Comments Posted By headhunt23
Displaying 51 To 60 Of 79 Comments
HAS THE TIDE TURNED IN COVERAGE OF OBAMA?
It doesn't matter.
It just doesn't matter.
It just doesn't matter how softball the press coverage is of Obama. There is no way he can win in November over McCain. Go to this website: www.270towin.com and spend some time looking at the electoral maps. Then try to figure out a way that Obama gets to 270 electoral votes.
The task is almost impossible. You can wring your hands all you want, worrying about the prospect of a president Obama, or how the media is in the tank for him. Not me. I'm going to sit back and watch the Democrats horror as they realize the Dukakis-Bush race was a cliff hanger.
Comment Posted By Headhunt23 On 6.05.2008 @ 08:45
FEAR NOT - THE REPUBLIC WILL SURVIVE A PRESIDENT OBAMA
I am sure the republic can survive a President Obama, but we'll never know - at least not in this election cycle.
As I have been saying for a year (check the comment archives) - the Republicans had a better field of candidates, and now they have a better candidate (although one I don't like) for a general election campaign. Both Obama and HRC are fatally flawed and will provide a Dukakis like showing in November.
Comment Posted By Headhunt23 On 1.05.2008 @ 10:34
Tommo...
It is folks of your ilk that keep putting forth such stupid thoughts that drive me up the wall.
"Baghdad Bush is a terrorist: he’s used the “War on Terror†as a bludgeon to attack domestic political opposition, he’s made friends with dictators like Hosni Mubarak and Pervez Musharraf when he should be declaring them our enemies, he has taken us on the tragic detour of Iraq, he’s sacrificed the goodwill of all nations and the leadership of the Free World, he’s failed to hold America out as a special nation that doesn’t torture its prisoners and that shuts down the world’s Abu Ghraibs instead of running them, he’s neglected to stand with those spreading democracy and prosperity to the world’s darkest corners."
1. If people try to force unionization of a new government agency dedicated to protecting America as a condition for support, they should be called out on it.
2. How do you rectify calling other people our enemies with your charge of sacrificing the goodwill of all nations? Were you a fan of the Axis of Evil? Did you cheer when he created it? Or, is this just a case of him saying tomato, you saying tomahto?
3. He's spread democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq...where those corners not dark enough for you or did you have something else in mind?
Comment Posted By headhunt23 On 12.03.2008 @ 17:14
STILL AT RISK: THE SHOCKING IGNORANCE OF OUR YOUNG
I don't know. I was a history major and am 37 years old. But, I am not sure that this poll couldn't have been conducted 20-30 years ago and substituted "Palmer Raids" for "McCarythism", Kaiser Wilheilm for Adolf Hitler, kept everything else consistent and come away with the exact same results.
Americans have never been good with history - which has been both a strength and a weakness. IMHO, schools need to focus much more on math and science rather than humanities (and I hated math and science). But, you can learn the humanities on your own, math and science require a lot more interaction to learn.
Anyway, you also need to remember something else - only about 25% of people have college diplomas. There aren't too many jobs that a knowledge of ANY of the above facts would make even the slightest difference. Not to say that an informed citizenry isn't important, it is, but the ENTIRE citizenry - or even a majority - doesn't actually need to be informed for the society to move forward productively.
Comment Posted By Headhunt23 On 27.02.2008 @ 08:37
WE'RE GOING TO NEED THE PATIENCE OF JOB
How can you write this after just trying to whip us into voting for McCain? Ridiculous.
My motto for Republicans this year - "Vote Hillbama - McCain without the Blame!"
In all seriousness, you said how a Hillbama regime would be horrible, but now you are saying that in almost every single area where Hillbama would be dangerous, you don't trust McCain either. All that is really left is the war in Iraq. Heck, he wants to go soft on the terrorists. (The Dems should look at this objectively anyway. If you had to be held in custody indefinately, would you rather be on a tropical island or in Kansas? Think about it.)
I'll say what I said on the other thread which I posted today so you probably didn't see it - President McCain would bury the charred remnents of conservatism.
Comment Posted By Headhunt23 On 12.02.2008 @ 17:12
WHY I AM SICK TO DEATH OF BOTH PARTIES
Rick, with all due respect, you are way out of line on this.
People can vote, or not vote, for whoever they want to. And, if they don't think there is an appreciable difference between the two candidates, then they have every right not to vote.
Besides, your concerns are overwrought. Let's review:
1. Gay marriage the law of the land. A little surprised to see you playing this card, although I am sure you will just say you are throwing out Dobson's fears for him. Anyway, the next president will have absolutely nothing to say about gay marriage being the law of the land. Marriage is a state issue and, short of a constitutional amendment which has no chance of passage, won't be decided by the federal government.
2. Stem cell research. You have a point here, but I really don't care about this issue one way or another.
3. Unilateral abandonment in Iraq. Ain't gonna happen. Europe and some of the arab countries posture about our involvment, but if we announced a withdrawl, they would be begging us to stay. Besides, I don't think that a Dem President really wants to be seen as the reason Iraq descended into chaos after being relatively passive.
4. Conservative judges. A decent point here, but no pro-life judge is going ot make it thru the confirmation process to replace Ginsburg or Stevens, not with a Democrat congress.
5. Reimposition of the fairness doctrine? I won't pretend to be an expert in this, but I would think that the Republicans could just start threatening to impose it on drama TV and movies and the calls for the fairness doctrine would get quiet really quick.
Anyway, let me ask you this. Which president passed more conservative legislation - WJC or GWB? Clinton, and it isn't close - welfare reform and NAFTA more than made up for the brady bill and the '93 budget agreement. Has Bush even passed anything that offsets NCLB and prescription drugs? I don't think taxcuts make up for those two. Bush has been a disasterous conservative, and we have another one almost just like him lined up to take his place in McCain. If McCain becomes President, doing all the crap like amnesty he would do in the name of conservativism and the Republican party, we will be in the wilderness for the next 3-4 cycles.
