The last few weeks have been rather busy for me, and I have not posted here. That's not to say I have not been observing political activities.
Last weekend's Wall Street Journal carried an unbelievably self-aggrandizing interview with Presidential candidate John Edwards' wife, Elizabeth.
I truly do not know quite where to begin with this woman's strange, bizarre campaign.
First, we have her personal attack on Anne Coulter, about which I wrote here, last month. Apparently, her husband is planning to leave the heavy lifting in the White House to his wife.
I guess this marks the first time that a candidate brings his wife along before the election, as his torpedo.
But, wait. Elizabeth Edwards has incurable cancer. She may not live to see her husband in the White House, should he win. So, how's he going to use her as his muscle if she's gone?
Actually, that has led me to another, admittedly cynical, interpretation of the Edwards' motives.
Perhaps candidate John and his wife have decided to have her the campaign's official victim, as well as mudslinger. This way, Edwards gets a two-fer: his wife makes the ideal victim, as a dying cancer sufferer, still gamely campaigning for her wealthy, unprincipled husband, and; he can blame her rather bizarre remarks and actions on her medical condition, later on, when other candidates attack him through her.
It's really rather ingenious. A sort of disposable attack dog campaign staffer who both generates sympathies among the left, which is prone to loving helpless victims anyway, and becomes an untouchable attack staffer, too. Then vanishes when called to account for her statements and actions.
Come to think of it, though, I think I'd prefer Elizabeth Edwards to her husband as a Presidential candidate. She certainly displays more courage and energy than John-boy does. You can't accuse her of vaccilation.
Still, if this in any way actually helps Edwards' campaign, our country is in serious trouble. Talk about a new low in campaign strategies.....
Monday, July 30, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Michael Moore's Slanted "Sicko"
Before I left on vacation a few weeks ago, I read an excellent review of Michael Moore's latest piece of video trash, "Sicko," in the Thursday, 28 June Wall Street Journal.
Dr. David Gratzer, a practicing Canadian physician, took Moore's movie, and position, to task in a piece entitled, "Who's Really 'Sicko'."
Among the more revealing passages in his article are,
"'I haven't seen 'Sicko,'" says Avril Allen about the new Michael Moore documentary, which advocates socialized medicine for the United States. The film, which has been widely viewed on the Internet, and which will officially open in the U.S. and Canada on Friday, has been getting rave reviews. But Ms. Allen, a lawyer, has no plans to watch it. She's just too busy preparing to file suit against Ontario's provincial government about its health-care system next month.
Her client, Lindsay McCreith, would have had to wait for four months just to get an MRI, and then months more to see a neurologist for his malignant brain tumor. Instead, frustrated and ill, the retired auto-body shop owner traveled to Buffalo, N.Y., for a lifesaving surgery. Now he's suing for the right to opt out of Canada's government-run health care, which he considers dangerous.
In the U.S., 83 House Democrats voted for a bill in 1993 calling for single-payer health care. That idea collapsed with HillaryCare and since then has existed on the fringes of the debate -- winning praise from academics and pressure groups, but remaining largely out of the political discussion. Mr. Moore's documentary intends to change that, exposing millions to his argument that American health care is sick and socialized medicine is the cure.
It's not simply that Mr. Moore is wrong. His grand tour of public health care systems misses the big story: While he prescribes socialism, market-oriented reforms are percolating in cities from Stockholm to Saskatoon.
It's compelling material -- I know because, born and raised in Canada, I used to believe in government-run health care. Then I was mugged by reality.
Consider, for instance, Mr. Moore's claim that ERs don't overcrowd in Canada. A Canadian government study recently found that only about half of patients are treated in a timely manner, as defined by local medical and hospital associations. "The research merely confirms anecdotal reports of interminable waits," reported a national newspaper. While people in rural areas seem to fare better, Toronto patients receive care in four hours on average; one in 10 patients waits more than a dozen hours.
This problem hit close to home last year: A relative, living in Winnipeg, nearly died of a strangulated bowel while lying on a stretcher for five hours, writhing in pain. To get the needed ultrasound, he was sent by ambulance to another hospital.
With such problems, it's not surprising that people are looking for alternatives. Private clinics -- some operating in a "gray zone" of the law -- are now opening in Canada at a rate of about one per week.
