Saturday, July 4, 2015

A little Americana

It's corny, sure, but hey, who doesn't love the Duke? (click on the link for the full effect):
Why I Love Her 
You ask me Why I Love Her? Well, give me time and I'll explain.
Have you see a Kansas sunset or an Arizona rain?
Have you drifted on a bayou down Louisiana way?
Have you watched a cold fog drifting over San Francisco Bay? 
Have you heard a bobwhite calling in the Carolina pines,
Or heard the bellow of a diesel at the Appalachia mines?
Does the call of Niagara thrill you when you hear her waters roar?
Do you look with awe and wonder at her Massachusetts shore,
Where men who braved a hard new world first stepped on Plymounth's rock?
And do you think of them when you stroll along a New York City dock? 
Have you seen a snowflake drifting in the Rockies, way up high?
Have you seen the sun come blazing down from a bright Nevada sky?
Do you hail to the Columbia as she rushes to the sea,
Or bow your head at Gettysburg at our struggle to be free? 
Have you seen the mighty Tetons? Have you watched an eagle soar?
Have you see the Mississippi roll along Missouri's shore?
Have you felt a chill at Michigan when on a winter's day
Her waters rage along the shore in thunderous display?
Does the word "Aloha" make you warm? Do you stare in disbelief
When you see the surf come roaring in at Waimea Reef? 
From Alaska's cold to the Everglades, from the Rio Grande to Maine,
My heart cries out, my pulse runs fast at the might of her domain.
You ask me Why I Love Her? I've a million reasons why:
My Beautiful America, beneath God's wide, wide sky.
Happy birthday, America. 

63 comments:

  1. That's great!

    Now if only I could get a job that pays me well enough to visit all of those nice places.

    Oh wait, I went to grad school, and got a natural science degree. Oops.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A lot of them are nicer in the abstract. Particularly the Louisiana bayou and the Everglades. Alaska's breathtaking but not all that pleasant to be in.

      Go to Gettysburg while you can, before the new historical whitewash hits it - the same one that's responsible for obliterating over a century of African-American culture and most of the historical figures involved.

      Delete
  2. The Star-Spangled Banner (sporting event version)

    http://i.imgur.com/kwWVkPe.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you liked this, you owe it to yourself to find out about Jimmy Driftwood, if you haven't already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. people should know about Jimmy Driftwood anyway...

      Delete
  4. A view from 1965
    http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/bob-dylans-115th-dream
    Listen here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSQUE8nw0Ao

    ReplyDelete
  5. not so corny for many of us in fly-over country.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Seems legit - love the country for the country, not the people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Disagree. The people (all of them) make the country. The landscape is magestic, but it is only the setting.

      Delete
    2. Agree. Without the people the landscape will stop mattering.

      Delete
    3. The landscape will always matter (when people think of home it is primarily what they think of), but our ability to enjoy it and preserve it might not exist without the people and their systems.

      The physical beauty of a country is easier to summarize in powerful shorthand and has a more visceral effect on readers and listeners. That we can write about it, see it, and enjoy it are (in part) consequences of the people and the systems they choose to preserve it, but they are generally harder to summarize poetically.

      Delete
    4. People are part of nature, too. We are born from, sustained by (in more ways than one), and disposed of by nature (or, Nature?). The physical places we see as beautiful would exist without us. Only we can call them beautiful.

      Delete
    5. SJ, that makes me think of this Cassini photo... http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/waveatsaturn/gallery/

      ... and part of the lovely Sagan quote that accompanies it: "There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world."

      Delete
  7. Rousing and panoramic perspective indeed! I think it's interesting though that Wayne delivered this piece before the 1964 Republican Convention nominating Barry Goldwater; this was basically the time when the extremists in the GOP started taking over and inching the moderates out (this is beautifully and rigorously documented in Geoffrey Kabaservice's book "Rule and Ruin").

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Though hardly accurate. It's a party hack piece written by a liberal, endeavoring to pin the blame on rising political acrimony squarely on "Republican extremists" and bemoaning a fictitious disappearance of liberal-leaning moderates within the party.

      Delete
    2. You mean the poem or Kabaservice's book? If the latter, I would be interested in knowing the parts you objected to. I think the Reagan years rather than the Goldwater years really coincided with the rise of the extremists (ironically, Goldwater himself thought that the GOP was swinging hard toward extremism during this time and said so explicitly). By the way, Rick Perlstein also documents the Goldwater period well in his book "Before the Storm". As for liberal moderates within the GOP, I don't think this group has had much say at all during the last twenty years (and the current leadership is definitely not what I would call moderate), although this might be fortuitously changing now with the realization even among some core Republicans that they might well not win another election for a hundred years if they don't put up a bigger and more inclusive tent. The winds may actually be blowing in the right direction.

