Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Survivor Series 2012
It seems like not a week goes by without the media pronouncing the political death of another Republican contender for the presidency in 2012. All of this amounts to a portrait of a leaderless party going to shambles. Indeed, it may take a while for the Republican party to regain its footing and find its relevance in the era of "Obamunism." With that being said, the race for 2012 is already starting to shake out.
For starters, scratch South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. His sleazy philandering will not endear him with "family values" conservatives, let alone the always-crucial undecided voters. You can also draw a line through the name of Sarah Palin. Her irrational resignation last week should give everybody pause about taking her seriously.
The media has already buried Bobby Jindal's political future. But what's their basis? Because he fumbled the delivery of his rebuttal speech after a major Obama address? I admit that I am biased here, because I read (and largely agreed with) the text of the speech and never bothered watching his delivery. But we are living in the age of a teleprompter presidency, and too many Americans think that smooth talk is an acceptable substitute for coherent policy. Can Bobby Jindal recover? I think he can, and after all, the Bush presidency certainly lowered the bar for our expectations of a president's speech-delivery capabilities.
The rising star among Republicans is Virginia representative Eric Cantor. During the fight over the first stimulus bill, Cantor led the critics of "porkulus" with intelligent and well-delivered criticism. He may not be ready to run in 2012, but he will likely be a presidential contender in the years to come.
With all that being said, I think that Mitt Romney has the upper hand in the race for the Republican nomination in 2012. Back during the 2008 primaries, I was critical of Romney for his opportunistic flip-flops on social issues, but I recognized his strengths on fiscal matters. I thought he'd be a good choice for John McCain's running mate, rather than the ego-maniac from Alaska. The 2012 election will largely be a referendum on the inevitable failure of Obamunist Obamanomics. The American people are starting to see through the veneer of public healthcare plans, government ownership of banks and auto manufacturers, pork-barrel politics that poses as "stimulus," and back-door taxes that pose as environmental measures.
President Obama may have passed his constitutional law classes, but he deserved to fail whatever math courses he was forced to take at Occidental and Columbia. America's debts are manifesting themselves as inflation, and taxes are strangling economic growth. The Obama strategy of more taxes and exponential spending only compunds our problems; Mitt Romney would stand the best chance of capitalizing on this in 2012. Not to mention the fact that he doesn't have the baggage of so many other Republican contenders.
As fun as this speculation from three years out has been, I have a confession to make: I plan on "throwing my vote away" and voting for Ron Paul in 2012.
For starters, scratch South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. His sleazy philandering will not endear him with "family values" conservatives, let alone the always-crucial undecided voters. You can also draw a line through the name of Sarah Palin. Her irrational resignation last week should give everybody pause about taking her seriously.
The media has already buried Bobby Jindal's political future. But what's their basis? Because he fumbled the delivery of his rebuttal speech after a major Obama address? I admit that I am biased here, because I read (and largely agreed with) the text of the speech and never bothered watching his delivery. But we are living in the age of a teleprompter presidency, and too many Americans think that smooth talk is an acceptable substitute for coherent policy. Can Bobby Jindal recover? I think he can, and after all, the Bush presidency certainly lowered the bar for our expectations of a president's speech-delivery capabilities.
The rising star among Republicans is Virginia representative Eric Cantor. During the fight over the first stimulus bill, Cantor led the critics of "porkulus" with intelligent and well-delivered criticism. He may not be ready to run in 2012, but he will likely be a presidential contender in the years to come.
With all that being said, I think that Mitt Romney has the upper hand in the race for the Republican nomination in 2012. Back during the 2008 primaries, I was critical of Romney for his opportunistic flip-flops on social issues, but I recognized his strengths on fiscal matters. I thought he'd be a good choice for John McCain's running mate, rather than the ego-maniac from Alaska. The 2012 election will largely be a referendum on the inevitable failure of Obamunist Obamanomics. The American people are starting to see through the veneer of public healthcare plans, government ownership of banks and auto manufacturers, pork-barrel politics that poses as "stimulus," and back-door taxes that pose as environmental measures.
President Obama may have passed his constitutional law classes, but he deserved to fail whatever math courses he was forced to take at Occidental and Columbia. America's debts are manifesting themselves as inflation, and taxes are strangling economic growth. The Obama strategy of more taxes and exponential spending only compunds our problems; Mitt Romney would stand the best chance of capitalizing on this in 2012. Not to mention the fact that he doesn't have the baggage of so many other Republican contenders.
As fun as this speculation from three years out has been, I have a confession to make: I plan on "throwing my vote away" and voting for Ron Paul in 2012.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
A Media Without Shame
During her resignation speech, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin cited her need to be with her family as part of the reason behind her resignation. Usually when a politician cites "a need to spend time with my family," it's a convenient way of backing out when other factors (imminent scandals, infighting within the party, etc.) would have forced a resignation under less desirable circumstances. In short, it's a way of saving face.
But in the case of Sarah Palin, there's some validity behind her claim. Within a week of her selection as John McCain's running mate, it was clear that the media had declared "open season" on Sarah Palin's family. Most prominent were the unsubstantiated & spiteful rumors and constant scrutiny which followed teenage daughter Bristol Palin and her pregnancy.
