Sunday, August 31, 2008
Amazing!!!!!!!!!!!
Please check my previous post. Not 100 percent accurate but well within margin of error. Stay tuned for more amazing predictions!!!! Jack
Monday, August 25, 2008
All winners!!
It's back to politics today at the start of the Democratic Convention. I may be paranoid, but I see alot of 'partisan' politics here.
The name of the game lately has been "gain or loss." Obama extends lead; McCain cuts Obama lead". The actual figures get little attention. So let's say I am a Republican leaning pollster. Today I want Obama a few points ahead so after the convention I can report a near tie, so the Convention did not help Obama. And the reverse. If I am a Democratic leaning polster I want it almost a tie today. Then after the convention if Obama is 4 points ahead I can say "Convention gives Obama big boost.
As you know I am not afraid to go to the limb. After the convention, Obama will be 2-3 points ahead on average. So both sides win.
Republican leaning poll: Rasmussen.
Democratic leaning poll. Zogby.
And don't forget margin of error (MOE). Everyone is right using MOE.
The name of the game lately has been "gain or loss." Obama extends lead; McCain cuts Obama lead". The actual figures get little attention. So let's say I am a Republican leaning pollster. Today I want Obama a few points ahead so after the convention I can report a near tie, so the Convention did not help Obama. And the reverse. If I am a Democratic leaning polster I want it almost a tie today. Then after the convention if Obama is 4 points ahead I can say "Convention gives Obama big boost.
As you know I am not afraid to go to the limb. After the convention, Obama will be 2-3 points ahead on average. So both sides win.
Republican leaning poll: Rasmussen.
Democratic leaning poll. Zogby.
And don't forget margin of error (MOE). Everyone is right using MOE.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Catholicism: The American Taliban?
In an earlier post I had questioned what the Catholic Church's position was on placing its doctrines into law in the U.S. The earlier position-pre-vatican II- was that the Church for reasons of expediency might accept laws which they considered contrary to Catholic doctrines, but would maintain the right to make and enforce laws acceptable to the Church if Catholics were in the majority. Vatican II seem to modify this position, but I am not clear what the Church's actual position is on this issue.
We know, of course, that our democracy is supposedly based on the rule of the majority WITH protection for the right of the minority. The Church's position is, and I assume still is, that error has no right to exist.
Now obviously we see this conflict in the abortion wars. The majority of Americans would seem to agree that abortion under some circumstances (rape, incest, health of mother etc) is legal. The Church argues that abortions should always be illegal except for immediate danger of death to the mother. The Church argues that this is strictly a matter to be decided by 'majority rule' with no rights for the minority. The Church considers abortion murder; most Americans do not. Assume, for the sake of argument that 51 percent of Americans in a state agreed with the Church could the 'rights' of the 49 percent be eliminated and the death penalty opposed on those who have abortions?
Now let's go further. The Church considers contraception a major sin. Now, if in a state, the majority agreed it was sinful, could, under Catholic thinking, those who use contraception (49 percent we'll say) be subject to criminal penalties.
A step further. The Church believes orgasm outside of male sexual penetration of the female is sinful. Would masturbation and any other act of orgasm not meeting the sexual penetration criterion be considered criminal behavior with legal penalties and punishments?
Would sexual intercourse outside of marriage be considered a criminal offense?
I believe the Church already considers the state has a right to ban same-sex relationships.
My point should be clear. Since the Church considers all sexual conduct sinful/evil that does not conform to their standard, are there any minority rights in this area exempt from legal censure and punishment should the Church gain a majority in any state of the country.
I should make this clear. I have no objections to the Church enforcing these strictures on their members with what tools they have. But should the Church attempt to enlist the state to enforce its definitions of sin/evil on all others? Assuming as Catholics do that the magisterium is almost never, if ever, in error.
We know, of course, that our democracy is supposedly based on the rule of the majority WITH protection for the right of the minority. The Church's position is, and I assume still is, that error has no right to exist.
Now obviously we see this conflict in the abortion wars. The majority of Americans would seem to agree that abortion under some circumstances (rape, incest, health of mother etc) is legal. The Church argues that abortions should always be illegal except for immediate danger of death to the mother. The Church argues that this is strictly a matter to be decided by 'majority rule' with no rights for the minority. The Church considers abortion murder; most Americans do not. Assume, for the sake of argument that 51 percent of Americans in a state agreed with the Church could the 'rights' of the 49 percent be eliminated and the death penalty opposed on those who have abortions?
