Graham, on big issues, is a center-left opportunist
by Dr. Ecarma (bio: Reggie Ecarma has a Ph.D. in political communication, teaches for North Greenville and Furman universities in mass communication and politics. He is also Republican precinct chairman of Travelers Rest, member of the Greenville County GOP Executive Committee, faculty advisor to the NGU College Republicans, and serves as fire commissioner at Tigerville, S.C. fire district. He can be reached at reecarma1@yahoo.com)
Fresh from a 67 percent GOP primary victory and the first state candidate to win more than 1 million votes in a general election, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham sounded confident, if not cocky, at the Greenville County Republican Convention this past April. He said that he wants to grow a center-right party, which reflects the country, to win elections. And if any Republicans in the room did not support his efforts, they could leave.
He echoed this sentiment at the Furman University town meeting last week. Question: If Graham is growing a big-tent center-right party, why is he telling a vocal and engaged group to leave. Doesn’t center-right include centrists and rightists; a big-tent includes activists from center to right. At both places, Furman and the GOP Greenville convention, Graham sounded downright condescending.
With all his heroics, Achilles has a weakness. Graham’s heel is his hometown region, the Upstate. As the biggest part of the Upstate, Greenville County voted against Graham in the primary. The 200 vote margin by little known Buddy Witherspoon should be a warning to Graham, perhaps humbling.
Apparently, after making rounds in the national media circuit and enjoying conclaves with the likes of Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and the late Ted Kennedy, his homies have become prudish party poopers. Just like a BMOC (big man on campus) football jock coming home to his small-minded family, Graham is getting too big for his britches.
Instead of being grateful to have the privilege of serving his home folks, Graham is becoming arrogant like Lonesome Rhoades of the 1950s movie A Face in the Crowd. An arrogant centrist, he is quickly outgrowing his humble conservative roots.
An explanation: In the Greenville News article “Graham vows to challenge ‘radical’ views” and editorial “Sen. Graham holds his own,” both articles miss the critical “constitutional” point: Graham says that he is conservative, fair enough, but on big constitutional issues, he is center left. Consider these landmark issues:
1. Constitutional option on judicial nominees of 2006: the leftists and the centrists, including Graham opposed it; constitutional conservatives like U.S. Sen. John Thune, R-S.C., supported it (see http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/5/31/32726.shtml
2. Illegal immigration of 2008: the center-right and center-left and far left supported the Kennedy-McCain –Graham bill, constitutional conservatives like U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint opposed it;
3. Climate change 2009: Graham is working with far left U.S. senator, John Kerry; constitutional conservatives oppose any new regulation on carbon emission whether by legislation or the Environmental Protection Agency;
4. Sotomayor U.S. Supreme Court vote of 2009: centrists and leftist voted for the nomination, conservatives like U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, opposed the high court nomination.
To be fair, Graham is a reliable pro-life vote, according to Citizens for Life. He is strong on military issues, and he also voted against Obama’s stimulus bill. It is also true that, as reported by the Greenville News, Graham has an 82 percent rating according to the American Conservative Union and votes 90.7 percent with his party (The Washington Post’s congressional vote database).
But the preceding record on big issues and the on-going record of Graham, including climate change and health care are troublesome. For example, the heated debate on health care clearly pits constitutionalists/conservatives vs. centrists/leftists. Where is Graham on this—in the center-left. Consider this quote from Greenville News on September 21:
“Graham, in signing on to the bipartisan Healthy Americans Act, has agreed to requiring people to buy health-care insurance, an unpopular idea among Republicans.
“I have found common ground with Democrats,” Graham said of the bill backed by seven Republicans and seven Democrats.
Such common ground or center-left decision of historical constitutional issues has moved Graham from right toward the center-left over the years. With the illegal immigration vote and the constitutional option on judicial nominees he took the center-left ground, along with his senior partner and senate mentor, U.S. Sen. John McCain , R-AZ. But in the Sonya Sotomayor vote for U.S. Supreme Court justice, even centrist and maverick McCain voted to oppose Sotomayor, while Graham voted for President Obama’s judicial “empathy” nominee and got kudos from the media and cultural elites.
