Jerry Falwell died. What does Hillary Clinton care about? His death is inconvenient to her campaign.
A few will speak bad of Falwell. Whatever Clinton believes, she cannot. Although she is liberal, and Falwell was conservative, and that she is, for all practical purposes, an a-philosophical secular humanist and he was a Christian, she can only say good things.
We expect George W. Bush to say nice things. He essentially agreed with Falwell on politics and theology on the high points. And, he is the president.
Inconvenient to Hillary Clinton is that she has no choice. While her numbers are slipping to Barack Obama, and the race is becoming dustier, she will release a statement saying he was a good man who respected the political process and lived what he believed. She might finish it with reminding people that, after all, this is the American way of freedom.
Inconvenient to Hillary Clinton is that whatever defines today's conservative politics will be highlighted, and its good points will be in the news. She needs this refuted, but, in respect for his family, and his supporters, she will not. To do so means losing some of the middle ground voters she dearly needs, the ones Barack Obama's campaign is sweeping off their feet.
Who wins?
For Obama, he is helped because he is considered by a small faction as having some semblance of Christian faith. Few believe it impacts his day-to-day life in the same way it does Bush or, perhaps, Romney, but, to those who like a man of character, Obama can gain a few voters from the Hillary camp. She's seen as a political fighter, and Obama still enjoys a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" innocence.
Obama, though, wins much more than a few votes. He wins continued momentum. Once that momentum hits critical mass, people will bandwagon "just because" the same way Bill Clinton's followers tagged on late into his campaign. The male Clinton became unstoppable. Obama has that potential.
It will not be Hillary, that's all that is certain. Very few will like Edwards either, thanks to his anti-Catholic staffers mouthing off.
Who wins among Republicans?
Maybe Mitt Romney. The trouble is that, although he is generally conservative, he is a Mormon. Whether Falwell's supporters can accept this is a unknown. From what I have read, there is no consensus yet among conservative Christians (which includes more than evangelicals, but many among Catholics and mainline denominations) who to support.
The speeches remembering Jerry Falwell, whether intended or not, will be quoted in the media. Who gets quoted will gain support, simple as that.
When the conservative Christians decide, it won't be like an Amish community which makes it collectively. It will be, as always, a vast, disconnected, swelling that overtakes unexpectedly. When John Kerry lost the only election he could have ever won, it was largely because of the difficult to poll conservative Christians.
That vague group, conservative Christians, vote because, in part, Jerry Falwell encouraged them. Just as his predecessor, Martin Luther King Jr. encouraged Christians to vote, Falwell helped reduce the fear of voting's insignificance. One vote does little. A million votes does a lot.
King's reliance on his faith to lead, to speak, and, ultimately, to give his life, is, in many ways, like Falwell's. For King, his focus was specific, and made, then, a specific impact. Falwell's focus was general, and so it is harder to pinpoint his impact.
All to say, Jerry Falwell may influence the 2008 Presidential Election more in death than he may have been able to in life.
Executive Speechwriting: Corporate, Weddings, Retirement
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Sunday, May 13, 2007
How Does Hillary Fight Rudy?
Hillary has a problem. Not, not one involving the Betty Ford Clinic. Betty was a Republican, however, just like Hillary's problem.
See this LA Times piece. Rudy's pro everything Hillary is. Her dance about war support hardly helps.
Although Rudy's not in line with general Republican view points, and is very close in many regards to the male Clinton, how does Hillary, and the Republicans, fight him? They cannot say, "Why Rudy, you are OK with abortion, and, by golly, we think that's wrong, and so you can't be president." No. His abortion views are essentially equal to the Democrats. Work your way down most social issues.
Rudy could win. Democrats who are pro-Iraq, and Republicans who believe abortion is not killing a fetus (or, merely rank abortion as less important than Iraq) are voting for Rudy G. That could be in total, a lot.
