Thank You, Mr. Miracle, I Won't Get Trashed Again

David Weigel | March 26, 2008

Over at Human Events, Jed Babbin endorses a Republican primary reform plan that, if Scott Bakula was able to head back and implement it a few months ago, would have prevented the nomination of John McCain. Jiggle the order of the primaries every four years, and don't let independents and Democrats vote in them.

By allowing cross-over voting, the Republican Party is enabling liberals to choose its nominee. Just as conservatives demand our borders be secure against illegal aliens, conservatives insist that Republicans—and only Republicans—choose the Republican nominee for president.

Just as America cannot be a sovereign nation without secure borders, the Republican Party cannot claim to be an political entity that stands for any principle if it permits its political opponents to control its nomination process.

Actually, Republicans are damn lucky they didn't follow these rules in 2008. John McCain was the only Republican with half a chance of winning the general election. Go back and check those Mitt Romney trial heats: Hillary Clinton could have run Barack Obama over in a Sherman tank, put the video on YouTube, and still clobbered Romney like one of those "opponents" in Mike Tyson's post-Holyfield comeback.

But let's assume Babbin is making a normative argument. What's more in the interest of Republican voters: Getting the candidate that the majority of them want, or getting a more electable candidate (by definition, if he's scoring crossover votes) with whom they don't quite agree? When you ask that question, you have to ask what a "Republican voter" is. It's not a clear-cut question. I've lived in two states (Illinois and Virginia) where I did not choose to belong to a party when I registered to vote. No one did. I would show up on primary day and choose the ballot I wanted, Republican or Democrat. A lot of states run their elections like this: Is the quadrennial choice of a presidential candidate worth overturning all their laws?

What about the states where people join up to vote by party? In every one of them, you can change your affiliation at any time. In some of them, you can do that on election day... in some of them, you can sign a statement explaining why you've done so, how honest you are in your new affiliation, etc. The pool of voters who are always going to vote Democratic, or always going to vote Republican, is fungible. Asserting their right to a nominee is asserting that the idea of a presidential primary is pure democracy, which it clearly is not, and shouldn't be.

Headline explained here.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

The Democratic Republican|3.26.08 @ 2:15PM|#

Good questions, Dave. I suppose these guys should just take the thing one step farther and eliminate their primaries altogether. At least it would save the taxpayers money upfront.

The Democratic Republican|3.26.08 @ 2:17PM|#

I also should say I think you're right to look at on a normative level. Of course a party retains a right to choose its candidates however it wants (which is why I don't gripe about closed primaries the way some independents do). But what they SHOULD do...that's the real question.

TallDave|3.26.08 @ 2:20PM|#

Yeah, a lot of conservatives were upset that Romney lost, which I found endlessly amusing.

conservatives insist that Republicans-and only Republicans-choose the Republican nominee for president.

And then only Republicans will vote for him.

Russ 2000|3.26.08 @ 2:21PM|#

I would show up on primary day and choose the ballot I wanted, Republican or Democrat.

But that is inherently a bad way voting people into office.

We're only talking about political parties here, the government as an enitity should not be guaranteeing any party's existence. If you are a member of a party, you and only members of your party should be involved in nominating its candidate. Likewise, there should be no legal restriction on the number of political parties on can be a member of at any one time, although it should be OK for a party to exclude members for any reason. If a party gets so big that it can't regulate itself, that is the party's problem not government's.

|3.26.08 @ 2:22PM|#

The only reason primaries are open here is because Harry F. Byrd, Sr. wanted his machine to be able to control the nominee of both parties.

I'm sure Illinois, with its history of machine politics, has a similar reason why its primaries are open.

Its a method very open to corruption.

|3.26.08 @ 2:23PM|#

"We're only talking about political parties here, the government as an entity should not be guaranteeing any party's existence."

The majority-minority system in congress and the committee structure pretty much insures that independents and small party candidates will never gain influence from scratch.

|3.26.08 @ 2:24PM|#

Actually, Republicans are damn lucky they didn't follow these rules in 2008. John McCain was the only Republican with half a chance of winning the general election.

David has gone from making bad predictions that were proven wrong (McCain is Dead) to bad predictions that no one can prove in this universe. Brilliant and completely worthless.

A scenario in which Romney gets the nomination and benefits in the polls, just as McCain is now, is more plausible then a scenario in which he would not benefit.

|3.26.08 @ 2:25PM|#

Also:

I wonder if Democrats voting for Romney (so that the Dem would have an easier opponent) offset Democrats voting for McCain (because they'd rather see him as president).

kinnath|3.26.08 @ 2:26PM|#

The issue is not how a private organization like the Republican Party chooses its representatives.