As Clemson University political science professor, David Woodard, a one-time Graham confidant, said, he (Graham) “make[s] a point of his foray across the aisle to work with Democrats.”
Colluding with liberals is a prominent project for Graham. Furman University political science professor Danielle Vinson said Graham “needs to get past those headline-grabbing moves.”
Graham is not only moving from right to center -left, depending on the big issue, he is garnering more face time on the broadcast networks. If one watches national politics and the news on a regular basis, it is hard to miss Graham. Recently, on the Greenville News article of Sep. 21, Obama remarked about extremist talk: “The easiest way to get 15 minutes of fame is to be rude to somebody.”
Conversely, for a Republican, the easiest way to get 15 minutes or even 15 hours of fame is to work and act in concert with other maverick Republicans or liberal Democrats. Ask U.S. Sen. Olympia Snow during the Democrat health care and Obama stimulus bills debates during the last few months. It is awfully difficult to deny oneself of the red carpet treatment by the media and cultural elite of Washington, DC and NYC.
Graham’s timing also needs to be scrutinized. When it was popular to challenge the senate Republican majority in 2006 regarding the constitutional option on judicial nominees, Graham, as part of the “Gang of 14” (7 Republicans and 7 Democrats) went against President Bush and conservative Republicans. The Gang opposed Bush’s full slate of strict constructionist (constitutional and conservative) federal judicial nominees.
Social conservatives around the country were rallying in churches across the nation to encourage U.S. Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-TN to go for 51 senate votes instead of the customary 60 cloture votes to let the full slate of judicial conservatives ostensibly reverse Roe v. Wade.
So Graham short-circuited the social conservative effort to attempt to stop judicial promotion of abortion-on-demand.
In the health care issue, where is Graham in voicing his criticism on the constitutional option that is, most likely, to be employed by the Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV?
The political and media elites in DC are cheerleading health care through, so let’s see if Graham, their new “conservative” darling from the belt buckle of the Bible belt crows against their sacred health care for the uninsured, including (probably) illegal immigrants. Graham has had many months to voice his previous concern about using the constitutional option of 51 senators to pass a non-emergency and non-budget issue. Rather, he appears anxious to pass a health care bill by working hard with Democrats, again.
Ironically, Graham said in the same Greenville News article he also feels a responsibility “not to let the president have it both ways here.” Perhaps, the libertarians and constitutional conservatives feel the responsibility not to allow Graham to have it both ways either—calling himself a conservative and then chooses opportunities to grab the headlines and the TV lights by forging liberal leaning bills.
Graham seems more of pragmatic political opportunist than a principled, constitutional conservative.
Many Republican party loyalists will not openly oppose him, as Sam Harms, the former Greenville County Republican chair, who promptly lost his position. Party loyalists prefer acceptability and collegiality as a norm; however, if a credentialed and monied Jim DeMint like person arose to challenge Graham, he would humble Graham, if not defeat him in 2014.
Graham should take stock that Thomas Ravanel, former state treasurer, who lost his job and credentials in 2007 due to cocaine charges, could have effectively challenged him in 2008. Instead Graham got a free pass, relatively speaking. Is there going to be credible challenger in 2014 such as a David Beasley or a Jim DeMint clone or . . .
If he continues his centrist ways, Graham would lose big in the Upstate (his home region) and would have to fight hard and win big in the moderate Low Country, perhaps with the help of his new Democrat friends.
Why does Graham want to “grow” the party? Is it for altruistic reasons? Perhaps, but it may also be for power. Is he looking at the majority party leadership? Probably not. Is he looking at a presidential run in 2016? If he is, then he should look at his mentor McCain. McCain tried the maverick route for 10 years. He was loved by the liberal media elite in DC and NY, but when he ran for president as a Republican, his fawning media coverage dissipated.
By 2014, Graham will be feigning right to re-establish his conservative credentials, but by then, his Achilles heel may be overly exposed by video records in YouTube and other Internet sources. The SC Achilles needs to represent the felt needs of his state--the Upstate.
What do you think?