Watch a few Democrats highlight how they are like Rudy, only they are, as they will point out, Democrats. Their best hope is for Rudy to lose in the primaries.
See this LA Times piece. Rudy's pro everything Hillary is. Her dance about war support hardly helps.
Although Rudy's not in line with general Republican view points, and is very close in many regards to the male Clinton, how does Hillary, and the Republicans, fight him? They cannot say, "Why Rudy, you are OK with abortion, and, by golly, we think that's wrong, and so you can't be president." No. His abortion views are essentially equal to the Democrats. Work your way down most social issues.
Rudy could win. Democrats who are pro-Iraq, and Republicans who believe abortion is not killing a fetus (or, merely rank abortion as less important than Iraq) are voting for Rudy G. That could be in total, a lot.
Watch a few Democrats highlight how they are like Rudy, only they are, as they will point out, Democrats. Their best hope is for Rudy to lose in the primaries.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Giuliani Runs As Democrat(ish) Republican, Al Sharpton All But Moons the Mormons
Giuliani's a liberal. A Democrat claims a Mormon has no genuine faith. What's next?
Really. All true. Rudy's just as prochoice as Margaret Sanger. How prochoice is that? I'm exaggerating. Planned Parenthood founder Sanger was so prochoice, she was cool emphasizing the abortion of Catholics, the poor and African Americans, all as part of her view of also being pro-eugenics. Rudy's not there. He's killed off three marriages, but no African Americans.
Al Sharpton, after years of seminary study and biblical scholarship, was licensed and ordained a minister at the age of nine. Now, a minister without a church (think: Jesse Jackson) presumably for its political and legal conveniences, he gets to say he's the Reverend Sharpton. To me, he's just a doofus who wants to make the Democratic Party the religious party. He decided this week to say Mitt Romney, who happens to Mormon, isn't a real Christian. There's an interesting theological question, but not salient to any presidential campaign.
What does Hillary, a nonbeliever and a liberal, do? Worry about Giuliani bigtime if he wins the primary, and avoid Sharpton with a ten-foot pole.
Really. All true. Rudy's just as prochoice as Margaret Sanger. How prochoice is that? I'm exaggerating. Planned Parenthood founder Sanger was so prochoice, she was cool emphasizing the abortion of Catholics, the poor and African Americans, all as part of her view of also being pro-eugenics. Rudy's not there. He's killed off three marriages, but no African Americans.
Al Sharpton, after years of seminary study and biblical scholarship, was licensed and ordained a minister at the age of nine. Now, a minister without a church (think: Jesse Jackson) presumably for its political and legal conveniences, he gets to say he's the Reverend Sharpton. To me, he's just a doofus who wants to make the Democratic Party the religious party. He decided this week to say Mitt Romney, who happens to Mormon, isn't a real Christian. There's an interesting theological question, but not salient to any presidential campaign.
What does Hillary, a nonbeliever and a liberal, do? Worry about Giuliani bigtime if he wins the primary, and avoid Sharpton with a ten-foot pole.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
How to Endorse a Democrat
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (Democratic, as if it needs mention) endorses Hillary Clinton.
By what criteria does a governor in a strongly Democratic state choose who to endorse? Politically, there is little that distinguishes Clinton from Barack Obama.
Electability is a biggie. As I have mentioned before, however, even a landslide by Clinton might result in a trouncing in the general election. There are better analysts than myself, so it could be O'Malley is in the know. After all, he picked Howard Dean to be president in 2004.
Leadership. This is a complicated term. Lead who? Other Democrats? Personal staff? A bipartisan congress? International coalitions?
Wisdom. This is a combination of public perception, reputation, and political perspective.
Bridge-building. Like leadership, the term is amorphous. At first glance, Clinton has not shown this capacity, but neither has Obama. Clinton's been fire-branded as a liberal lightening rod, but her ability is likely stronger behind the scenes. Is it more than what Obama brings to the table?
