Annus Horribilis Ahead?
With the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8, and the Iowa caucuses dead ahead, the nominees of both parties may be known in two weeks. Surely, after Feb. 5, when a slew of primaries are held, both races will be all but over.
Then, from Feb. 5 to Nov. 4, nine months, those nominees will be made to run an Iroquois gauntlet.
To define them, before either defines himself or herself for the voters, both parties will engage in sustained barrage attacks. Their opposition research arms are stocked with ammunition.
There will be attack ads by the "527s," independent committees set up by rich folks and interest groups to do for political enemies what the Swift Boat ads did for John Kerry.
Around-the-clock bombing will commence on cable TV from the ubiquitous Democratic and Republican "strategists" trotted out to parrot talking points provided by opposition research.
Investigative reporters will begin digging for dirt, or waiting for the choice moment to dump it, or seek out in the hidden past of the candidate the unearthed scandal that can sink a ticket, as McGovern's ticket in 1972 was devastated by the revelation that its vice-presidential candidate, Tom Eagleton, had shock treatment, and George W. Bush was derailed by the revelation of a DWI 24 years before.
After nine months of this pounding, even fresh candidates—an Obama, a Huckabee, a Romney—will boast negatives in the 40s. Hillary's negatives are already there.
Three weeks out from Iowa, Clinton operatives have already suggested the young Obama may not only have used drugs, but sold them, that cocaine was probably his favorite, that we should not forget his middle name is Hussein and that his daddy was a devout Muslim.
Gov. Huckabee helpfully implied to Evangelical Christians that Mormonism, Mitt's faith, is akin to a cult, and don't those folks believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?
"Haven't presidential campaigns always been like this?" comes the reply. Well, not exactly.
What is different now is not only the duration of the campaign. This one began a year ago. It is the money available to parties and their pit bulls, the 527s. It is the existence of 24-hour cable—Fox News, CNN, MSNBC—that relishes charges and conflict, for that is what draws the audience upon which we live or die. It is the population explosion of screeds on the Internet with its vast array of websites able to bring gaffes and scandal to the mainstream in an instant. It is the telephone videocam there to record every moment, every move of a candidate, and YouTube there to receive it.
By November, when America chooses her new head of state, the country will have already been polarized over the choice.
And what will that new president inherit?
The Iraq war entering its sixth year as the U.S. troops that have brought some stability to Anbar and Baghdad start home. An Afghan war in its seventh year, where the NATO allies balk at combat, the Taliban and al Qaeda have found sanctuary in a Pakistan whose leading figure was assassinated yesterday, the poppy traffickers are back, and Kabul's writ does not extend beyond city limits.
At home, with housing prices sinking, foreclosures soaring and the Fed pumping out money to prevent the economy from seizing up, the nation could be entering a recession. Yet, with the dollar sinking abroad, we could also be facing a recurrence of inflation.
We are bitterly divided over immigration, legal and illegal, and the issue grips every state. As the world is not going to stop coming here, this is not going away, ever. Meanwhile, the culture war, rooted as it is in conflicting concepts of morality and patriotism, rages on. Even the staid old Episcopal Church cannot remain united.
Though we boast about our diversity, it appears that the more diverse we become as a nation, the less united we are as a people. Imus, Jena and the Duke rape case testify to it. As one wag puts it, the only thing melting now is the pot. Two-thirds of the nation think America is headed in the wrong direction.
The America the next president will lead is no longer able to win or end her wars, defend her borders, enforce her immigration laws, balance her budget, eliminate a chronic trade deficit that now runs to 6 percent of GDP, or maintain the value of the dollar. We save nothing.
Though addicted to oil, we refuse to drill off our coast or in our own territory. Meanwhile, Arabs and Asians, choking on dollars, are buying up our corporate and strategic assets and taking over our toll roads.
There is a great deal of ruin in a nation, said Adam Smith. Looks like we are going to find out.
Happy New Year.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
Canadian troops in Afghanistan have certainly not been 'balking at combat'. As for the rest, I suppose we'll edge that much closer to finding out whether Worse is indeed Better.
Is it just me or has anyone else noted how Mr. Buchanan avoids mentioning Ron Paul by name? Personally, I think Buchanan is jealous of the man's success and grass-roots support, and will not mention Dr. Paul at all unless the good doctor begins winning, and winning big.
All the more reason to support Ron Paul for President!
Ron Paul is well covered in other outlets of alternative media. I'll give
Mr. Buchanan the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Buchanan has been fawning on Mitt Romney for some time. During the Massuchusetts gay "marriage" hubub, he repeatedly called on Romney to "rise to the challenge" and win the respect of all Republicans, etc., etc. My impression was that it didn't happen. Then Buchanan highly praised Romney's speech on religion. He also supported Tancredo early on, instead of Ron Paul.
"With the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8, and the Iowa caucuses dead ahead, the nominees of both parties may be known in two weeks. Surely, after Feb. 5, when a slew of primaries are held, both races will be all but over."
