Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Losers
Michael Powell
and Michael Cooper have a
quick-and-dirty obituary for Rudy Giuliani, the candidate who
blew as much as a 30-point lead and lost to Ron Paul three
times.
No candidate last summer sent out as many direct-mail appeals in New Hampshire as Mr. Giuliani. Last fall, the campaign also broadcast its first television commercials there, ultimately spending more than $3 million on advertisements, and dispatched Mr. Giuliani there for lots of retail campaigning in a state where voters tend to worry more about taxes and the military than conservative social issues. And he seemed at peace with this choice.
“It is not inconceivable that you could, if you won Florida, turn the whole thing around,” Mr. Giuliani told The Washington Post in late November on a bus trip through New Hampshire. “I’d rather not do it that way. That would create ulcers for my entire staff and for me.”
Indeed it did! But the campaign did an admirable job of lying and saying they never expected to win New Hampshire.
In the end, Mr. Giuliani and his advisers treated supporters as if they were so many serried lines of troops. If they tell a pollster in November that they are going to vote for you, this indicates they are forever in your camp, their thinking went.
But politics does not march to a military beat; it is a business of shifting loyalties. By Tuesday night, even those voters who rated terrorism as the most important issue were as likely to vote for Mr. Romney or Mr. McCain as for Mr. Giuliani.
This says a lot about Rudy's strategy, and why it failed. To steal an insight from my friend Spencer Ackerman, Rudy ran not as a Republican, but as a Ba'athist: a strongman who would crush criminals, terrorists and welfare cheats by the force of his mighty will. He'd done it before! While John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee ran as candidates of the modern GOP, making criticisms and building coalitions from the inside, Giuliani ran to become leader—party was incidental. He asked that we all remember what we felt like on 9/11 and promised to make us feel that way every day. It didn't work, but I think we should count ourselves lucky there wasn't an open presidential election in 2002.
As to that Democratic candidate who's jumping out of the race, Dana Goldstein has a well-timed article (published two days ago) about what will happen to Edwards' supporters. She tackles a theory that I've heard a lot of conservatives say, one that hasn't been tested out:
Intuitively, it makes sense that Edwards supporters would trend toward Obama. Both candidates ran as the anti-Clinton. Edwards even spoke about his own affinity toward Obama's "change" message at the last New Hampshire debate.
But some polling suggests otherwise. A Jan. 24 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg News poll found that nationally, Edwards voters prefer Clinton to Obama by a slight margin. She could have an edge among those who are attracted to Edwards' focus on the economy. "Hillary talks about the economy more than Obama, and she's connected to the Clinton presidency, which people view as successful on the economic front," Teixeira said.
Hillary isn't a divisive figure in the Democratic Party, although she's gotten a bit less well-liked as her surrogates recited from old Ron Paul Survival Reports to hold down Obama's share of the white vote. There simply isn't a massive anti-Clinton vote in the primaries, which is why, unable to pick one campaign tack, Edwards reeled side-to-side like William Hurt in the hallway in Altered States. He got tough on Hillary, and he was booed; he decried Hillary's negative attacks, and he came third in his home state.
The Republican nominee will probably be chosen by a minority vote in these early primaries, especially since John McCain's narrow <40 percent wins keep getting covered like incredible landslides. The Democrat will be chosen in a one-on-one race between the candidate of the 1990s restoration and the candidate of a 1960s renaissance. For the first time in a while, I wouldn't bet on Obama. He needs to win their Thursday debate in a rout to rattle those de facto Clinton voters.
|1.30.08 @ 11:45AM|#
Obama always outperforms the national numbers, as they reflect (mainly) people in states where he hasn't made a big capaign push yet.
|1.30.08 @ 11:47AM|#
Hillary has a lock on single women, older women and Hispanics. It is hard to bet against someone in the Democratic Primary who captures those two constituencies. I am not surprised that Clinton is doing okay with Edwards supporters. Edwards is a populist and Clinton has consistently done will with middle and lower middle class white Democrats.
|1.30.08 @ 11:52AM|#
I'm hoping Edwards endorses Obama. They need to consolidate against the Hildebeast.
|1.30.08 @ 11:52AM|#
Do we actually get a one on one debate? Danger lurks for both Clinton and Obama. This is going to be "Must See TV".
|1.30.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Hillary has a lock on single women, older women and
Hispanics. It is hard to bet against someone in the Democratic
Primary who captures those two constituencies.
Aren't there three constituencies. Let me guess your three weapons
are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical
devotion to the Pope?
|1.30.08 @ 12:01PM|#
In a 2-person race, getting 40% is also known as losing by 20
points.
I wouldn't be surprised if neither Hillary nor Obama gets below 40%
in any states from here on out.
Chup|1.30.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Most of the ethnic white democrats in Chicago (Polish, Italian, Greek, non-uppity Irish,etc.) plus Hispanics wouldn't vote for a black candidate if their life depended on it.
highnumber|1.30.08 @ 12:19PM|#
I think you're wrong, particularly about Poles and Latinos in
Chicago and enough of the younger (say under 50) members of the
other groups.