Now let's go further. The Church considers contraception a major sin. Now, if in a state, the majority agreed it was sinful, could, under Catholic thinking, those who use contraception (49 percent we'll say) be subject to criminal penalties.
A step further. The Church believes orgasm outside of male sexual penetration of the female is sinful. Would masturbation and any other act of orgasm not meeting the sexual penetration criterion be considered criminal behavior with legal penalties and punishments?
Would sexual intercourse outside of marriage be considered a criminal offense?
I believe the Church already considers the state has a right to ban same-sex relationships.
My point should be clear. Since the Church considers all sexual conduct sinful/evil that does not conform to their standard, are there any minority rights in this area exempt from legal censure and punishment should the Church gain a majority in any state of the country.
I should make this clear. I have no objections to the Church enforcing these strictures on their members with what tools they have. But should the Church attempt to enlist the state to enforce its definitions of sin/evil on all others? Assuming as Catholics do that the magisterium is almost never, if ever, in error.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Celibacy is Superior The church is not a democracy.
Blogging over the last couple of years has confirmed that catholics put forth the argument when pressed that "the Church is not a democracy." This is true and is not necessarily bad. Burke said something to the affect that 'men should be weighed, not just counted.' But, of course, there is a danger in 'weighing, not just counting' in that it CAN be a receipe for the dominance of one group over another.
I see this most clearly in the Church's attitude toward human sexuality all the way from masturbation to abortion. My approach is this: What would a society or group who were all pledged to celibacy have to say about human sexuality. From this I conclude that the Catholic church's teaching on sexuality fits perfectly what we would expect from a society of celibates.
One. It is clear that the church since the earliest times held sexual desires and actions to be inferior to celibacy. And that is putting it mildly. The Church for centuries regarded sex as degrading but necessary to keep the species going.
Two. The church has always held that celibacy is necessary for the complete devotion to God. And thus the celibate should be superior to the married in the service of God .This belief is clearly still held today, if we look past the effort to soften this attitude today.
Three. The church has always argued that the principal purpose of sex is procreation. They offer no proof of this from natural law or logic. It is simply true because the church says so, despite the fact that throughout human history procreation has been an occassional outcome of sexual intercourse, but has in no ways been the principal motive of sexual relations.
Four. Beginning in the 1930's the church has added the "unitive" principle as a reason for sexual relations. JP2 was the culmination of the two purposes of sex approach. It should be pointed out that the church, before 1930, must have been teaching falsely in that virtually no emphasis was placed on the "unitive" aspect and JP2 doctrine was considered a great 'breakthrough."
Five. The two 'purposes' approach is totally inadequate to most. The must have possibility of preocreation argument simply means no contraceptives or no orgasm outside of sexual intercourse. The unitive principal would take incredible subtlety to follow. Example: to assume that both parties are in total unity as to the pleasure of the sex act is almost impossible to determine. I'm watching a football game on TV and my wife desires sexual relationship. I put her off---has the unitive principle been violated. Even if sexual relationships are performed, but I am less interested, Have I failed the unitive effect? The unitive effect really comes down to don't rape your sponse. Good point, Yes.
Six. The church's teaching of no orgasm without male penetration is far-fetched. Great excitement in foreplay can lead to orgasm. I notice in checking the Catholic Answers site they suggest the unse of benzacaine to deaden sexual feeling. A bit artificial it seems to me.
Seven. The church desires the banning of contraceptives. Do they also desire to dictate the legitimacy of sexual foreplay and positions.
Eight. In its wisdom the Church developed NFP. That is a way to have sex not open to procreation, or, at least, so they claim. It is not like a condom, for example, because it is not artificial. That is a condom is something physical. The rigors of NFP achieve the same result with calendar counting, temperature, etc. Perfectly natural the church says.
Nine. Life begins at the moment of conception. Clever, but transparent. All aspects of the human body are human life. The real question is when does a cell become a person. The church knows their position that a single cell is a person is not accepted by most;so let's change person to life. No one will notice the difference. So a fertilized egg is a person just as much as a billion cell body. It has all the rights of any person. This is so unreasonable even to catholics---a pregnant person is not counted as two people, a single cell is not baptized, billions of these "persons" are eliminated by nature in spontaneous abortions, people do not weep over these simple cell forms which are expelled by nature, if they are full persons what is their physical in an afterlife, and on ad infinitum.
