So much for the 50-state strategy. According to our governor, we are the "Saudi Arabia of coal" (just when the plans to dig it up and turn it into electricity are going to materialize is quite another matter) -- but it sounds like the Obama-Biden team is saying one thing in Montana and another in urban Ohio (sound like a familiar pattern?):
Then again, this is a part of why Presidential campaigns traditionally keep Veep candidates in quiet and subordinate roles when it comes to making policy statements -- there can only be one person in the driver's seat. Ed Rollins, before either of the Veep candidates were announced, said that a campaign manager wants only to hear from the Veep three times: at the announcement of the pick, in the convention acceptance speech, and at the debate.
Of course, Rollins was having to deal with then Veep Bush Sr., so perhaps his view on the subject is understandably jaded. Still, knowing Biden's history, the Obama campaign would have done well to follow the Rollins diet -- cutting back on Veep soundbites.
Showing posts with label 2008 Presidential election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Presidential election. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
OK, we give -- Democrats are smart and sophisticated, Republicans are stumblebums
It has been a fairly regular feature of Montana Headlines to engage in honest self-analysis of the right side of the political spectrum. After all, does it really hurt to admit that those on the left are smarter, better educated, more sophisticated, better read, more widely traveled, etc.? Why argue with the obvious, after all? Certainly here at Montana Headlines, with manure still clinging to our boots, we know our place.
A commenter in the last post compared Republicans to Nazis, but then really decided to get serious and go for the jugular, shaming us for our "reflexive" support for a "beauty queen" who is "dumb as can be." The Nazi thing hurts, but really, to that last part all we can say is an emphatic "ouch!"
It must be acknowledged that it has been some time since Montana Headlines has forthrightly confessed our intellectual inferiority, so it is time for one of our periodic exercises in verbal self-flagellation for our sins against reason.
After all, what are we thinking when we support someone who went to North Idaho College and then made the big move up to the (drum roll, please) University of Idaho (using scholarship money from the Miss Alaska pageant -- how embarrassing is that?) Especially when we could have as our next President someone who graduated from Columbia and from Harvard Law? With a choice like that, there really shouldn't be any point to even holding an election. Oh yeah, that white-haired guy went to the Naval Academy (a reactionary thing to do in and of itself,) but graduated near the bottom of his class, so he really doesn't help.
After all, as Bob Herbert decrees in the august pages of the New York Times, Palin is "dimwitted." Well, that settles it.
Actually, Herbert and the many others who heap scorn on Sarah Palin (and by association, all of us Neanderthals on the right) could just as well save their breath. After all, we already know that we aren't as bright, educated, and sophisticated as our peers on the left (or perhaps it is being presumptuous to call them our peers -- perhaps "counterparts" would be a more appropriately humble word.)
We just tend not to be paralyzed by insecurity, even though we probably should by all rights be crawling into corners in shame because of our paleolithic mindsets. We've seemed somehow to figure out that our lack of intellectual sophistication doesn't have to keep us from becoming productive citizens -- running businesses that keep people employed, becoming successful professionals, achieving financial security for our families, reaching positions of leadership in the military, or even (most shocking of all) winning elections and effectively governing. In this enterprise, we are of course aided by our counterparts, as Tony Blankley recently put it when quizzed by the 3 left-leaning members of a public radio talk-show panel:
One of the reasons the Republicans have done so well in national elections over the last 30 years is that we’ve been blessed with a liberal media and a liberal Democratic party that cannot help but sneer at about, you know, 65 percent of American culture, the people of small town America.
So we benefit from that, and even the stumblebums can figure out how to take advantage of snobs who are our opponents. And it’s sort of remarkable that they can’t restrain themselves even for a season.
We as stumblebums nevertheless keep getting re-elected...
One of his lefty opponents on the panel protested loudly when Blankley made the point that Sarah Palin's experience level was comparable to that of Barack Obama. The evidence that he cited for Obama's superiority? Why, Obama's impressive education and travel experience. Seriously. Well, that really settles it.
But when you look at it historically, he has a point. After all, if you took a poll of university professors, who would be consdidered to be smarter and more intellectually sophisticated, and which was was the hapless bumbler?
Ike or Adlai Stevenson?
Kennedy or Nixon?
Johnson or Goldwater?
Nixon or Humphrey?
Nixon or McGovern?
Carter or Ford?
Carter or Reagan?
Reagan or Mondale?
Bush I or Dukakis?
Clinton or Bush I?
Clinton or Dole?
Bush II or Gore?
Bush II or Kerry?
Obama or McCain?
Really isn't very fair, is it? I'd like to hear from anyone on the left who wouldn't choose the Democrat in every single one of those elections -- or at best declare certain matchups to be more or less a tie. (Diabolically shrewd doesn't count -- we're just talking intellectual depth that would make the faculty club swoon.) After all, if the Republican in question were all that bright, he wouldn't have been a Republican, correct? And to be fair, while we would probably choose or defend the Republican in each of those races, it wouldn't be because of a belief that he would conduct a better graduate seminar in the philosophy of conflict resolution.
And yet, the electoral history is, in spite of it all, surprisingly impressive for those inferior Republican candidates.
The link escapes us right now, but someone recently wrote that for the first time in his life, Sen. Obama is running against actual Republicans -- and he is shocked to be up against opponents who don't care what the editors of the New York Times or Washington Post think. He also has the simultaneous misfortune of encountering, also for the first time in his political life, an electorate where well over half of the voters will be people who likewise really don't care what smart set thinks.
That has to be a disconcerting experience for someone who believes that a 100% ADA rating is a path to post-partisan politics. Maybe on the south side of Chicago -- but in the rest of the country, not so much.
We hayseeds have an annoying habit of showing up to vote, and perhaps that is why a Democratic candidate has only reached the 50% mark in the popular vote exactly twice since WWII. Wouldn't it be something, in a year that was supposed to be a Democratic landslide of 1964 proportions, if the Republicans stumblebummed themselves to yet one more victory?
A commenter in the last post compared Republicans to Nazis, but then really decided to get serious and go for the jugular, shaming us for our "reflexive" support for a "beauty queen" who is "dumb as can be." The Nazi thing hurts, but really, to that last part all we can say is an emphatic "ouch!"
It must be acknowledged that it has been some time since Montana Headlines has forthrightly confessed our intellectual inferiority, so it is time for one of our periodic exercises in verbal self-flagellation for our sins against reason.