The issue is that the two major political party are using the legal system to block ballot access for other private organizations.

It's as if Coke and Pepsi managed to get laws written that restricted Royal Crown from putting products on retail shelves (regardless of whether or not the retailer wants to carry Royal Crown) without first establishing a legally-verifiable demand for their products.

|3.26.08 @ 2:31PM|#

McCain's the only Republican who could stand a chance in the general? I'm no Romney fan, but I think he would've stood an excellent chance, too. I'm rather surprised by the consistent chant coming from the left and left-libertarians that Obama and/or Clinton are such tough candidates. They seem quite vulnerable to me, especially given their weak résumés.

|3.26.08 @ 2:35PM|#

If Romney had run as a common-sense business Republican instead of re-inventing himself into some phoney-baloney "movement" conservative, he could've one this thing especially with the way the economy is now.

highnumber|3.26.08 @ 2:39PM|#

This year Rush encouraged his listeners to vote for Hillary (the perceived weaker Dem) in the primaries once McCain had the nomination locked up. Perhaps now that this trick has been played very publicly, the Republicans don't want that table turned on them in the future.

Anyway, it's a party decision. I'll never join, so I don't really care, but I think it will lead to them being further marginalized. That may be a good thing.

|3.26.08 @ 2:41PM|#

I don't think any political hack not on the Romney payroll would dispute me on this.

1)Romney was a Mormon, which weakened him among voters crucial to electing Bush in 2000 and 2004. You saw this in state-by-state polls: Huge swathes of the South became competitive with Romney on the ballot.

2)Romney had little cross-over appeal and low favorable numbers. I've seen polls that put his negatives higher than Hillary Clinton.

3)Romney was defined early on as a flip-flopper, and there were hours of video showing him saying one thing and then taking the opposite position a few years later. By the start of voting in the primaries, I'd already heard Sportscenter and late night hosts use his name as a punchline.

|3.26.08 @ 2:44PM|#

I thought the Republicans (at least the Limbaugh strain) were voting for Clinton. I'm not sure it's because they think she's the best leader. What's a bit more hypocracy?

PC|3.26.08 @ 2:47PM|#

Dave Weigel | March 26, 2008, 2:41pm | #

4. Romney was also treated with more angst by the MSM than any other candidate in either of the 2008 primaries.

TallDave|3.26.08 @ 2:50PM|#

Dave,

Yep, exactly the points I made at the time.

I was disappointed that movement conservatives showed such little principle in supporting Romney, who had been quite liberal before he decided to run for President, simply because he pandered to them for a few months.

Of course, being pro-choice myself, I actually found Romney more palatable before his conversion.

TallDave|3.26.08 @ 2:53PM|#

And pro-gay-marriage, though I'm not sure how much Romney changed on that issue.

PC|3.26.08 @ 2:55PM|#

TallDave | March 26, 2008, 2:50pm | #

The movement conservatives were scurrying around with their head cut off. It was not until it was down to Romney, Huck, and McCain that they solidified their support. That is what surprised me, just how fast the Talk Radio PR Campaign could rewrite history. People that were cool on Romney were fierce supporters within a month. He went from afterthought to Ronald Reagan in what seemed like a couple of weeks.

|3.26.08 @ 2:56PM|#

I have genuine problems with the whole primary system as it stands today. The government subsidizes the two major parties with taxpayer funded registration rolls and primary elections.

My proposal is let the parties have any process that they desire, but don't stick one thin dime of the costs to the taxpayers. Why the hell are we passing LAWS about primary elections? The two major parties are not part of government, and I'm sick and tired of them being treated like they are.

The Wine Commonsewer|3.26.08 @ 2:57PM|#

Hillary Clinton could have run Barack Obama over in a Sherman tank, put the video on YouTube, and still clobbered Romney like one of those "opponents" in Mike Tyson's post-Holyfield comeback.

Dave, you owe me a new monitor.

|3.26.08 @ 2:59PM|#

Weigel wrote, "What's more in the interest of Republican voters: Getting the candidate that the majority of them want, or getting a more electable candidate (by definition, if he's scoring crossover votes) with whom they don't quite agree?"