(I've got non-uppity Irish family on the Southside. I could see a
lot of them sitting out the primary when given the choice of
Clinton or Obama.)
|1.30.08 @ 12:20PM|#
I disagree about Illinois though. Obama had between a 30-35 points spread last time I checked.
|1.30.08 @ 12:26PM|#
Edwards' dropping out will hurt Obama in the South, and help him everywhere else.
|1.30.08 @ 12:30PM|#
Hurting him in the South is a pretty big deal since its basically the foundation of his Feb. 5th strength.
|1.30.08 @ 12:37PM|#
Gravel's staging another "alternative debate" online tomorrow night. Runs the network ffed on a screen, jump;s in with his answers cto the questions, and comments. Best watching of the election cycle. http://gravel2008.us will have a link to the stream.
Weigelbot 3000|1.30.08 @ 12:39PM|#
Best watching of the election cycle.
I'll second that. I wish Gravel would put more of the clips from
these things on YouTube - the Philadelphia one, where he got to
lace into all the also-rans like Biden and Kucinich, was
fantastic.
|1.30.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Hurting him in the South is a pretty big deal since its
basically the foundation of his Feb. 5th strength.
True, but look at South Carolina: if every single Edwards voter
went for Hillary, Obama still would have won.
Dave Weigel|1.30.08 @ 12:45PM|#
If every single Edwards voter went for Hillary, Obama still
would have won.
If that is the case in Alabama and Tennessee, Hillary will win
them. But I think the most compelling thing from Florida was
Hillary's measly 35 percent of the late-deciding vote. Obama starts
with an advantage with Edwards voters looking for a new guy, but
not a huge one, which is why he can't afford a bad debate.
jackanapestarian|1.30.08 @ 12:47PM|#
Someone will certainly win. I boldly predict that much. But if it's Hillary I'll have to plunge knitting needles into my ears or surely go insane hearing her smarmy voice for 4 long years.
|1.30.08 @ 12:52PM|#
I agree with Weigel: as with every other contest, Hillary is
starting ahead in most Super Tuesday states, and Obama is closing
the gap. This means he is winning late-deciders and poaching
supporters from other candidates.
Once again, the question is whether he can pull enough late support
to close the deal.
|1.30.08 @ 12:53PM|#
If Clinton wins a racially charged slugfest, a pretty good possibility, does Obama accept her invitation to be VP. No way does Obama offer her VP if he wins. No one would be crazy enough to want Bill running around as second husband for four years. But Clinton might have to swallow her pride and offer Obama the number 2 spot to paper over the hurt feelings she will no doubt generate in beating him. If I am Obama I say no way. He has a chance to be a transendent figure in politics. I can't see him doing that as Clinton's number two. If he says no, he gets to be the media and the Democratics' ItBoy for the next four years and be assured of the nomination in 2012 if Clinton loses of 2016 if she wins.
|1.30.08 @ 12:54PM|#
He asked that we all remember what we felt like on 9/11 and
promised to make us feel that way every day.
If you mean nauseous and apprehensive of the future, I would say he
succeeded admirably.
Edwards' dropping out will hurt Obama in the South, and help
him everywhere else.
I suspect this is probably right. I find it interesting that the
Old Conventional Wisdom was that Hillary needed Edwards in the race
to split the anti-Hillary vote, but the New Conventional Wisdom is
that Obama needed Edwards in the race to split the anti-black
vote.
Eric Dondero|1.30.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Rudy beat Ron Paul last night 5 to 1.
3% is "Loser." 15% is pretty damned respectable, particularly for a
Pro-Choicer in the GOP.
Dave Weigel|1.30.08 @ 1:03PM|#
15% is pretty damned respectable, particularly for a
Pro-Choicer in the GOP.
In a winner-take-all primary, it's about as relevant as how my
carats Judi Guliani has on her engagement ring. Paul outlasted
Giuliani and got more delegates. Paul never led in the polls in any
state: Giuliani once led in all of them. Giuliani is humiliated,
Paul is smiling.
|1.30.08 @ 1:13PM|#
In a contest between Hillary and McCain, I vote for the blue-skinned Libertarian dude.
Gus|1.30.08 @ 1:13PM|#
"Hillary isn't a divisive figure in the Democratic Party"
And Hitler wasn't a homicidal madman. Who writes this crap?
Black Elvis|1.30.08 @ 1:15PM|#
Hillary loves me
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UGB61G1&show_article=1
Kolohe|1.30.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Dondero
Abortion did not seem to be as big of a factor the florida
republican race as compared with forex SC. The exit poll question
should abortion be legal? was 52-43 illegal to legal in fl but
70-28 in SC.