After all, what are we thinking when we support someone who went to North Idaho College and then made the big move up to the (drum roll, please) University of Idaho (using scholarship money from the Miss Alaska pageant -- how embarrassing is that?) Especially when we could have as our next President someone who graduated from Columbia and from Harvard Law? With a choice like that, there really shouldn't be any point to even holding an election. Oh yeah, that white-haired guy went to the Naval Academy (a reactionary thing to do in and of itself,) but graduated near the bottom of his class, so he really doesn't help.
After all, as Bob Herbert decrees in the august pages of the New York Times, Palin is "dimwitted." Well, that settles it.
Actually, Herbert and the many others who heap scorn on Sarah Palin (and by association, all of us Neanderthals on the right) could just as well save their breath. After all, we already know that we aren't as bright, educated, and sophisticated as our peers on the left (or perhaps it is being presumptuous to call them our peers -- perhaps "counterparts" would be a more appropriately humble word.)
We just tend not to be paralyzed by insecurity, even though we probably should by all rights be crawling into corners in shame because of our paleolithic mindsets. We've seemed somehow to figure out that our lack of intellectual sophistication doesn't have to keep us from becoming productive citizens -- running businesses that keep people employed, becoming successful professionals, achieving financial security for our families, reaching positions of leadership in the military, or even (most shocking of all) winning elections and effectively governing. In this enterprise, we are of course aided by our counterparts, as Tony Blankley recently put it when quizzed by the 3 left-leaning members of a public radio talk-show panel:
One of the reasons the Republicans have done so well in national elections over the last 30 years is that we’ve been blessed with a liberal media and a liberal Democratic party that cannot help but sneer at about, you know, 65 percent of American culture, the people of small town America.
So we benefit from that, and even the stumblebums can figure out how to take advantage of snobs who are our opponents. And it’s sort of remarkable that they can’t restrain themselves even for a season.
We as stumblebums nevertheless keep getting re-elected...
One of his lefty opponents on the panel protested loudly when Blankley made the point that Sarah Palin's experience level was comparable to that of Barack Obama. The evidence that he cited for Obama's superiority? Why, Obama's impressive education and travel experience. Seriously. Well, that really settles it.
But when you look at it historically, he has a point. After all, if you took a poll of university professors, who would be consdidered to be smarter and more intellectually sophisticated, and which was was the hapless bumbler?
Ike or Adlai Stevenson?
Kennedy or Nixon?
Johnson or Goldwater?
Nixon or Humphrey?
Nixon or McGovern?
Carter or Ford?
Carter or Reagan?
Reagan or Mondale?
Bush I or Dukakis?
Clinton or Bush I?
Clinton or Dole?
Bush II or Gore?
Bush II or Kerry?
Obama or McCain?
Really isn't very fair, is it? I'd like to hear from anyone on the left who wouldn't choose the Democrat in every single one of those elections -- or at best declare certain matchups to be more or less a tie. (Diabolically shrewd doesn't count -- we're just talking intellectual depth that would make the faculty club swoon.) After all, if the Republican in question were all that bright, he wouldn't have been a Republican, correct? And to be fair, while we would probably choose or defend the Republican in each of those races, it wouldn't be because of a belief that he would conduct a better graduate seminar in the philosophy of conflict resolution.
And yet, the electoral history is, in spite of it all, surprisingly impressive for those inferior Republican candidates.
The link escapes us right now, but someone recently wrote that for the first time in his life, Sen. Obama is running against actual Republicans -- and he is shocked to be up against opponents who don't care what the editors of the New York Times or Washington Post think. He also has the simultaneous misfortune of encountering, also for the first time in his political life, an electorate where well over half of the voters will be people who likewise really don't care what smart set thinks.
That has to be a disconcerting experience for someone who believes that a 100% ADA rating is a path to post-partisan politics. Maybe on the south side of Chicago -- but in the rest of the country, not so much.
We hayseeds have an annoying habit of showing up to vote, and perhaps that is why a Democratic candidate has only reached the 50% mark in the popular vote exactly twice since WWII. Wouldn't it be something, in a year that was supposed to be a Democratic landslide of 1964 proportions, if the Republicans stumblebummed themselves to yet one more victory?
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
McCain up big in new Montana poll
As Montana Headlines has pointed out, the selection of Sarah Palin for Veep should make Montana a wrap for Sen. McCain, even in a worst case scenario. The most recent Rasmussen poll shows McCain leading 53% to 42%
More importantly, 70% of McCain supporters in Montana say that they are enthusiastically voting for McCain, while only 28% say that they are primarily voting against Sen. Obama. This is quite comparable to the 79% and 18% numbers among Obama supporters in Montana -- the enthusiasm gap appears to have been largely erased. Based on anecdotal MH experience talking to Republicans, this is an accurate assessment of the right-leaning part of the Montana voting public. It is also a phenomenal turn-around for McCain, and has to be in large part attributed to Gov. Palin's addition to the ticket, not to mention the new general excitement around the McCain campaign.
With the addition of Ron Paul to the ballot, it is said that this could turn the state to Sen. Obama, but this is far from certain. The Montana GOP treated Ron Paul supporters very well, especially when compared to other state organizations. Several former Ron Paul supporters that MH has spoken to have made up their minds to vote for John McCain, in large part because he chose a conservative running mate. Is this representative? Only time will tell, but the wisdom that Erik Iverson showed in welcoming Paul supporters into the party and treating them warmly at the state convention should pay off by at least not having made them hostile to the party organization (other than the malcontents that tend to attach themselves to fringe movements of any kind, who are never satisfied.)
Not that Paulinistas are going to become raving McCainiacs -- but at the very least there isn't the animosity that would have come had Ron Paul's people not been allowed to have their say and to have a genuine, fair shot at nabbing Montana's delegates.
As the choice becomes clear on the differences between McCain and Obama, it would be suprising if Paul and Barr together break 5% in the final vote tally.
__________________
Update: We can perhaps expect the coming state-by-state polls in Western states to follow this trend. The grand "Western strategy" of the Obama campaign may be coming to an ignominious end. Or at least we can hope -- and continue to watch the polls.
More importantly, 70% of McCain supporters in Montana say that they are enthusiastically voting for McCain, while only 28% say that they are primarily voting against Sen. Obama. This is quite comparable to the 79% and 18% numbers among Obama supporters in Montana -- the enthusiasm gap appears to have been largely erased. Based on anecdotal MH experience talking to Republicans, this is an accurate assessment of the right-leaning part of the Montana voting public. It is also a phenomenal turn-around for McCain, and has to be in large part attributed to Gov. Palin's addition to the ticket, not to mention the new general excitement around the McCain campaign.