But is that the choice? If the candidate is getting "crossover votes," that may only mean than an organized faction from the opposition has determined to "nominate" the candidate that will do worst against "their guy." Getting "crossover votes" is no indication of general popularity of electability, and may indeed indicate the opposite. You might be able to leave primaries "open" yet deter crossover saboteurs if you included a "poison pill" provision along the lines of, if ANY candidate gets an outright majority of votes in a primary election, he or she will be deemed the winner and no election for that office will be held at general election time. In the case of Presidential contest, I suppose, the rule could be that the primary-majority winner would automatically be allocated the State's electoral votes come November.

All the above being said, I still think that parties should be able to nominate their own and exclude outsiders from voting. As others have said above, I don't think that the State should be in the business of "defining" freedom of association, or disassociation.

|3.26.08 @ 3:01PM|#

Oops. That should have been, "no indication of general popularity OR electability..."

|3.26.08 @ 3:02PM|#

The nomination of McCain just proves that the GOP has become the Party of War. He disagrees with the Republicans on just about everything (or has only very recently come around to the orthodox GOP views), but because hes all for more wars he gets the nod anyway.

All you have to do is be 1)Pro life and 2)pro war and you're an acceptable nominee.

|3.26.08 @ 3:04PM|#

American voter prejudice is an interesting issue. Is it generally more anti-Mormon than anti-black or even anti-female? Or anti-Clinton? No, I don't think we can say that with any confidence.

I don't put any credence in primary polls, especially when they're dealing with hypothetical matchups, and Clinton especially has no business casting any flip-flop stones. Again, I don't like Romney at all, but he has some serious credentials lacking altogether in either of the remaining Democratic candidates. That's nothing to sneeze at.

Richardson should've been the nominee for the Democrats, but either he or their voters screwed up.

Terry Michael|3.26.08 @ 3:07PM|#

David,
The trial heats re: Romney and potential Dem opponents were even more worthless than the current McCain v. DEM surveys. In fact, Romney was the only Democrat--as a governor, with market economy experience, a history as a social/cultural moderate, distance from Bush/Washington/war, not to mention attractive, with an attractive family--who had much of any chance of defeating a Democrat this year. When I hear allusions to these preposterous early match-ups by pollsters, I always remind my political journalism students (who sometimes listen to me) that Walter Mondale led Ronald Reagan in the polls in January 1984!!

Abdul|3.26.08 @ 3:10PM|#

All you have to do is be 1)Pro life and 2)pro war and you're an acceptable nominee.

The GOP: We're pro-life, until you're born.

But seriously, McCain just out-campaigned the other guys in the old-fashioned way of going to diners, shaking hands, and kissing babies. The new-fangled campaigns of Giuliani and Thompson ( who was also pro-life/war) didn't pan out.

McCain's narrative is a lot stronger than Romney's. McCain is Bush without the fatal flaws (no chicken-hawk, anti-torture). Romney was the Republican John Kerry, and smart GOP voters dumped him.

|3.26.08 @ 3:11PM|#

Romney and Richardson were somewhat similar in that they both looked good on paper in terms of demonstrated experience and competence, but were missing something vital in practice. Richardson had the charisma of a not very energetic lump of granite, which was a fatal weakness in this cycle. And Romney... I don't know quite what it was, but there seemed to be something ever-so-slightly repulsive about him. Never underestimate the squick factor.

TallDave|3.26.08 @ 3:14PM|#

The nomination of McCain just proves that the GOP has become the Party of War

Well, I prefer to think of it has helping the Iraqis establish some semblance of a liberal democracy. It is the most important issue for me, which is why it's unlikely I can support a Dem this time around unless they moderate significantly, despite my social-liberal preferences otherwise.

|3.26.08 @ 3:15PM|#

Giulani lost because he was pro-choice. If he had been pro-life from the beginning he would've won it.

Thompson just lost because he was, well, boring as hell even though he had some interesting positions. Though, because his respect of federalism he stated that he would not sign a national ban on abortion if Roe v. Wade was overturned probably helped sink him as well.

|3.26.08 @ 3:16PM|#

Dave, you forgot "launch a war with Iran" which I absolutely guarantee will happen under a McCain Presidency. I'd bet money on it.

We'll probably have a draft, too.

That guy is the biggest militarist in the last 100 years.

TallDave|3.26.08 @ 3:26PM|#

Cesar,

War with Iran is very unlikely, draft is virtually impossible unless we're nuked or something.

Episiarch|3.26.08 @ 3:28PM|#

if Scott Bakula was able to head back and implement it a few months ago

What does Captain Archer have to do with this? Oh, I see, you were referring to that other shitty show Bakula was in.