Ten. The church shows no particular interest in life after birth. It supports with great pride the African churches with their incredible records of female sexual mutilation, starvation sized families ( if only all Africans could have a NFP course), their opposition to sex education, the spread of aids, the suppression of women, their support of or neutrality toward dictatorial regimes. Well, the church says, we must not interfer with local customs.
Now all of the above are exactly what you would expect from those who are self claimed superior because of their celibacy but realize they cannot totally control human nature. The church can and should be great. But as long as ALL decisions are made by practical eunuchs to protect their superiority, there is little hope. After all the church is not a democracy. So what laypeople think and do is without significance.
I did not write this in anger and was holding it off because of my two boys. I was "inspired" by a flagrant example of naked clericalism that I experienced this week effecting my grandchildrem. Jack
I see this most clearly in the Church's attitude toward human sexuality all the way from masturbation to abortion. My approach is this: What would a society or group who were all pledged to celibacy have to say about human sexuality. From this I conclude that the Catholic church's teaching on sexuality fits perfectly what we would expect from a society of celibates.
One. It is clear that the church since the earliest times held sexual desires and actions to be inferior to celibacy. And that is putting it mildly. The Church for centuries regarded sex as degrading but necessary to keep the species going.
Two. The church has always held that celibacy is necessary for the complete devotion to God. And thus the celibate should be superior to the married in the service of God .This belief is clearly still held today, if we look past the effort to soften this attitude today.
Three. The church has always argued that the principal purpose of sex is procreation. They offer no proof of this from natural law or logic. It is simply true because the church says so, despite the fact that throughout human history procreation has been an occassional outcome of sexual intercourse, but has in no ways been the principal motive of sexual relations.
Four. Beginning in the 1930's the church has added the "unitive" principle as a reason for sexual relations. JP2 was the culmination of the two purposes of sex approach. It should be pointed out that the church, before 1930, must have been teaching falsely in that virtually no emphasis was placed on the "unitive" aspect and JP2 doctrine was considered a great 'breakthrough."
Five. The two 'purposes' approach is totally inadequate to most. The must have possibility of preocreation argument simply means no contraceptives or no orgasm outside of sexual intercourse. The unitive principal would take incredible subtlety to follow. Example: to assume that both parties are in total unity as to the pleasure of the sex act is almost impossible to determine. I'm watching a football game on TV and my wife desires sexual relationship. I put her off---has the unitive principle been violated. Even if sexual relationships are performed, but I am less interested, Have I failed the unitive effect? The unitive effect really comes down to don't rape your sponse. Good point, Yes.
Six. The church's teaching of no orgasm without male penetration is far-fetched. Great excitement in foreplay can lead to orgasm. I notice in checking the Catholic Answers site they suggest the unse of benzacaine to deaden sexual feeling. A bit artificial it seems to me.
Seven. The church desires the banning of contraceptives. Do they also desire to dictate the legitimacy of sexual foreplay and positions.
Eight. In its wisdom the Church developed NFP. That is a way to have sex not open to procreation, or, at least, so they claim. It is not like a condom, for example, because it is not artificial. That is a condom is something physical. The rigors of NFP achieve the same result with calendar counting, temperature, etc. Perfectly natural the church says.
Nine. Life begins at the moment of conception. Clever, but transparent. All aspects of the human body are human life. The real question is when does a cell become a person. The church knows their position that a single cell is a person is not accepted by most;so let's change person to life. No one will notice the difference. So a fertilized egg is a person just as much as a billion cell body. It has all the rights of any person. This is so unreasonable even to catholics---a pregnant person is not counted as two people, a single cell is not baptized, billions of these "persons" are eliminated by nature in spontaneous abortions, people do not weep over these simple cell forms which are expelled by nature, if they are full persons what is their physical in an afterlife, and on ad infinitum.
Ten. The church shows no particular interest in life after birth. It supports with great pride the African churches with their incredible records of female sexual mutilation, starvation sized families ( if only all Africans could have a NFP course), their opposition to sex education, the spread of aids, the suppression of women, their support of or neutrality toward dictatorial regimes. Well, the church says, we must not interfer with local customs.