Canadian doctors, once quiet on the issue of private health care, elected Brian Day as president of their national association. Dr. Day is a leading critic of Canadian medicare; he opened a private surgery hospital and then challenged the government to shut it down. "This is a country," Dr. Day said by way of explanation, "in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."
Market reforms are catching on in Britain, too. For six decades, its socialist Labour Party scoffed at the very idea of private medicine, dismissing it as "Americanization." Today Labour favors privatization, promising to triple the number of private-sector surgical procedures provided within two years. The Labour government aspires to give patients a choice of four providers for surgeries, at least one of them private, and recently considered the contracting out of some primary-care services -- perhaps even to American companies.
Other European countries follow this same path. In Sweden, after the latest privatizations, the government will contract out some 80% of Stockholm's primary care and 40% of total health services, including Stockholm's largest hospital. Beginning before the election of the new conservative chancellor, Germany enhanced insurance competition and turned state enterprises over to the private sector (including the majority of public hospitals). Even in Slovakia, a former Marxist country, privatizations are actively debated.
Under the weight of demographic shifts and strained by the limits of command-and-control economics, government-run health systems have turned out to be less than utopian. The stories are the same: dirty hospitals, poor standards and difficulty accessing modern drugs and tests.
Admittedly, the recent market reforms are gradual and controversial. But facts are facts, the reforms are real, and they represent a major trend in health care. What does Mr. Moore's documentary say about that? Nothing."
Dr. Gratzer's piece was so well-written and informative that I have reposted much of it. I had not intended to, but it contains so much important factual information, that it seemed necessary.
The point is, Moore carefully avoided the facts which do not support his conclusions. He's attempting to move America backward, while even our more socialist neighbors- Canada, Britain, and Sweden- have had it with a universal healthcare system, and are headed back in our direction.
Is America's healthcare system perfect? Absolutely not! But socializing it, and, as I wrote here, recently, requiring mandatory membership in a totally socialized healthcare system designed and run by mediocre government bureaucrats, is inviting disaster, as well as robbing us of our personal liberty to choose.
Let's hope that, along with misguided policies on the faux-issue of global warming, and cowardice in the face of terrorists in Iraq, Congress' Democrats publicly declare on this issue, the better to be either: allowed to try to implement universal healthcare nationally, and be routed in a subsequent election, or; be seen for the morons they are to try this, and be voted out before they further impair an already badly-functioning US healthcare system.
Yes, American healthcare needs to be fixed, but not this way. We should move toward more individual responsibility for payment, policy choice, and personal healthiness and fitness.
Dr. David Gratzer, a practicing Canadian physician, took Moore's movie, and position, to task in a piece entitled, "Who's Really 'Sicko'."
Among the more revealing passages in his article are,
"'I haven't seen 'Sicko,'" says Avril Allen about the new Michael Moore documentary, which advocates socialized medicine for the United States. The film, which has been widely viewed on the Internet, and which will officially open in the U.S. and Canada on Friday, has been getting rave reviews. But Ms. Allen, a lawyer, has no plans to watch it. She's just too busy preparing to file suit against Ontario's provincial government about its health-care system next month.
Her client, Lindsay McCreith, would have had to wait for four months just to get an MRI, and then months more to see a neurologist for his malignant brain tumor. Instead, frustrated and ill, the retired auto-body shop owner traveled to Buffalo, N.Y., for a lifesaving surgery. Now he's suing for the right to opt out of Canada's government-run health care, which he considers dangerous.
In the U.S., 83 House Democrats voted for a bill in 1993 calling for single-payer health care. That idea collapsed with HillaryCare and since then has existed on the fringes of the debate -- winning praise from academics and pressure groups, but remaining largely out of the political discussion. Mr. Moore's documentary intends to change that, exposing millions to his argument that American health care is sick and socialized medicine is the cure.
It's not simply that Mr. Moore is wrong. His grand tour of public health care systems misses the big story: While he prescribes socialism, market-oriented reforms are percolating in cities from Stockholm to Saskatoon.
It's compelling material -- I know because, born and raised in Canada, I used to believe in government-run health care. Then I was mugged by reality.
Consider, for instance, Mr. Moore's claim that ERs don't overcrowd in Canada. A Canadian government study recently found that only about half of patients are treated in a timely manner, as defined by local medical and hospital associations. "The research merely confirms anecdotal reports of interminable waits," reported a national newspaper. While people in rural areas seem to fare better, Toronto patients receive care in four hours on average; one in 10 patients waits more than a dozen hours.