.|3.26.08 @ 3:29PM|#

|3.26.08 @ 3:34PM|#

@Pro Libertate

McCain's the only Republican who could stand a chance in the general? I'm no Romney fan, but I think he would've stood an excellent chance, too. I'm rather surprised by the consistent chant coming from the left and left-libertarians that Obama and/or Clinton are such tough candidates. They seem quite vulnerable to me, especially given their weak résumés.

Gotta agree with you there - if the Republicans had nominated Romney, they'd have still gotten my vote. Obviously, my first choice would have been Ron Paul, but that was just as obviously never going to happen. If they'd nominated Giuliani, I'd probably still have held my nose and voted for him. But Bomber John "100 Years War" McCain?

No way in hell! Suddenly Obama looks like the least vomitive candidate of the lot.

I tried hard to stick with the Republicans, but, sorry, McCain is deal-breaker for me...

|3.26.08 @ 3:36PM|#

Episiarch,

I thought the last season of Enterprise was decent. I couldn't abide all of the time travel nonsense of the earlier seasons, though. Egad.

TallDave|3.26.08 @ 3:37PM|#

But Bomber John "100 Years War" McCain?

Actually, what McCain said was he'd be happy to have troops there for 100 years if, as in S Korea and Germany and Japan, they weren't taking high numbers of casualties.

|3.26.08 @ 3:38PM|#

Really Dave? Because John McCain is already promising us "other wars, my friends" and us told us theres going to be a lot of "combat wounds, a lot of PTSD".

Sounds like a prelude to Iran to me.

The only way you get troops for that is through a draft.

TallDave having permanent bases in Iraq (which the war supporters in 2003 swore up and down we wouldn't have) is something that sounds insane even to some war supporters now.

Episiarch|3.26.08 @ 3:40PM|#

I thought the last season of Enterprise was decent.

I used to respect you, but that time is over. It's not that you thought any season of Enterprise was decent. It's that you actually continued watching after the first season.

Imperialist|3.26.08 @ 3:46PM|#

having permanent bases in Iraq (which the war supporters in 2003 swore up and down we wouldn't have) is something that sounds insane even to some war supporters now.

A 99-year lease is not a "permanent" base. And we will need those bases when we invade Saudi Arabia (who needs Iran).

|3.26.08 @ 3:46PM|#

Episiarch,

I ignored the series after watching the first episode. In a fit of ennui, I later watched it on DVDs checked out from the local library (needing DVDs for entertainment during my daily workout). In no way did I officially sanction or finance the show. However, I will say that I think that Voyager was worse.

If only the vastly superior Firefly had been given more than half a season!

For those keeping score, my new workout entertainment is the original Mission: Impossible series, interspersed with the usual Teaching Company DVDs.

Robert|3.26.08 @ 3:50PM|#

What about the states where people join up to vote by party? In every one of them, you can change your affiliation at any time.

Wrong! In NY, the effective date of a change in enrollment works such that you'd have to wait at least a year to vote in the primary of the party you're switching to. I'm pretty sure there are other states with similar anti-interference provisions in their election law.

|3.26.08 @ 3:50PM|#

That is what surprised me, just how fast the Talk Radio PR Campaign could rewrite history.

PC,

See John McCain and the National Review. He's gone from pariah to Eisenhower + John Wayne.

Episiarch|3.26.08 @ 3:53PM|#

If only the vastly superior Firefly had been given more than half a season!

I'm not speaking to you. But I'll tell VM to tell you that you're right.

PC|3.26.08 @ 4:01PM|#

VRWC | March 26, 2008, 3:50pm | #

The McCain flip was predictable, the Romney flip was somewhat predictable but I had no idea how successful it would be. Since it happened so late it could not overtake McCain. Also once again the Massachusetts and Mormon things really hurt him from gaining the momentum anyone else would have gotten.

I haven't been following the National Review but I have been keeping an eye on the Talk Radio Media Machine and they fully utilized the NYTimes story to do their flip flop. Before the story I would comment on conservative sites wondering out loud when, not if, all these disgruntled "conservatives" were going to crawl to McCain with their tail between their legs with especially Rush in mind. Ever since McCain got the nomination I end every McCain comment on "conservative" blogs with the statement that they will vote for amnesty and like it.

|3.26.08 @ 4:02PM|#

I miss Romney.

|3.26.08 @ 4:05PM|#

If Romney's science fiction choices had been better, maybe I would've voted for him. But Battlefield Earth? Shudder. He lost the anti-Scientologist and the geek vote all at once.

|3.26.08 @ 4:12PM|#

Battlefield Earth was a brilliant choice. I think it was Weigel's theory that he picked it to highlight a quacky religion that is so quacky that his quacky religion would no longer look so quacky in comparison.

