May 30, 2006

Never Fear, Al Is Here

Whenever I read about Al Gore's latest shenanigans, I'm reminded of that scene in the movie "Scrooged" where Bill Murray unveils his trailer for the network's Christmas special. It's designed to scare people into watching it, ending with the tagline: "Your life just might depend on it!"

Gore gave a speech in the UK this weekend where he referred to global warming as the impending "planetary emergency". Declaring to the audience that he was devoting himself to thwarting this threat, Gore assured them that the world was facing "a danger that could bring the end of civilization".

This is why I desperately want Al Gore to run for President in 2008. He really, truly believes that flogging the phantom scare of global warming trumps fighting terrorism as the country's number one priority. And he believes it with all the fervor of a televangelist. The vast majority of voters understand that the enemy we are fighting is the real, tangible danger that could bring the end of civilization - our civilization. When he's up on stage all alone he looks and sounds to the Left like a sage of our time. But standing next to a candidate who is serious about fighting the GWOT, he's a joke.

Will Al run? He certainly seems to be laying the groundwork. Rich Lowry at NRO Online's The Corner puts it this way:

"He is one of those people who wants to be president, but doesn't really want to run for it. So he wants the party to come to him. In keeping with this desire, the movie is a painless way to advance his political ambitions: if the buzz around it doesn't increase his standing in the polls, he can say, “Hey, what's the big deal, it was only a movie about an issue I care about, and never had a political purpose”; if, however, it does create some sustained political momentum, he can capitalize on it if he wants. Apparently he is telling the people closest to him what he is saying in public, that he isn't interested in running. People are all over the map, though, on whether he will ultimately run or not. The conventional wisdom seems to be correct: that he will only do it if he sees a clear path to victory."
Oh please, oh please, oh please...let him run!

Posted by: Gary at 10:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 399 words, total size 3 kb.

May 23, 2006

Dodd To Run In '08?

As much of a non-story this is, I figure I'd comment on it being as I'm from CT. Sen. Chris Dodd (Dumbass-CT) is considering a run for the Presidency. Frankly, Dodd is about as unimpressive a candidate as you could get. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has more chance at being President and the odds of that happening are slim to none.

Dodd is a five-termer who won his first race for the Senate off of his famous last name (his father, Thomas Dodd, was Senator until that body censured him and he was thrown out on his ass by the voters).

Chris Dodd's major claim to fame was his love affair with such notable communist dictators as Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua. And supposedly he and "Tailspin" Teddy Kennedy used to swap cocktail waitresses in the 1980's when Dodd was divorced.

Democrats have a host of has-beens and also-rans to choose from in two years. Even hacks like DE Sen. Joe Biden are going to be throwing their hat in the ring. I'll be surprised if Dodd is still in the running come January 1, 2008. But it should make things interesting here in CT.

Posted by: Gary at 04:31 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

May 22, 2006

"You Don't Win Elections Just By Preaching To The Choir"

I remember Susan Estrich as Michael Dukakis' campaign manager in the 1988 Presidential campaign. I followed her work closely because back then I actually voted Democrat. In fact, you might say that 1988 was the year I first immersed myself in politics, following the rigors of a Presidential campaign from Iowa to Election Day.

Lately, Estrich is political commentator on FoxNews for the Liberal point of view. And for a long time now, she's been taking crap for it by her friends on the Left. This morning, she has some advice for the peanut gallery:

I’ve taken a lot of heat from the left for working for Fox News, and frankly, I’m a little bit sick of it. The truth is that I’ve been very well treated at Fox: I say what I want; I’m treated with respect; and I’m paid well.

But there’s an even more fundamental point. You don’t win elections just by preaching to the choir. You win by convincing people in the middle, many of whom actually watch the top-rated cable news network. Some of these people are even over 54 years of age (another of the latest attacks), and not only do they spend a lot of money on purchases, but they vote in higher numbers than any other demographic group (there’s a reason no one ever dares to touch Social Security).

The way I see my job is to try to present the strongest arguments possible to the most important voters in the country, which I think is pretty critical for my party. Democrats who refuse to appear on Fox News because of their claims of conservative "bias" are in fact foregoing an important opportunity to reach swing voters who might actually decide elections.