Now all of the above are exactly what you would expect from those who are self claimed superior because of their celibacy but realize they cannot totally control human nature. The church can and should be great. But as long as ALL decisions are made by practical eunuchs to protect their superiority, there is little hope. After all the church is not a democracy. So what laypeople think and do is without significance.
I did not write this in anger and was holding it off because of my two boys. I was "inspired" by a flagrant example of naked clericalism that I experienced this week effecting my grandchildrem. Jack
Monday, August 11, 2008
Hidden Appeal
I am not being cynical, but McCain has some appeal we might overlook. In fact some might think they are drawbacks, but I don't think so. Decades ago Richard Hofsteader wrote a book called Anti-intellectualism In America. The gist of his argument, very well documented, was that the United States has a very strong inbred prejudice against what some called intellectualism or elitism. Let's look at how McCain may well fit that prejudice.
McCain had a very poor academic record as opposed to Obama's stellar record. Do not many of us dislike the class smart-ass and love the guy who just plugs through.
McCain is a very poor speaker. Obama is most eloquent. Whom do we trust? The 'golden tongue' or the straight talking down to earth 'talker?"
McCain gets little support from the 'highly ' educated. Obama alot. Well are the Obama the "pointy headed" intellectuals that the Republicans have been talking about since 1952?
McCain is "old". Obama is relatively young. Who do you want? Age or smart -ass youth.
Obama friends from the past are a bit radical. McCain has sewed up the VFW crowd. No Weatherman there.
McCain is listed as Episcopal, but apparently goes to the Baptist church. Obama BELONGED to the most liberal denomination in America---the United Church of Christ.
McCain is from Arizona. Obama from Chicago. Where would you rather live?
I could go on, but I think the point is clear. Obama is the perfect target of the anti-intellectuals and anti-elitist. This will not be talked about much, but it's there. The Republicans are already working on this theme.
McCain had a very poor academic record as opposed to Obama's stellar record. Do not many of us dislike the class smart-ass and love the guy who just plugs through.
McCain is a very poor speaker. Obama is most eloquent. Whom do we trust? The 'golden tongue' or the straight talking down to earth 'talker?"
McCain gets little support from the 'highly ' educated. Obama alot. Well are the Obama the "pointy headed" intellectuals that the Republicans have been talking about since 1952?
McCain is "old". Obama is relatively young. Who do you want? Age or smart -ass youth.
Obama friends from the past are a bit radical. McCain has sewed up the VFW crowd. No Weatherman there.
McCain is listed as Episcopal, but apparently goes to the Baptist church. Obama BELONGED to the most liberal denomination in America---the United Church of Christ.
McCain is from Arizona. Obama from Chicago. Where would you rather live?
I could go on, but I think the point is clear. Obama is the perfect target of the anti-intellectuals and anti-elitist. This will not be talked about much, but it's there. The Republicans are already working on this theme.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
THE FIRST PREDICTION!!!!!!
If I were to compare this election to a previous presidential election, the 1960 race between Nixon and Kennedy would, at this stage seem the best comparison. Sure there were plenty of differences but also some striking similarities.
Of course, the obvious parallel is the fact that Kennedy was only the second catholic nominated by a major party and Obama is the first African-American. Al Smith, a catholic, had been nominated by the Democrats in 1928 but was resoundingly defeated---many thought a major factor was Smith catholicism (including people in my own family). This big loss by Smith made many Democrsts wary of nominating a catholic. But in 1960 the Democrats went with Kennedy. Many Democrats thought the religious factor would be decisive for Nixon's election.
The 1960 race had another similarity. Nixon's campaign was based on experience. Kennedy theme was 'let get America moving again', that is, change.
But to me the deciding factor in that extremely close election was the persona of each candidate. In other words who had the most appealing persona or image. Most historians think the first presidential television debate ever between the two candidates was the turning point. Nixon was favored in the election but the debate showed that Kennedy was his equal in debating and--- this is important---Kennedy looked better.
Now we see some similrities to 2008. Obama is the first African-American to be nominated by the two major parties, as Kennedy was the second catholic. McCain is running on 'experience' and Obama on 'change.' But I think the first debate of 2008 will be decisive. Obama has the easier task. Republicans are already saying McCain will outclass Obama in the debate. But all Obama has to do is seem "equal" not better than his opponent. In other words, a draw means Obama wins this debate.