Commitment to message. This, ultimately, lost John Kerry the presidency. He wanted to be president more than he wanted to be a leader. Say what you will, Bush is solid here, while Bill Clinton was less so. While the male Clinton never could be called a conservative, he did flex more than Bush has. This comes off as either wishy-washy flip-flopping, or, as skilled negotiating. Bill Clinton proved he could be effective here. Bush has stuck to his message from day 1, showing he never played the political lie-to-be-elected game, but, has earned a tag of inflexibility. As far as Obama and Hillary Clinton, both seem to more like Bush than Bill Clinton. They are, for now, just trying to win a primary election, and, need to look as a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat.
By what criteria does a governor in a strongly Democratic state choose who to endorse? Politically, there is little that distinguishes Clinton from Barack Obama.
Electability is a biggie. As I have mentioned before, however, even a landslide by Clinton might result in a trouncing in the general election. There are better analysts than myself, so it could be O'Malley is in the know. After all, he picked Howard Dean to be president in 2004.
Leadership. This is a complicated term. Lead who? Other Democrats? Personal staff? A bipartisan congress? International coalitions?
Wisdom. This is a combination of public perception, reputation, and political perspective.
Bridge-building. Like leadership, the term is amorphous. At first glance, Clinton has not shown this capacity, but neither has Obama. Clinton's been fire-branded as a liberal lightening rod, but her ability is likely stronger behind the scenes. Is it more than what Obama brings to the table?
Commitment to message. This, ultimately, lost John Kerry the presidency. He wanted to be president more than he wanted to be a leader. Say what you will, Bush is solid here, while Bill Clinton was less so. While the male Clinton never could be called a conservative, he did flex more than Bush has. This comes off as either wishy-washy flip-flopping, or, as skilled negotiating. Bill Clinton proved he could be effective here. Bush has stuck to his message from day 1, showing he never played the political lie-to-be-elected game, but, has earned a tag of inflexibility. As far as Obama and Hillary Clinton, both seem to more like Bush than Bill Clinton. They are, for now, just trying to win a primary election, and, need to look as a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
President Bush's Radio Address - Funding, Negotiation, War, Terrorism
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. At this hour, America's brave men and women in uniform are engaging our enemies around the world. And in this time of war, our elected officials have no higher responsibility than to provide these troops with the funds and flexibility they need to prevail.
On Wednesday, I met with congressional leaders from both parties here at the White House. We discussed ways to pass a responsible emergency war spending bill that will fully fund our troops as quickly as possible. It was a positive meeting. Democratic leaders assured me they are committed to funding our troops, and I told them I'm committed to working with members of both parties to do just that.
I've appointed three senior members of my White House staff to negotiate with Congress on this vital legislation: my Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, and Budget Director Rob Portman. By working together, I believe we can pass a good bill quickly and give our troops the resources and flexibility they need.
Earlier this week, I vetoed the bill Congress sent me because it set a fixed date to begin to pull out of Iraq, imposed unworkable conditions on our military commanders, and included billions of dollars in spending unrelated to the war. And on Wednesday, the House voted to sustain my veto by a wide margin.
I recognize that many Democratic leaders saw this bill as an opportunity to make a statement about their opposition to the war. In a democracy, we should debate our differences openly and honestly. But now it is time to give our troops the resources they are waiting for.
Our troops are now carrying out a new strategy in Iraq under the leadership of a new commander -- General David Petraeus. He's an expert in counter-insurgency warfare. The goal of the new strategy he is implementing is to help the Iraqis secure their capital, so they can make progress toward reconciliation and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and fights extremists alongside the United States in the war on terror. This strategy is still in its early stages, and Congress needs to give General Petraeus' plan a chance to work.
I know that Republicans and Democrats will not agree on every issue in this war. But the consequences of failure in Iraq are clear. If we were to leave Iraq before the government can defend itself, there would be a security vacuum in the country. Extremists from all factions could compete to fill that vacuum, causing sectarian killing to multiply on a horrific scale.