Dave Weigel|1.30.08 @ 1:17PM|#
Gus, she isn't a divisive figure among Democrats. Until her campaign started going hard negative, her positive ratings among Democrats were north of 80 percent.
Kolohe|1.30.08 @ 1:19PM|#
a strongman who would crush criminals, terrorists and
welfare cheats by the force of his mighty will.
"Crush your enemies and see them driven before you"
I think Rudy's failure was that he did not also want to hear the
lamentation of the women (except i guess his 1st two wives)
Busty|1.30.08 @ 1:21PM|#
" If I am Obama I say no way."
And pass up the chance to be the first black Al Gore???
|1.30.08 @ 1:22PM|#
Could 2008 be for Democrats what 1976 was for Republicans?
I.e., the party establishment beats out a transforming figure only
to go down to narrow defeat. Four years later, the same figure wins
the nomination and goes on to victory?
|1.30.08 @ 1:24PM|#
Nice comparison, Cesar.
15% is pretty damned respectable, particularly for a
Pro-Choicer in the GOP.
That's now what Dondero was saying when Paul beat that number in
Nevada.
|1.30.08 @ 1:24PM|#
Cesar-The difference would be that if anything is Watergate this
year it is the war...
About Rudy, the guy never had a chance. The GOP will not nominate a
pro-choice candidate for a loooooooong time to come, maybe
never...
Gus|1.30.08 @ 1:25PM|#
"Gus, she isn't a divisive figure among Democrats"
What? She just divided the Kennedys, for cryin' out loud. Pull your
head out, man!
Chup|1.30.08 @ 1:25PM|#
Cesar's on it that if Obama loses the nom & Hillary loses the election, he'll be the lock for 2012's nom no lies.
|1.30.08 @ 1:26PM|#
The only thing I can think of that would kill your GOP candidacy
dead in the water faster would be to be seen as anti-2nd
Amendment...Snap, that was Rudy too!
The guy never had a chance...
|1.30.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Yeah MNG, but McCain can say he really wasn't wrong about the war, because he didn't like Rumsfeld and wanted a new strategy which seems to be "Working" as he defines it at the moment.
Chup|1.30.08 @ 1:28PM|#
However, Reagan actually had transformative policy ideas. Obama and Clinton's policy ideas are basically the same, with Obama just being better at expressing them.
|1.30.08 @ 1:29PM|#
R C Dean,
I find it interesting that the Old Conventional Wisdom was that
Hillary needed Edwards in the race to split the anti-Hillary vote,
but the New Conventional Wisdom is that Obama needed Edwards in the
race to split the anti-black vote.
Yeah. I find it interesting that the old CW was that Hillary's
support among African Americans made her a strong candidate, while
the new CW is that Obama's support among African Americans means
he's DOOMED!!!!
|1.30.08 @ 1:30PM|#
He can also point out, if its HRC, that she was bully on the war
(another reason why she may not be a strong candidate).
I will say that according to CNN exit polls Guliania got whupped
among voters who thought abortion should be mostly or always legal
by MCCAIN, who is pro-life...They just weren't that into you,
Rudy..
|1.30.08 @ 1:31PM|#
However, Reagan actually had transformative policy ideas. Obama and Clinton's policy ideas are basically the same, with Obama just being better at expressing them.
The problem with the GOP in 1976 wasn't so much its candidates, but
that it didn't have any policy ideas which brought their party
together. Reagan filled that.
The problem with Democrats in 2008 is that they have policy ideas
that bring them together, but the people they've had expressing
them in recent years--Kerry, Gore, etc--haven't done a particularly
good job at expressing them. Obama fills that.
|1.30.08 @ 1:33PM|#
Obama was losing big in the Illinois senate primary in 2004. Then stories came out about the (white) leader of the race beating his wife. This allowed him to easily win the nomination. Nonetheless, another white guy beat him in the white areas on the south side of Chicago and southern suburbs. The white guy lost big in most other areas... Obama beat him 28 to 1 in my precinct.
Franklin Harris|1.30.08 @ 1:36PM|#
Rudy beat Ron Paul last night 5 to 1.
3% is "Loser." 15% is pretty damned respectable, particularly for a Pro-Choicer in the GOP.
Paul has won more votes overall and more delegates. Now, Eric,
please go slink away and find some other fascist to brand the great
"mainstream libertarian" hope. The joke's over.
highnumber|1.30.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Jim Bob,
I took the "non-uppity" Irish to be a reference to the perception
of two classes of Irish in Chicago: "lace curtain Irish," as
someone, either Richard J Daley or another member of the old
machine referred to them, and the tougher, working class, hence
"non-uppity," in Chup's words, Irish.
|1.30.08 @ 1:43PM|#
It didn't work, but I think we should count ourselves lucky
there wasn't an open presidential election in 2002.