With the addition of Ron Paul to the ballot, it is said that this could turn the state to Sen. Obama, but this is far from certain. The Montana GOP treated Ron Paul supporters very well, especially when compared to other state organizations. Several former Ron Paul supporters that MH has spoken to have made up their minds to vote for John McCain, in large part because he chose a conservative running mate. Is this representative? Only time will tell, but the wisdom that Erik Iverson showed in welcoming Paul supporters into the party and treating them warmly at the state convention should pay off by at least not having made them hostile to the party organization (other than the malcontents that tend to attach themselves to fringe movements of any kind, who are never satisfied.)
Not that Paulinistas are going to become raving McCainiacs -- but at the very least there isn't the animosity that would have come had Ron Paul's people not been allowed to have their say and to have a genuine, fair shot at nabbing Montana's delegates.
As the choice becomes clear on the differences between McCain and Obama, it would be suprising if Paul and Barr together break 5% in the final vote tally.
__________________
Update: We can perhaps expect the coming state-by-state polls in Western states to follow this trend. The grand "Western strategy" of the Obama campaign may be coming to an ignominious end. Or at least we can hope -- and continue to watch the polls.
Monday, September 8, 2008
The New York Times editors weigh in with surprising opinions on the issue of experience in the Vice Presidency
From the Gray Lady herself:
Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become President? . . . Or where is it written that mere representatives aren’t qualified, like Geraldine Ferraro of Queens? . . . Where is it written that governors and mayors... are too local, too provincial? . . .
Presidential candidates have always chosen their running mates for reasons of practical demography, not idealized democracy. . . . What a splendid system, we say to ourselves, that takes little-known men, tests them in high office and permits them to grow into statesmen. . . .
Why shouldn’t a little-known woman have the same opportunity to grow?
Why not, indeed? We are so excited to see that the NYT is rising to the occasion and that we can agree with her editors....(insert sound of engine growling and whining to a dead stop and silence.)
Whoops, sorry... that was from 1984, defending the choice of little-known Geraldine Ferraro for the Democratic Veep spot, someone who hadn't run in a campaign outside her NYC borough, and who was in only her second term in Congress.
I guess that the standards are different when it's a (gasp) conservative Republican woman we're talking about. One suspects that we'll see conservatives digging up all sorts of similar quotations dating to 1984, set side by side with snide Palin put-downs from the same liberal house organs (and perhaps the same individuals.)
Meanwhile, Ms. Ferraro is on record, not surprisingly, as scoffing at the idea that Palin is unqualified to be Vice President. In fact, her studied silence is raising questions about whether she is contemplating joining some other feminists in supporting Palin:
On the day McCain announced her selection as his running mate, Palin thanked Clinton and Ferraro for blazing her trail. A day later, Ferraro noted her shock at Palin's comment. You see, none of her peers, no one, had ever publicly thanked her in the 24 years since her historic run for the White House. Ferraro has since refused to divulge for whom she's voting.
(Thanks to Jay Nordlinger at NRO for the compilation, which is apparently making the rounds.)
Friday, August 22, 2008
Another good commentary on Obama and the state of the race from Gerard Baker
From the guy who brought us one of the finest parodies of Obama-mania, again, courtesy of the London Times.
Monday, August 11, 2008
And you thought MH was mean about John Edwards...
Maureen Dowd's priceless piece in the NY Times was lethal on John Edwards's admission of being self-centered (but only for the brief time of the affair, mind you):
Even in confessing to preening, Edwards was preening. His diagnosis of narcissism was weirdly narcissistic, or was it self-narcissistic?
The creepiest part of his creepy confession was when he stressed to Woodruff that he cheated on Elizabeth in 2006 when her cancer was in remission. His infidelity was oncologically correct.
__________________
Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post: There is some sincerity and some snake oil in every politician, but John Edwards exudes both in almost freakish measure.
________________
USA Today: Yet Edwards' transgression — indeed, his excuse — would test the patience of his most ardent supporter: I did it, but only while my wife's cancer was in remission. This suggests that the one-time rising star of the Democratic Party has not yet made contact with human reality...
______________________________
The Seattle PI: ...that's what happens when one is caught with his sanctimony hanging out.
__________________________
From The Nation: I supported Edwards because he was the only candidate who talked seriously about inequality, but the truth is I never liked him -- the 28,000 square foot house, the canned son-of-a-millworker routine, the endless parading of his family and its perfections, the (as it seemed to me) politically manipulative use of his son's tragic death and his wife's cancer.
__________________________
Gail Collins in the New York Times: If Edwards’s political career is toast, it will be because he has always seemed to be less than a sum of his parts: the position papers, the “Two Americas,” the photogenic grin, the supersmart wife. The only piece of the package that consistently disappointed was the man himself. He wasn’t a very good running mate for John Kerry, and as a presidential candidate, he always struck me as being about 2 inches deep.
_____________________________
And of course, MH's favorite, Kirsten Powers with "He was always a fake.:" If it looks like a phony, walks like a phony, quacks like a phony, it's a phony.
____________________________
And we didn't even have to bother with quoting any conservative Republicans.
One thing that has been noted by a few columnists is that Edwards did his confession alone, rather than having his wife sitting gamely by his side holding his hand. There's indeed something to be learned from this observation, but as Henry Adams said about so many things in the account of his own Education, if only we could know what it is...
Even in confessing to preening, Edwards was preening. His diagnosis of narcissism was weirdly narcissistic, or was it self-narcissistic?
The creepiest part of his creepy confession was when he stressed to Woodruff that he cheated on Elizabeth in 2006 when her cancer was in remission. His infidelity was oncologically correct.
__________________
Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post: There is some sincerity and some snake oil in every politician, but John Edwards exudes both in almost freakish measure.
________________
USA Today: Yet Edwards' transgression — indeed, his excuse — would test the patience of his most ardent supporter: I did it, but only while my wife's cancer was in remission. This suggests that the one-time rising star of the Democratic Party has not yet made contact with human reality...
______________________________
The Seattle PI: ...that's what happens when one is caught with his sanctimony hanging out.
__________________________
From The Nation: I supported Edwards because he was the only candidate who talked seriously about inequality, but the truth is I never liked him -- the 28,000 square foot house, the canned son-of-a-millworker routine, the endless parading of his family and its perfections, the (as it seemed to me) politically manipulative use of his son's tragic death and his wife's cancer.
__________________________
Gail Collins in the New York Times: If Edwards’s political career is toast, it will be because he has always seemed to be less than a sum of his parts: the position papers, the “Two Americas,” the photogenic grin, the supersmart wife. The only piece of the package that consistently disappointed was the man himself. He wasn’t a very good running mate for John Kerry, and as a presidential candidate, he always struck me as being about 2 inches deep.