I won't have too much longer before I get to see 'ol Romney regularly again, he's gonna get the nod to be VEEP.

TallDave|3.26.08 @ 4:12PM|#

Battlefield Earth?

Yeah, the whole series was awful. I read most of it when I was 12.

|3.26.08 @ 4:18PM|#

Cab,

I don't think so, though it's possible he was bought off with the vice presidency.

Referencing Scientology to me highlighted his quirky religion (i.e., you shouldn't cast stones, Mitt). I'm sure I wasn't alone. And he said it was his favorite book, if I recall correctly. That's like saying Wright is your favorite minister (just kidding).

TallDave|3.26.08 @ 4:19PM|#

Cesar,

I doubt he actually promised more wars, and again a draft is virtually impossible unless we suffer some sort of catastrophe. Besides the draft being incredibly unpopular, the professional military has made it pretty clear they don't want draftees, as they make poor soldiers.

As for the permnanent bases in Iaq, the elected Iraqi gov't has asked for our help, and can ask us to leave at their discretion. Iranians are unlikely to extend a similar invitation.

|3.26.08 @ 4:21PM|#

I concede "brilliant" may have been a bit much.

Poor Romney. The more he got picked on, the more I was rooting for the poor bastard.

"Theres going to be other wars my friends, other wars. We're going to have a lot of combat wounds, a lot of PTSD, and my friends its going to be though, we're going to have a lot to do. We will never surrender, but there will be other wars".

What "other wars" is he referring to?

TallDave|3.26.08 @ 4:22PM|#

If only the vastly superior Firefly had been given more than half a season!

I'd settle for another movie.

I love the scene (from the series iirc)where the guy promises to get revenge on Mal, and Mal pragmatically kicks him into the engine.

TallDave|3.26.08 @ 4:24PM|#

What "other wars" is he referring to?

Well, unless you think we've just entered a utopian phase of history in which there will never be be another war, he's just echoing what Plato said thousands of years ago: only the dead have seen the end of war.

Philster|3.26.08 @ 4:33PM|#

Underrated Sabbath Album.

Best Cover Art Ever.

|3.26.08 @ 4:36PM|#

TallDave-

Hes not talking about some distant future. Hes talking about during his term. He didn't say there MIGHT be other wars, he said there WILL be other wars during his term.

The guy is a militarist and has a chip on his shoulder about losing Vietnam. I fear hes going end up working out his issues on the world stage with very bad results.

|3.26.08 @ 4:38PM|#

As Buchannan said, he'll make "Cheney look like Ghandi".

PC|3.26.08 @ 4:42PM|#

"What "other wars" is he referring to?"

Destabilization of the middle east into a region wide conflict. The "war of civilizations" that Kristol and company talked about. I really think a draft is on the way but there has to be a uniting catalyst. Absent some pearl harbor or 9/11 like event this will be hard to accomplish but I don't think that will be a problem.

Also he is trying his damndest to start a cold war with Russia all by himself. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

If you think the current exploitation of "patriotism" is absurd just wait.

|3.26.08 @ 4:44PM|#

PC, not to mention the guy has a really, REALLY short fuse.

He'd answer that phone at 3 am and blow up the world in the process.

PC|3.26.08 @ 4:51PM|#

Cesar | March 26, 2008, 4:44pm | #

He's Teddy Roosevelt with a shorter fuse, a neocon cabinet, and nukes.

The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades.

|3.26.08 @ 4:54PM|#

PC-

I'd go farther. Hes Kaiser Wilhelm II with nukes and PTSD.

|3.26.08 @ 4:57PM|#

I liked the original incarnation of RomneyBot. Tolerant, independent and got by on competence. RomneyBot2000 scared me. It was like someone at PNAC hacked his brain.

|3.26.08 @ 5:15PM|#

|3.26.08 @ 5:23PM|#

The GOP: "We're pro-life, until you're born."
The DEM: "We're pro-choice, until you can afford it."

TallDave|3.26.08 @ 5:25PM|#

Hes not talking about some distant future. Hes talking about during his term. He didn't say there MIGHT be other wars, he said there WILL be other wars during his term.

He didn't actually say that, but likely there will be, just as there were during the admins of Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, Eisenhower, Truman, and FDR.

