Overrated?
Two presidential hopefuls on opposite sides of the aisle still have their work cut out for them:
A lot has changed for Mark R. Warner since he left behind the Virginia governorship and his 80 percent approval ratings to begin mulling a presidential campaign.
But perhaps nothing more than this: At just 3 percent in a recent poll asking Democrats nationwide to rate their presidential preference, Warner has become an unknown overnight.
A lot of people, myself included, have touted Warner as the best possible anti-Hillary…but that result shows how much work he has ahead.
On the Republican side, John McCain continues his attempts to woo skeptical conservatives:
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a man in perpetual motion, flew to South Carolina on Jan. 16. His stops included a tribute to Martin Luther King Jr. and speeches to local Republican groups. But one of his most important events was not on the public schedule — a 5 p.m. meeting at a Spartanburg hotel with loyalists to President Bush.
A dozen or so people were in attendance. At least two were among Bush’s major national fundraisers. Virtually all had been on Bush’s side in the bitter 2000 South Carolina primary that badly damaged McCain’s chances of winning the presidential nomination and scarred the relationship between the two men and their rival political camps. McCain was there to woo them.
McCain continues to impress with his early legwork, and he’s obviously working at discouraging potential rivals by building up a sense of inevitability to his candidacy. I’ve praised Rudy G. for staying above the fray, but at some point, sooner rather than later, he’ll have to make a move to stay viable…
Comrades,
I would have a hard time voting for McCain. I admire his service, as both a Navy pilot (I’m a former brown shoe myself) and a POW, and he’s always a gentleman, or at least tries to rise above the fray. But I cannot accept his positions on campaign finance, and gun control. I’ll also be blunt. Anyone who pays more than lip service to bipartisanship will never get my vote.
I will vote for a candidate that will help gain full control of both houses and the White House. This nation needs a strong conservative government that will undo all the damage from FDR through Clinton, one that will clear the law-creating judges from the Federal benches, and eliminate the Department of Education, reduce the size of government, and return the majority of power to the states, where it belongs. It’s time we remembered that the phrase is “These United States”, not “The United States”.
I appreciate civility of discourse, and pray that campaigns will be run on issues, but I don’t see that happening with the current crop of folks running the DNC and most of the Anciene Regime Media. So, it’s time to storm the Batille and politically lop off a few heads in order to save the Republic.
Republic, ahh.. there’s a word that the Dhimmicrats seem to have forgotten about. It’s the type of government we have. But I digress, that’s for another posting…
But it IS time for a true Republican Revolution, and John McCain is simply NOT the man to lead the nation in the work that needs to be done.
Respects,
Gwedd
Hard to overestimate the benefit of a previous Presidential campaign. He’s got a much better idea how to lay the long-term groundwork this time around.
Comrades,
As I inferred above, McCain is certainly a genuinly decent man. My differences with him are only on the issues. If he becomes the Republican candidate, then I will have a very hard choice to make. Whether to with-hold my vote or to vote for him in order to keep the “other” candidate out of office. The lesser of two evils, as it were.
respects,
Gwedd
Like him or not, I think Kerry is the best anti-Hillary candidate.
Hillary has no finesse. Kerry has all that “nuance” crap, meaning he’s been a senator so long that he can say nine different things and land on all sides of an issue with just one sentence.
The dems will need someone like that who can unite the psychotic wings.
Did the right wing of the GOP miss the memo about eliminating the Dept. of Education? You know, the one that says wake up and pretend you’re a part of reality for five seconds? It’s the same one that said the Tennessee Valley Authority isn’t exactly going away.
Comrade Bonneville,
I think that both parties missed the memo about what the federal government is responsible for, and what the states are responsible for.
The federal government exists solely to provide for and do those things which the states individually cannot do for themselves. Things such as national defense, regulating interstate commerce, determining and facilitating foreign policy, etc.
Education has always been the pervue of the state and local governments. The federal government usurped, nay stole, that power illegally and it’s time to rein it back in. The Department of Education can and must be dismantled and the role of public education, including course selection, textual materials, and teacher qualifications returned to their rightful owners, the various state and local governments and school boards. School boards who are elected by and accountable to those they serve, not appointed civil servants slurping at the public trough and bleating for more funding to stuff their bloated and decaying budgets with.