Which is why our whole primary system is such a joke. Why should all those people who live in states that don't hold their primaries until late spring have absolutely NO voice in selecting the nominees? By the time the primary comes around to my state, they'll be crowning St. Hillary and Schmuckabee as the candidates, Ron Paul will once again be merely an ignored congressman from Texas, and I'll be hoping that a good independent candidate comes out of nowhere at the last moment - which of course won't happen.
This is no democracy!
Ron Paul is a libertarian and Buchanan a conservative.
He'd obviously prefer Paul to Romney, but why be surprised when he doesn't go bonkers over a libertarian?
You folks get so caught up with elections, but what about the culture war?
I'm voting Paul, but I can easily see why commentators prefer to back the least of evils... this is politics after all. Politics is about forming consensuses. If y'all want a more conservative electorate, then fight the culture war.
In other words, Buchanan would likely endorse Paul if he thought Paul had a chance.
And unless the polls have all been manipulated, Paul is currently behind, while Romney might just win.
Again, I'm voting Paul, but Buchanan's position is understandable and perhaps better than my own. Those who really ought to feel guilty are the ones who give money and help with campaigns each year, and then fall silent after their over. Fight the culture war and politics will follow.
FIAT IUSTITIA NE PEREAT MUNDUS
A very happy and prosperous year ahead, To Mr. Buchanan and Family.
DJGBP
The campaign of "William Wallace" ended poorly for himself, yet instilled a desire for freedom in the soul of all Scottsmen..........And the Scotts went on to achieve their freedom.
I had to make a decision this year. "Am I a Conservative because I am a Republican, or am I a Republican because I'm a Conservative?"
A simple test, that made me realize my "Conservative Principles" are who I am, VS the GOP(Gutted Our principles.)..............Therefore, I will be voting for Ron Paul on Super Tuesday regardless of his chances, and most likely changing my party affiliation to Independent after the election.(Or I may choose a 3rd party)
Will pictures of the candidates mast-rbating be seen on U Tube? Even if it is only pictues of them as 'yutes' - home movies? Will we know if they are currently popping diet pills or pills for penal enlargement? Unless they are actually women. I'd vote for Ron Paul as an Independent candidate if he chooses to run as such. That would be great if this year there are 4 candidates, the Republican and the Democratic, and 2 Independents - perhaps Ron Paul and Bloomberg. I'd vote for Ron Paul. I don't usually vote it only encourages the powers that be (they like democracy since it's so maleable For them), but I'd shift from personal tradition and vote this year for Ron Paul. Bumper Sticker: You Can trust a man with two first names - Vote RON PAUL !!
I find the issue of choosing candidates so that everyone has a voice in it to be very confusing. How exactly would you structure that?
In my current state of residence I can vote on primary day for my choice of candidate whether Democrat, Republican, or other, even though I don't and never have ever belonged to any political party! In a previous state of residence, a voter could only vote in a primary election if he was a registered party member and could only vote in that parties primary, and which seems to me to be sort of more fair or more honest anyway. The primary system seems to me to be a placebo which is used to allow the potential voter to think that he is being allowed to make a choice and to have an impact. When we get a system that allows one on election day to choose between the Democratic candidate who is wealthy, Yale "educated", and a Skull and Bones member and the Republican candidate who is wealthy, Yale "educated", and a Skull and Bones member, then it becomes obvious that the plebs never really had a chance to select the candidates at all. Voting is a total charade, it, like professional wrestling, is pure entertainment/distraction; and like opera, or a rock concert, or movies, it may appeal to you or not, but unlike the others you are going to pay for it whether you vote or not.
The European system of voting for party is better, and there's Instant Runoff voting and similar types that are within the Constitution and are possibly better than the European system.
Though those only allow for a more democratic system, and I'm not a fan of giving everyone a vote. At the least, under such alternative systems we wouldn't need to monitor opinion polls and try to back the least dangerous demon who has a good chance.
---
Btw, I probably wouldn't say Romney is the least evil of the front runners if it wasn't for Tancredo, Weyrich, and Bob Jones III backing of him. They seem to all agree that Romney is the least evil, so I figure they must be right... I don't like that he's Mormon, and I realise somewhat that his being Mormon could make the cult more popular if he became the darling of the GOP who lost and allowed the evil Clinton into the white house.
Though Louisiana isn't usually a good political model for anything, I like their election system. All candidates for a statewide office, regardless of party affiliation, appear on the ballot for a general election in September. If one candidate manages to receive 50.1 % of the vote, he wins the election. Otherwise, the top two finishers in the contest, even if they're of the same party, have a run-off election in November.
We should use that system for choosing a president.
What essentially is evident in the comments here is "I am too principled for American politics and/or above it and/or too good to have to choose between these little men" etc.
In hindsight this may be seen as a form of decadence which led to disaster. For one thing, it is extremely naive about who Hillary Clinton is and what she represents. We are talking about a cool, ruthless, totalist degree of subversion very few ordinary people are able even to contemplate. But believe me, there are those of your fellow citizens who know what it is.