_____________________________
And of course, MH's favorite, Kirsten Powers with "He was always a fake.:" If it looks like a phony, walks like a phony, quacks like a phony, it's a phony.
____________________________
And we didn't even have to bother with quoting any conservative Republicans.
One thing that has been noted by a few columnists is that Edwards did his confession alone, rather than having his wife sitting gamely by his side holding his hand. There's indeed something to be learned from this observation, but as Henry Adams said about so many things in the account of his own Education, if only we could know what it is...
Saturday, August 9, 2008
"Praising McCain" -- another great ad
The McCain campaign continues on its roll, while Sen. Obama is sunning and relaxing on the beaches of Hawaii.
The closing line by Sen. Hillary Clinton is the most priceless of all. And of course, the subtext of the ad is that Sen. Obama, for all of his talk of post-partisanship, has absolutely no record to back up the talk. John McCain is willing to buck his party line for what he thinks is right, and has years of scars inflicted by his fellow conservatives to show for it. Sen. Obama simply couldn't put together a similar ad, because he has no record of working across party lines.
The ad may, of course, remind some conservatives of why McCain wasn't their favorite guy in the primaries, but polls are showing that the Republican troops are coming home to McCain, now that they are faced with the alternative prospect of an Obama presidency.
This ad is flat-out effective -- don't be surprised to see it getting some airplay in addition to the usual internet circulation that has been working so well for the McCain campaign of late. Whoever the McCain camp hired as consultants are earning their keep.
The closing line by Sen. Hillary Clinton is the most priceless of all. And of course, the subtext of the ad is that Sen. Obama, for all of his talk of post-partisanship, has absolutely no record to back up the talk. John McCain is willing to buck his party line for what he thinks is right, and has years of scars inflicted by his fellow conservatives to show for it. Sen. Obama simply couldn't put together a similar ad, because he has no record of working across party lines.
The ad may, of course, remind some conservatives of why McCain wasn't their favorite guy in the primaries, but polls are showing that the Republican troops are coming home to McCain, now that they are faced with the alternative prospect of an Obama presidency.
This ad is flat-out effective -- don't be surprised to see it getting some airplay in addition to the usual internet circulation that has been working so well for the McCain campaign of late. Whoever the McCain camp hired as consultants are earning their keep.
Friday, August 8, 2008
How can you tell when John Edwards is lying?
See if his lips are moving, of course. And of course there is that textbook slick-liar look in his eyes every time he talks. Besides the temporary satisfactions of schadenfreude, the other benefits of the Edwards implosion are that we will never have to endure this shyster as President, Vice-President, or Attorney General.
The bad parts are that doctors and businesses in North Carolina will have to endure his ambulance chasing ways. But it is a small price to pay. Maybe President McCain will do the American people a favor and appoint him ambassador to Zimbabwe.
It was hard to find someone more loathsome in the Democratic presidential field this year than John Edwards. In fact, it was impossible. Even an oddball like Mike Gravel at least provided entertainment value.
Pathological liar? Watch this clip of Edwards being interviewed by Katie Couric in 2007 on the subject of marital fidelity, watch his eyes, and be amazed at how many lefties actually thought this guy was the best in the field.
The bad parts are that doctors and businesses in North Carolina will have to endure his ambulance chasing ways. But it is a small price to pay. Maybe President McCain will do the American people a favor and appoint him ambassador to Zimbabwe.
It was hard to find someone more loathsome in the Democratic presidential field this year than John Edwards. In fact, it was impossible. Even an oddball like Mike Gravel at least provided entertainment value.
Pathological liar? Watch this clip of Edwards being interviewed by Katie Couric in 2007 on the subject of marital fidelity, watch his eyes, and be amazed at how many lefties actually thought this guy was the best in the field.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Gerard Baker reading his tour de force send-up of Sen. Obama the Great
If you haven't read Gerard Baker of the London Times and his hilarious satire of Sen. Obama's world salvation rock tour, you've been in a hole someplace or perhaps have been up above the treeline with Gregg.
Read it first to enjoy the prose. Then enjoy listening to Baker reading it as a narrative accompanying video of Obama on World Tour.
Read it first to enjoy the prose. Then enjoy listening to Baker reading it as a narrative accompanying video of Obama on World Tour.
McCain is very much in it
This should by all rights be a Democratic equivalent of 1984 or 1988 for the Democrats -- a blow-out that would put McCain's name alongside Mondale and Dukakis in the collective American political memory.
Conventional wisdom has been that Sen. McCain would have to run a campaign of W-esque perfection in order even to be in the game at all. And yet, in spite of a campaign that has, to put it kindly, been less than perfect, Sen. McCain is very much in it. He has never trailed by much in any poll, and the most recent Gallup poll -- an outlier, to be sure -- put him in a narrow lead.
Perhaps the most interesting finding in the most recent Rasmussen tracking poll is that the number of undecided voters seems to be growing, and that 33% of those undecided voters are Democrats, while only 19% are Republicans.
This bodes well for McCain, since it indicates that the Republican base is more solidified in their determination to vote for him than might have been expected. Of course, McCain is only a Tom Ridge, a Mitt Romney, or a Joe Lieberman away from blowing that unity to smithereens, but for now it remains true that unless McCain sticks his finger in the collective eye of a major constituency of the conservative base, Republicans will be very united this fall against Barack Obama. This should prove true in Montana no less than anywhere else.
Many Republican conservatives may not find Sen. McCain to be their ideal potential President. But in 2008, he still looks like the only guy we had in the stable who ever had a chance at winning.
It is up to McCain to make his case to the swing independent voters and the Democrats who voted in droves for Hillary Clinton's (quickly invented) rural/working class populist message. Maybe it is time for Tim Pawlenty.
Conventional wisdom has been that Sen. McCain would have to run a campaign of W-esque perfection in order even to be in the game at all. And yet, in spite of a campaign that has, to put it kindly, been less than perfect, Sen. McCain is very much in it. He has never trailed by much in any poll, and the most recent Gallup poll -- an outlier, to be sure -- put him in a narrow lead.
Perhaps the most interesting finding in the most recent Rasmussen tracking poll is that the number of undecided voters seems to be growing, and that 33% of those undecided voters are Democrats, while only 19% are Republicans.
This bodes well for McCain, since it indicates that the Republican base is more solidified in their determination to vote for him than might have been expected. Of course, McCain is only a Tom Ridge, a Mitt Romney, or a Joe Lieberman away from blowing that unity to smithereens, but for now it remains true that unless McCain sticks his finger in the collective eye of a major constituency of the conservative base, Republicans will be very united this fall against Barack Obama. This should prove true in Montana no less than anywhere else.