The Department of Education is a failed federal experiment and a sink hole of tax money. It must be eliminated.
Respects,
Gwedd
…”he’s been a senator so long that he can say nine different things and land on all sides of an issue with just one sentence.”
That’s true, but it’s also the same thing that got him killed during the last stages of his campaign. His infamous statement of “I voted for the war before I voted against it,” came back to haunt him in the closing days. All the GOP had to do was run those comments, over and over, to convince the undecideds that here was a candidate who was not to be trusted with our national security.
Kerry will have to confront these same demons (as well as explaining why he still hasn’t released all of his military records, as he promised to do over 8 months ago), which paints him as another political loser before the campaign even gets officially underway. The Dems need new blood here, and this guy just stands as another retread.
Oh fine, I’ll bite.
The federal government exists solely to provide for and do those things which the states individually cannot do for themselves. Things such as national defense, regulating interstate commerce, determining and facilitating foreign policy, etc.
We agree, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say there are lots of things states can’t do for themselves that you don’t want the federal government doing, like providing health insurance or, um, setting educational standards that allow our graduates to compete with each other and internationally. Unless you think the great (and, last time I checked, not exactly wealthy) state of Mississippi can turn out high school students as well-educated as, say, California.
Education has always been the pervue of the state and local governments.
If by always you mean until 1980, then we agree. That said, 26 years of doing things the other way means they aren’t going to change and you’re just howling at the moon.
The federal government usurped, nay stole, that power illegally and it’s time to rein it back in.
Oh please. The Dept. of Ed. is not “illegal” or “unconstitutional” or any of that. Congress is allowed to attach whatever strings it wants to its funds. Check Article I.
The Department of Education can and must be dismantled and the role of public education, including course selection, textual materials, and teacher qualifications returned to their rightful owners, the various state and local governments and school boards.
I would almost be amenable to your suggestion if Kansas weren’t teaching high school students blatant falsehoods. When “states’ rights” means either slavery or lying to children, you’re on your own.
Kerry has very little chance…a lot of Democratic insiders were furious that he blew what should have been a fairly easy victory (in their view), and while it’s true that they don’t decide the primaries, they do decide a big chunk of money that will go to someone other than Kerry (though I’ll admit he’s doing better than I would have thought with his fundraising).
“Warner has become an unknown overnight.”
Over at Decision ’08, Mark is questioning whether Mark Warner is overrated. Look at this, from a WaPo article Mark linked:
A lot has changed for Mark R. Warner since he left behind the Virginia governorship and his 80 percent approval ratings …
Comrade Bonneville,
Well, you fall into the same mindset that created the Department of Education, namely, that the several states and the citizenry cannot be trusted to educate their own children.
You claim that “Congress is allowed to attach whatever strings it wants to its funds. Check Article I.” But that money is NOT Congresses, but OURS.
You state that states aren’t “setting educational standards that allow our graduates to compete with each other and internationally. Unless you think the great (and, last time I checked, not exactly wealthy) state of Mississippi can turn out high school students as well-educated as, say, California.” That, however, is of no concern of Congress. It is of concern only to the citizens of that sate, and that includes the students. If the state cannot educate it’s own citizenry, then I suspect that the citizenry will either vote out those responsible for the poor showing, or leave. If the citizens don’t really care, then the loss belongs to them, NOT the rest of the nation.
Finally, you say “I would almost be amenable to your suggestion if Kansas weren’t teaching high school students blatant falsehoods. When “states’ rights” means either slavery or lying to children, you’re on your own.”
Well, there you have it: The leftist attitude that “I and MY KIND know better than you what you need to learn. WE know what is best for you!” What blatant falsehoods? Intelligent Design? What lying to children? Santa is real? The courses taught there should be of no concern to you unless you are a taxpayer and citizen of that state.