I'm not so sure about that. Could we have done much worse than a
continuation of Bush?
|1.30.08 @ 1:47PM|#
Wait a second. Clinton polled well before anyone started casting votes. Just like Giuliani. She's not as divisive among Democrats as she is among Republicans, no, but she most certainly is divisive. I'm not sure why people want to make her less disturbing than she is. I'd say the same about Rudy, but he has left us for a better place. Now Romney is the most libertarian candidate left. Or so I've been told.
|1.30.08 @ 1:54PM|#
Gus, she isn't a divisive figure among Democrats. Until her
campaign started going hard negative, her positive ratings among
Democrats were north of 80 percent.
Maybe so (would love a link), but she's divisive now.
The inevitable result of indentity group politics, really. A party
built on it is, some day, going to have two people from "entitled"
identity groups running against each other. Hey presto, divided
party.
Brett|1.30.08 @ 2:09PM|#
At least we won't have to listen to Giuliani's high-pitched
cackle in the next set of debates.
Although I'll personally miss his crazy-man facial expressions.
|1.30.08 @ 2:10PM|#
RC Dean,
Much as it pains me to say this, in any situation, Kerry could
not have been worse. Seriously, Carrot Top would probably
have handled the Iraq War more effectively.
Brandybuck|1.30.08 @ 2:11PM|#
Dondero is acting like a fourteen year old in his parent' basement. No one could have predicted how well Ron Paul would do almost a year ago when the campaign was getting started. For most of us, it was always about being a protest vote. Sure, some of us are nutty enough to think he just might broker the convention, or even win. But didn't the Mighty Dondero think that Giuliant was going to win? How serious does he think we'll take him when he switched candidates at the first hint of a loss? How long until he dumps Romney as well and starts calling McCain the new libertarian hope?
|1.30.08 @ 2:12PM|#
Wait a second. Clinton polled well before anyone started
casting votes. Just like Giuliani.
Well, yeah, except that she's polled pretty well since then as well
- look at the results and the polls. She's still leading, she's
going to win most of the big states on Super Tuesday and she's
going to win the nomination. Giuliani, not so much, as they say.
How is someone who is so disliked or divisive managing to pull off
still being the leading candidate at this stage? I just don't get
why everyone is still so sure the Clinton is such a negative or
"divisive" figure. I imagine we'll still be hearing that on her
inauguration day. And maybe she is, but I then perhaps that means
being divisive or polarizing isn't such a bad thing.
|1.30.08 @ 2:16PM|#
"The inevitable result of indentity group politics, really. A
party built on it is, some day, going to have two people from
"entitled" identity groups running against each other. Hey presto,
divided party."
Look for Hillary to play the Hispanic race card for 4 of the states
on Super Tuesday, Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Colorado.
She and Bill and their cronies will keep harping on how much
Hispanics don't like blacks and look for Richardson to make an
endorsement of her and for leaks to come out of the campaign that
Richardson might be her pick for VP.
|1.30.08 @ 2:17PM|#
Guy 1: "Conan, what is good in life?"
Conan: "To crush your enemies, see them run before you, and hear da
lamentation of der vimmen!"
hehe :-)
|1.30.08 @ 2:20PM|#
"How is someone who is so disliked or divisive managing to pull
off still being the leading candidate at this stage?"
Because the Democrats like her taking on Bush and the Republicans
whom they hate. But wait until the general election. The Democrats
will regret nominating her. Republicans will come out enmasse to
vote against her and lots of independents are also very turned off
by her.
|1.30.08 @ 2:24PM|#
"Seriously, Carrot Top would probably have handled the Iraq War
more effectively."
There probably wouldn't have been a war in Iraq.
|1.30.08 @ 2:26PM|#
"At least we won't have to listen to Giuliani's high-pitched
cackle in the next set of debates."
We only have to put up with the cackles of one of the other
candidates.
|1.30.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Look for Hillary to play the Hispanic race card for 4 of the states on Super Tuesday, Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Colorado. She and Bill and their cronies will keep harping on how much Hispanics don't like blacks and look for Richardson to make an endorsement of her and for leaks to come out of the campaign that Richardson might be her pick for VP.
Yup that sounds about par for the course for the slimebag Clintons.
That locks up the nomination for them.
|1.30.08 @ 2:35PM|#
The inevitable result of indentity group politics, really. A
party built on it is, some day, going to have two people from
"entitled" identity groups running against each other. Hey presto,
divided party.
If there are more than one identity group, sure. But as the
Republicans have shown us, if you base your party around white male
identity politics, you can do just fine for centuries.
|1.30.08 @ 2:38PM|#
If Obama doesn't absolutely destroy Clinton the debate Thursday,
hes lost. Period.