In covering the Palin family, the media violated its cardinal rule regarding the families of public figures: unless the family members have done something notable to become public figures in their own right, they should be off-limits. Now, we've all heard of the veritable rogues' gallery of embarassing presidential family members, including Billy Carter, Hugh Rodham, Roger Clinton, the Bush Twins, and even George Obama. Maybe the media paid too much attention to their foibles. The media at least ignored some of the more salacious rumors I've heard about Chelsea Clinton, and justifiably so. But the full assault and scathing near-condemnation that has faced Bristol Palin is utterly unjustified.
Politicians have thick skins when it comes to public criticism. It's a prerequisite for the job. But when defenseless family members become fair game, what's a politician to do? Do you step back from the spotlight to protect the people you care about? Or do you stick with it to show the critics that their sniping will never succeed? My hope tonight is that the Palin family will finally be able to savor the privacy they have always deserved.
But in the case of Sarah Palin, there's some validity behind her claim. Within a week of her selection as John McCain's running mate, it was clear that the media had declared "open season" on Sarah Palin's family. Most prominent were the unsubstantiated & spiteful rumors and constant scrutiny which followed teenage daughter Bristol Palin and her pregnancy.
In covering the Palin family, the media violated its cardinal rule regarding the families of public figures: unless the family members have done something notable to become public figures in their own right, they should be off-limits. Now, we've all heard of the veritable rogues' gallery of embarassing presidential family members, including Billy Carter, Hugh Rodham, Roger Clinton, the Bush Twins, and even George Obama. Maybe the media paid too much attention to their foibles. The media at least ignored some of the more salacious rumors I've heard about Chelsea Clinton, and justifiably so. But the full assault and scathing near-condemnation that has faced Bristol Palin is utterly unjustified.
Politicians have thick skins when it comes to public criticism. It's a prerequisite for the job. But when defenseless family members become fair game, what's a politician to do? Do you step back from the spotlight to protect the people you care about? Or do you stick with it to show the critics that their sniping will never succeed? My hope tonight is that the Palin family will finally be able to savor the privacy they have always deserved.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Sarah Palin and the Celebrity Presidency
Sarah Palin was a relative unknown in American politics until last August, when she was thrust into the spotlight as John McCain's running mate. Up to that point, she was the obscure governor of Alaska with less than two years of job experience and a short record that at least offered glimmers of hope for small-government reformers. But her career as Alaska governor came to an abrupt end with her unexpected and unexplained resignation today.
The conventional wisdom behind the Palin resignation is that she's preparing for a presidential run in 2012. Yet there are a lot of problems with that scenario. Governors don't resign their posts when they're three years away from the election. It only heightens a weakness of a Palin presidential candidacy: her lack of political and executive experience. If anything, she should be using her time as Alaska governor to shore up her reformist, small-government credentials.
But there are plenty of times in our modern political climate when the conventional wisdom should be thrown out the window, and Sarah Palin's case should be one of them. We're living in an era of ego-driven politics, where personality and charisma are far more important than professional accomplishments or positions on the issues. Of course there's a double-standard at play, when Barack Obama's lack of experience is seen as an asset while Sarah Palin's inexperience is a liability. But the media and a majority of the American populace will reliably turn into sycophantic lapdogs at the sight of a tall and smiling president who fills their ears with glowing rhetoric while the job losses pile up, the national debt sinks into an inescapable abyss, and a disturbingly-growing slice of the American economy comes under federal ownership.
In the months since the election, Sarah Palin hasn't left the national scene. She's been traveling the country giving speeches, rallying the conservative faithful, and feuding with David Letterman. It's clear that her heart is already in the 2012 primaries rather than the Alaska governor's mansion.
Sarah Palin and Barack Obama have little in common politically, but their personalities are far more alike. Both possess an inflated sense of self-worth and egomania. Neither possessed the professional accomplishments that American voters should look for in choosing a president, yet both took the fast-track towards the highest office in the land instead of seeking to pay their dues first.
The conventional wisdom behind the Palin resignation is that she's preparing for a presidential run in 2012. Yet there are a lot of problems with that scenario. Governors don't resign their posts when they're three years away from the election. It only heightens a weakness of a Palin presidential candidacy: her lack of political and executive experience. If anything, she should be using her time as Alaska governor to shore up her reformist, small-government credentials.
But there are plenty of times in our modern political climate when the conventional wisdom should be thrown out the window, and Sarah Palin's case should be one of them. We're living in an era of ego-driven politics, where personality and charisma are far more important than professional accomplishments or positions on the issues. Of course there's a double-standard at play, when Barack Obama's lack of experience is seen as an asset while Sarah Palin's inexperience is a liability. But the media and a majority of the American populace will reliably turn into sycophantic lapdogs at the sight of a tall and smiling president who fills their ears with glowing rhetoric while the job losses pile up, the national debt sinks into an inescapable abyss, and a disturbingly-growing slice of the American economy comes under federal ownership.
In the months since the election, Sarah Palin hasn't left the national scene. She's been traveling the country giving speeches, rallying the conservative faithful, and feuding with David Letterman. It's clear that her heart is already in the 2012 primaries rather than the Alaska governor's mansion.
Sarah Palin and Barack Obama have little in common politically, but their personalities are far more alike. Both possess an inflated sense of self-worth and egomania. Neither possessed the professional accomplishments that American voters should look for in choosing a president, yet both took the fast-track towards the highest office in the land instead of seeking to pay their dues first.