      Delete
    3. The "hundred years" is a pretty bold statement. The "inclusive tent" part is pretty bold, too. I have seen them both published on and off for a long time and AFAIK the Republicans run a majority of elected bodies at state and federal levels.

      The discrepancy may come from trying to understand how actual voters make decisions to show up and who to vote for. These decisions are made at an emotional level and only justified by voter's logic. A successful politician manages the emotions of the voters while the campaign provides the justification.

      Republicans have been successful in appealing to the most primitive emotions in an environment that increasingly defies understanding.

      Logically, in a society facing increasingly complex world politicians would be a dying breed. Alas....

      Delete
    4. Ok, perhaps not for a hundred years, but certainly for the near future. There was after all a period of 20 years between 1933-1952 when the GOP consistently lost.

      Delete
    5. Well, GOP was often in the minority but they did make good gains from time to time:

      - 1932: USHR -101 seats, USSen -12 seats; FDR's landslide
      - 1934: USHR -14 seats, USSen -10 seats;
      - 1936: USHR -15 seats, USSen -6 seats; FDR's landslide
      - 1938: USHR +81 seats, USSen +7 seats;
      - 1940: USHR -7 seats, USSen +4 seats; FDR's big win
      - 1942: USHR +47 seats, USSen +9 seats;
      - 1944: USHR -18 seats, USSen +1 seat; FDR's big win
      - 1946: USHR +55 seats, USSen +12 seats;
      - 1948: USHR -75 seats, USSen -9 seats; Truman's win
      - 1950: USHR +28 seats, USSen +5 seats;
      - 1952: USHR +22 seats, USSen +2 seats; Eisenhower's landslide
      - 1954: USHR -18 seats, USSen -2 seats;
      - 1956: USHR -2 seats, USSen +-0 seats; Eisenhower's landslide

      The Democrats were less in control of the Congress than they want us to believe now.

      The Republicans paid big for the bungled response to Depression and it took 1+ generation to recover, but that doesn't mean they were marginalized and at times were in control of POTUS, HR, and Senate.

      US has a two party system. There may be not that much variation with change of control, but that change is needed. I am actually worried that the Republicans may indeed age out of existence and there is nothing viable on the horizon to replace them.

      Delete
    6. I take the greatest possible exception to "Republicans have been successful in appealing to the most primitive emotions in an environment that increasingly defies understanding."

      Delete
    7. No problem. I seem to have touched a raw nerve here. I am just guessing but was it my use of "most primitive" that you found objectionable? I will be happy to explain why I chose this or any other term in my post and why I meant it as a description of the success of the technique.

      Delete
    8. Yes. How this applies to Republicans (and not perhaps even more so to Democrats) is beyond me.

      Delete
    9. Sure. As I mentioned, success in politics is based on emotions of the voters. Visuals of a confident person, financial success, personal fidelity are all meant to evoke positive emotional associations with the politician.

      Evoking positive emotions helps to get extra votes. However voters seem to respond much more strongly to negative emotions about the political opponents. Labeling them as a disgusting of fearful group is as effective as finding marital infidelity (a negative for most people).

      Disgust and existential fear are some of the most ancient and primitive emotions of the human subconsciousness. Republicans were successful using disgust and fear of people different than "us" (people of color, LGBT, immigrants, agnostics) to keep core voters motivated and willing to cast votes.

      The existential fears of terrorist attacks or war or gang violence (remember "tough on crime"?) were also successfully used by Republicans and now the Democrats are often afraid to look weak in the eyes of the voters.

      I used the word "primitive" to describe how basic these emotions are to us. What I wrote was actually a praise of the efficiency of Republicans in this area. There was nothing meant as demeaning in what I wrote.

      Delete
    10. "Disgust and existential fear are some of the most ancient and primitive emotions of the human subconsciousness. Republicans were successful using disgust and fear of people different than "us" (people of color, LGBT, immigrants, agnostics) to keep core voters motivated and willing to cast votes." The second sentence is not only inaccurate, but a replicated Democrat propaganda meme used to demean Republicans. It is tantamount to arguing that those who vote Republican are racists. This is a slur on half the US population, a number that includes people of all races, origins, and orientations.

