The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves. -- William Hazlitt.
I'm getting ready for Potomac/Cheasepeake/Beltway Primary (checking the Clinton/Obama/Gravel sites a few more times before I vote) and I have a feeling that the event is going to drain me. As such, I had some thoughts/musings/ramblings I wanted to get out before I "cram" for "the big exam..."
HERE HE COMES TO SAVE THE DAY
Ignoring the pitchforks and torches, George W. Bush ran to his base (CPAC and FoxNews) for a mini-McCain Praise-A-Thon. He plans to do more if McCain win the GOP nod (what? no love for the Huckster?). I guess the 30 And Under Crowd do need somewhere to go. I think the odds of Bush helping McCain in the presidential election can be summed up here:
Terry Nelson, who was political director of Mr. Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign, said that despite Mr. Bush’s unpopularity and what many assume to be a desire among voters to see a change, Republicans remained largely unified on major efforts.
"The Republican primary so far has been waged almost entirely within the Bush positions," Mr. Nelson said. "There’s no significant effort to repudiate the last eight years."
Please, GOP: push for Terry Nelson to be McCain's new campaign manager.
MISSED IT BY THAT MUCH
It seems like Mitt Romney left a little too early: winning a conservative straw vote and getting that conerstone of Republican ideals Ann Coulter to push for him for VP. Even John McCain is making efforts for a sitdown. But did Mitts call it quits because he sees an opening for 2012, or because people remember him of saying things like this:
"I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush; I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."
Mitt Romney, during run for U.S. Senate, 1994.
"It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."
Mitt Romney, on Osama Bin Laden, April 26, 2007.
"I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life."
Mitt Romney, April 3, 2007.
and then years/months/days/minutes later saying things like this?
"My life experience convinced me that Ronald Reagan was right."
Mitt Romney, January 8, 2007.
"He's going to pay, and he will die."
Mitt Romney, on Osama Bin Laden, May 3, 2007.
"I'm not a big-game hunter. I've made that very clear. I've always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will. I began when I was 15 or so and I have hunted those kinds of varmints since then. More than two times."
Mitt Romney, April 5, 2007.
Or maybe it was this momemnt of truth:
"Well, I'm not concerned about the voters."
Mitt Romney, asked to tell Florida voters how much of his own fortune he had spent on his campaign there, January 24, 2008.
Thanks for playing, Mitt. Don't come back now, ya hear?
On a side note: last week some weirdo wrote this:
Let's just skip the fact that Romney went from liberal Republican to Reagan clone in a few short years. Let's ignore the fact that he has little to show for his talk of being a true conservative. Let's not ponder too much over the fact that he can't even beat Mike Huckabee, who's a one-trick political pony if I've ever saw one.
Mitt Romney is just too damn foolish to be President of the United States.
Not too long after "a graceless Mitt Romney shows the nation how not to bow out of a race." What are the odds?
THE GODS MUST BE LAZY
As the Angry One deals with loosing yet more states to a guy who can't mathmatically catch up to him, you have to pause and wonder whether this is more about conservatives hating McCain or the Religious Right loving Mike Huckabee. Considering that the Hannity/Limbaugh/Beck crowd was pushing Romney over Huckabee, I'd have to say the later. Huckabee knows language, and can manage to make the most outrageous thing sound rational; he's like a cross between Pat Robertson and JigglyPuff. That being said, I can think of at least 30 reasons why Huckabee should not be a part of any presidential administration.
THE TIMES; HAVE THEY BEEN A'CHANGING?
I have a hypothesis: the longer the political process, the more it can warp one's memory.
For example, here's WashPost writer David Broder on how McCain is facing the exact same crap that Reagan did. While I'm no fan of his (Broder, McCain, or Reagan; take your pick), this point can't be repeated enough:
Now while our side isn't anywhere near that mnemonically-challenged, in the last few months I've seen the mantle of "People's Champion" move from Dennis Kucinich to John Edwards to Barack Obama. Now before I go any further, let me say this:
Dennis Kucinich was the most progressive candidate. Yes he was. There's no getting around it.
John Edwards scared the hell out of Corporate America. Why? Because he brought up NAFTA and lobbyists with no fear.
Not to say Obama or Clinton couldn't be more effective as president. Even though I will have to make an electorial decision tomorrow, I never favored any of the initial Democratic candidates over another.
Honestly, the back-and-forth reminds me of 2004, when we also had some strong candidates; among them being Howard Dean, John Kerry and Edwards. I don't know where the 2008 Edwards crowd stood in 2004, but I don't recall the same intensity for him back then. Maybe that had something to do with Dean's presence. Maybe people were still holding out for Al Gore. Which brings me to my Democratic Fantasy Poll.
I would like to test my hypothesis regarding political memory, so for the poll, assume that the following Constitutionally-eligible people are in the running. Who would you vote for? And yes, I know it's wish fulfillment for many of you, but that's why I called it a "fantasy" poll. And for those of you who are upset I "forgot to put in soandso," my bad. But it is 14 friggin' people.
MEANWHILE: BACK AT THE RANCH...
Obama is currently leading Clinton in my area, and he spoke at my alma mater/job today (Chelsea Clinton was here yesterday) in the Comcast Center, which crowd-wise is quite a feat. Clinton made an impression as both guest speaker and guest lecturer at the University of Virginia. Her husband made rounds in the local churches. Speaking of which, the co-pastor of my former church recently joined her husband in backing Obama.
So what does this all mean? Well, to me it means that both Clinton and Obama give a damn. I can understand why Iowa and New Hampshire take pride in being the first stop in this long-but-enlightening process. I know some people want this to just end already, but I can't shake the feeling that this will just make the eventual winner that much stronger in the general election.
One last thing: the Republican nominations have revolved around incomplete candidates trying to prove how complete they are. The Democratic nominations have revolved around solid candidates trying to prove how sucessful they'd be in the White House.