Many Republican conservatives may not find Sen. McCain to be their ideal potential President. But in 2008, he still looks like the only guy we had in the stable who ever had a chance at winning.
It is up to McCain to make his case to the swing independent voters and the Democrats who voted in droves for Hillary Clinton's (quickly invented) rural/working class populist message. Maybe it is time for Tim Pawlenty.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Religious intolerance for Gov. Jindal?
Montana Headlines thought it a bit suspicious when a leftie dropped by on the last post, indicating agreement with our plug for Gov. Bobby Jindal as McCain's Veep choice.
But Wulfgar let the (black?) cat out of the bag: Dems apparently see Gov. Jindal, a devout convert to Catholicism, as being vulnerable because he witnessed an exorcism while in college and (gasp) prayed the "Hail Mary" while it was going on. He wrote an article about the experience in the New Oxford Review -- a journal that was started by Episcopalians of the Anglo-Catholic persuasion, but whose editors likewise converted to Catholicism subsequent to the theological and moral turmoil in their former denomination. And the article included a passage about the exorcism.
Whatever the phenomenon was that the youthful Jindal observed, the net effect was that it left him believing in "the reality of spirits, angels and other related phenomena..." Shocking, truly shocking, that any Christian might believe in the reality of the spirit world.
While the event Jindal relates appears to be from his early days of being a Catholic, and took place within the loose structure of a generic college Christian organization, it is worth noting that exorcisms are, unless things have changed recently, a standard part of every Catholic baptism. Pope John Paul II approved a specific rite for exorcisms in the late 1990's. A belief that there are demonic forces that can specifically oppress an individual, and that prayer has efficacy in dealing with it is not something that comes from the fringes of Christianity.
Anything that a politician has written in the past is, of course, fair game. What church a candidate chose to attend for decades is fair game. Pretty much everything is fair game in politics. Voters can and will decide whether something makes them more or less likely to support a candidate.
But what if Jindal were still a Hindu, and believed in reincarnation and karma? Or if he had dabbled in Buddhism in college rather than Catholicism? Or if he had smoked peyote as part of a spiritual search that included an exploration of Native American religion? Would he be just as scary and excrable as he apparently is for having been a part of an unusual prayer service held by a campus Christian organization at Brown University, back when Christianity was still a new thing for him? Would he be mocked for these experiences on leftie blogs?
But in a nation where 62% of Americans reportedly believe that there is such a thing as the devil, we're not sure how much ground will be gained by Democrats ridiculing Jindal about the fact that a very strange college experience convinced him that there is more to the spiritual world than meets the eye.
A recent Gallup poll indicates that nearly 3/4 of Americans believe in the reality of paranormal phenomenon (75% for Christians, 66% for non-Christians). For that matter, 64% of Americans believe that aliens have contacted humans and nearly half apparently believe that aliens have abducted humans... Now, just because 31% of Americans believe in telepathy doesn't mean that there is a 31% chance that it is true -- a majority of people can believe something and have it be wrong. But in America today, someone who doesn't believe that paranormal phenomena exist is actually the odd man out.
If Democrats decide to go down the road of religious ridicule toward Gov. Jindal, it will only reinforce the perception that their party is a hotbed of religious intolerance -- a party where it is acceptable (cool, even) to have dabbled in just about anything in college... other than Christianity.
But Wulfgar let the (black?) cat out of the bag: Dems apparently see Gov. Jindal, a devout convert to Catholicism, as being vulnerable because he witnessed an exorcism while in college and (gasp) prayed the "Hail Mary" while it was going on. He wrote an article about the experience in the New Oxford Review -- a journal that was started by Episcopalians of the Anglo-Catholic persuasion, but whose editors likewise converted to Catholicism subsequent to the theological and moral turmoil in their former denomination. And the article included a passage about the exorcism.
Whatever the phenomenon was that the youthful Jindal observed, the net effect was that it left him believing in "the reality of spirits, angels and other related phenomena..." Shocking, truly shocking, that any Christian might believe in the reality of the spirit world.
While the event Jindal relates appears to be from his early days of being a Catholic, and took place within the loose structure of a generic college Christian organization, it is worth noting that exorcisms are, unless things have changed recently, a standard part of every Catholic baptism. Pope John Paul II approved a specific rite for exorcisms in the late 1990's. A belief that there are demonic forces that can specifically oppress an individual, and that prayer has efficacy in dealing with it is not something that comes from the fringes of Christianity.
Anything that a politician has written in the past is, of course, fair game. What church a candidate chose to attend for decades is fair game. Pretty much everything is fair game in politics. Voters can and will decide whether something makes them more or less likely to support a candidate.
But what if Jindal were still a Hindu, and believed in reincarnation and karma? Or if he had dabbled in Buddhism in college rather than Catholicism? Or if he had smoked peyote as part of a spiritual search that included an exploration of Native American religion? Would he be just as scary and excrable as he apparently is for having been a part of an unusual prayer service held by a campus Christian organization at Brown University, back when Christianity was still a new thing for him? Would he be mocked for these experiences on leftie blogs?
But in a nation where 62% of Americans reportedly believe that there is such a thing as the devil, we're not sure how much ground will be gained by Democrats ridiculing Jindal about the fact that a very strange college experience convinced him that there is more to the spiritual world than meets the eye.
A recent Gallup poll indicates that nearly 3/4 of Americans believe in the reality of paranormal phenomenon (75% for Christians, 66% for non-Christians). For that matter, 64% of Americans believe that aliens have contacted humans and nearly half apparently believe that aliens have abducted humans... Now, just because 31% of Americans believe in telepathy doesn't mean that there is a 31% chance that it is true -- a majority of people can believe something and have it be wrong. But in America today, someone who doesn't believe that paranormal phenomena exist is actually the odd man out.
If Democrats decide to go down the road of religious ridicule toward Gov. Jindal, it will only reinforce the perception that their party is a hotbed of religious intolerance -- a party where it is acceptable (cool, even) to have dabbled in just about anything in college... other than Christianity.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Humor for the Obama campaign
This has been making the rounds, to be sure, but The Borowitz Report has one of the best responses yet to the humorless response by the Obama campaign to the recent infamous New Yorker cover: a list of "jokes approved by the Obama campaign."
To be sure, that New Yorker cover wasn't very effective as satire, especially since even as a caricature of us righties it is so far off as to not land an effective blow. If those of us who enjoy good satire can't recognize ourselves, it isn't very good satire. Still, we are in for a very long, humorless, 4 years if even a liberal bastion like the New Yorker gets lambasted for accidentally hurting Sen. Obama's feelings while in the process of painting Obama's own opponents on the right with a very broad and unfair brush.