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Oct 8, 2008
Analysis of my analyses
Analysis of my recent analyses: Prediction of my prediction
After a reader recently pointed out that I was wrong about my prediction of a Hillary Clinton coronation back in December 13, 2006, I was to look back a little regarding my recent analyses.
Before reading or listening to the pundits, I concluded that John McCain won the first and second debates, while Sarah Palin effectively won her vice presidential debate against U.S. Sen. Joe Biden.
Before each debate, McCain had been slipping or losing in the polls, and after each event he gained a little. Palin's performance gave McCain a fighting chance to take a lead by bringing the ticket closer, by a few points, to the Obama/Biden ticket, as I predicted. Last night after viewing the debate, I immediately predicted that McCain would gain a point or two, and according to a recent Reuters/C-Span/Zogby daily tracking telephone poll from Oct. 5-7, 2008, McCain recovered about a point.
By deciding to think for oneself and to be right more than wrong, is encouraging; it is also a good test regarding one's political instincts. Try it sometime. Watch an event, and before talking to or listening to someone or the media, decide for yourself who won or lost, and why. You'd be encouraged, too!
My prediction back in December 13, 2006 (the same day that I was wrong about Obama not becoming the Democrat nominee), I predicted that if the Democrats win the White House and control the Congress, "With some tactical changes, all in all, little will change in Iraq during the next 12-18 months militarily . . . . With responsibility comes political moderation and electoral consideration."
Wait and see if I'm right that if Obama wins and the Democrats hold on to Congress, I'll bet you my old tennis balls, that my prediction will reflect reality. Let's see.
After a reader recently pointed out that I was wrong about my prediction of a Hillary Clinton coronation back in December 13, 2006, I was to look back a little regarding my recent analyses.
Before reading or listening to the pundits, I concluded that John McCain won the first and second debates, while Sarah Palin effectively won her vice presidential debate against U.S. Sen. Joe Biden.
Before each debate, McCain had been slipping or losing in the polls, and after each event he gained a little. Palin's performance gave McCain a fighting chance to take a lead by bringing the ticket closer, by a few points, to the Obama/Biden ticket, as I predicted. Last night after viewing the debate, I immediately predicted that McCain would gain a point or two, and according to a recent Reuters/C-Span/Zogby daily tracking telephone poll from Oct. 5-7, 2008, McCain recovered about a point.
By deciding to think for oneself and to be right more than wrong, is encouraging; it is also a good test regarding one's political instincts. Try it sometime. Watch an event, and before talking to or listening to someone or the media, decide for yourself who won or lost, and why. You'd be encouraged, too!
My prediction back in December 13, 2006 (the same day that I was wrong about Obama not becoming the Democrat nominee), I predicted that if the Democrats win the White House and control the Congress, "With some tactical changes, all in all, little will change in Iraq during the next 12-18 months militarily . . . . With responsibility comes political moderation and electoral consideration."
Wait and see if I'm right that if Obama wins and the Democrats hold on to Congress, I'll bet you my old tennis balls, that my prediction will reflect reality. Let's see.
Mar 3, 2008
Alamo: Hillary Clinton's Last Stand
Much like Davy Crocket, Jim Bowie and Col. William Travis, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton will make her last stand on similar terrain. After 10 consecutive losses and an uneventful debate performance, Clinton is also facing great odds in the Lone Star state.
Though the polls indicate a dead heat, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama has the “big mo,” mimicking the power of General Santa Anna, the Alamo’s eventual victor. Obama’s momentum seems insurmountable. Former President Bill Clinton, has said that his wife has to win Texas. Can she still win this state and the nomination?
Media prognosticators from left to right are already writing her political obituary: “Hillary Should Get Out Now,” said Jonathan Alter of Newsweek and “Who Will Tell Hillary?” asked Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun Times.
According to Real Clear Politics, it is a statistical tie — Clinton and Obama splitting four current polls. Clinton’s home state, Arkansas, is a close neighbor to Texas, so Clinton’s familiar face may be the one advantage she has left — and it may be enough.