Thats not likely given his recent preformances vs. Clintons.
|1.30.08 @ 2:42PM|#
None of the examples of Obama catching up in the days before the primary involved him "absolutely crushing" Hillary in a debate. He's done it with personal campaigning, and the free media.
|1.30.08 @ 2:47PM|#
"If there are more than one identity group, sure. But as the
Republicans have shown us, if you base your party around white male
identity politics, you can do just fine for centuries"
Yes Joe because objecting to affirmative action, welfare and
demanding everyone receive equal protection under the law black or
white, is certainly black people could never compete on their own
with out the white man's help. To argue otherwise is to be racist
and build an entire party on "white man identity politics". Take
out race neutral issues like defense and taxes and the only
difference between the Republicans and Democrats is affirmative
action. Why do you have such a low opinion of black people Joe? Why
don't you think they can compete on their own? You can? Is that
because you are superior by virtue of being white?
|1.30.08 @ 2:50PM|#
Yes, John, if you like it, it can't be bad or cynical. There
couldn't possibly be any appeal for white nationalists in opposing
affirmative action - that's why David Duke agrees with you.
No no, our politics is different, because we're teh good
guys!
Grow up.
|1.30.08 @ 2:51PM|#
Oh, and John? I don't think Martin Luther King, who pioneered the practice and theory of affirmative action in this country, actually believes in the nonsense you so conveniently project onto your opponents.
|1.30.08 @ 2:51PM|#
"Someone will certainly win. I boldly predict that much. But if
it's Hillary I'll have to plunge knitting needles into my ears or
surely go insane hearing her smarmy voice for 4 long years."
I'll have a Budweiser truck parked in front for 4 years.
|1.30.08 @ 2:55PM|#
"Oh, and John? I don't think Martin Luther King, who pioneered
the practice and theory of affirmative action in this country,
actually believes in the nonsense you so conveniently project onto
your opponents."
Forty years ago Joe and back then just a couple of years removed
from Jim Crow he was probably right. We are now four decades and
two generations removed from that. Are black people so tainted by
white racism that they will never be able to compete on a fair
playing field with whites, even two generations on? Do you really
view black people as such lower human beings permanently stained by
the damage of white racism or is there an end to it?
|1.30.08 @ 2:57PM|#
Admit it Joe, to support affirmative action and make no distinction even for socioeconomic class is to say that no black person, even one from a privileged background can ever hope to compete on their own terms. If that is not an expression of white supremacy, nothing is.
|1.30.08 @ 2:58PM|#
Oh, and John? As much as speculating on some supposed
inferiority of black people might appeal to you, it really has
nothing to do with the theory behind affirmative action.
There are actual arguments its proponents make. As usual, you are
too much of an intellectual coward to even allow yourself to know
what they are. It might interfere with the nice little stories you
tell yourself about the Bad People, ie, people who aren't
Republicans.
|1.30.08 @ 2:59PM|#
Admit it, John. Your mother is just too ugly to earn a living wage without doing the BDSM stuff.
Joe Allen|1.30.08 @ 3:01PM|#
9iu11iani actually lost to Ron Paul five times, not three. Iowa,
Michigan, Nevada, Louisiana and South Carolina.
He would have done even Better if Reason hadn't helped Kirchick
make a mountain out of a newsletter molehill.
The real defenders of free minds and free markets will not forget
how Reason abandoned the cause in it's time of need.
|1.30.08 @ 3:02PM|#
Answer the question Joe. Should affirmative action apply to privileged and middle class blacks? Should this be true even when doing so is at the expense of poor whites and Asians? If it should, then how is it anything beyond just race based pork or an admission that black people, no matter what their background, can as a matter of public policy never be expected to compete on a level playing field against other groups?
|1.30.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Make your arguments Joe. My argument is that affirmative action is an absolute admission on our part of our ugliest impulses dressed up in paternal and compassionate language. It devalues any accomplishment on the part of black people and demeans them to the point of childhood. It is just an awful system that violates both the Constitution and fundamental morality and fairness.
|1.30.08 @ 3:07PM|#
None of the examples of Obama catching up in the days before the primary involved him "absolutely crushing" Hillary in a debate. He's done it with personal campaigning, and the free media.
Like his big win in New Hampshire right when he lost the election
by appearing to "pick on" Hillary right? Look for her to try the
same thing (successfully) Thursday night.
"Oh OBAMA, you don't think I'm LIKEABLE? *crocodiles tear* But I
REALLY CARE about this COUNTRY! I care about YOUUUU!"
|1.30.08 @ 3:07PM|#
I'm not interested in an affirmative-action debate right now,
John. I'm certainly not going to bother having one with someone of
your wattage.
Good effort, though, trying to change the conversation from your
indefensible assertion that Republicans aren't engaged in
white-Christian-male identity politics CUZ THEIR RIGHTH! I'm sure
no one noticed you doing that.
|1.30.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Like his big win in New Hampshire right when he lost the
election by appearing to "pick on" Hillary right?
No, genius, that's NOT an example "of Obama catching up in the days
before the primary."
What are doing? Obama DOESN'T win by catching up with Clinton using
free media and his personal political charisma? He HAS won by
crushing Hillary in debates?
What are you even arguing? What did you imagine HA HA HE DIDN'T WIN
NEW HAMPSHIRE was supposed to accomplish?