It might make you feel good to vote for Ron Paul, but after a couple years (it won't even take 4) of H. Clinton finishing the job started in the 1st 8 Clinton years (which Bush didn't do much domestically to undo), there will be no slack left for the William Wallace fantasy to play out. Motor voter, many more liberal judges, massive federal agencies stuffed with Alinskyites, a State Department stuffed with outright enemies -- go figure. Don't look now, but this election is the absolute last chance for the American Republic. Best bet is that H. Clinton runs with that nuthead general Clark or some other Caesar in the wings, and after that we get his offapring (we are already close to dynastic rule now with the perverse Bush-Clinton musical chairs).
It has been a monumental task for conservatives to leverage any change out of the New Deal/Square Deal/Great Society fabric which has been a post World War 2 "given". The new 20-30 something generation thinks it has felt a lot of pain but doesn't know the meaning of the term. It makes strange bedfellows with the surviving members of the so-called "Great Generation" who have been trained to pull Democrat levers like Skinnerian hamsters, along with the Permanently Aggrieved classes created by and fostered by entitlement-diversity culture. And the subversives have especially had great success in hiding the legal realities of all of the above from even the great mass of educated conservative voters.
So continue with your fantasies about a "better system" for choosing a president, voting for a candidate polling about 1 and 1/2 percent, whatever makes you feel good. President H. Clinton is the practical result of the "principled" choice many here are so eager to make. The disasters outlined by Buchanan are just the surface of what will then follow.
"To define them, before either defines himself or herself for the voters, both parties will engage in sustained barrage attacks. Their opposition research arms are stocked with ammunition."
You know, there is something liberating about not watching television: I have by and large avoided the lead-up to the sham coronation about to take place. Though I have to admit it is somewhat perturbing (though not surprising) to hear people seriously discussing it already.
"We are bitterly divided over immigration, legal and illegal, and the issue grips every state."
Divided? The only divisions I see are between Americans and immigrants, and within the Americans themselves, between the vast majority of real people and the minuscule but loud, immoral and utterly idiotic intellectual-cultural establishment.
"It might make you feel good to vote for Ron Paul, but after a couple years (it won’t even take 4) of H. Clinton finishing the job started in the 1st 8 Clinton years (which Bush didn’t do much domestically to undo), there will be no slack left for the William Wallace fantasy to play out."
There's not much slack left in the first place. If anything Bush has only been a logical continuation of Bill Clinton's job, and it is difficult to conceive of a Republican doing anything but following in his footsteps unless that Republican is, say, Ron Paul (for whom I probably cannot vote in the primaries due to being a Democrat and an expatriate and therefore unsure which state I am considered a resident of).
Jacko,
Bush was a Clinton clone, the only difference being Republicans blindly followed the R by his name.
The only positive of, say, a Romney presidency might be that amnesty wouldn't be granted, right?
I wonder if a liberal cultist from Massachusetts is really going to save us from a liberal from NY. The chief reason I even hope he wins over the other 'lead contenders' is his endorsement by so many conservative leaders; they must see something in him...
---
And if the nominee is Huckabee, McCain, or Giuliani, let us pray Clinton wins! The R by the name does not make a candidate conservative in any way.
Roho said: The campaign of “William Wallace” ended poorly for himself, yet instilled a desire for freedom in the soul of all Scottsmen……….And the Scotts went on to achieve their freedom.
Closer to home and to now, the most influential politicians of the last 50 years were Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, who both got creamed. The whole "red/blue" thing in Olympic years is just grudge matches between their followers. (BTW, there are only one T in "Scot" and three dots in an elipsis... :^)
Thomas Miller wrote: If one candidate manages to receive 50.1% of the vote, he wins the election... We should use that system for choosing a president.
There are enough problems with this in unitary Pelican elections. How do you translate it to the 51 separate electorates in the presidential election? (I know, there shouldn't be 51-- there should be only 50.) Florida was messy enough in 2000; can you imagine what a second round of voting there would have looked like?
Adopting Louisisna's sytem on the national level would require finally doing away with the Electoral College which, if it had any chance of happening, would have by now. Any reform of our system of elections would be messy. But the process of choosing candidates is just ridiculous. And the longer it persists, the more disillusioned and apathetic people will become about our so-called democratic system. Of course, that's just how our ruling elites like it.
The most important politician in recent history (the one who changed things the most) was not Goldwater or McGovern but George Wallace. The first step toward any conservative (or libertarian) success in American politics is to destroy and replace the Republican party. Unless Dr. Paul is able to rouse enough of the grassroots to change that party significantly, all else will be sound and fury, signifying nothing.
"Annus Horribilis" -?- it reminds me of my hemorrhoid. I got rid of it - just take a lot of vitamin C. Apparently it does more than prevent scurvy. I had thought I was devolving...and getting a tail again... but Vitamin C to the rescue. Unless you like tails and tales? That's my story and i'm sticking to it. Oh one more thing - be sure to bathe your leafy greens before making the salad - to get all those pesticides off of them. Those pesticides like pharmaceuticals alien to the human body can also be a pain in the anus. And that could be horribilis.