It is far better to sit on our hands at home then to elect someone who is almost openly hostile to the conservative movement, yet will still be seen by much of the country as carrying the banner of conservatism. I don't expect ideological perfection - Reagan in Reality is much less than Reagan in our memories after all. But I do not expect to have a second Republican president in a row who claims to be a conservative while breaking almost all of its principles.
I guess you can bask in the sweet glow of your own self righteousness, railing at those who stayed home while the Republican party gets trounced in November. I'll be counting the chickens that are coming home to roost.
Comment Posted By Headhunt23 On 12.02.2008 @ 10:54
You know, I enjoy your blog, but often find your analysis to be off base. McCain is benifiting from non Republicans voting in open primaries or registering as Republicans in closed primaries to vote for him (the latter being a credit to him). Romney has pulled almost as many primary votes AND leads McCain far and away among core Republican votes. He just can't overcome the independent influence on the primaries. The Republican establishment gravitating towards McCain really isn't proof of underlying McCain support. It is just proof that the party apparatus wants to try to win an election and sees McCain as the best vehicle to do that.
It is a reminder of something that Jonah Goldberg writes about often. The purpose of the party is to win elections. The purpose of the idealoges is to win the arguments. The conservative movement is adrift because those of us who care more about the issues, have made two fundamental mistakes.
1. We accepted almost anything and anybody with an "R" associated with it as a conservative. Bush has been as far away from a conservative during his time in office as any President since Nixon. Bush's expansion of government powers, his expansion of goverment influence in education and health care, his overall reckless spending, and his failure to enforce the immigration laws are a far cry from conservative. And, of course his aggressive foreign policy isn't conservative either (although I support him on it). And, don't get me started on the pork whores in congress. Bush and that crew have surrendered the Republican claim to "fiscal responsibility" forever.
2. We were afflicted with BDDS - Bush Deranged Defense Syndrome. We didn't attack Bush when he started doing stupid stuff - far ahead of 9/11 because we felt defensive towards him in the aftermath of Florida and rabid partisan attacks from day one. We allowed our oppostion to the democrats to push us closer to Bush as he drove the Republican Bus off of the cliff.
3. We accepted the "half loaf" the administration offered. Good judges, guns, stem cells, and lower taxes were offered up while the government wasted trillions of dollars and expanded the welfare state and the entitlement mentality, putting us one step further down the road towards socialized medicine.
So, what do we have to do? If McCain is the nominee, then we need to seriously consider sitting out the election. The Republic can survive 4-8 years of either the shrew or the Manchurian candidate. But the party couldn't survive a President McCain. A gigantic defeat of a McCain while the conservaties sit on their hands and sit out the election would be just what the party needs in the form of a reality check.
Comment Posted By Headhunt23 On 5.02.2008 @ 11:18
COULD CONSERVATIVES WORK WITH A PRESIDENT OBAMA?
"We can oppose a President Obama on taxes, immigration, judges, and other conservative issues where our principles are at stake. But there are many other issues that we can find common ground and enact for the betterment of the country."
Taking a lot off the table there, aren't you Rick?
Besides, with Obama, we might actually have a chance to do what has to be done with immigrations. Put up a physical border on our south, then work out a path to legality for the illegals already here. The Republican party just doesn't want to take the hit on putting up a fence.
Also, Social Security would be back on the table, and reform could take place. This is an area that Bush was more than happy to get involved with, unfortunetly the public doesn't trust the Republicans to reform social security. (Just like the military draw down had to begin with a Republican president in 1990).
Anyway, your analysis is a little off. In 1992, the public sent Bill Clinton, an agent of change, the man from Hope, to replace the stodgy Bush. The congressional Republicans fought him at every turn and took the congress two years later. I am not so sure why it can't happen with Obama. Right now, he is all shinny and new and has avoided offending anyone. As soon as he took office, he would have to actually start making decisions, and as soon as he starts making decisions he will start pi$$ing people off. He would immediately become "just another politician" because a lot of people will feel duped.
Comment Posted By Headhunt23 On 8.01.2008 @ 16:05
NO DEAL FOR THE LEFT ON HYPOCRISY IMMUNITY
Skohsl,
Probably pretty similar...8 years in the Illinois legislature for each. Obama has his two years in the Senate (in practice, 3 years on paper), but Lincoln had a 23 year active legal career, plus military service during the Black Hawk war. I think that Lincoln's advocacy against slavery is at least as impressive as Obama's voter registration drives [cough, cough].
I'll stand by what I wrote.
Comment Posted By Headhunt23 On 18.12.2007 @ 10:39
Rick Moran writes: “Sorry, it won’t wash. First of all, don’t worry about Republican charges of stealing the election. It ain’t going to be that close.â€
Don't concede this election. The Dem field is far weaker than the Republican field. As long as the Rs don't nominate Huckabee, thereby causing me to vote for whatever Dem gets put up, to include Kucinich, they will be all right.
The Dem nominee will be Obama, and he would have the thinnest resume ever for a Presidential candidate - much thinner than GWB's was (although the media won't be pointing that out). But, he has lots of things that can be explioted in a negative race. If the RNC was smart, they would be organizing PACs now to run nasty anti-Obama ads so that the Obamessiah can be severly bloodied in the primaries where it won't hurt the Republican candidate as badly.
Anyway, if you think the Rs are going to lose on this, drop me an email, we can have a side bet.
Comment Posted By Headhunt23 On 17.12.2007 @ 09:31