Mark|1.30.08 @ 3:14PM|#
"It might interfere with the nice little stories you tell
yourself about the Bad People, ie, people who aren't
Republicans."
Joe, as someone who has worked for years with America's poor and
downtrodden in the inner city, I'm gonna let you in on a little
secret: The greatest impediment to black success is black culture.
I realize that's not what you want to hear, but let me tell you, no
white man is putting guns in the hands of young black males and
forcing them to shoot into a crowd of black youths in order to
prove their "manhood". Because you see, Joe, that's actually a
black culture thing.
|1.30.08 @ 3:14PM|#
I'm saying that since Hillary is appearing to be losing now, shes going to use the debate to garner sympathy to win by playing the victim. At the same time, the media is saying he has to crush her, but if hes TOO mean she can just cry again. Difficult position to be in.
|1.30.08 @ 3:24PM|#
Whatever, Mark. Nothing you wrote is relevant to the argument
I'm not taking part in, anyway.
Cesar, now I see what you're saying.
He doesn't have to "crush her," as in beat her up. The punditocracy
is doing that all by themselves.
He has to beat her, but he can best do that by building himself up
into that cult-of-Kennedy thing (which he's actually good at), not
by taking shots at her.
Stylistically, I mean. His victory speech after SC was based
entirely on condemning stuff the Clinton's did in the previous
weeks, but he made it sound like a prayer of thanksgiving and hope.
Talented guy.
Mark|1.30.08 @ 3:31PM|#
"Whatever, Mark. Nothing you wrote is relevant to the argument
I'm not taking part in, anyway."
My, how petty.
|1.30.08 @ 3:41PM|#
You want civil, don't talk down to people.
"Let me let you in on a little secret, you naive, suburban white
person: I know, I talk to black people."
Yeah, so do I. I actually live in an urban area with a large
population of low-income minorities. I was Neighborhood Planner
here. Get over yourself.
|1.30.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Hillary's advantages this coming Tuesday will be in the number
of primaries open only to Democrats and in the shear number of
races. I think it's probably hers unless she screws up royally
before then. Which she's fully capable of doing.
The interesting thing to speculate about is how many committed
Democrats are open to taking a second look at their choice before
then. Obama obviously has momentum, but not a lot of time.
Jojo|1.30.08 @ 4:12PM|#
How do you plan a neighborhood? Do you like have age nd race quotas & shiz? That stuff is wack, Joe, quit it out.
Joe Allen|1.30.08 @ 4:14PM|#
How on earth could affirmative action even be considered a
viable option by anyone on this site? Is that how far left Reason
has gone?
Quota systems are a paternalistic effort to legislate equality of
outcomes, not equality of opportunity. They create perverse
incentives to act inways contrary to sound economic principles. A
biproduct is all the racial resentment caused by effective reverse
discrimination.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Discrimination against white males
is not an effective way to counteract racism or sexism in the
workplace.
The free market is the solution. The free market places a cost on
any business decision not based on sound economic principles, such
as using race as a hiring criteria rather than an applicant's
ability to do the job.
|1.30.08 @ 4:17PM|#
Joe Allen, I think the only person on this site that favors it isn't a libertarian. Little-j joe is a liberal in case you missed it.
Franklin Harris|1.30.08 @ 4:25PM|#
Admit it, John. Your mother is just too ugly to earn a living wage without doing the BDSM stuff.
No, most people insist on attractive dominatrixes, too.
|1.30.08 @ 4:31PM|#
"The free market places a cost on any business decision not
based on sound economic principles, such as using race as a hiring
criteria rather than an applicant's ability to do the job."
Maybe we should sue the NBA for hiring too many black players.
Whites aren't fairly represented by percentage of the white
population vs. the black population.
Mark|1.30.08 @ 4:32PM|#
"Yeah, so do I. I actually live in an urban area with a large
population of low-income minorities. I was Neighborhood Planner
here.
Get over yourself."
Joe doth project too much.
Franklin Harris|1.30.08 @ 4:34PM|#
Obama was losing big in the Illinois senate primary in 2004. Then stories came out about the (white) leader of the race beating his wife.
That would be Jack (not the Tom Clancy character) Ryan, whose ex,
Jeri (7 of 9) Ryan, refused to do some kinky stuff for him.
Granted, if I were in his shoes, I'd be upset about that,
too.
Anyway, I don't think there were any allegations of physical abuse,
and Ryan was a Republican, not Obama's primary opponent. Ryan
dropped out, opening the door for Alan Keys to come in and make a
fool of himself, as usual.
Gus|1.30.08 @ 4:35PM|#
"Joe doth project too much."
If you spent a little time here, you'd realize that's all he does.
Kind of a troll really.
Franklin Harris|1.30.08 @ 4:38PM|#
If you spent a little time here, you'd realize that's all he does. Kind of a troll really.
I rarely agree with joe, but he isn't a troll.