Hillary can still win in one of three ways: 1) a successful last stand in Texas and future wins in a few big states; 2) seating of Michigan and Florida delegates; or 3) in a brokered convention, persuading super delegates to nominate her, thus, snatching the win from the jaws of defeat.
Clinton will need everything from tears to toughness, maternal instincts to meanness to win the next three big states (Texas, Ohio, Penn.) by even slim margins. In Ohio and Pennsylvania, she leads by 8 and 14 percentage points respectively. From these three states, Clinton can win most of 577 combined delegates, which would reshape the delegate race. Currently Obama has at 1,351 and Clinton for 1,262.
Another way of avoiding political ruination for Clinton emanates from the fluxed fate of the Florida and Michigan delegates.
Clinton won both states in questionable circumstances but by wide margins. If those delegates are seated, Clinton’s deficit to Obama would immediately close. A decision on those delegates, however, does not seem likely in the near future.
The Clinton camp would like to see them instated outright, which may happen if the Obama agrees to a compromise.
In any event, if the Clinton machine can reinstate those delegates, the race is once again summarily changed.
Finally, the last and least attractive scenario involves the unique concept of the Democrat Convention’s 796 super delegates. If neither Democrat candidate has the necessary 2,025 delegates by the convention, these super delegates will be the deciding factor.
With the power of the Clinton name within the Democrat Party, many of those super delegates could be swayed Clinton’s direction. Even if Obama goes into the convention with a slight lead in the popular vote and delegate count, Clinton may have the influence to overturn the will of the Democrat electorate and take the nomination.
Of course, that would be the least attractive avenue for winning and would require a major effort to reconcile and heal the party’s divergent interests and interest groups.
Crockett, Bowie and Travis lost at the Alamo during the Lonestar state’s decisive drive for Texas Independence. Hillary has a chance to reverse history by winning in Texas against the likes of Mexican Gen. Santa Anna, the Napoleon of the West. The general she’s fighting — Barack Obama — who is overseeing a new political army, however, is much more polite, polished and dynamic.
The Santa Anna winds seem to be blowing Obama’s way, but Clinton cannot be counted out.
Though the polls indicate a dead heat, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama has the “big mo,” mimicking the power of General Santa Anna, the Alamo’s eventual victor. Obama’s momentum seems insurmountable. Former President Bill Clinton, has said that his wife has to win Texas. Can she still win this state and the nomination?
Media prognosticators from left to right are already writing her political obituary: “Hillary Should Get Out Now,” said Jonathan Alter of Newsweek and “Who Will Tell Hillary?” asked Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun Times.
According to Real Clear Politics, it is a statistical tie — Clinton and Obama splitting four current polls. Clinton’s home state, Arkansas, is a close neighbor to Texas, so Clinton’s familiar face may be the one advantage she has left — and it may be enough.
Hillary can still win in one of three ways: 1) a successful last stand in Texas and future wins in a few big states; 2) seating of Michigan and Florida delegates; or 3) in a brokered convention, persuading super delegates to nominate her, thus, snatching the win from the jaws of defeat.
Clinton will need everything from tears to toughness, maternal instincts to meanness to win the next three big states (Texas, Ohio, Penn.) by even slim margins. In Ohio and Pennsylvania, she leads by 8 and 14 percentage points respectively. From these three states, Clinton can win most of 577 combined delegates, which would reshape the delegate race. Currently Obama has at 1,351 and Clinton for 1,262.
Another way of avoiding political ruination for Clinton emanates from the fluxed fate of the Florida and Michigan delegates.
Clinton won both states in questionable circumstances but by wide margins. If those delegates are seated, Clinton’s deficit to Obama would immediately close. A decision on those delegates, however, does not seem likely in the near future.
The Clinton camp would like to see them instated outright, which may happen if the Obama agrees to a compromise.
In any event, if the Clinton machine can reinstate those delegates, the race is once again summarily changed.
Finally, the last and least attractive scenario involves the unique concept of the Democrat Convention’s 796 super delegates. If neither Democrat candidate has the necessary 2,025 delegates by the convention, these super delegates will be the deciding factor.