This problem hit close to home last year: A relative, living in Winnipeg, nearly died of a strangulated bowel while lying on a stretcher for five hours, writhing in pain. To get the needed ultrasound, he was sent by ambulance to another hospital.
With such problems, it's not surprising that people are looking for alternatives. Private clinics -- some operating in a "gray zone" of the law -- are now opening in Canada at a rate of about one per week.
Canadian doctors, once quiet on the issue of private health care, elected Brian Day as president of their national association. Dr. Day is a leading critic of Canadian medicare; he opened a private surgery hospital and then challenged the government to shut it down. "This is a country," Dr. Day said by way of explanation, "in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."
Market reforms are catching on in Britain, too. For six decades, its socialist Labour Party scoffed at the very idea of private medicine, dismissing it as "Americanization." Today Labour favors privatization, promising to triple the number of private-sector surgical procedures provided within two years. The Labour government aspires to give patients a choice of four providers for surgeries, at least one of them private, and recently considered the contracting out of some primary-care services -- perhaps even to American companies.
Other European countries follow this same path. In Sweden, after the latest privatizations, the government will contract out some 80% of Stockholm's primary care and 40% of total health services, including Stockholm's largest hospital. Beginning before the election of the new conservative chancellor, Germany enhanced insurance competition and turned state enterprises over to the private sector (including the majority of public hospitals). Even in Slovakia, a former Marxist country, privatizations are actively debated.
Under the weight of demographic shifts and strained by the limits of command-and-control economics, government-run health systems have turned out to be less than utopian. The stories are the same: dirty hospitals, poor standards and difficulty accessing modern drugs and tests.
Admittedly, the recent market reforms are gradual and controversial. But facts are facts, the reforms are real, and they represent a major trend in health care. What does Mr. Moore's documentary say about that? Nothing."
Dr. Gratzer's piece was so well-written and informative that I have reposted much of it. I had not intended to, but it contains so much important factual information, that it seemed necessary.
The point is, Moore carefully avoided the facts which do not support his conclusions. He's attempting to move America backward, while even our more socialist neighbors- Canada, Britain, and Sweden- have had it with a universal healthcare system, and are headed back in our direction.
Is America's healthcare system perfect? Absolutely not! But socializing it, and, as I wrote here, recently, requiring mandatory membership in a totally socialized healthcare system designed and run by mediocre government bureaucrats, is inviting disaster, as well as robbing us of our personal liberty to choose.
Let's hope that, along with misguided policies on the faux-issue of global warming, and cowardice in the face of terrorists in Iraq, Congress' Democrats publicly declare on this issue, the better to be either: allowed to try to implement universal healthcare nationally, and be routed in a subsequent election, or; be seen for the morons they are to try this, and be voted out before they further impair an already badly-functioning US healthcare system.
Yes, American healthcare needs to be fixed, but not this way. We should move toward more individual responsibility for payment, policy choice, and personal healthiness and fitness.
Tailpipe Johnny's New Carbon Tax
Never in my wildest imagination did I ever think I'd be writing a blog post in praise of John "Tailpipe Johnny" Dingell, the aging mossback Democratic Representative of Detroit, Michigan.
But, in keeping with the ancient proverb of "confusion to our enemies," I am taking fiendish delight in seeing Tailpipe twist Frisco Nan's knickers into a knot over his inclusion of a carbon tax in the new House energy bill.
As a recent Wall Street Journal article (10 July) so well described, Tailpipe is forcing Nan to put her money where her mouth is. He knows that a carbon tax will raise gasoline prices and send voters screaming to the polls to oust the party responsible for it. But he also knows that Nan's approach, which is to just set high CAFE levels so she and her San Francisco hybrid liberal friends, can feel exonerated.
As the Journal piece notes,
"This week's prize for honest liberalism goes to Michigan's John Dingell, who is having fun with his fellow Democrats while also making a useful point about the politics of global warming. The venerable Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee -- first elected in 1955 -- has announced that he plans to introduce as early as this week a new tax on carbon emissions.
Now, that's the way to clear a Capitol Hill hearing room. Americans are already miffed at paying $3 a gallon for gasoline, a fact that has the Members assailing oil companies on a daily basis. So the last thing Democrats seeking re-election want to do is pile on another dollar or two a gallon in taxes -- especially in the name of "saving the planet" from the speculative danger of global warming 50 or 100 years from now. Their voters have to deal with the more immediate danger of missing the mortgage payment.