On the appearance factor, I believe Obama has the clear advantage. Youth versus age. Better looking versus average looking. Better speaking skills versus poor speaking skills. The issues are important, yes, and McCain has the advantage of a simpler view of the "social" issues, which issues were not a factor in 1960, and the Republicans have learned how to use these emotional themes to their advantage.
Either candidate could make a big gaffe in the debate. But both will be so well prepared that this is not a great possibility.
So an early prediction. I'll go out on a limb. A very close election with Obama the winner, based to a great degree on his more appealing personality. Kennedy had the "jumpers"." Obama has the potentiality of attracting "jumpers" , or their equivalent. THIS IS THE EARLIEST PREDICION YOU HAVE SEEN. Of course I have the right to change, or be within the margin of error. Take that pollster wimps:).
Of course, the obvious parallel is the fact that Kennedy was only the second catholic nominated by a major party and Obama is the first African-American. Al Smith, a catholic, had been nominated by the Democrats in 1928 but was resoundingly defeated---many thought a major factor was Smith catholicism (including people in my own family). This big loss by Smith made many Democrsts wary of nominating a catholic. But in 1960 the Democrats went with Kennedy. Many Democrats thought the religious factor would be decisive for Nixon's election.
The 1960 race had another similarity. Nixon's campaign was based on experience. Kennedy theme was 'let get America moving again', that is, change.
But to me the deciding factor in that extremely close election was the persona of each candidate. In other words who had the most appealing persona or image. Most historians think the first presidential television debate ever between the two candidates was the turning point. Nixon was favored in the election but the debate showed that Kennedy was his equal in debating and--- this is important---Kennedy looked better.
Now we see some similrities to 2008. Obama is the first African-American to be nominated by the two major parties, as Kennedy was the second catholic. McCain is running on 'experience' and Obama on 'change.' But I think the first debate of 2008 will be decisive. Obama has the easier task. Republicans are already saying McCain will outclass Obama in the debate. But all Obama has to do is seem "equal" not better than his opponent. In other words, a draw means Obama wins this debate.
On the appearance factor, I believe Obama has the clear advantage. Youth versus age. Better looking versus average looking. Better speaking skills versus poor speaking skills. The issues are important, yes, and McCain has the advantage of a simpler view of the "social" issues, which issues were not a factor in 1960, and the Republicans have learned how to use these emotional themes to their advantage.
Either candidate could make a big gaffe in the debate. But both will be so well prepared that this is not a great possibility.
So an early prediction. I'll go out on a limb. A very close election with Obama the winner, based to a great degree on his more appealing personality. Kennedy had the "jumpers"." Obama has the potentiality of attracting "jumpers" , or their equivalent. THIS IS THE EARLIEST PREDICION YOU HAVE SEEN. Of course I have the right to change, or be within the margin of error. Take that pollster wimps:).
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
President, election, Trivia
When I taught a course on Presidents, the kids loved the "trivia" unit best. So here are ten trivia questions about presidents and elections. Let me know by comment what your answers are. I'm pretty sure I'm right on the answers but if you think I'm wrong, let me know after the answers tomorrow.
One. What presidential candidate was refered to by his oppents as "The little man on the wedding cake"?
Two. According to Washington insiders at the time, who was our only "gay" president?
Three. Who was the youngest person to ever serve as president?
Four. Who was our only bachelor president?
Five. What person won the popular vote for president three times but was only elected twice?
Six. What president of the 19 century was accused of having an illegitimate child?
Seven. What president was neither elected president or vice-president?
Eight. What president wrote a book on government which became a standard textbook in colleges? (Written before he was president, I believe).
Nine. What third party presidential candidate was the only third party candidate to finish second in a presidential race. (After 1860)
Ten. What president served the shortest time as president?
BTW, this is a great party game for those into politics, history, elections.
One. What presidential candidate was refered to by his oppents as "The little man on the wedding cake"?
Two. According to Washington insiders at the time, who was our only "gay" president?
Three. Who was the youngest person to ever serve as president?
Four. Who was our only bachelor president?
Five. What person won the popular vote for president three times but was only elected twice?
Six. What president of the 19 century was accused of having an illegitimate child?