With the power of the Clinton name within the Democrat Party, many of those super delegates could be swayed Clinton’s direction. Even if Obama goes into the convention with a slight lead in the popular vote and delegate count, Clinton may have the influence to overturn the will of the Democrat electorate and take the nomination.
Of course, that would be the least attractive avenue for winning and would require a major effort to reconcile and heal the party’s divergent interests and interest groups.
Crockett, Bowie and Travis lost at the Alamo during the Lonestar state’s decisive drive for Texas Independence. Hillary has a chance to reverse history by winning in Texas against the likes of Mexican Gen. Santa Anna, the Napoleon of the West. The general she’s fighting — Barack Obama — who is overseeing a new political army, however, is much more polite, polished and dynamic.
The Santa Anna winds seem to be blowing Obama’s way, but Clinton cannot be counted out.
Jan 28, 2008
How Obama overwhelmed Hillary in SC Primary
Key to Obama Victory
The key factor for U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's win in the South Carolina Primary was his win at the Iowa Caucus on Jan. 3. There, he became the frontrunner and a formidable presidential candidate. South Carolina black voters began switching their votes from U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton won after they saw the Iowa returns. Just like many evangelicals, black voters are pragmatic--they want a winner and support the power that comes with a winner.
How Obama can Florida
Though, Obama won 55% of the S.C. vote, along with 40% of the black vote, he only won 25% of the white vote. This percentage of white voter support may not be enough to win Florida this Tuesday since most of the voters there and the rest of the country are white voters. S.C. has the highest percentage of black voters in the U.S.
Obama has to expand his base across the country just as he did in Iowa.
The key factor for U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's win in the South Carolina Primary was his win at the Iowa Caucus on Jan. 3. There, he became the frontrunner and a formidable presidential candidate. South Carolina black voters began switching their votes from U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton won after they saw the Iowa returns. Just like many evangelicals, black voters are pragmatic--they want a winner and support the power that comes with a winner.
How Obama can Florida
Though, Obama won 55% of the S.C. vote, along with 40% of the black vote, he only won 25% of the white vote. This percentage of white voter support may not be enough to win Florida this Tuesday since most of the voters there and the rest of the country are white voters. S.C. has the highest percentage of black voters in the U.S.
Obama has to expand his base across the country just as he did in Iowa.
Sep 7, 2007
Presidential Run for the Roses: Presumptive Nominee, then and now--Hillary Clinton
Since the day I heard the report that Hillary Clinton had shared her goal to a confidant in 1994 that she would run for president, I knew that she was going to be a force of political nature in presidential politics.
Many books have been written, two during the summer by liberal authors, including New York Times legend Carl Berstein, A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who noted her and Bill Clinton's plan back in the 70s of running for president--she would follow after he won two terms. The plan continues to be methodically applied; her blue eyes are on the presidential prize.
Hillary Clinton could have been the Democrat nominee in 2004 but she depthly chose the high road by going for elective experience. After U.S. Sen. John Kerry's narrow loss, she became the go-to-person. A shining star came up--U.S. Sen. Barack Obama--to distract the Democrats. Apparently, he is now a shooting star, a bright but short-lived show.
To many, Clinton has become a powerful, foreboding force on both sides of the political aisle. Republicans love and fear a Hillary Clinton nomination; some are deeply afraid of a Clinton win, others are confident of a Democrat loss if Clinton were nominated.
According to political guru, Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's political point man, Clinton has the highest negative for a presidential candidate in the history of polling (USA Today/Gallup survey in August of 1012 Americans--49% had an unfavorable impression of her and only 47% favorable). Also, about half of the electorate see her negatively and according to a recent hot/cold Gallup polling measure, they do not feel warmth toward her coldness (Obama wins the warmth numbers). Even in her own party, many view her negatively.
With all the negativity, will she even win her own party's nomination? Yes, whether voters like her or not, she has to be reckoned with and her unswerving determination to be the Democrat nominee will not be derailed. The Clintons will raise a record-breaking amount, along with positive, almost fawning, coverage by the elite media that stacks the stakes for her horse in the presidential run for the roses. (Few in the media, will speak negatively against her on the record or even have guests that are invited to speak negatively of her. Last year, another best selling book authored by a self-proclaimed longtime liberal was shunned by the media--only two had him as guest in all of television and cable, Sean Hannity of Fox News and Lou Dobbs of CNN.)