Mr. Dingell knows all this. His point is to force his colleagues -- and the voters -- to be more honest about the cost of their global-warming posturing. It's one thing to pay 100 bucks to hear Madonna at the "Live Earth" concert, or impress your girlfriend by wearing an "I reduced my carbon footprint" T-shirt. It's quite another to accept that energy prices would have to rise by many multiples to make even a degree's worth of difference to the world's climate. "I sincerely doubt that the American people will be willing to pay what this is really going to cost them," Mr. Dingell said on C-SPAN last week."
In fact, the article notes that Europe has violated its Kyoto-accord carbon limits, and that 1970s-era CAFE regulations didn't stop US gasoline demand from rising, either. Later in the piece, the Journal notes,
"Regarding such a tax, Democrats already have some hard political experience. In 1993, Vice President Al Gore convinced Bill Clinton to propose an energy tax on BTU (British thermal units) usage. That would have added about 12 cents a gallon to the price of gas. House Democrats walked the plank and passed it, only to have Senate Democrats kill it. As much as anything else, that vote cost Democrats control of the House in 1994. Now Mr. Gore has embraced the carbon tax once again -- though we still haven't heard him endorse a direct tax on gas or consumers."
You really have to love our Founding Fathers for constructing a political system so complex that even someone like Tailpipe Johnny eventually finds it worthwhile to take on his own party's House Speaker, in defense of his voters. Despite my dislike for Tailpipe, I truly respect him for forcing the Left Coast liberal hypocrites to now step up and vote their conscience on this faux-issue, while possibly losing their seats...nevermind their asses....in the bargain.
Yet another reason why I believe the 'human-sourced global warming' position is unproven, and dangerous to believe otherwise, for economic reasons. Tailpipe obviously agrees. He also clearly feels the current Speaker has not 'led' sufficiently well on this, or other issues, and is using his committee chairmanship to register his disappointment in Frisco Nan's "leadership."
But, in keeping with the ancient proverb of "confusion to our enemies," I am taking fiendish delight in seeing Tailpipe twist Frisco Nan's knickers into a knot over his inclusion of a carbon tax in the new House energy bill.
As a recent Wall Street Journal article (10 July) so well described, Tailpipe is forcing Nan to put her money where her mouth is. He knows that a carbon tax will raise gasoline prices and send voters screaming to the polls to oust the party responsible for it. But he also knows that Nan's approach, which is to just set high CAFE levels so she and her San Francisco hybrid liberal friends, can feel exonerated.
As the Journal piece notes,
"This week's prize for honest liberalism goes to Michigan's John Dingell, who is having fun with his fellow Democrats while also making a useful point about the politics of global warming. The venerable Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee -- first elected in 1955 -- has announced that he plans to introduce as early as this week a new tax on carbon emissions.
Now, that's the way to clear a Capitol Hill hearing room. Americans are already miffed at paying $3 a gallon for gasoline, a fact that has the Members assailing oil companies on a daily basis. So the last thing Democrats seeking re-election want to do is pile on another dollar or two a gallon in taxes -- especially in the name of "saving the planet" from the speculative danger of global warming 50 or 100 years from now. Their voters have to deal with the more immediate danger of missing the mortgage payment.
Mr. Dingell knows all this. His point is to force his colleagues -- and the voters -- to be more honest about the cost of their global-warming posturing. It's one thing to pay 100 bucks to hear Madonna at the "Live Earth" concert, or impress your girlfriend by wearing an "I reduced my carbon footprint" T-shirt. It's quite another to accept that energy prices would have to rise by many multiples to make even a degree's worth of difference to the world's climate. "I sincerely doubt that the American people will be willing to pay what this is really going to cost them," Mr. Dingell said on C-SPAN last week."
In fact, the article notes that Europe has violated its Kyoto-accord carbon limits, and that 1970s-era CAFE regulations didn't stop US gasoline demand from rising, either. Later in the piece, the Journal notes,
"Regarding such a tax, Democrats already have some hard political experience. In 1993, Vice President Al Gore convinced Bill Clinton to propose an energy tax on BTU (British thermal units) usage. That would have added about 12 cents a gallon to the price of gas. House Democrats walked the plank and passed it, only to have Senate Democrats kill it. As much as anything else, that vote cost Democrats control of the House in 1994. Now Mr. Gore has embraced the carbon tax once again -- though we still haven't heard him endorse a direct tax on gas or consumers."
