Your plan would work, although not perfectly (and let's face it, most of the jobs we're supposedly 'losing' we actually lost 20 years ago to Japan and South Korea. Now they're moving from there to China and Vietnam and so on, but it's not like we're losing them a second time.) But can you EVER imagine HILLARY supporting measures to give more money to evil corporations? Because I cannot, which is why I found her spiel so hilarious. (My thought is to work on up-training people to do the kind of highly skilled jobs that workers in third world countries CAN'T do, because they don't have the training. But that's making new jobs, not keeping the ones we have, and blue-collar voters don't want to hear that sort of thing.)
Jesus, what is up with Ann Coulter these days? This is one of the reasons why I'm kind of rooting for McCain; the crazily social conservative faction of the Republicans will absolutely self-destruct. (Although I kind of love the idea that Ann is secretly trying to wreck Hillary's campaign through inappropriate endorsement.)
The DNC is Karl Rove, and Howard Dean is Karl Rove (what is Dean up to these days, anyway? I was reminiscing about the good old crazy days tonight). Did you ever see that show Joan of Arcadia, where God can show up as anyone to give the main character advice? That's how it works for Karl. *nods*
McCain is going to have difficulties once he's the clear frontrunner, i.e. the new image of the Republicas, because it'll dilute his whole 'not-really-conservative conservative/maverick' thing. But watching him vs. Hillary would be a thing of joy and beauty. Plus, half of the 'non-conservative' items with which he's accused, I don't have a problem with. Obama would be more difficult, partly because he's got the whole idealism thing going on and partly because
I know what you mean about vagueness, but at least the other candidates are giving us something, you know? Hillary spent five minutes on universal health care. Romney was all about 'traditional values' (seriously, who thought a Constitutional amendment on ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE was a good idea?). Sure, they're not talking specific numbers or anything, but at least it's something you can pin down. Obama's policy is: let children live their dreams? That's a whole new level of nonclarity.
The PBS website has this whole 'who do you support?' quiz and I took it for fun--they give you candidate quotes on a variety of issues and you check 'agree' or 'disagree' for each. It cracked me up because almost everything was so vague and feel good that I couldn't disagree with a good 80% of them. Then, of course, any actual policy idea isn't stated outright, it's 'coded'. Mom would not believe me, for example, when I told her that Republicans calling for 'reducing dependency on foreign oil' were probably taking a position on ANWR, not hybrid cars.
But as P.J. O'Rourke said so eloquently back in 1990 (about the 1988 elections, and if you haven't read Parliament of Whores, you are missing out), you can't trust what any presidential candidate says anyway because they only tell you their REAL position on one issue: who they think should be in the White House.
California got called so quickly--and especially with the polls, I thought it was odd. But as they keep saying, it's about the delegates, not the states.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-06 09:19 am (UTC)Jesus, what is up with Ann Coulter these days? This is one of the reasons why I'm kind of rooting for McCain; the crazily social conservative faction of the Republicans will absolutely self-destruct. (Although I kind of love the idea that Ann is secretly trying to wreck Hillary's campaign through inappropriate endorsement.)
The DNC is Karl Rove, and Howard Dean is Karl Rove (what is Dean up to these days, anyway? I was reminiscing about the good old crazy days tonight). Did you ever see that show Joan of Arcadia, where God can show up as anyone to give the main character advice? That's how it works for Karl. *nods*
McCain is going to have difficulties once he's the clear frontrunner, i.e. the new image of the Republicas, because it'll dilute his whole 'not-really-conservative conservative/maverick' thing. But watching him vs. Hillary would be a thing of joy and beauty. Plus, half of the 'non-conservative' items with which he's accused, I don't have a problem with. Obama would be more difficult, partly because he's got the whole idealism thing going on and partly because
I know what you mean about vagueness, but at least the other candidates are giving us something, you know? Hillary spent five minutes on universal health care. Romney was all about 'traditional values' (seriously, who thought a Constitutional amendment on ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE was a good idea?). Sure, they're not talking specific numbers or anything, but at least it's something you can pin down. Obama's policy is: let children live their dreams? That's a whole new level of nonclarity.
The PBS website has this whole 'who do you support?' quiz and I took it for fun--they give you candidate quotes on a variety of issues and you check 'agree' or 'disagree' for each. It cracked me up because almost everything was so vague and feel good that I couldn't disagree with a good 80% of them. Then, of course, any actual policy idea isn't stated outright, it's 'coded'. Mom would not believe me, for example, when I told her that Republicans calling for 'reducing dependency on foreign oil' were probably taking a position on ANWR, not hybrid cars.
But as P.J. O'Rourke said so eloquently back in 1990 (about the 1988 elections, and if you haven't read Parliament of Whores, you are missing out), you can't trust what any presidential candidate says anyway because they only tell you their REAL position on one issue: who they think should be in the White House.
California got called so quickly--and especially with the polls, I thought it was odd. But as they keep saying, it's about the delegates, not the states.