The irony is that I find that often, simply by occupying the middle, I can win the fight. And what do I get from my friends on the left? Criticism that I’m not a real Democrat because I’m too centrist… How dare I be pragmatic?

My answer is very simple. Unlike Mr. [HuffPost blogger, Bob] Cesca, I not only have worked for every network, I also worked, formally or informally, for every Democratic candidate to run for president in the 1980’s and 1990’s. I understand the difference between running on the left and losing, and running in the center and winning. I wrote three Democratic Party platforms. I see no honor in defeat. I’d rather win in the middle than lose on the left, and you don’t need to call anyone names to do it.

Words of wisdom, moonbats.

Republicans may bicker and shoot themselves in the foot every chance they get. But as long as Democrats are "running on the left and losing", the GOP can keep winning - despite itself.

Posted by: Gary at 03:12 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 477 words, total size 3 kb.

May 21, 2006

Lamont Crashes Party

CT businessman Ned Lamont garnered 33% of Democrat delegates at the party's State Convention on Friday, higher that the 15% needed to force a primary vote on August 8th.

Sen. Christopher Dodd nominated Lieberman, acknowledging his own differences with his colleague. Unlike Lieberman, Dodd was willing to wage a filibuster to fight the Alito nomination.

But Dodd, his voice hoarse, shouted from the podium that those differences do not outweigh Lieberman's strong record on bedrock Democratic issues.

"You may disagree with Joe on a particular issue. Despite those differences, Joe Lieberman is a valued member of the U.S. Senate," Dodd said. "Joe Lieberman takes on the Bush administration. Don't ever forget it."

Now that actual non-politico party members get to have a say. Even the Kos-fueled "insurgency" backing Lamont acknowledges that his hopes are slim. But that's not the point with these folks. Losing has become second-nature to them. They want to make a statement. And now that Lamont has his foot in the door, we'll be hearing a lot from the angry, anti-war Left here in CT.

Either way it's a win-win for Republicans. On the one hand, it will create a schizm between moonbat Democrats and moderate Democrats as they wrestle for control. And it will tie up precious resources and media coverage that could be better spent promoting lower-level Democrat candidates in tight races.

And if by some freak aligning of the stars Lamont were to win the nomination, a Senate seat that seemed a lock for reelection comes into play for the GOP. I think I'll go buy a package of mentos, and giggle myself silly on the way to the store.

Posted by: Gary at 08:06 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

May 03, 2006

Dems Losing The Hausfrau Vote

I came across this interesting piece in Time Magazine online by Liberal (and non-Bush fan) essayist Caitlin Flanagan who complains that the Democrat Party is pushing aside SAHMs (stay-at-hom moms) - including those that would normally vote for them.

"Most of the 60 million people who voted against George W. Bush have lifestyles more like mine than the Democratic Party would like to admit. Most of us aren't the Hollywood Elite or the nontraditional family. Many of us do what I do, which is go to church on Sunday, work hard and value my marriage. Again, it's not so much my party's platform that rejects the family; God help us all if Bush's brutality to the poor continues much longer. It's a small but very vocal minority, the Democratic pundits, who abhor what I represent because it doesn't fit the stereotypical image of the modern woman who has escaped from domestic prison. Fifty years ago, a stay-at-home mom who loved her husband would not automatically be assumed to be a Republican. The image of the Democratic Party that used to come to mind was of a workingman and his wife sitting at the kitchen table worrying about how they were going to pay the bills and voting for Adlai Stevenson because he was going to help them squeak by every month and maybe even afford to send their kids to college.

The Democrats made a huge tactical error a few decades ago. In the middle of doing the great work of the '60s--civil rights, women's liberation, gay inclusion--we decided to stigmatize the white male. The union dues--paying, churchgoing, beer-drinking family man got nothing but ridicule and venom from us. So he dumped us. And he took the wife and kids with him.

And now here we are, living in a country with a political and economic agenda we deplore, losing election after election and wondering why.

It's the contempt, stupid."

The powers that be in the modern Democrat Party are all for fighting for the rights of non-traditional families. It's the traditional ones that they view as an aberration.

Posted by: Gary at 12:05 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
30kb generated in CPU 0.04, elapsed 0.1119 seconds.
122 queries taking 0.0905 seconds, 242 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.