You really have to love our Founding Fathers for constructing a political system so complex that even someone like Tailpipe Johnny eventually finds it worthwhile to take on his own party's House Speaker, in defense of his voters. Despite my dislike for Tailpipe, I truly respect him for forcing the Left Coast liberal hypocrites to now step up and vote their conscience on this faux-issue, while possibly losing their seats...nevermind their asses....in the bargain.
Yet another reason why I believe the 'human-sourced global warming' position is unproven, and dangerous to believe otherwise, for economic reasons. Tailpipe obviously agrees. He also clearly feels the current Speaker has not 'led' sufficiently well on this, or other issues, and is using his committee chairmanship to register his disappointment in Frisco Nan's "leadership."
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
American Healthcare, Liberty, and the Liberal Democrats
A few weeks ago, in its weekend edition, The Wall Street Journal printed an article discussing an oft-overlooked aspect of many, if not all, of the current crop of "universal healthcare" schemes being floated by various Presidential candidates.
The key question is, as the article is entitled,
"Should Insurance Be Mandatory?"
At issue is a fundamental question of personal liberty which struck me because I spent the past week with my father. He contended, from when I was quite young, that Americans would most likely lose their liberties slowly, in small increments.
Universal healthcare is such an increment. Essentially, the proposition is that all Americans should be forced to buy into one grand health insurance scheme. No exceptions. Then we all pay, it is argued, for caring for the poor, sick, etc.
Sounds fine in principle, eh? A large risk pool over which to spread expensive societal healthcare expenses?
But, wait. What about the large component of individual health that is volitional, and individually determined? Why should I pay for your smoking, drinking, poor diet, and lack of exercise?
It's all well and good to focus on diseases or conditions which may be present from birth, and may be nobody's "fault." However, that does not mean we must subsidize those who, when relieved of the burden of paying, literally, the price for insuring their very unhealthy lifestyle, logically consume more of the free good that is low-priced healthcare coverage for their very healthcare-intensive lifestyle.
Why not simply let the market solve most of this problem? Let those who choose to live medically-expensive lives pay for that privilege, while those who do not, pay less. The truly indigent or those with medical conditions from birth can be included in Medicare or Medicaid.
What troubles me most about the recent frenzy over universal healthcare is that all candidates seem bent on taking one liberty away- the freedom to say "no" to mandatory, or any, healthcare coverage.
Little by little, if this mandatory coverage is extended, our lives will become drab and managed by the state.
First smoking will be simply prohibited, because it costs us too much in healthcare dollars. Next will be alcohol. Then expect certain foods with high fat content to be prohibited, or rationed.
I'm not kidding. When mediocre, small-minded politicians and bureaucrats get it into their pointy little heads that life now exists to be lived at the least expensive total US healthcare system costs, watch your lifestyle freedoms begin to be taken, tiny step by tiny step.
One day, you'll wake up and find that what you eat and do for recreation are regulated in the name of lower universal healthcare premiums.
Socialistic schemes such as mandatory universal healthcare will only remove more of our liberties, without truly improving our health, or healthcare.
The key question is, as the article is entitled,
"Should Insurance Be Mandatory?"
At issue is a fundamental question of personal liberty which struck me because I spent the past week with my father. He contended, from when I was quite young, that Americans would most likely lose their liberties slowly, in small increments.
Universal healthcare is such an increment. Essentially, the proposition is that all Americans should be forced to buy into one grand health insurance scheme. No exceptions. Then we all pay, it is argued, for caring for the poor, sick, etc.
Sounds fine in principle, eh? A large risk pool over which to spread expensive societal healthcare expenses?
But, wait. What about the large component of individual health that is volitional, and individually determined? Why should I pay for your smoking, drinking, poor diet, and lack of exercise?
It's all well and good to focus on diseases or conditions which may be present from birth, and may be nobody's "fault." However, that does not mean we must subsidize those who, when relieved of the burden of paying, literally, the price for insuring their very unhealthy lifestyle, logically consume more of the free good that is low-priced healthcare coverage for their very healthcare-intensive lifestyle.