If radicals and terrorists emerge from this battle with control of Iraq, they would have control of a nation with massive oil reserves, which they could use to fund their dangerous ambitions and spread their influence. The al Qaeda terrorists who behead captives or order suicide bombings would not be satisfied to see America defeated and gone from Iraq. They would be emboldened by their victory, protected by their new sanctuary, eager to impose their hateful vision on surrounding countries, and eager to harm Americans.
No responsible leader in Washington has an interest in letting that happen. I call on Congress to work with my Administration and quickly craft a responsible war spending bill. We must provide our men and women in uniform with the resources and support they deserve. I'm confident that leaders of goodwill can deliver this important result.
Thank you for listening.
END
source: whitehouse.gov
On Wednesday, I met with congressional leaders from both parties here at the White House. We discussed ways to pass a responsible emergency war spending bill that will fully fund our troops as quickly as possible. It was a positive meeting. Democratic leaders assured me they are committed to funding our troops, and I told them I'm committed to working with members of both parties to do just that.
I've appointed three senior members of my White House staff to negotiate with Congress on this vital legislation: my Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, and Budget Director Rob Portman. By working together, I believe we can pass a good bill quickly and give our troops the resources and flexibility they need.
Earlier this week, I vetoed the bill Congress sent me because it set a fixed date to begin to pull out of Iraq, imposed unworkable conditions on our military commanders, and included billions of dollars in spending unrelated to the war. And on Wednesday, the House voted to sustain my veto by a wide margin.
I recognize that many Democratic leaders saw this bill as an opportunity to make a statement about their opposition to the war. In a democracy, we should debate our differences openly and honestly. But now it is time to give our troops the resources they are waiting for.
Our troops are now carrying out a new strategy in Iraq under the leadership of a new commander -- General David Petraeus. He's an expert in counter-insurgency warfare. The goal of the new strategy he is implementing is to help the Iraqis secure their capital, so they can make progress toward reconciliation and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and fights extremists alongside the United States in the war on terror. This strategy is still in its early stages, and Congress needs to give General Petraeus' plan a chance to work.
I know that Republicans and Democrats will not agree on every issue in this war. But the consequences of failure in Iraq are clear. If we were to leave Iraq before the government can defend itself, there would be a security vacuum in the country. Extremists from all factions could compete to fill that vacuum, causing sectarian killing to multiply on a horrific scale.
If radicals and terrorists emerge from this battle with control of Iraq, they would have control of a nation with massive oil reserves, which they could use to fund their dangerous ambitions and spread their influence. The al Qaeda terrorists who behead captives or order suicide bombings would not be satisfied to see America defeated and gone from Iraq. They would be emboldened by their victory, protected by their new sanctuary, eager to impose their hateful vision on surrounding countries, and eager to harm Americans.
No responsible leader in Washington has an interest in letting that happen. I call on Congress to work with my Administration and quickly craft a responsible war spending bill. We must provide our men and women in uniform with the resources and support they deserve. I'm confident that leaders of goodwill can deliver this important result.
Thank you for listening.
END
source: whitehouse.gov
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Where Joe Anthony Went Wrong With His Barack Obama MySpace Page
In trying to understand the MySpace fiasco, I see on their terms page:
Your MySpace.com profile may not include the following items: telephone numbers, street addresses, last names, and any photographs containing nudity, or obscene, lewd, excessively violent, harassing, sexually explicit or otherwise objectionable subject matter.
...using the account, username, or password of another Member at any time or disclosing your password to any third party or permitting any third party to access your account;
...selling or otherwise transferring your profile;
Was Joe Anthony including a last name? It looks that way. Was he trying to see the profile, or merely his services of keeping it up? I don't know. Did he disclose his password to a third party? Absolutely.
Do I think he was used by the Barack Obama campaign? Absolutely.
Obama Inc Powers Over Volunteers
Even the New York Times is paying attention to MySpace (Obama’s MySpace Conundrum). The most unglorious display of wretched campaignism, showing Barack Obama as a power hungry, selfish, greedy stereotypical politician.
Back when he was working as an Illinois Senator (a job he still technically holds), Obama had a fresh look of inexperience. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. No, no. Mr. Obama has desperate eyes on the White House.
Super fan Joe Anthony worked for Obama for free. He did it on his time. Then Obama, Inc. decided an aggressive takeover was required in order to properly spin the page. Anthony, a volunteer, sold his site. No. Not true. It was taken from him. Stolen? Not really. The MySpace people took it from him, as per the demand on Obama Inc.
Regarding something similar they did, their spokesman points out how business as usual is the preferred method.
Anthony was screwed over like an unwilling john in a male prison. Raped hard. He didn't try to pick up the soap. He was pushed.
Who wins? Yesterday, I was thinking it was Hillary Clinton. No, not so much. The Republicans win this round. This is just another way the Democrats have shown bad management. Hillary will benefit with the primary election, but, if Obama wins the primary, this fiasco will ultimately help the Republicans.
Back when he was working as an Illinois Senator (a job he still technically holds), Obama had a fresh look of inexperience. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. No, no. Mr. Obama has desperate eyes on the White House.
Super fan Joe Anthony worked for Obama for free. He did it on his time. Then Obama, Inc. decided an aggressive takeover was required in order to properly spin the page. Anthony, a volunteer, sold his site. No. Not true. It was taken from him. Stolen? Not really. The MySpace people took it from him, as per the demand on Obama Inc.
Regarding something similar they did, their spokesman points out how business as usual is the preferred method.
“When it reached a point where there was 160,000 people,” said Jen Psaki, a
spokeswoman for the campaign, “that was a point where we followed sort of what
every other candidate has done” by controlling the candidate’s MySpace profile.
Anthony was screwed over like an unwilling john in a male prison. Raped hard. He didn't try to pick up the soap. He was pushed.
Who wins? Yesterday, I was thinking it was Hillary Clinton. No, not so much. The Republicans win this round. This is just another way the Democrats have shown bad management. Hillary will benefit with the primary election, but, if Obama wins the primary, this fiasco will ultimately help the Republicans.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Obama Bullies Major Supporter on MySpace
While grass-roots campaigns make good press, the Hillary Clinton machine had a victory that did not involve them. Barack Obama took over a MySpace page from a supporter. Big Obama fan Joe Anthony gets kicked around by a powerful politician.
The story in short: Obama joins Senate. Fan starts MySpace page. It becomes popular. Obama heavily endorses the site, and the fan accommodates Obama. Now, Obama takes over the MySpace page.
Hillary wins here because this is how she plays: hard, tough and take no prisoners. She was, though, lacking the gentlemanly charm of Barack Obama, and comes off closer to the kind of woman who sells real estate (Is she #1 of the East Side?). Here, Obama hits the little guy hard, takes him down, and wrestles him to the ground.
Obama was cool so long as he has access to change the site. That way, he appeared to be supported as a grass roots kind of guy. What few knew is that his people have been "tweaking" the site for a long time.
Dishonest? You make the call.
All this means Obama's popularity drops a few. No one cares if he snorted or smoked coke, or if all that is a rumor. So long as he is a good guy now. As a strong supporter of free speech, and of grass roots campaigns, I think Barack Obama is in the dog house.
Obama takes control of MySpace page from jilted supporter
The story in short: Obama joins Senate. Fan starts MySpace page. It becomes popular. Obama heavily endorses the site, and the fan accommodates Obama. Now, Obama takes over the MySpace page.