Finally, being from the Kentucky Derby state, having lived a few miles from Churchill Downs, I believe U.S. Senator and former First Lady, Hillary Clinton, against all the negativity, against all odds, against Rove's prediction and against a GOP nominee of Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson, has better than even odds to win the American presidential run for the roses of 2008.
What do you say about that?
Many books have been written, two during the summer by liberal authors, including New York Times legend Carl Berstein, A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who noted her and Bill Clinton's plan back in the 70s of running for president--she would follow after he won two terms. The plan continues to be methodically applied; her blue eyes are on the presidential prize.
Hillary Clinton could have been the Democrat nominee in 2004 but she depthly chose the high road by going for elective experience. After U.S. Sen. John Kerry's narrow loss, she became the go-to-person. A shining star came up--U.S. Sen. Barack Obama--to distract the Democrats. Apparently, he is now a shooting star, a bright but short-lived show.
To many, Clinton has become a powerful, foreboding force on both sides of the political aisle. Republicans love and fear a Hillary Clinton nomination; some are deeply afraid of a Clinton win, others are confident of a Democrat loss if Clinton were nominated.
According to political guru, Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's political point man, Clinton has the highest negative for a presidential candidate in the history of polling (USA Today/Gallup survey in August of 1012 Americans--49% had an unfavorable impression of her and only 47% favorable). Also, about half of the electorate see her negatively and according to a recent hot/cold Gallup polling measure, they do not feel warmth toward her coldness (Obama wins the warmth numbers). Even in her own party, many view her negatively.
With all the negativity, will she even win her own party's nomination? Yes, whether voters like her or not, she has to be reckoned with and her unswerving determination to be the Democrat nominee will not be derailed. The Clintons will raise a record-breaking amount, along with positive, almost fawning, coverage by the elite media that stacks the stakes for her horse in the presidential run for the roses. (Few in the media, will speak negatively against her on the record or even have guests that are invited to speak negatively of her. Last year, another best selling book authored by a self-proclaimed longtime liberal was shunned by the media--only two had him as guest in all of television and cable, Sean Hannity of Fox News and Lou Dobbs of CNN.)
Finally, being from the Kentucky Derby state, having lived a few miles from Churchill Downs, I believe U.S. Senator and former First Lady, Hillary Clinton, against all the negativity, against all odds, against Rove's prediction and against a GOP nominee of Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson, has better than even odds to win the American presidential run for the roses of 2008.
What do you say about that?
Presidential Run for the Roses: Thompson in--finally!
After months of testing the waters and the patience of many Republicans, former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson finally made his presidential run for the roses official.
Some say it is too late. Others say the race is already crowded. Still others believe he got in just in the nick of time.
Thompson responded by saying that he is not running a conventional insider campaign. He is an outsider, saying on NBC's Jay Leno, "I don't think people are going to say, 'You know, that guy would make a very good president but he just didn't get in soon enough.'"
If Thompson survives the expected character assassinations (including accusations of laziness, lacking the fire,) then conservatives may have an electable and consistent conservative, who is an accomplished actor, possesses magnetism and able to defeat the "mother" of all liberals--Hillary Clinton.
According to a recent AP story, former president Bill Clinton remarked about Thompson on CNN's Larry King, "he has a certain swagger," "he is smart. And he knows what to say and how to say it, to appeal to a certain big swath of the American electorate."
Was it smart for him to skip the New Hampshire Republican debate for the Leno show? Some say that this single act offended the sensibilities of New Hampshire Republicans. Frankly, it may have shown some political shrewdness by appearing on a cable ad immediately prior to the start of the debate broadcasted by Fox News, then showing up on Jay Leno later that night. On this night, Thompson seemed to show a persona that is above the fray and the bickering, at least for now.
According to the new campaign Web site, Thompson's message is for a stronger, more prosperous and unified America.
In his upcoming trip to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, then the Sept. 27 GOP debate in Baltimore, he must show himself a leader, commanding the issues and his competitors, a tall order for even the Law and Order prosecutor.