Why not simply let the market solve most of this problem? Let those who choose to live medically-expensive lives pay for that privilege, while those who do not, pay less. The truly indigent or those with medical conditions from birth can be included in Medicare or Medicaid.
What troubles me most about the recent frenzy over universal healthcare is that all candidates seem bent on taking one liberty away- the freedom to say "no" to mandatory, or any, healthcare coverage.
Little by little, if this mandatory coverage is extended, our lives will become drab and managed by the state.
First smoking will be simply prohibited, because it costs us too much in healthcare dollars. Next will be alcohol. Then expect certain foods with high fat content to be prohibited, or rationed.
I'm not kidding. When mediocre, small-minded politicians and bureaucrats get it into their pointy little heads that life now exists to be lived at the least expensive total US healthcare system costs, watch your lifestyle freedoms begin to be taken, tiny step by tiny step.
One day, you'll wake up and find that what you eat and do for recreation are regulated in the name of lower universal healthcare premiums.
Socialistic schemes such as mandatory universal healthcare will only remove more of our liberties, without truly improving our health, or healthcare.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Ann Coulter on John Edwards et. al.
I have followed Ann Coulter's recent flap with Elizabeth Edwards with interest and, frankly, glee.
Ann is right..this alone should sink Edwards' candidacy. What is he thinking, sending his wife to do his work for him?
Is this how he will handle Al Qaeda, as Coulter wondered aloud? Send his wife to bargain with them, or complain about how mean they are, killing all those people?
I guess after the Clintons, Edwards figures he needn't wait til he's in office to have his wife work for him as his Secretary of State.
I recall, in my youth, that Ed Muskie sank his campaign in tears, while railing at the Manchester Union. Nowadays, crying like that would probably seal his election.
On a related note, I think Coulter was totally on target to parallel Bill Mahre's outrageous suggestion that assassinating Vice President Cheney would 'save lives in Iraq.' She waggishly told her interviewer, after the sandbagged call from Elizabeth Edwards, that next time she comments about Edwards, she, too, will suggest a terrorist assassination of the candidate.
Honestly, the entire Edwards-Coulter episode is now stranger than fiction. To see John Edwards on Chris Matthews' show, alleging that Coulter appeals only to extremists, is also surreal. This living Ken-doll spouting media sound bites and incredible disconnected views on what he and his wife did, left me wondering who could possibly believe him?
I think Coulter's response was spot-on, portraying Edwards' weakness and cowardice. It is difficult for me to believe Edwards now has any chance at all in the race for the Presidency. Which is how it should be.
Ann is right..this alone should sink Edwards' candidacy. What is he thinking, sending his wife to do his work for him?
Is this how he will handle Al Qaeda, as Coulter wondered aloud? Send his wife to bargain with them, or complain about how mean they are, killing all those people?
I guess after the Clintons, Edwards figures he needn't wait til he's in office to have his wife work for him as his Secretary of State.
I recall, in my youth, that Ed Muskie sank his campaign in tears, while railing at the Manchester Union. Nowadays, crying like that would probably seal his election.
On a related note, I think Coulter was totally on target to parallel Bill Mahre's outrageous suggestion that assassinating Vice President Cheney would 'save lives in Iraq.' She waggishly told her interviewer, after the sandbagged call from Elizabeth Edwards, that next time she comments about Edwards, she, too, will suggest a terrorist assassination of the candidate.
Honestly, the entire Edwards-Coulter episode is now stranger than fiction. To see John Edwards on Chris Matthews' show, alleging that Coulter appeals only to extremists, is also surreal. This living Ken-doll spouting media sound bites and incredible disconnected views on what he and his wife did, left me wondering who could possibly believe him?
I think Coulter's response was spot-on, portraying Edwards' weakness and cowardice. It is difficult for me to believe Edwards now has any chance at all in the race for the Presidency. Which is how it should be.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Hillary's Dilemma
Peggy Noonan wrote a wonderful piece in her Weekend Wall Street Journal column about how Hillary Clinton's challenge is to prove she's a woman. Without belaboring the point, I wholeheartedly agree.
I even know women, liberal women, who will not vote for Hillary because she doesn't cry, show emotion, or behave as many women feel a woman should. Politician or not.
In fact, a friend and I opined that Hillary really should consider simply taking the feminine high road, and behave like a woman. This way, she probably would sew up all the woman voters, who comprise a plurality of the registered base.