PC, not to mention the guy has a really, REALLY short fuse.

This from the guy that is constantly demanding we stop looking at Obama's character and talk about issues.

SIV|3.26.08 @ 5:36PM|#

If one cent of public money is spent on a State Primary it should be open.If the Parties want to limit voting to registered members let them hire private polling places and fully fund the election.

|3.26.08 @ 5:37PM|#

I think raising a candidates temperment is legitimate, since hes going to have the ability to destroy the world.

Maybe you don't.

|3.26.08 @ 5:39PM|#

FWIW Hillary Clinton's crying before every primary she loses raises issues about her stability.

Call me sexist if you want but its a real concern.

TallDave|3.26.08 @ 5:48PM|#

I think raising a candidates temperment is legitimate, since hes going to have the ability to destroy the world. Maybe you don't.

I do think it's legitimate; as I've said before, character matters. I just find your inconsistency on the subject amusing.

|3.26.08 @ 5:52PM|#

If the President has a short fuse, it could mean the difference between war and peace.

If the President's preacher says something, it doesn't mean jack shit. No blood is going to be spilled over it.

Do you see the difference?

|3.26.08 @ 6:11PM|#

I don't like the temperament of any of the remaining candidates for international emergencies. Could we just operate with a vacancy in the White House for the next four years?

|3.26.08 @ 8:18PM|#

"If one cent of public money is spent on a State Primary it should be open.If the Parties want to limit voting to registered members let them hire private polling places and fully fund the election."

SIV is 100% right on this. Taxpayers pay, everyone of them should be able to play.

Geotpf|3.26.08 @ 9:09PM|#

Yeah, the Republican lucked out here. If they picked any of the other candidates that were running, they would have guaranteed to lose come November to either Obama or Clinton-the only question would be would it be a squeaker or a 40-state blowout for the Democrat. At this particular moment McCain is about tied with Obama and beating Clinton (although Obama was beating McCain fairly soundly until the Wright thing, but that is starting to wear off, especially after Obama's speech on the topic, so things are changing back to Obama being ahead). At the beginning of this process, being tied at this point was best case scenerio for the Republicans. All the indicators (fundraising, party identication of the voting public, number and quality of challengers running in Congress, number of retirees in Congress, number of legitimately contested seats held by each party, public opinion on the issues, etc.) favor the Democrats this go around.

As for closed primaries vs. open ones, the choices are obvious-do you go for the electable candidate or the one more like the party base? McCain is no liberal, despite bleating from idiots who can't see past his (former) stance on immigration. But he was arguably the least "Republican" of the Republicans running, excluding Paul.

|3.27.08 @ 1:48PM|#

Underrated Sabbath Album. Best Cover Art Ever.

You got that right!

Weigel, you just went up about 20 notches in my book with that thread title. I actually had tickets to see Sabbath on the second leg of the Born Again tour, but it got canned when Gillan decided he'd had enough and took the gazillion dollars to do the Deep Purple reunion (which was pretty damned good, to be fair).

Robert|3.27.08 @ 3:21PM|#

The trouble with closed primaries is that they tend to lock in (not really stationary, but increasing the inertia) the present alignment of the parties by disadvantaging candidates with crossover appeal. The alignment of the parties in turn feeds back to media & academe, and contributes to disrespect for 3rd, 4th, etc. alignments such as that of libertarians -- not just radical libertarians, but even moderate libertarians.

Jim Murphy|3.29.08 @ 6:20AM|#

I tried to let your "post Holyfield Tyson opponent" metaphor slide by but as a professional fight sport journalist I can't...to make this work you need to specify post Holyfield, **pre-Lennox Lewis**. Following his two fights against Holyfield--the 2nd a DQ loss due to the infamous ear biting incident--Tyson had his Nevada boxing license yanked keeping him out of action for about 18 months. Upon his return he beat Frans Botha with ease and was then involved in a bizarre no-contest against Orlin Norris. At that point the Nevada Athletic Commission was tiring of the Tyson circus, so he headed overseas for a couple of fights. Upon his return to the US, a 3rd round TKO win for Tyson over Andrew Golota became a no-contest after "Iron Mike" tested positive for ganja...

Anyway, following his loss to Holyfield he went 4-0-2 heading into his matchup with Lennox Lewis. Lewis destroyed Tyson, and that was apparently the end of "Iron Mike" as a competitive fighter--following an easy KO over Clifford Ettiene in his next fight he suffered two back to back KO losses to journeyman Kevin McBride and Danny Williams.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements