Yes, it's really true:
Just read the venerable New York Post editorial entitled "Rudy the Yankee Flipper," subtitled "Mass.-kisser roots for Red Sox," and with the first sentence reading: "Call him Judas Giuliani."
You see, Giuliani "revealed yesterday that he is backing the hated Boston Red Sox in the World Series." Harsh? Not really. Part of the job description of being a Yankees fan is hating the Boston Red Sox.
His reasoning was pretty weak:
"I'm an American League fan, and I go with the American League team - maybe with exception of the Mets," he said. "Maybe that would be the one time I wouldn't, because I'm loyal to New York."
Given that Montana Headlines is a Yankees-free zone and that we are Red Sox fans (same difference,) we aren't inclined to take it easy on Giuliani. The biggest reason why a Giuliani vs. Clinton matchup would be such a disaster for the country has nothing to do with the authoritarian streak that both share, and even less to do with their similar stances on abortion.
It is that no matter what, we would have a Yankees fan in the White House. And opportunistic fans of the Yankees are the worst -- Giuliani has proven that while he is still ahead of Clinton on that score, we're beginning to wonder.
So is all of New York:
Richard Gerber, 69, a retired garment salesman, said Giuliani was trying to peel away votes from GOP rival Mitt Romney, the ex-Massachusetts governor.
"It's hypocritical. He's a New Yorker," said Gerber.
Giuliani's siding with the Sox surprised even his New York campaign team.
"I question his Yankee credentials. If you're a big Yankee fan, you have to hate the Red Sox," said Guy Molinari, New York co-chair of the Giuliani campaign.
They've even figured this game out down in Tennessee, where they may talk slower than they do in New York, but apparently think faster:
"We thought Mayor Giuliani's endorsement of Democrat Mario Cuomo [in 1994] was rooting for the other team," Republican rival Fred Thompson's campaign said in a statement. "But for Yankee fans, this might be a new low."
Could it be that Giuliani may have to drop out for having failed to hate sufficiently? Stay tuned.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Bushman for Senate?
As we noted before, we like Mike Lange quite a bit, regardless of what people might say about him. He has brought a fresh approach to Montana politics from a different perspective than comes from the usual Republican sources (we can say that sort of thing, since we're about as usual as they come.)
But we have also pointed out that whoever decides to take him on in a primary is likely to win and go on to tackle Max Baucus in the fall of 2008.
While it just hit the Gazette this morning, thanks to LITW we learned yesterday about the latest AP story on Kirk Bushman's contemplated run for the U.S. Senate.
LITW of course puts the worst possible face on Bushman's proposed candidacy -- that, of course, is their job, so that's not really a criticism of that site. But we would offer a slightly different perspective on the points LITW makes.
In talking about the importance of reforming Social Security through personalization of accounts, Bushman is tracking right with the message of the GOP presidential candidate who will win Montana in the fall of 2008.
We know this, since all of the GOP candidates appear not to be afraid of speaking the truth about the need to do something about Social Security entitlements before a system on a collision course with demographic reality confronts our children and grandchildren with bankruptcy and extremely hard choices.
It is a message that resonates with younger voters (non-socialist younger voters, that is,) most of whom are skeptical in the extreme about what, if anything, they will see when they retire in return for decades of their payroll taxes that aging baby-boomers will snarf up in a few years. Democrats will always think election to election on Social Security, and that's not a bad immediate political strategy, given the aging population. But Republicans can, should, and will think differently.
And as for the SCHIP veto, Bushman will be advocating a carefully targeted program that helps children from low-income families, rather than one that would turn into a middle-class entitlement that undermines private health insurance -- just like the Congressman who will win Montana in the fall of 2008 -- Denny Rehberg.
All in all, if these were two items that Bushman chose to comment on, they aren't particularly poorly chosen ones if he wants to start out by unifying the Montana GOP base in support of him. And if he can get the GOP base behind him, the race won't be a landslide for Baucus.
Bushman would probably make a very solid candidate, and the word on the street that has been floating about him and his contemplated run here in Billings has been all very positive. He will unquestionably raise money. Not Max Baucus money, but perhaps approaching Jon Tester money -- and the latter proved that the candidate with the most money doesn't always win.
Unlike Bob Keenan, whose past experience holding elective office meant that he should have known he had to get in some time ago if he were planning to mount a strong campaign against Baucus, Bushman is a political newcomer and thus has good reason for not being ahead of the curve at this point.
Let's comment on the obvious: in conventional terms, Baucus is unassailable. A candidate who takes on an incumbent like him is like David going after Goliath, which means that it's not precisely hopeless, but that little stone from the slingshot has to hit him precisely in the center of the metaphorical forehead -- which takes luck, the grace of God, or both.
Also, Goliath can stumble. Baucus isn't likely to, since he is a life-long professional politician who has seemingly been running for office for longer than most Montanans have been alive, but it does happen, even to the best of them. And while neither Democratic left nor the Republican right hate Baucus, it is by the same token hard to find people who are just so excited about Sen. Baucus that they can scarcely contain themselves.
Baucus doesn't seem to have that kind of visceral loyalty, and is therefore only an Abramoff away from turning the race into a barn-burner. Come to think of it, he did take money from Abramoff and he has been in Washington too long -- we can just use the old Dem TV ads that were used against Burns in 2006 if we get strapped for cash.
What is important is having a solid candidate who works tirelessly, doesn't get discouraged, works the grassroots and gets the party faithful behind him, and who is mentally prepared for the inevitable million-dollar personal smear campaign that will be directed his way. Doesn't matter how clean he has lived and worked -- they will come up with something. He just has to expect it, and so do his Republican backers.
In short, Bushman needs to be prepared to be personally destroyed by the Baucus machine. Not a particularly palatable prospect for a candidate (which is of course why there haven't been high-profile Republicans standing in line to take on the good Senator,) but if he carries it off and continues to work tirelessly while holding his head high and not losing his cool, he will have served his party well and will have gained state-wide name recognition for another, future race, if that's what he wants.
Also, if Baucus were to run essentially unopposed, he would pour his entire war-chest into the state-wide Democratic machine to win legislative races and other state-wide races. He needs to be made to work for his Senate win. For anything else to happen in a state with as many Republicans as Montana has would be a disgrace to the state party.
And, Baucus could always stumble. It's not much to hold on to -- but a year is a long time in politics. It's why football teams who are playing a 30-point favorite still suit up and play hard, because on any given Sunday...
Good luck to Lange and Bushman. Let's have a nice, clean fight, where most of the rhetorical blows just happen to land on the other party.
But we have also pointed out that whoever decides to take him on in a primary is likely to win and go on to tackle Max Baucus in the fall of 2008.
While it just hit the Gazette this morning, thanks to LITW we learned yesterday about the latest AP story on Kirk Bushman's contemplated run for the U.S. Senate.
LITW of course puts the worst possible face on Bushman's proposed candidacy -- that, of course, is their job, so that's not really a criticism of that site. But we would offer a slightly different perspective on the points LITW makes.
In talking about the importance of reforming Social Security through personalization of accounts, Bushman is tracking right with the message of the GOP presidential candidate who will win Montana in the fall of 2008.
We know this, since all of the GOP candidates appear not to be afraid of speaking the truth about the need to do something about Social Security entitlements before a system on a collision course with demographic reality confronts our children and grandchildren with bankruptcy and extremely hard choices.
It is a message that resonates with younger voters (non-socialist younger voters, that is,) most of whom are skeptical in the extreme about what, if anything, they will see when they retire in return for decades of their payroll taxes that aging baby-boomers will snarf up in a few years. Democrats will always think election to election on Social Security, and that's not a bad immediate political strategy, given the aging population. But Republicans can, should, and will think differently.
And as for the SCHIP veto, Bushman will be advocating a carefully targeted program that helps children from low-income families, rather than one that would turn into a middle-class entitlement that undermines private health insurance -- just like the Congressman who will win Montana in the fall of 2008 -- Denny Rehberg.
All in all, if these were two items that Bushman chose to comment on, they aren't particularly poorly chosen ones if he wants to start out by unifying the Montana GOP base in support of him. And if he can get the GOP base behind him, the race won't be a landslide for Baucus.
Bushman would probably make a very solid candidate, and the word on the street that has been floating about him and his contemplated run here in Billings has been all very positive. He will unquestionably raise money. Not Max Baucus money, but perhaps approaching Jon Tester money -- and the latter proved that the candidate with the most money doesn't always win.
Unlike Bob Keenan, whose past experience holding elective office meant that he should have known he had to get in some time ago if he were planning to mount a strong campaign against Baucus, Bushman is a political newcomer and thus has good reason for not being ahead of the curve at this point.
Let's comment on the obvious: in conventional terms, Baucus is unassailable. A candidate who takes on an incumbent like him is like David going after Goliath, which means that it's not precisely hopeless, but that little stone from the slingshot has to hit him precisely in the center of the metaphorical forehead -- which takes luck, the grace of God, or both.
Also, Goliath can stumble. Baucus isn't likely to, since he is a life-long professional politician who has seemingly been running for office for longer than most Montanans have been alive, but it does happen, even to the best of them. And while neither Democratic left nor the Republican right hate Baucus, it is by the same token hard to find people who are just so excited about Sen. Baucus that they can scarcely contain themselves.
Baucus doesn't seem to have that kind of visceral loyalty, and is therefore only an Abramoff away from turning the race into a barn-burner. Come to think of it, he did take money from Abramoff and he has been in Washington too long -- we can just use the old Dem TV ads that were used against Burns in 2006 if we get strapped for cash.
What is important is having a solid candidate who works tirelessly, doesn't get discouraged, works the grassroots and gets the party faithful behind him, and who is mentally prepared for the inevitable million-dollar personal smear campaign that will be directed his way. Doesn't matter how clean he has lived and worked -- they will come up with something. He just has to expect it, and so do his Republican backers.
In short, Bushman needs to be prepared to be personally destroyed by the Baucus machine. Not a particularly palatable prospect for a candidate (which is of course why there haven't been high-profile Republicans standing in line to take on the good Senator,) but if he carries it off and continues to work tirelessly while holding his head high and not losing his cool, he will have served his party well and will have gained state-wide name recognition for another, future race, if that's what he wants.
Also, if Baucus were to run essentially unopposed, he would pour his entire war-chest into the state-wide Democratic machine to win legislative races and other state-wide races. He needs to be made to work for his Senate win. For anything else to happen in a state with as many Republicans as Montana has would be a disgrace to the state party.
And, Baucus could always stumble. It's not much to hold on to -- but a year is a long time in politics. It's why football teams who are playing a 30-point favorite still suit up and play hard, because on any given Sunday...
Good luck to Lange and Bushman. Let's have a nice, clean fight, where most of the rhetorical blows just happen to land on the other party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)