On the other flank, the Journal ran a piece citing the Nation's article concerning attacks by feminists on Hillary. In her move to the relative center of various political positions, Hillary had to abandon some of the more blatant 'just for women' stands, including her vote to invade Iraq.
So, Hillary has some difficulties ahead. She is too centrist and compromising for the hard-core feminine left. And she's not woman enough for many women who want a woman candidate for President to actually be different than a man. Which Hillary is trying mightily not to be.
It is by no means a slam dunk that the Democratic nominee for President will be elected, nor that that nominee will be Hillary.
I even know women, liberal women, who will not vote for Hillary because she doesn't cry, show emotion, or behave as many women feel a woman should. Politician or not.
In fact, a friend and I opined that Hillary really should consider simply taking the feminine high road, and behave like a woman. This way, she probably would sew up all the woman voters, who comprise a plurality of the registered base.
On the other flank, the Journal ran a piece citing the Nation's article concerning attacks by feminists on Hillary. In her move to the relative center of various political positions, Hillary had to abandon some of the more blatant 'just for women' stands, including her vote to invade Iraq.
So, Hillary has some difficulties ahead. She is too centrist and compromising for the hard-core feminine left. And she's not woman enough for many women who want a woman candidate for President to actually be different than a man. Which Hillary is trying mightily not to be.
It is by no means a slam dunk that the Democratic nominee for President will be elected, nor that that nominee will be Hillary.
Monday, June 25, 2007
America, The Plutocracy
As I discussed handicapping the very early Presidential race with my conservative friend, Merritt, the other day, he identified an astonishing pattern.
I have to admit, for someone who believes I am pretty observant, this shocked me.
Merritt noted that, if Hillary is elected in 2008, the US will have been governed by Presidents from just two immediate families for a total of 24 years.
How could I have missed this?
Between three Bush terms, and what would be at least three, and possibly four, Clinton terms, you have plutocracy which outstrips even FDR.
Which is why I think this bodes very poorly for Hillary. I can't see many red state Americans, including many who voted Democratic in those states, and many in red states, prolonging the rule of the Clintons.
Never mind the two party system. We're talking "two family" system now.
Because if Hillary wins, you know Jeb Bush will become an immediate candidate for 2012.
Honestly, I just don't think a lot of Americans are ready to commit America to nearly three decades of rule by just two small families.
America, in my opinion, is ready for a black or female President. Just not 'this' female, Hillary, or 'that' black, Obama.
She's too shrill and calculating, he's too immature and inexperienced.
And now, add to that, she's going to perpetuate incestuous leadership of the country in a manner heretofore never seen.
You can take all the polls you want, and argue about how much money each candidate has. But, sometimes, it's the emotional issues, not the quantifiable ones, that make the difference.
On this one, I think most Americans will recoil in horror as they learn, and they surely will sometime in the next 17 months, that Hillary's election would result in such a long, unbroken string of Presidents emanating from just two immediate, non-extended families.
I have to admit, for someone who believes I am pretty observant, this shocked me.
Merritt noted that, if Hillary is elected in 2008, the US will have been governed by Presidents from just two immediate families for a total of 24 years.
How could I have missed this?
Between three Bush terms, and what would be at least three, and possibly four, Clinton terms, you have plutocracy which outstrips even FDR.
Which is why I think this bodes very poorly for Hillary. I can't see many red state Americans, including many who voted Democratic in those states, and many in red states, prolonging the rule of the Clintons.
Never mind the two party system. We're talking "two family" system now.
Because if Hillary wins, you know Jeb Bush will become an immediate candidate for 2012.
Honestly, I just don't think a lot of Americans are ready to commit America to nearly three decades of rule by just two small families.
America, in my opinion, is ready for a black or female President. Just not 'this' female, Hillary, or 'that' black, Obama.
She's too shrill and calculating, he's too immature and inexperienced.
And now, add to that, she's going to perpetuate incestuous leadership of the country in a manner heretofore never seen.
You can take all the polls you want, and argue about how much money each candidate has. But, sometimes, it's the emotional issues, not the quantifiable ones, that make the difference.
On this one, I think most Americans will recoil in horror as they learn, and they surely will sometime in the next 17 months, that Hillary's election would result in such a long, unbroken string of Presidents emanating from just two immediate, non-extended families.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