In South Carolina he is leading the pack. Thompson is one point ahead of former New York City Mayor Rudolph "Rudy" Giullani, according to last week's Gallup poll. If he starts pulling away in South Carolina and tying former Governor Mitt Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire, Thompson may face the presumptive Democrat nominee for president, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY. More on Sen. Clinton in my next blog.
My question, do you think Thompson will survive September? And if he does, does he takeover the presidential run for the roses for the GOP?
Some say it is too late. Others say the race is already crowded. Still others believe he got in just in the nick of time.
Thompson responded by saying that he is not running a conventional insider campaign. He is an outsider, saying on NBC's Jay Leno, "I don't think people are going to say, 'You know, that guy would make a very good president but he just didn't get in soon enough.'"
If Thompson survives the expected character assassinations (including accusations of laziness, lacking the fire,) then conservatives may have an electable and consistent conservative, who is an accomplished actor, possesses magnetism and able to defeat the "mother" of all liberals--Hillary Clinton.
According to a recent AP story, former president Bill Clinton remarked about Thompson on CNN's Larry King, "he has a certain swagger," "he is smart. And he knows what to say and how to say it, to appeal to a certain big swath of the American electorate."
Was it smart for him to skip the New Hampshire Republican debate for the Leno show? Some say that this single act offended the sensibilities of New Hampshire Republicans. Frankly, it may have shown some political shrewdness by appearing on a cable ad immediately prior to the start of the debate broadcasted by Fox News, then showing up on Jay Leno later that night. On this night, Thompson seemed to show a persona that is above the fray and the bickering, at least for now.
According to the new campaign Web site, Thompson's message is for a stronger, more prosperous and unified America.
In his upcoming trip to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, then the Sept. 27 GOP debate in Baltimore, he must show himself a leader, commanding the issues and his competitors, a tall order for even the Law and Order prosecutor.
In South Carolina he is leading the pack. Thompson is one point ahead of former New York City Mayor Rudolph "Rudy" Giullani, according to last week's Gallup poll. If he starts pulling away in South Carolina and tying former Governor Mitt Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire, Thompson may face the presumptive Democrat nominee for president, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY. More on Sen. Clinton in my next blog.
My question, do you think Thompson will survive September? And if he does, does he takeover the presidential run for the roses for the GOP?
Aug 20, 2007
Presidential Run for the Roses: The Dems' Obama Factor
Barack Obama has made a big political splash ever since he keynoted the 2004 Democrat convention.
Obama's great speaking ability, brief but sterling credentials, including being a Harvard Law grad, fresh face and ideas continue to attract political coverage and potential voters. He is running for the roses, and running hard politically. Will his efforts and ideas be sufficient to overcome the mother of all candidates--U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY).
With all his positives, Obama is up against Hillary's hurricane force and the Clinton political machine. In the end, the Obama image will be paper mache'.
Since the 2004 election cycle, the Democrat presidential nomination has always been Hillary Clinton's province. She let it go to grow stronger in preparation for her historic presidential run for the roses--as the first woman representing a major party.
Obama's run is also historic--as the first ever minority nominee for a major party. But his inexperience is quite revealing of late. His foreign affairs comments lately have displayed immaturity to many long-time political observers. Obama's six year stint in the Illinois state senate and shorter stint in the U.S. Senate reflects little leadership experience, especially to be the leader of the free world. Many leftwing bloggers, Hollywood celebrities, monied people and voters are excited about his candidacy; his time may come, but it is not now.
Obama's great speaking ability, brief but sterling credentials, including being a Harvard Law grad, fresh face and ideas continue to attract political coverage and potential voters. He is running for the roses, and running hard politically. Will his efforts and ideas be sufficient to overcome the mother of all candidates--U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY).
With all his positives, Obama is up against Hillary's hurricane force and the Clinton political machine. In the end, the Obama image will be paper mache'.
Since the 2004 election cycle, the Democrat presidential nomination has always been Hillary Clinton's province. She let it go to grow stronger in preparation for her historic presidential run for the roses--as the first woman representing a major party.