Mark|1.30.08 @ 4:52PM|#
"You want civil, don't talk down to people.
"Let me let you in on a little secret, you naive, suburban white
person: I know, I talk to black people.""
To me, this sounds like troll-talk.
I was civil; Joe just didn't like what I had to say. That's why Joe
attacked me with the "Let me let you in on a little secret, you
naive, suburban white person".
Living in the ghetto for twenty-two years - with people shooting
one another in my yard - hardly makes me naïve. It also means I
don't live in the suburbs. So even in his attack, Joe is wrong on
two counts. He also assumes I am white. Wrong again. To reiterate,
that sounds like troll-talk.
And when he writes, ""Whatever, Mark. Nothing you wrote is relevant
to the argument I'm not taking part in, anyway." that tells me that
either he fancies himself as thread moderator or he's just a
troll-talking troll.
I stand by my original, inoffensive post.
Joe Allen|1.30.08 @ 4:53PM|#
Cesar wrote:
"Joe Allen, I think the only person on this site that favors it
isn't a libertarian. Little-j joe is a liberal in case you missed
it."
That's good to know. Now I can just ignore him and any reactions to
his inanities.
Brett|1.30.08 @ 5:01PM|#
Mark, "I'm gonna let you in on a little secret" was a tad
condescending.
joe might be a city plannin' blue-team-rootin' liberal, but he's
not a troll. Usually wrong, but no troll. ;-)
Who wants a site where everybody agrees with everything? Although
I'd like a site where nobody else posts under the name "Brett", you
2:09pm imposter.
highnumber|1.30.08 @ 5:11PM|#
That would be Jack (not the Tom Clancy character) Ryan,
whose ex, Jeri (7 of 9) Ryan, refused to do some kinky stuff for
him.
Franklin Harris,
One of Obama's Democratic opponents did face allegations of spousal
abuse. This came out during the primary.
Rhywun|1.30.08 @ 5:24PM|#
The only thing I can think of that would kill your GOP
candidacy dead in the water faster would be to be seen as anti-2nd
Amendment...Snap, that was Rudy too!
Or from the Northeast. Strike three!
Franklin Harris|1.30.08 @ 5:30PM|#
One of Obama's Democratic opponents did face allegations of spousal abuse. This came out during the primary.
It's an epidemic!
economist|1.30.08 @ 5:48PM|#
joe's a douche.
And 40 years of transfer payments and affirmative action later, I'm
sick and tired of hearing how a black person can't "make it" in
America. Amazingly enough, economically disadvantaged people manage
to move up. The people complaining about "the man" keeping them
down are simply refusing to take responsibility for their own
lives.
Joe Allen|1.30.08 @ 5:55PM|#
Please don't confuse me with Little joe.
quotas suck. Affirmative action is a misnomer. A more honest term
would be "reataliatory reaction."
|1.30.08 @ 5:56PM|#
A biproduct is all the racial resentment caused by effective
reverse discrimination.
I love this line of thinking. If people who constitute 2/3 of the
population get 75% of the college slots instead of 90%, it's going
to cause racial resentment.
But if people who consitute 20% of the population get 5% of the
college spots, or none at all, that doesn't? Everybody was happy
until you trouble-makers showed up! Yeah, whatever.
I guess some racial resentments are better than others.
|1.30.08 @ 6:01PM|#
There's a filter you can use, Joe Allen, if you require your echo chamber be extra-echoey.
|1.30.08 @ 6:11PM|#
Exactly. The beauty of this filter is that I can supply my own vowels, often changing the meaning of your posts. In fact, you're a narco-crypto-anarcho-cosmo-Republican when I read your postings.
|1.30.08 @ 6:12PM|#
Maybe we should sue the NBA for hiring too many black
players. Whites aren't fairly represented by percentage of the
white population vs. the black population.
Difference is whites were not subjucted to many years of
slavery...
|1.30.08 @ 6:13PM|#
They were in classical society. I still burn for revenge against the Romans. Enslaving my people! What have they ever done for us?
economist|1.30.08 @ 7:49PM|#
People should be annoyed about a group composing 2/3 of the population getting only 75% rather than 90% of college slots if it's because someone less qualified got into those 15% because their granddaddy was oppressed. Screw you guys, I'm going home.
|1.30.08 @ 8:04PM|#
"black culture"?
The best way to counter-act this is to get promising young black
kids out of those neighborhoods. I'm cool if you want to correlate
this AA to economics and crime rates of the neighborhood, since it
ends up being the same basic people anyway.
I've been a white male for 34 years now. Anyone telling me I am
somehow a victim of "reverse discrimination" gets no respect from
me. We have it *really* good in this country.
In fact, the main beneficiaries of quotas in college admissions
right now are males. Girls are getting better grades on average and
colleges are having to artificially maintain the male-female
ratio.