Seven. What president was neither elected president or vice-president?
Eight. What president wrote a book on government which became a standard textbook in colleges? (Written before he was president, I believe).
Nine. What third party presidential candidate was the only third party candidate to finish second in a presidential race. (After 1860)
Ten. What president served the shortest time as president?
BTW, this is a great party game for those into politics, history, elections.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Veep Stakes
I haven't written anything about the Veep Stakes yet. So here goes.
There are apparently 4 theories as to how the presidential candidates should pick a running mate. But first, why do they wait as long as possible? Well, the want to see the 'lay of the land.' If you are way ahead or way behind---that really effects your choice. But at this time when it seems close here are the four theories.
Theory One. Make it just a race between you and your head of ticket opponent. Just be safe on VP pick.
Theory two. Double up, that is pick someone who might emphasize your (presidential candidate) strengts.
Theory Three. Pick someone who helps in a key state.
Theory Four. Pick someone who might really help you overall .
Right now I see Romney for McCain (theory four) and Biden (theory four) for Obama.
These seem logical in what seems to be a close race. Both McCain and Obama might be forced to theory four.
I believe McCain sees himself a little behind at this time and would pick Romney because it might help him in Colorado, Nevada, with some rigid conservatives, and the age gap.
I believe Obama would pick Biden at this time. Never mind Delaware but Biden adds experience, knowledge, to Obama's weak point to some---his inexperience.
This can change with tomorrow's polls. As of this time, I believe these are the logical choses.
There are apparently 4 theories as to how the presidential candidates should pick a running mate. But first, why do they wait as long as possible? Well, the want to see the 'lay of the land.' If you are way ahead or way behind---that really effects your choice. But at this time when it seems close here are the four theories.
Theory One. Make it just a race between you and your head of ticket opponent. Just be safe on VP pick.
Theory two. Double up, that is pick someone who might emphasize your (presidential candidate) strengts.
Theory Three. Pick someone who helps in a key state.
Theory Four. Pick someone who might really help you overall .
Right now I see Romney for McCain (theory four) and Biden (theory four) for Obama.
These seem logical in what seems to be a close race. Both McCain and Obama might be forced to theory four.
I believe McCain sees himself a little behind at this time and would pick Romney because it might help him in Colorado, Nevada, with some rigid conservatives, and the age gap.
I believe Obama would pick Biden at this time. Never mind Delaware but Biden adds experience, knowledge, to Obama's weak point to some---his inexperience.
This can change with tomorrow's polls. As of this time, I believe these are the logical choses.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Obama. Against the Wind
Often when we look at presidential elections, we concentrate so hard on the particulr race we are in, we tend to overlook and not analize the historical trends.
In my opinion since the 1864 election to today--2008--we have had three, yes only three, major trends or eras. And I think a brief look at these three show, this year, why Obama is not 'running away' with the race. This is because we are not filtering the current race through the historical prism. Each era or trend has an overall theme for one party or the other, and while a particular election may go against the trend, there are always some specific circumtances that allow this to happen. In brief then:
Era one. 1860 to 1932. The Civil War, the bloody shirt, made the Republican party the dominant party for these 73 years. Yes, there were two Democrats elected to two terms, Cleveland and Wilson. Wilson, it should be noted, one his first term due to the fact that T.Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote enough and allowed Wilson to be elected as a minority president. He was re-elected under the spectre of war ('He kept us out of war') but by the slimest of margins over Charles Evans Hughes. (Hughes went to bed on election night thinking he ad won the presidency, only to wake up finding he had lost.) Cleveland is a different matter, but it is good to notice he was very conservative president, almost a Republican.
Era two. 1933 to 1979. The great depression was so traumatic and Roosevelt's coming made the Dems the dominant party for these years. Eisenhower won two terms as the Republican, indeed the nations, War hero. A very moderate Republican. Nixon, yes a moderate on issues, won twice, barely squeaking by Humphrey and slaughtering McGovern, a Democrat of the left . Carter barely won against Ford and the Nixon pardon. The tide was beginning to change.