      Working with your thesis - effective use of "disgust and existential fear" - one outstanding example of this was the ad run against Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential campaign:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k

      Was it accurate? Well, it sure beat the hell out of actually making a rational argument.

      A barrage of memes have been leveled at the general public, both in the US and abroad, defaming and mischaracterizing Republicans. Some recent examples include "war on science," and "war on women," (notice the prevalence of the "war" theme) - neither of which is appropriate. Did you support a group that opposed oppressive taxation? Then you were a "teabagger." The hostility and utter lack of civility present in terms like these, *which I see and hear on a daily basis in the US media* and frequently *in public* is appalling - and all of them are designed at some level to evoke "disgust (or) existential fear" in the people for whom these do not provoke outright (and entirely justified) anger.

      Delete
    11. I didn't say that any statement or association made by any politician, Republican or Democratic, is accurate - whatever that may mean. I just said that these statements are effective because they attract votes and diminish the opposition.

      I am not really interested in what politicians or parties say. I am interested how people around me react to it. I am also interested how I can get a hold of my emotions when I vote because the politician who runs the most prolific campaign is not always the best for me. Which party - I don't care a bit.

      Delete
    12. Your response indicates that this is not the case.

      Delete
  8. "As for liberal moderates within the GOP, I don't think this group has had much say at all during the last twenty years (and the current leadership is definitely not what I would call moderate)..."
    Are you kidding? The liberal moderates run the show in the GOP. McCain, Snowe, Christie, and Boehner are prominent examples.

    The 'bigger and more inclusive tent' meme has been pretty much discredited (as a strategy, it failed miserably in the 2008 elections). It is predicated on a 'racist Republican' fiction that is dear to the left, and which admittedly they have done a superb job of purveying (of course, it helps to control vast swaths of the media), neatly covering up Democrat involvement in such organizations as the KKK:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics

    and clumsy little faux pas like that famously uttered by LBJ:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-relentless-conservative/the-democratic-partys-two_b_933995.html

    An interesting piece by Michael Barone discusses some of these issues:

    http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/is-this-the-political-map-of-the-future-or-does-it-significantly-overstate-republican-strength

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought we are talking about 2015: cherry picking select Democrat KKK members and a few racist quotes from the 30s and 40s seems like a giant red herring to me. Also, I don't see how the bigger tent 'meme' (funny that you would call a fact a meme) has been 'discredited' if it's true: simple Google searches reveal that women, young people and minorities now mainly vote Democrat. For crying out loud, even hard core Republicans like Chris Christie and Bobby Jindal admitted after the 2012 defeat that the GOP needs to erect a bigger tent if it wants to win elections. Feel free to disagree with these "liberals" if you want.

      http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/05/as-gop-celebrates-win-no-sign-of-narrowing-gender-age-gaps/

      http://blackdemographics.com/culture/black-politics/

      http://www.politicaldog101.com/2013/11/19/chris-christie-blasts-his-party-for-not-creating-big-tent-campaigns/

      Delete
    2. I would love to know what you are smoking. You lost me when you called a RINO like Christie a "hard core republican" and put him in same sentence as bobby jindal who arguably is more on the right to the mainstream republican party.

      Delete
    3. I think you made my point better than I ever could. The "RINO" is the one asking for a bigger tent, which perfectly illustrates the problems with his party.

      Delete
    4. It's so nice of this guy to come here, read a book and explain our politics to us.

      Delete
    5. "A few racist quotes from the 30s and 40s?" LBJ was quoted in the 1960s. At least one former KKK member (and organizer) Democrat was in office as late as 2009 (Robert Byrd).

      Christie is not a 'hard-core Republican.' He is widely viewed as a RINO. His record is mixed - he held the line on the minimum wage, and has been getting greater contributions from public-sector employees to their own pension schemes and health care. Conversely, his record on illegal immigration is sketchy and he has said he favors a 'path to ctizienship' for illegal immigrants; his views on 'climate change' are worrisome; and his statements on gun control have caused some concern for staunch 2nd Amendment supporters. I take the view that at least some of his positions are militated by the politics of his traditionally Democrat constituency.

      One inconvenient truth about the 'bigger tent' is that the Republican Party is inarguably more representative and geographically diverse than the Democrat Party is (see the Barone map again). A second inconvenient fact about 'the bigger tent' is that as an electoral strategy it failed miserably in appealing to moderate voters. The third inconvenient fact is that at least two ethnic groups are in the process of discovering they have more in common philosophically and politically with the Republican Party than with the Democrats (again, see the end of the Barone article). Finally, both the 'youth' and African-American demographics have been deeply harmed by the policies of the current administration (unemployment has increased for both groups, tuition costs have skyrocketed, housing is more problematic, rents are up, health insurance has gone up and banking and financial costs have increased) - which tends to make for less-than-enthusiastic voters.