Your problem, comrade, is that you don’t want folks to have choices. It is precisely because of the unwieldy and un-needed Department of Education, with it’s “one-size-fits-all” ideas that school vouchers, home schooling, and magnet/charter schools are gaining ground so quickly. It’s interesting how leftists always screm “Pro-Choice”, except when they don’t like that option, which is on most every other case.
No, leftists never want folks to have a choice, because they fear that folks might actualtl turn away from them and lead their own lives. Folks have to be given the right to choose, especially in the education of their children. Having a Federal Government Agency make those choices for them hasn’t worked, cannot work, and opens the door to severe abuse of authority and propoganda. For an example of the latter, just attend any Teacher’s Union meeting. You’ll see the Soviet Model on full display.
Respects,
Gwedd
Oh good lord…
Well, you fall into the same mindset that created the Department of Education, namely, that the several states and the citizenry cannot be trusted to educate their own children.
This has nothing to do with trust. The several states all have completely different economic realities and there is, quite simply, no way that poor states can even hope to compete with rich ones in quality of education without some federal reorganizing. How many high schools in Mississippi can afford to provide state-of-the-art lab equipment for their students? And how about in California?
I know the right-wingers of the USA wouldn’t know biology if it punched them in their faces, but it’s important for high schoolers to know it. And there’s no way to get that done on anything like an equal basis without federal intervention. Not that you seem to care, but more on that later.
You claim that “Congress is allowed to attach whatever strings it wants to its funds. Check Article I.” But that money is NOT Congresses, but OURS.
Oh good. Did you even get Grover Norquist to write that for you? At the risk of sounding like a civics teacher… Congress has a responsibility to ensure that problems that can only be solved nationally – like the need for uniform, high-quality, competitive education – get national solutions. To that end, Congress is empowered to levy duly-enacted taxes on U.S. citizens.
If you want a moral defense of taxation, it’s that everyone benefits from the federal government’s actions (within reason – I am no socialist), and the people who make the most money benefit far and away the most. So we tax people – higher at the top end – to pay for their benefits.
You state that states aren’t “setting educational standards that allow our graduates to compete with each other and internationally. Unless you think the great (and, last time I checked, not exactly wealthy) state of Mississippi can turn out high school students as well-educated as, say, California.” That, however, is of no concern of Congress.
Why not? Congress has a responsibility to solve problems the individual states can’t solve for themselves. I thought we already covered this.
It is of concern only to the citizens of that sate, and that includes the students. If the state cannot educate it’s own citizenry, then I suspect that the citizenry will either vote out those responsible for the poor showing, or leave. If the citizens don’t really care, then the loss belongs to them, NOT the rest of the nation.
What in the world do you mean “don’t care”? EVERYONE cares about the state of education in their community. Virtually no one has any real power to change it. How do poor people magically create more money to pay for new equipment and facilities? For an example close to my home, how does voting solve the problems of the impoverished and dilapidated Detroit schools? The worst part about obnoxious right-wingers is that they’re almost always from privilege and have no idea how the real world has to deal with problems.
Well, there you have it: The leftist attitude that “I and MY KIND know better than you what you need to learn. WE know what is best for you!” What blatant falsehoods? Intelligent Design? What lying to children? Santa is real? The courses taught there should be of no concern to you unless you are a taxpayer and citizen of that state.
Leftist? Moi? I guess… Anyway, I was referring to Intelligent Design, as a matter of fact. And let’s be clear about one thing. I don’t give a hoot if you believe it or not. I don’t care who believes it. What I care about is that people feel the need to pretend it’s science. It isn’t. And people who think evolution has problems are manifestly stupid if they think Intelligent Design is a solution. It’s not. What it is is dumb. Which makes it fine to believe in your own home, but let’s keep it out of places where learning happens.
That said, it is also of concern to me no matter where I live, because I happen to think that children have a right to education. That’s going to get me in trouble with Grover Norquist and his neanderthal friends, but it’s what I think and I’m pretty sure the majority of the country agrees with me. And a right to education means a right to learn things that are true. If the school is teaching that Santa Claus is real, we have problems you and I can’t even imagine (not least of which is why in the world is Santa on the syllabus?). If it’s teaching that evolution is an open question, then it’s just plain lying. We can fix that.