Era three. 1980 to 2007 -. The cold war, and the Repubs as the party of a strong military and defense, and the beginning of ''social issue' politics, have made this party dominant in presidential elections. Clinton , an incredible politician, a southerner, charismatic, and moving to the middle won two terms. The second against Dole; much closer than 'expected' against the well---unattractive as you can be candidate Bob Dole. We are still in this era. National defense, the terrorism threat, the totally established "social issue" bloc, give the Repubs the historical advantage. Sure, the economy is bad, but compared to the Great Depression, not that bad. Proof of Repub. era: An almost nobody (my prejudice) wins against a sitting Vice-president in good economic times and wins a second term against the 'Frenchman' Kerry.
So Obama is facing the historical "winds." The fact he is even in the race is a puzzle. Running against a war 'hero' who fought the commies, a very strong national defense man, a, as of lately, far right social conservative, Obama, amazingly has a small lead as of this time, it appears. But can he win. The historical winds are strong and hard to buck. We'll just have to see.
In my opinion since the 1864 election to today--2008--we have had three, yes only three, major trends or eras. And I think a brief look at these three show, this year, why Obama is not 'running away' with the race. This is because we are not filtering the current race through the historical prism. Each era or trend has an overall theme for one party or the other, and while a particular election may go against the trend, there are always some specific circumtances that allow this to happen. In brief then:
Era one. 1860 to 1932. The Civil War, the bloody shirt, made the Republican party the dominant party for these 73 years. Yes, there were two Democrats elected to two terms, Cleveland and Wilson. Wilson, it should be noted, one his first term due to the fact that T.Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote enough and allowed Wilson to be elected as a minority president. He was re-elected under the spectre of war ('He kept us out of war') but by the slimest of margins over Charles Evans Hughes. (Hughes went to bed on election night thinking he ad won the presidency, only to wake up finding he had lost.) Cleveland is a different matter, but it is good to notice he was very conservative president, almost a Republican.
Era two. 1933 to 1979. The great depression was so traumatic and Roosevelt's coming made the Dems the dominant party for these years. Eisenhower won two terms as the Republican, indeed the nations, War hero. A very moderate Republican. Nixon, yes a moderate on issues, won twice, barely squeaking by Humphrey and slaughtering McGovern, a Democrat of the left . Carter barely won against Ford and the Nixon pardon. The tide was beginning to change.
Era three. 1980 to 2007 -. The cold war, and the Repubs as the party of a strong military and defense, and the beginning of ''social issue' politics, have made this party dominant in presidential elections. Clinton , an incredible politician, a southerner, charismatic, and moving to the middle won two terms. The second against Dole; much closer than 'expected' against the well---unattractive as you can be candidate Bob Dole. We are still in this era. National defense, the terrorism threat, the totally established "social issue" bloc, give the Repubs the historical advantage. Sure, the economy is bad, but compared to the Great Depression, not that bad. Proof of Repub. era: An almost nobody (my prejudice) wins against a sitting Vice-president in good economic times and wins a second term against the 'Frenchman' Kerry.
So Obama is facing the historical "winds." The fact he is even in the race is a puzzle. Running against a war 'hero' who fought the commies, a very strong national defense man, a, as of lately, far right social conservative, Obama, amazingly has a small lead as of this time, it appears. But can he win. The historical winds are strong and hard to buck. We'll just have to see.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
All MAN.
Just finished a two day trip to 'far right' blogs. Kind of scary. Lots of very heated rhetoric, lots of hate for gays, liberals, Obama, big government. My favorite was the guy who wants his far right friends to take over a state in the U.S. and, as he implies,separate from the U.S.
But we can all learn something new, or better our focus. I have always wondered why there is a rather pronounced difference between men and women in their political leanings. I think I know now. A lot of men want to project a 'macho' image. That means being tough, not sentimental, not overly concerned with sympathy for others. Of course this open quest for a macho image is at the margins. That is most men don't really worry too much about whether they are perceived as macho-manly. But it is very apparent on the far right blogs. Lots of military stuff, very anti-gay, contempt for liberal bleeding hearts folks.
In our country for the last half century, the Republican party is seen as the party of strong military action as a real option to any international crisis, a strong individualist capitalist society with little tolerance for government action to curb excesses, the right of the majority to determine anything with little tolerance for minorities of any type---women, racial minorities, sexual minorities etc. The Democrats are defined by reversing the above---diplomacy, government intervention on behalf of the consumer, women's 'lib', affirmative action, gay rights etc. Definitely not the platform of macho-man.