      Pew Research is generally well-regarded, and in fact the article you cite bears me out on the "youth vote."

      The "blackdemographics.com" link had no surprises. It is unfortunate that African-Americans continue to support the party that has used them cynically and oppresses them in order to retain power. LBJ's quote is objectionable, but so far he hasn't been wrong. Plus ça change.

      Delete
    6. Anon 4:35, that sounds objectionable and out-of-place.

      Delete
  9. Anon 4:35. it's so nice of you to hide behind an anonymous facade, read no books and not even attempt to say anything meaningful about our politics unlike the rest of us.

    Anon 5:25: You are again illustrating why Christie would be one of the better choices for the Republican nominee, precisely because he can get a more diverse body of voters on board compared to his fellow nominees. Also, you say that young people and African-Americans have been harmed by the policies of the current administration. That seems like a GOP talking point to me. The last time I checked Obama was doing OK and unemployment was at a 7-year low (although wages might be flat). More importantly though, what exactly does the other side have to offer that would be a refreshing alternative? One of the reasons why people voted for Obama in 2012 in spite of their dissatisfaction with the economy was because apart from Obama bashing, they did not see the other side offer a better alternative. People do tend to vote for the lesser of two evils. Also, I don't know what demographic you are referring to in the Barone article since Hispanics have voted for Democrats for a long time. And Asians' record is mixed.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2958571/posts

    ReplyDelete
  10. I wonder what other piece of Duke's verse can generate 35 (now 36) comments from chemists. Good choice CJ!

    ReplyDelete
  11. "You are again illustrating why Christie would be one of the better choices for the Republican nominee, precisely because he can get a more diverse body of voters on board compared to his fellow nominees." Can he really? The "bigger tent" strategy has failed every time it's been tried. Also, if Christie loses core support of his own political party in the process, then it's a moot point.

    " The last time I checked Obama was doing OK and unemployment was at a 7-year low (although wages might be flat)" Doubtful. The unemployment figure is no doubt referencing U2 as opposed to a broader measure of unemployment - which might be more appropriate when the workforce is contracting. Much of the "youth vote" that is unemployed isn't even counted in the unemployment figures. As for African-American unemployment, it has increased:

    http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/07/21/329864863/the-youth-unemployment-crisis-hits-african-americans-hardest

    http://www.ibtimes.com/black-unemployment-rate-2015-better-economy-african-americans-see-minimal-gains-1837870

    What did the other side offer that would have been a "refreshing alternative?" Candidates aren't beverages. In 2008 and again in 2012 Republicans offered alternatives that were far more sane than what the Obama administration gave us (and continues to devise) - some of which is just beginning to hit home (like the increased costs of health-care and the absolute contempt of its chief architect for those made responsible for its implementation). It didn't help that the IRS influenced the election outcome in flagrant violation of the law. It didn't help that the media, the unionized education lobby, and the unionized government lobby were all in the tank for Obama (all of which spells real trouble for the continued existence of our democratic republic as such). And it sure didn't help that twice in a row the GOP opted for "cross-over" candidates.

    The Barone article discusses the mixed Asian voting record but notes that collectively these groups broke 49% for Republicans in 2014. Re: the Hispanic vote, Barone observed that geographical differences play more of a role than ethnicity in reflecting party preference, and that Hispanics are more socially conservative than the Democrat platform allows. On illegal immigration they're more divided than the Democrats would like to think.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Saying that Obama won the election because the media, the IRS, the education lobby and everyone conspired to hand him his victory sounds like a typical reason people give when their side loses an election (and yes, I heard it from Democrats in '04 too). Even Republicans acknowledged in '04 that they lost because the people didn't think they had anything better to offer them. I think it's much better when we listen to the people's voice, acknowledge and learn from our mistakes instead of only blaming others and try to do better next time. In any case, I think we have meandered far enough from the original topic. Thanks for the debate!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. re: the IRS, there was substantial proof of abuse of authority between 2010-2012 to target organizations applying for tax-exempt status on the basis of political affiliation. That's called interfering with elections. Also, as it involved multiple IRS employees, it does happen to fall under the definition of 'conspiracy.'