What will Sen. Obama do if he gets portrayed negatively in a cartoon -- with the dig aimed directly at him -- in ways such as Pres. Bush has been? Send the FBI to shut the magazine down?
___________________
The above post would have been more complete had this column by Maureen Dowd been worked into it, since it encapsulates so well the worrying question of whether Obama's campaign has a sense of humor.
To be sure, that New Yorker cover wasn't very effective as satire, especially since even as a caricature of us righties it is so far off as to not land an effective blow. If those of us who enjoy good satire can't recognize ourselves, it isn't very good satire. Still, we are in for a very long, humorless, 4 years if even a liberal bastion like the New Yorker gets lambasted for accidentally hurting Sen. Obama's feelings while in the process of painting Obama's own opponents on the right with a very broad and unfair brush.
What will Sen. Obama do if he gets portrayed negatively in a cartoon -- with the dig aimed directly at him -- in ways such as Pres. Bush has been? Send the FBI to shut the magazine down?
___________________
The above post would have been more complete had this column by Maureen Dowd been worked into it, since it encapsulates so well the worrying question of whether Obama's campaign has a sense of humor.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Those big-money Democrats... again
In what is a very big surprise, Republicans are projecting that they will raise $400 million from all sources to support Sen. McCain in his run against Sen. Obama this fall.
This is a staggering figure, considering that McCain is a notoriously poor fundraiser -- and probably an optimistic figure. Still, Republicans are doubtless understanding that they are really up against the wall in this election. With no hope to regain control of even a single house of Congress, and smart money saying that we'll actually lose seats in both houses, all that stands between America and one-party Democratic rule in Washington is Sen. McCain, so it is time for Republicans to buck up. Literally.
Unfortunately, even if those cheerful Republican figures turn out to be true, Sen. Obama is projecting close to $500 million. What should be noted is that a $100 million dollar deficit in favor of Democrats is nothing new.
In 2004, we had an incumbent President and majorities in both House and Senate. And yet, here is what Karl Rove recently had to say:
While the GOP may be seen as the party of Big Money, recent presidential contests have shown that – taking unions, George Soros's wealth, and organizations like MoveOn.Org into consideration – Democrats have a large financial advantage.
In 2004, when each side's spending by candidates, national committees and third-party groups was totaled up, Democrats outspent Republicans in the presidential race by $119.4 million.
In other words, we were behind by more than $100 million in a good year -- a year when Sen. Zell Miller proclaimed that his Democratic Party was "A National Party No More."
The same is repeated here in Montana up and down the ticket this year and there doesn't appear to be an end in sight for the foreseeable future. We "fat-cat" Republicans had better get used to being outspent by the real big-money party.
This is a staggering figure, considering that McCain is a notoriously poor fundraiser -- and probably an optimistic figure. Still, Republicans are doubtless understanding that they are really up against the wall in this election. With no hope to regain control of even a single house of Congress, and smart money saying that we'll actually lose seats in both houses, all that stands between America and one-party Democratic rule in Washington is Sen. McCain, so it is time for Republicans to buck up. Literally.
Unfortunately, even if those cheerful Republican figures turn out to be true, Sen. Obama is projecting close to $500 million. What should be noted is that a $100 million dollar deficit in favor of Democrats is nothing new.
In 2004, we had an incumbent President and majorities in both House and Senate. And yet, here is what Karl Rove recently had to say:
While the GOP may be seen as the party of Big Money, recent presidential contests have shown that – taking unions, George Soros's wealth, and organizations like MoveOn.Org into consideration – Democrats have a large financial advantage.
In 2004, when each side's spending by candidates, national committees and third-party groups was totaled up, Democrats outspent Republicans in the presidential race by $119.4 million.
In other words, we were behind by more than $100 million in a good year -- a year when Sen. Zell Miller proclaimed that his Democratic Party was "A National Party No More."
The same is repeated here in Montana up and down the ticket this year and there doesn't appear to be an end in sight for the foreseeable future. We "fat-cat" Republicans had better get used to being outspent by the real big-money party.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Some thoughts on John McCain and bipartisanship
It was brought to our attention that Montana Headlines was linked to on the John McCain website (see below.) This is an honor, since MH quite a while ago came to the conclusion that John McCain was the logical nominee out of the choices available this year. (To anyone who didn't read our initial shot across the bow last December advocating a McCain nomination, don't click on the link expecting it to be a fluff piece made up of gushing talking points.)
But we would like to make some comments spurred by browsing around the blogging page at JohnMcCain.com -- we note that it includes links to some liberal blogs like the Daily Kos. Visiting the Obama website and browsing around a little, there doesn't seem to be an equivalent open-mindedness towards conservative websites on the part of the Obama campaign.
But then, that a part of what this campaign will demonstrate. For those who are concerned about the increasing divisiveness of politics in America, there is a clear choice this year.
On the one hand, we have in John McCain a Republican with a real record of reaching across party lines (even if MH wouldn't always agree with some of those bipartisan efforts.) Sometimes this has meant that Sen. McCain has earned the criticism of fellow Republicans, including MH.
On the other hand we have in Sen. Obama a Democrat who talks a good "transcending partisanship" game, but who is a conventional, down-the-line liberal without any record of transgressing even the most minor liberal dogmas.
He is, at present, trying to act like he is moving to the middle, but his past record and words militate against it being genuine. Where is Sen. Obama's record of liberals being unhappy with his votes because he reached across the aisle? It just isn't there.
Sen. Obama wants us all to get along and feel good -- but the terms of getting along seem to be that we who are a part of the center-right majority of Americans will need to strum guitars and learn the words to the old leftist songs. That's not the kind of bipartisanship that arouses much interest around here.
As Dick Morris pointed out in a sobering recent column, Obama will have no choice but to govern from the far left if he is elected President. Morris's arguments are compelling.
The far left is just not where America is -- and certainly not where we should want it to go. It's certainly not where Montana is.
Just one more reason that gives urgency to the importance of electing Sen. McCain this fall.
But we would like to make some comments spurred by browsing around the blogging page at JohnMcCain.com -- we note that it includes links to some liberal blogs like the Daily Kos. Visiting the Obama website and browsing around a little, there doesn't seem to be an equivalent open-mindedness towards conservative websites on the part of the Obama campaign.
But then, that a part of what this campaign will demonstrate. For those who are concerned about the increasing divisiveness of politics in America, there is a clear choice this year.
On the one hand, we have in John McCain a Republican with a real record of reaching across party lines (even if MH wouldn't always agree with some of those bipartisan efforts.) Sometimes this has meant that Sen. McCain has earned the criticism of fellow Republicans, including MH.
