyone on the delegate count (or very high) and everyone will have forgotten the embarrassment of his early state losses, thenceforth on to triumph. --At least he recognizes that the early state losses are an embarrassment.
-----------------
And Thompson in South Carolina, with all the political touch of a dyspeptic bulldog, continues to attack Mike Huckabee:
"This is about the heart and soul of the Republican Party and where the Republican Party is going to go over the next several years," Thompson said during a meeting attended by more than 100 people and also broadcast on AM radio...It's good to know that Reagan was part of the Uninterrupted Succession of Holy Popes of the Conservative Faith, not just that he was a bright guy who came up with an idea for a coalition that would work for a time in American history.
"On the one hand, you have the Reagan coalition, which was based on sound, conservative principles that were handed down from the very beginning of the country," Thompson said. "On the other hand, we've got people now saying, 'Well, we need to be more populist. We need to talk about, you know, about the man's holding us down.'
I suspect Fred's tone of bitching will be about as effective as Romney's negative ads in Iowa. If you want to criticize a man substantively you have to do more than just say he isn't Reagan. Reagan wouldn't still be Reagan after thirty years of change.
posted by mouse at 12:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home