      The general political affiliation of the American mainstream media (recently having undergone a series of scandals involving reporters' failures to divulge campaign donations), public educators and the professoriate, and government employees is a matter of public record and hardly secret.

      http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=d000000064&cycle=2014

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/155138/majority-union-members-favor-obama-third-back-romney.aspx

      ...and as far as self-searching goes, I did say "It didn't help that... the GOP opted for cross-over candidates." But perhaps you didn't think you had to read that far.

      Delete
  13. If you think that the GOP's only mistake was opting for cross-over candidates then clearly we have different views. As I said, happy to agree to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually the GOP's principal mistake is in not recognizing that the Democrats intend to fully subvert the nation in the pursuit and maintenance of their power, and that the Democrats have been on that course of action for some time.

      Delete
    2. Couldn't agree more. The only thing I would add to that statement would be some kind of historical analogy from 1930s Europe. Blanking out on exactly what that analogy would be right now.

      Delete
    3. You surprise me with all three sentences.

      Delete
  14. If you're concerned with something (principles, the well-being of a people, the future of a nation), the first rule is to be honest to yourself and to others. If one can't be honest, then the presumption that one is acting for the stated reasons is likely wrong, and the reasons for your behavior are likely less well-served by being honest (and thus probably not in the best interests of the listeners). Who do you think has been more honest with either themselves or the rest of the country?

    ReplyDelete
  15. anon 3:18, july 6 here. I dont want to start a flame war but the current problem with the republican party is that part of the "mainstream" tries too hard to be like democrats and that's being justified as "making a wider tent". If someone wants a party close to democrats they can just vote of for democrats instead of restricting the legitimate options to those folks who dont like democrat policies.

    As a small govt conservative I feel like both, current crop of republicans and democrats represent almost the same options, and I would much rather have a "real" conservative run than all the RINOs walking around. And BTW, Christie would be considered a RINO everywhere in the country except maybe the north east.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charles Krauthammer mentioned (in a short opinion on Trump) that this year has given us the best selection of candidates we've seen in some time. Are there any that you favor?

      Re: Christie, I wrote above that maybe his constituency affects his stated positions on at least a few issues - I wonder if some of these positions might not change.

      Delete
    2. I like Scott walker for what he has accomplished in Wisconsin; Rand Paul is good (but unelectable for obvious reasons), and Ben Carson for his credentials (although his church will pose problems for the evangelicals). So while I agree with krauthammer that we do have a large candidate pool, I have a feeling that we might be "persuaded" again by the media to nominate someone like Jeb bush in the long tradition of nominating "moderates" like Mccain and Romney.

      Delete
    3. It took real guts for Scott Walker to stand up to the union establishment and all the intimidation tactics they used in Wisconsin. I also like Ben Carson for the nomination though I did hear that he invoked the phrase 'pathway to citizenship' on the illegal immigrant issue - I am waiting to see how his views on this acquire greater definition - but I can't imagine a better-qualified candidate to reform the health-care reform.

      Conversely I am none too happy with the prospect of Carly Fiorina or any of the moderate candidates.

      Delete
    4. Ted Cruz just lost me on H-1B.

      Delete
    5. I think anon 11:41 hit the nail on the head. I always find these debates amusing because there is actually very little difference between Democrats and Republicans. If you take a closer look, you will see that every party has engaged in exactly the same sins they accuse their opponents of (For instance Republican presidents have spent massively on welfare and Democratic presidents have spent massively on defense. Republicans have often been doves on foreign policy while Democrats have been hawks etc.). I find it remarkable that both parties can play us for fools and have us engage in these endless shouting matches about whose party is "better" when they are both the same. That being said though, I also agree with Hap that whatever else you may think of Democrats they seem more honest about taxing and spending than Republicans who often pay only lip service to cutting welfare and taxes.

      Also agree with Anon 3:41 that the Republicans are in a real bind because they either have to go with a Democrat-like candidate (in which case as anon indicated they won't be distinguishable and won't win) or with a radical right-winger (in which case they will lose because they won't be able to get the big tent crowd on board). In fact, contrary to what one commenter above is saying, I would argue that the problem is not that the GOP has swung sharply to the right (although it probably has); it's that the Democrats have swung to right of center which has made it much harder for the GOP to paint them as opponents.

      Delete
    6. You are exactly right, and GOP wont win presidency until they resolve this dilemma. The silver lining would be that GOP should continue to do well in house and senate elections since the core GOP support base has never felt more alienated than now due to everyone jumping on them for their "extremism" and voter turnout for GOP supporters should stay reasonably high in midterm elections.