On the other hand we have in Sen. Obama a Democrat who talks a good "transcending partisanship" game, but who is a conventional, down-the-line liberal without any record of transgressing even the most minor liberal dogmas.
He is, at present, trying to act like he is moving to the middle, but his past record and words militate against it being genuine. Where is Sen. Obama's record of liberals being unhappy with his votes because he reached across the aisle? It just isn't there.
Sen. Obama wants us all to get along and feel good -- but the terms of getting along seem to be that we who are a part of the center-right majority of Americans will need to strum guitars and learn the words to the old leftist songs. That's not the kind of bipartisanship that arouses much interest around here.
As Dick Morris pointed out in a sobering recent column, Obama will have no choice but to govern from the far left if he is elected President. Morris's arguments are compelling.
The far left is just not where America is -- and certainly not where we should want it to go. It's certainly not where Montana is.
Just one more reason that gives urgency to the importance of electing Sen. McCain this fall.
Montana Headlines is now a blog by the Billings Gazette
Don't believe MH that we are part of the Billings Gazette now? Well, just check out JohnMcCain.com, go to the conservative section of the "suggested blogs," and click on Montana Headlines. It's right there in black and white -- or rather blue and white: "A political blog by the Billings Gazette."
(We were gratified to see that are joined by Western Word, one of our favorite blogs, at the McCain site.)
We've notified the McCain campaign in the interest of accuracy, but for the moment, we'll enjoy being a part of the Billings Gazette family -- easily the most conservative and Republican-friendly part of it, we would imagine. The mixup is understandable, since commenting on the Billings Gazette is listed in our sub-heading part of our mission statement -- even if increasingly neglected in favor of broader commentary and reporting on Montana politics.
(We were gratified to see that are joined by Western Word, one of our favorite blogs, at the McCain site.)
We've notified the McCain campaign in the interest of accuracy, but for the moment, we'll enjoy being a part of the Billings Gazette family -- easily the most conservative and Republican-friendly part of it, we would imagine. The mixup is understandable, since commenting on the Billings Gazette is listed in our sub-heading part of our mission statement -- even if increasingly neglected in favor of broader commentary and reporting on Montana politics.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Get the real story on Obama in Butte
From Kate over at Big Sky Cairn. Great reporting and local color -- check it out.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Obama making serious play for Montana
In a note that should make Sen. McCain's campaign sit up and take notice, Sen. Obama appointed a high-profile campaign director for Montana and a number of other states that have recently been Republican strongholds in the Presidential election.
Granted, it is possible that Obama simply has money to burn, and is willing to expend it in ways that make the McCain campaign work for states that they should be able to take for granted.
And Obama's campaign seems to be showing the important insight that there are benefits to ones party of running stronger than expected even in states one is destined to lose. Parties in states that have long been ignored are going to get some attention, and may make gains in down-ticket races due to Obama putting resources into those states.
Will the McCain campaign and the RNC answer in kind in Montana, or will they make the mistake of ignoring Montana Republicans in an hour of great need? We shall see, but suffice it to say that if the McCain campaign and the national Republican Party don't expend some resources in Montana, not only will McCain run the risk of losing the state in the fall (or have to expend precious last-minute resources to stave off an Obama surge,) but Montana Republicans could lose in what should otherwise be a very competitive year for regaining control of the state Senate and winning down-ticket races like Tim Fox's race for AG or Duane Grime's bid for State Auditor.
Few Republicans seem to be holding their breath, expecting that any help is coming from the national party. Instead, there seems to be the knowledge that we are on our own, and a determination that Montana can be successful in the fall elections with only ourselves to depend on -- and our own Congressman Denny Rehberg seems to understand this better than anyone. Which isn't an entirely bad thing at all. If there isn't any help coming, the sooner one realizes it, but more prepared one is to defend oneself.
Granted, it is possible that Obama simply has money to burn, and is willing to expend it in ways that make the McCain campaign work for states that they should be able to take for granted.
And Obama's campaign seems to be showing the important insight that there are benefits to ones party of running stronger than expected even in states one is destined to lose. Parties in states that have long been ignored are going to get some attention, and may make gains in down-ticket races due to Obama putting resources into those states.
Will the McCain campaign and the RNC answer in kind in Montana, or will they make the mistake of ignoring Montana Republicans in an hour of great need? We shall see, but suffice it to say that if the McCain campaign and the national Republican Party don't expend some resources in Montana, not only will McCain run the risk of losing the state in the fall (or have to expend precious last-minute resources to stave off an Obama surge,) but Montana Republicans could lose in what should otherwise be a very competitive year for regaining control of the state Senate and winning down-ticket races like Tim Fox's race for AG or Duane Grime's bid for State Auditor.
Few Republicans seem to be holding their breath, expecting that any help is coming from the national party. Instead, there seems to be the knowledge that we are on our own, and a determination that Montana can be successful in the fall elections with only ourselves to depend on -- and our own Congressman Denny Rehberg seems to understand this better than anyone. Which isn't an entirely bad thing at all. If there isn't any help coming, the sooner one realizes it, but more prepared one is to defend oneself.
Monday, June 23, 2008
McCain Veep notes
The Times states that sources close to the McCain campaign are indicating that Gov. Tim Pawlenty of MN is the odds on favorite to be McCain's Veep.
If so, this is a good sign. He is one of the few governors who is young yet experienced, reform-minded, and a loyal long-time McCain backer. He has the same kind of populist, working-class appeal that Gov. Mike Huckabee has (something McCain needs more than he does conservative ideological purity) -- but he hasn't been savaged by the Club for Growth and by folks who just don't like evangelicals very much.
Names like Gov. Sarah Palin and Gov. Bobby Jindal have risen to near the top of the list, but unlike Pawlenty, and neither has served a full term (Jindal was just elected,) neither is from a swing-state.
The Club for Growth continues to cheer for Gov. Sanford of SC, who would also be an excellent choice -- but he doesn't have the long-time loyalty to McCain that many observers we can expect to see in McCain's Veep.
Gov. Crist of Florida didn't do his cause any good by some embarrassing gaffes in California recently. The guy is just trying too hard -- but then, all you have to do is look at a photo of the guy to know that about a pretty boy like him. Crist would be a hard pill to swallow in a Veep. It's great that they love him in Florida, but do we really want him to be the future face of the Republican Party?
Another name floated in the McCain camp as a dark-horse because of his purported ability to put an end to Obama's dreams of carrying the intermountain west is Utah Gov. Jim Huntsman.
The tea-leaf reading continues....