"if it's because someone less qualified"
Ok, but let's rate the applicants based on the crime and economics
of the neighborhood. I am less impressed with a white kid from a
wealthy neighborhood graduating with a 3.5 than a black kid from a
violent slum graduating with a 3.0, or really graduating at
all.
Joe Allen|1.30.08 @ 8:17PM|#
Little joe, you discredit my name. It's the only reason I bother
to respond to your ignorant ramblings.
"I love this line of thinking. If people who constitute 2/3 of the
population get 75% of the college slots instead of 90%, it's going
to cause racial resentment.
But if people who consitute 20% of the population get 5% of the
college spots, or none at all, that doesn't? Everybody was happy
until you trouble-makers showed up! Yeah, whatever."
As I said before, you want equality of outcomes, and to get it you
propose inequality of opportunities. The state doesn't exists to
correct every problem in society. Social problems are not always
best solved by government. Usually, the only social problems
government can help alleviate are the one's it created, and even
then the solution is to quit trying to help.
Your love affair with government has blinded you to its
limitations. Don't accuse those of us who don't share your faith in
the state of indifference to the plight of the disadvantaged. The
truth is we care too much about education and employment to leave
those problems for ineffective government to solve.
Joe Allen|1.30.08 @ 8:24PM|#
Concerning the Ron Paul Survival reports:
Nick and Matt didn't even read those newsletters before they
parroted Kirchick's spin on the. They couldn't have. They didn't
have time.
Why would a publication claiming to advocate "free minds and free
markets" have the same spin as notoriously leftist TNR?
Things that make you go "hmmmmm."
|1.30.08 @ 11:10PM|#
If people who constitute 2/3 of the population get 75% of
the college slots instead of 90%, it's going to cause racial
resentment.
And if people who are qualified for college slots are denied them
because of their race, that's going to cause racial resentment. I
don't see affirmative action solving the "racial resentment"
problem. For any race, actually.
Urkobold™|1.30.08 @ 11:20PM|#
THINGS THAT MAKE The Urkobold™ GO HMMMM:
- MASSAGE CHAIRS
- TECHNOTRONIC
- THE WEIBSKOBOLD
- THAT Joe Allen'S KEEPERS ALLOW HIM TO SURF THE INTERNET WITHOUT
ADULT SUPERVISION
Joe Allen|1.30.08 @ 11:34PM|#
http://formerbeltwaywonk.wordpress.com/
It is dishonest or foolish (or both) to claim to be a publication
of free minds and free markets and then to cooperate in a character
assasination of the presidential candidate most in line with your
stated position.
Matt, Nick and Radley echoed the TNR narrative without even
changing the spin. That's unforgivable.
Urkobold™|1.31.08 @ 12:14AM|#
ONE MORE THING THAT MAKES ME GO HMMMMM....
Mr Steven Crane's FORMULA 409 COCKTAILS
|1.31.08 @ 6:35AM|#
A great role for Huckabee and Paul in future debates might be to
let them ask McCain and Romney questions. I guarantee they know
their weaknesses better than anyone in America. They have listened
to ALL of the previous TWENTY GOP debates because they had to sit
through all of them. For that alone they deserve medals!
We each seem to have our own major issue(s) that make their choice
for President seem like the best one. The economy is a big one for
me. McCain did not know about the "Working Group on Financial
Markets" in the last debate. Romney and Huckabee think the stimulus
package from DC is a great idea. Just unbelievable and VERY scary
if they are elected! My question is: Would someone tell me why we
should NOT elect Ron Paul??
Ron Paul has raised more money than the rest in the 4th quarter
& is spending it! $20 million in the 4th quarter. $3.5 million
so far this quarter. And it was all from individual donations
averaging less than $100. No PACs. Unlike the others he is
beholding to nothing but the Constitution.
The rest, with Richardson and Kucinich out, seem to be talking
crazy talk (or did last week, who knows what the Democrats will say
next week!) about our military adventures in the Middle East.
Military spending is connected to our current economic mess.
Additionally, no one else seems to understand the problems with the
economy, inflation, and out of control deficit spending. Inflation
is going to eat us alive, as it has already started to do so. Do
you really believe that the REAL inflation rate last year, the rate
that was used by the government for Social Security check increases
this month, was 2.3%? Just look at the price of gold up 30% in
2007, now at an all time high and getting higher!
One can not talk about tax cuts without ALSO talking about cutting
spending. We have a $9 trillion debt (nearly double since 2000)
that must be paid so we can afford Social Security and Medicare.
The interest payments will go sky high when we begin to fight
inflation with higher Federal Reserve bank rates.
And we must stop inflation or everyone's life savings will go down
the tubes, along with the middle class, like what has happened to
the middle class in most countries south of our border. And do not
forget Universal Health Care, which is coming down the tracks right
at us, unless Republicans begin to understand the seriousness of
runaway deficits and inflation. And start educating the country. A
Democratic President will surely not fight inflation like Volcker
and Reagan did!
Please vote Ron Paul and save the country from bankruptcy abroad
and at home!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245