Obama's run is also historic--as the first ever minority nominee for a major party. But his inexperience is quite revealing of late. His foreign affairs comments lately have displayed immaturity to many long-time political observers. Obama's six year stint in the Illinois state senate and shorter stint in the U.S. Senate reflects little leadership experience, especially to be the leader of the free world. Many leftwing bloggers, Hollywood celebrities, monied people and voters are excited about his candidacy; his time may come, but it is not now.
Dec 13, 2006
Hillary Clinton predicted to be president, Obama vice president, said GOP Leader DeLay
News and Analysis: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Tom DeLay
Breaking News from NewsMax.com
DeLay Predicts Hillary PresidencyFormer House Majority Leader Tom DeLay knows who will be elected president in 2008: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. At a meeting Tuesday in Washington, D.C., hosted by Human Events and the Heritage Foundation, the former Republican congressman also predicted that Clinton's running mate would be Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. DeLay, who just unveiled his new blog and Grassroots Action and Information Network, said liberal organizations and media will work together to elect Clinton, D-N.Y.
"Hillary will be the next president of the United States because they have built a coalition,” DeLay said, according to Human Events.
Dr. E's Analysis: To my co-workers and/or classes, I've predicted for 12 years that Hillary Clinton (HC) will run for president. In my classes, I've predicted for six years that she'll be the Democrat Party presidential nominee in 2008. This part, Tom DeLay is, I believe, correct. Her vice presidential choice of a well-spoken though unproven senator, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (IL-D) would be a mega media event, but (here's where DeLay and I part), it won't be enough to get the presidency. Why not?
During the last 30 years, Democrats have needed a Southerner to win the presidency (Carter in '76, Clinton/Gore in '92 and '96). The Democrats will need another Southerner, at least as a vice presidential nominee, to win the 2008 election.
Clinton/Obama against the Republicans in '08 will be a tough race; quite possibly ensuring a win for the Dems calls for someone like U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (FL-D). Post-2000, Florida still remains a critical state for both parties.
Since HC is a NY/Northeast liberal, she does not need another liberal in Obama. Since Dems already get about 90% of the African-American vote, she won't benefit electorally if she chooses a black vice presidential nominee.
Conclusion: A calm and considered choice by HC would call for a substantive Southern male candidate that will balance the ticket and guarantee electoral votes.
What do you think?
Breaking News from NewsMax.com
DeLay Predicts Hillary PresidencyFormer House Majority Leader Tom DeLay knows who will be elected president in 2008: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. At a meeting Tuesday in Washington, D.C., hosted by Human Events and the Heritage Foundation, the former Republican congressman also predicted that Clinton's running mate would be Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. DeLay, who just unveiled his new blog and Grassroots Action and Information Network, said liberal organizations and media will work together to elect Clinton, D-N.Y.
"Hillary will be the next president of the United States because they have built a coalition,” DeLay said, according to Human Events.
Dr. E's Analysis: To my co-workers and/or classes, I've predicted for 12 years that Hillary Clinton (HC) will run for president. In my classes, I've predicted for six years that she'll be the Democrat Party presidential nominee in 2008. This part, Tom DeLay is, I believe, correct. Her vice presidential choice of a well-spoken though unproven senator, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (IL-D) would be a mega media event, but (here's where DeLay and I part), it won't be enough to get the presidency. Why not?
During the last 30 years, Democrats have needed a Southerner to win the presidency (Carter in '76, Clinton/Gore in '92 and '96). The Democrats will need another Southerner, at least as a vice presidential nominee, to win the 2008 election.
Clinton/Obama against the Republicans in '08 will be a tough race; quite possibly ensuring a win for the Dems calls for someone like U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (FL-D). Post-2000, Florida still remains a critical state for both parties.
Since HC is a NY/Northeast liberal, she does not need another liberal in Obama. Since Dems already get about 90% of the African-American vote, she won't benefit electorally if she chooses a black vice presidential nominee.
Conclusion: A calm and considered choice by HC would call for a substantive Southern male candidate that will balance the ticket and guarantee electoral votes.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)