If so, this is a good sign. He is one of the few governors who is young yet experienced, reform-minded, and a loyal long-time McCain backer. He has the same kind of populist, working-class appeal that Gov. Mike Huckabee has (something McCain needs more than he does conservative ideological purity) -- but he hasn't been savaged by the Club for Growth and by folks who just don't like evangelicals very much.
Names like Gov. Sarah Palin and Gov. Bobby Jindal have risen to near the top of the list, but unlike Pawlenty, and neither has served a full term (Jindal was just elected,) neither is from a swing-state.
The Club for Growth continues to cheer for Gov. Sanford of SC, who would also be an excellent choice -- but he doesn't have the long-time loyalty to McCain that many observers we can expect to see in McCain's Veep.
Gov. Crist of Florida didn't do his cause any good by some embarrassing gaffes in California recently. The guy is just trying too hard -- but then, all you have to do is look at a photo of the guy to know that about a pretty boy like him. Crist would be a hard pill to swallow in a Veep. It's great that they love him in Florida, but do we really want him to be the future face of the Republican Party?
Another name floated in the McCain camp as a dark-horse because of his purported ability to put an end to Obama's dreams of carrying the intermountain west is Utah Gov. Jim Huntsman.
The tea-leaf reading continues....
Saturday, June 21, 2008
State GOP convention notes -- national delegate selection and Kelleher
A couple of items from the GOP state convention:
The national convention delegates have been named -- as noted in an earlier post here on MH, they were the slate of delegates and alternates recommended by the delegate selection committee.
Dave Hart, the Ron Paul coordinator wasn't happy that none of the official slate were Ron Paul supporters. He has a point -- but only to a point. It is traditional, once there is a settled nominee, to send a slate of delegates for that nominee to show party unity. You can bet your bottom dollar that most of the delegates going to Minneapolis to vote for John McCain did not have McCain as their first choice at the beginning of the campaign season. The slate appears to be heavy with known Romney and Huckabee supporters.
So a question for Hart would be this: did any Ron Paul supporters submit applications to be national convention delegates and say that while they were Paul supporters, they are now willing to go the convention to vote for and be supportive of the party's nominee? One doubts that if Steve and Cindy Daines had announced their intention to vote for Mike Huckabee at the national convention (Daines was the Huckabee state coordinator,) that they would have been selected as delegates.
Alternatively, did Hart approach either the nominating committee or the McCain campaign, offering to negotiate a reasonable split of the delegation -- based either on Paul's share in the caucus (25%) or in the primary (20%,) perhaps? And in return, the Paul people, who are pretty organized, could have agreed not to nominate any others from the floor. Given the complexity of the voting (Chuck Johnson reports that the tabulation of the votes took nearly 5 hours yesterday,) neither side could be completely sure in advance of the final results (which were indeed apparently fairly close.) One would think that the opportunity to have one big happy family at the convention with such a slate approved by unanimous consent, would have been strongly considered by the state party. One certainly hopes so, anyway.
Absent Hart making such overtures, the state party could only assume that the Paul delegation intended to go for the full slate -- upon which the only logical response would be for the nominating committee to nominate a full slate of John McCain supporters. Which is what they did.
This is all tea-leaf reading, since MH is not privy to the inner workings either of the delegate selection committee at the state party or of the Ron Paul campaign. Anyone reading this who does have such knowledge is welcome to contact us.
___________________
Quote of the day from Bob Kelleher: “It would be a lot better if I lost. I didn’t plan on winning.”
The same article states that Kelleher advocates banning handguns and that he has apparently lost none of his fervor for "replacing the U.S. form of government with the parliamentary system."
And Democrats claim to be serious in wondering why he wasn't given a prime-time speaking slot.
____________________
More from Carol at Missoulapolis live-blogging the state convention about the section of the platform committee that got taken over by the Ron Paul folks. Apparently we Montana Republicans have taken an official position for the gold standard now. Must-read stuff. Someone needs to send this woman to the national convention to live-blog through Montana eyes -- get a professional impersonator to go door-to-door campaigning in her house district for her while she's gone. Something.
The national convention delegates have been named -- as noted in an earlier post here on MH, they were the slate of delegates and alternates recommended by the delegate selection committee.
Dave Hart, the Ron Paul coordinator wasn't happy that none of the official slate were Ron Paul supporters. He has a point -- but only to a point. It is traditional, once there is a settled nominee, to send a slate of delegates for that nominee to show party unity. You can bet your bottom dollar that most of the delegates going to Minneapolis to vote for John McCain did not have McCain as their first choice at the beginning of the campaign season. The slate appears to be heavy with known Romney and Huckabee supporters.
So a question for Hart would be this: did any Ron Paul supporters submit applications to be national convention delegates and say that while they were Paul supporters, they are now willing to go the convention to vote for and be supportive of the party's nominee? One doubts that if Steve and Cindy Daines had announced their intention to vote for Mike Huckabee at the national convention (Daines was the Huckabee state coordinator,) that they would have been selected as delegates.
Alternatively, did Hart approach either the nominating committee or the McCain campaign, offering to negotiate a reasonable split of the delegation -- based either on Paul's share in the caucus (25%) or in the primary (20%,) perhaps? And in return, the Paul people, who are pretty organized, could have agreed not to nominate any others from the floor. Given the complexity of the voting (Chuck Johnson reports that the tabulation of the votes took nearly 5 hours yesterday,) neither side could be completely sure in advance of the final results (which were indeed apparently fairly close.) One would think that the opportunity to have one big happy family at the convention with such a slate approved by unanimous consent, would have been strongly considered by the state party. One certainly hopes so, anyway.
Absent Hart making such overtures, the state party could only assume that the Paul delegation intended to go for the full slate -- upon which the only logical response would be for the nominating committee to nominate a full slate of John McCain supporters. Which is what they did.
This is all tea-leaf reading, since MH is not privy to the inner workings either of the delegate selection committee at the state party or of the Ron Paul campaign. Anyone reading this who does have such knowledge is welcome to contact us.
___________________
Quote of the day from Bob Kelleher: “It would be a lot better if I lost. I didn’t plan on winning.”
The same article states that Kelleher advocates banning handguns and that he has apparently lost none of his fervor for "replacing the U.S. form of government with the parliamentary system."
And Democrats claim to be serious in wondering why he wasn't given a prime-time speaking slot.
____________________
More from Carol at Missoulapolis live-blogging the state convention about the section of the platform committee that got taken over by the Ron Paul folks. Apparently we Montana Republicans have taken an official position for the gold standard now. Must-read stuff. Someone needs to send this woman to the national convention to live-blog through Montana eyes -- get a professional impersonator to go door-to-door campaigning in her house district for her while she's gone. Something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)