Hillary wins here because this is how she plays: hard, tough and take no prisoners. She was, though, lacking the gentlemanly charm of Barack Obama, and comes off closer to the kind of woman who sells real estate (Is she #1 of the East Side?). Here, Obama hits the little guy hard, takes him down, and wrestles him to the ground.
Obama was cool so long as he has access to change the site. That way, he appeared to be supported as a grass roots kind of guy. What few knew is that his people have been "tweaking" the site for a long time.
Dishonest? You make the call.
All this means Obama's popularity drops a few. No one cares if he snorted or smoked coke, or if all that is a rumor. So long as he is a good guy now. As a strong supporter of free speech, and of grass roots campaigns, I think Barack Obama is in the dog house.
Obama takes control of MySpace page from jilted supporter
Democrats Begin Iraq Time Line Backpedalling
Democrats begin backpedalling. I was hoping to see more leadership from them, and less grand standing and politics. All is not lost, though. They can return the matter with a show of good will, forcing Bush to do likewise. Real negotiation is not about stonewalling or power plays, but of true consideration meeting the other's needs amicably will not compromising principles.
Look at this: Veto Makes Democrats Weigh Concessions
Yesterday, I wrote: Iraq Spending Bill Dooms Soldiers. Now, the imminent has become absolute. The Democrats are doing what they should have done yesterday. Instead, they lost by proving that they are still required to negotiate.
Hoyer gets it, "We're not going to leave our troops in harm's way . . . without the resources they need," said Hoyer, D-Md."
Bush, too, needs to negotiate. If he is not interested in hearing a time line plan, what is he interested in? He, like Americans as a whole, does not want to be Iraq forever.
What does an exit look like?
Will it be when a Christian can read in public from the Great Commission passage (it commands evangelism) in the Book of Matthew without being threatened with death?
Will it be when the Sunnis and Shiites get together and hug on Dr. Phil or Oprah?
Is it finding bipartisan turnouts at elections?
Would 50% turnout be enough?
What if sectarian murders diminish for a set period of time?
Look at this: Veto Makes Democrats Weigh Concessions
Yesterday, I wrote: Iraq Spending Bill Dooms Soldiers. Now, the imminent has become absolute. The Democrats are doing what they should have done yesterday. Instead, they lost by proving that they are still required to negotiate.
Hoyer gets it, "We're not going to leave our troops in harm's way . . . without the resources they need," said Hoyer, D-Md."
Bush, too, needs to negotiate. If he is not interested in hearing a time line plan, what is he interested in? He, like Americans as a whole, does not want to be Iraq forever.
What does an exit look like?
Will it be when a Christian can read in public from the Great Commission passage (it commands evangelism) in the Book of Matthew without being threatened with death?
Will it be when the Sunnis and Shiites get together and hug on Dr. Phil or Oprah?
Is it finding bipartisan turnouts at elections?
Would 50% turnout be enough?
What if sectarian murders diminish for a set period of time?
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Iraq Spending Bill Dooms Soldiers
The Democrats are playing politics. Bush will reject the bill. Why. According to the NYT, "The bill says that American troops must begin withdrawing from Iraq by Oct. 1. " So, that's a time line. Bush will veto.
The politics has its place, and, so long as the Democrats play politics, soldiers will remain in that place, Iraq.
The Democrats, most notable in this case are Pelosi, Obama and Clinton, would do better to consider a bill which has a chance of getting passed. Instead, they are posturing the Republicans negatively, useful for the 2008 elections.
Who suffers? Every soldier who might have lived.
see: Democrats Prepare to Send Bush Iraq Spending Bill
The politics has its place, and, so long as the Democrats play politics, soldiers will remain in that place, Iraq.
The Democrats, most notable in this case are Pelosi, Obama and Clinton, would do better to consider a bill which has a chance of getting passed. Instead, they are posturing the Republicans negatively, useful for the 2008 elections.
Who suffers? Every soldier who might have lived.
see: Democrats Prepare to Send Bush Iraq Spending Bill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