Again, let me say, this is at the margins. Most men and women do not fall exactly under these stereotypes. But enough do to make a difference in party preference.
You can't escape the feeling that some men are so fearful of their sexual identity, that they want others to know they have no feminine tendencies. The tougher, less caring , the more self-reliant I am---all this proves I am all "man." No limp wrists, see.
But we can all learn something new, or better our focus. I have always wondered why there is a rather pronounced difference between men and women in their political leanings. I think I know now. A lot of men want to project a 'macho' image. That means being tough, not sentimental, not overly concerned with sympathy for others. Of course this open quest for a macho image is at the margins. That is most men don't really worry too much about whether they are perceived as macho-manly. But it is very apparent on the far right blogs. Lots of military stuff, very anti-gay, contempt for liberal bleeding hearts folks.
In our country for the last half century, the Republican party is seen as the party of strong military action as a real option to any international crisis, a strong individualist capitalist society with little tolerance for government action to curb excesses, the right of the majority to determine anything with little tolerance for minorities of any type---women, racial minorities, sexual minorities etc. The Democrats are defined by reversing the above---diplomacy, government intervention on behalf of the consumer, women's 'lib', affirmative action, gay rights etc. Definitely not the platform of macho-man.
Again, let me say, this is at the margins. Most men and women do not fall exactly under these stereotypes. But enough do to make a difference in party preference.
You can't escape the feeling that some men are so fearful of their sexual identity, that they want others to know they have no feminine tendencies. The tougher, less caring , the more self-reliant I am---all this proves I am all "man." No limp wrists, see.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Racist Jack?
Sometimes you have to post on something that can easily be misunderstood. So I'm going to do that.
We all have our favorite cable news network.Mine is MSNBC. Why? Because it has a liberal tilt to a degree. My sister-in-law and her husband watch Fox. Why? It has a conservative tilt, and Peggy and Ed are very conservative. Fair enough.
I have no problems with analysts having political leanings. Olberman (sp?) is liberal, but openly so. O'Reily is conservative, but openly so. I do have a problem with Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, who is obviously pro-obama, but does not indicate so on his comments.
But my real problem (hold on to your hats, some are going to say I'm racist) is with two MSNBC analysts who are African-American and pro-McCain. Now, here's my problem. In my state we had a great football quarterback who decided to run for office. He was African-American. Now had he decided to run as a Democrat he would have had tremendous competition from other young A-A's. But the Republican party has been working hard for years to expand its 'tent' to include A-A's. So he ran as a Republican in a conservative state and easily won. He rose to great heights in the Republican congressional caucus.
The two analysts on MSNBC I am speaking about in all probability followed the same logic. If I am a A-A Democrat I will be one among thousands if not millions of my race with credentials to be a national figure. But if I become Republican, have a college degree, am well-spoken, then the road ahead looks very smooth. There's not much competition.
Okay, call me a racist. I'm not. I support Obama. I contribute money to his campaign. But if you're looking for an easy target, here I am. Fire away.
We all have our favorite cable news network.Mine is MSNBC. Why? Because it has a liberal tilt to a degree. My sister-in-law and her husband watch Fox. Why? It has a conservative tilt, and Peggy and Ed are very conservative. Fair enough.
I have no problems with analysts having political leanings. Olberman (sp?) is liberal, but openly so. O'Reily is conservative, but openly so. I do have a problem with Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, who is obviously pro-obama, but does not indicate so on his comments.
But my real problem (hold on to your hats, some are going to say I'm racist) is with two MSNBC analysts who are African-American and pro-McCain. Now, here's my problem. In my state we had a great football quarterback who decided to run for office. He was African-American. Now had he decided to run as a Democrat he would have had tremendous competition from other young A-A's. But the Republican party has been working hard for years to expand its 'tent' to include A-A's. So he ran as a Republican in a conservative state and easily won. He rose to great heights in the Republican congressional caucus.
The two analysts on MSNBC I am speaking about in all probability followed the same logic. If I am a A-A Democrat I will be one among thousands if not millions of my race with credentials to be a national figure. But if I become Republican, have a college degree, am well-spoken, then the road ahead looks very smooth. There's not much competition.
Okay, call me a racist. I'm not. I support Obama. I contribute money to his campaign. But if you're looking for an easy target, here I am. Fire away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)