Your problem, comrade, is that you don’t want folks to have choices.
Which choices? The ones they make that result in their children having poor standards of education? Or the ones they don’t make that reduce the quality of their schools because rich people live in other states? Please clarify.
It is precisely because of the unwieldy and un-needed Department of Education, with it’s “one-size-fits-all” ideas that school vouchers, home schooling, and magnet/charter schools are gaining ground so quickly. It’s interesting how leftists always screm “Pro-Choice”, except when they don’t like that option, which is on most every other case.
Well, not that you asked, but I think all those plans are a perfectly reasonable idea. It’s a thorny issue – not that anyone would know that from talking to right-wing wackos – deciding how to strike a balance between children getting the educational tools they need and leaving parents free to instill certain values in their children. I don’t know how to draw the line, but using state-funded schools to advance a religious agenda that is completely unmoored from reality as we know it is definitely over the line. Everything else is worth putting on the table.
No, leftists never want folks to have a choice, because they fear that folks might actualtl turn away from them and lead their own lives.
That is a prospect I find monumentally terrifying, but adults have the right to live how they want.
Folks have to be given the right to choose, especially in the education of their children.
Children are another matter entirely. I find it odd that you put “especially” here, in the place it least belongs. Children are a completely different beast, because they’re people but not adults. I know that the political right wants to pretend that children are the mindless property of their parents, but that’s dangerous and foolish.
“This nation needs a strong conservative government that will undo all the damage from FDR through Clinton”
Yeah, Nixon (watergate), reagan (star wars, iran contra, huge deficit), Bush41(read my lips: no new taxes) Clinton (record surplus inherited by….) bush43: who then turns it into a record deficit. Because of him, this nation has probably seen its last surplus ever, and the bank of china cant be any happier.
I wonder what republicans will impeach the next democratic president for. I mean if lying about having consensual sex is impeachable, what isnt, in their sick twisted minds??
Luckily for you, not bad grammar. A better question might be this – is there ever going to be a next Democrat president?
Of course there will be…….althou after this record deficit, scandal ridden term doesnt convince voters in 08, then maybe I’ll have my doubts about the future. The key is the dems must nominate a strong canidate, one who will stand up to the republican slime machine. One of the main reasons kerry lost is he didnt stand up, or stood up too late, too all the crap the republican slime machine was slinging. Even still, it came down to Ohio.
Of course, democrats got more overall votes than republicans in 3 of the last 4 elections……it’s not quite as close to doomsday as you would like to have me believe.
Alternative explanation: Kerry was the worst candidate of modern times…
Comrades,
In the interest of clarity and accuracy, Clinton wasn’t impeached for lying about having consenual sex. He was impeached for lying under oath. Doesn’t matter WHY he was lying, or what he was lying about. Just the fact that he lied under oath was sufficient to trip the mechanism. As President, he cannot seem to be above the law, nor should he be. He is given immunity from lawsuits while in office, for the expediant of allowing him to conduct the business of the nation without extraneous interference. However, once he leaves office, that immunity is lifted and he may be sued. Actually, he doesn’t have immunity, per se, but lawsuits filed against him are simply stayed until his term of office is complete and they then may proceed at the court’s pleasure.
Respects,
Gwedd
Yes, Kerry was horrific, which should give everyone who votes Republican (including me) some pause. Hillary is a hosebeast, but with the exception of McCain, most of the Republican field looks like it would get its clock cleaned by a solid nominee like Warner or Bayh. There WILL be another Democrat in the White House, and he (note: not she) will be just as terrible a president as every other one, D or R. Yahoo.
On paper, Bayh and Warner look like strong candidates and would appear to be able to beat a candidate on the level of George Allen (who seems to be the anti-McCain du jour). However, the same thing was also once said about John Edwards, Wesley Clark and even Howard Dean. The challenge for Bayh and Warner will be for them to make a name for themselves without pandering to the Kossaks and rendering themselves unelectable. The temptation to do so will be very strong, especially for Warner, who the Kossaks have begun to fixate on as a possibly acceptable ABH candidate.