      Delete
    7. It wasn't that long ago that we had two terms of W. I'm not sure that there's any systemic reason the Republicans can't win the Presidency. Having Congress is a pretty good booby prize.

      Delete
    8. Yes, I realize W.'s time wasnt that long ago; I think the systemic issue facing the party is more of a crisis of identity and the internal struggle of defining what we are looking for as a presidential candidate. Do we want a me too candidate who appears like a democrat? do we want a social conservative? are we still the party representing small govt, less regulations etc or is it just the election time talk.

      If we put aside the rhetoric, than Bush was actually pretty close to the center with his big govt programs like no child left behind or prescription drug benefits etc. He was also for gun control and wanted to renew the "assault rifle ban", he just couldn't push it through.

      I think this internal turmoil in the party is being manifested in a tubload of candidates, none of which seem to have the strength to win the general election. I am not being pessimistic, but I think we are definitely the underdogs in winning back the white house in 2016.

      Delete
    9. I think the problem is what people want - at most levels, Republican candidates are elected, so at some level people agree with their ideas and the ways they have of doing them. Things like the government shutdown hurt them, though, which makes me wonder if either people don't want the consequences of the policies they voted for (in which case I don't know what you can do) or people are too susceptible to criticism for doing what they said they would do and caved, in which case it's not a fundamental flaw in the position but one in which you have not taken control of the message.

      People may also be uncomfortable with one-party rule, either because they don't want the policies they voted for tested or because they are uncomfortable putting that much power in any group's hands. That doesn't help you.

      Delete
    10. Largely led by Boehner and McConnell, Republicans have gained a reputation as being uncompromising and unwilling to give ground over the last eight years. Now you can actually succeed with that image if being uncompromising achieves something positive. But as Hap mentioned, things like shutting down the government achieved nothing and did them no favors. I don't see how the GOP can get rid of that image so soon. The Democrats appear soft, but whatever their actual policies they also appear more willing to work together which gets them brownie points in the minds of many. As always, image matters.

      Delete
    11. Among whom? Only Democrats have this meme of Republicans being "the party of 'no,' " so even moderates like Boehner and McConnell get tarred with this brush.

      Yes, the Republicans are fielding a large number of candidates, and this reveals divisions within the party. The Democrats thus far have fielded Hillary and Sanders.

      Hillary's campaign is so troubled that neither she nor her campaign strategists can name any of her accomplishments as Secy. of State except extension of benefits for same-sex couples in the Dept. of State. She has been holed below the waterline by "Clinton Cash" and her own ongoing stonewalling on her tenure as Secy. of State. There is no earthly reason why the American public should repose trust in her and she knows this.

      Delete
    12. McConnell wanted the Patriot Act to be permanent even when prominent Republicans opposed it, so I would think it makes him more extremist than them. And Boehner and McConnell both basically said that their job was to oppose Obama no matter what he proposed. Both of them preferred a government shutdown to a compromise. That sounds pretty unyielding and extremist to me.

      I don't think it's going to be easy for Hilary but I think it would still be easier for her to get women, young people and minorities on board than the Republicans. That's a huge voting bloc. At the very least they may pick her as the least of all evils. I also think Sanders is the real wild card here though, with support for him increasing in all quarters. In any case, the night is still very young so who knows how the tables turn.

      Delete
    13. I am no fan of Boehner, but I just feel that he was reluctantly dragged into the govt shutdown by the freshman "tea party" backbenchers who werent around to see the tide of negativity with the 1990s govt shutdown. ofcourse it reflects badly on him as a speaker not to be able to control the right flank of his party, but by the same token, his opinion among republicans is decimated because he capitulated to end the shutdown without anything tangible in return.

      Delete
    14. "At the very least they may pick her as the least of all evils." There is no way that anyone is going to choose Hillary as the least of all evils.

      Besides, we're talking about the person whose principal public accomplishments since starting her campaign have been flunking a friendly, softball interview and eating a burrito.

      Delete
  16. But I havnt picked a favorite candidate yet since its still early days.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'd like to see a small-corporation conservative or one who asks why we've exported many US jobs to a Communist country with a population of 1.35 billion. Either would earn him/her the seat of honor in a Dallas motorcade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lol qvxb you might have to wait a long time for that. Somehow saying anything to this effect means you want trade restrictions, and we don't want any of that in this capitalist country. By that twisted logic, we should've been been free trade proponents with soviet union.

      Delete
    2. @ qvxb - You really have a black sense of humor, don't you?

      Delete