Category Archives: Elections 2008

‘Idiot Pundits and Pollsters Strike Again’

Elections 2008, Journalism, Media

At least this empty tracksuit, Joel Achenbach, admits he and his cohort are “imbeciles” (why, then, are they still employed by prestigious publications and remunerated for their idiocy?):
“I guess it was premature to write those forward-looking analyses of President Obama’s re-election strategy in 2012.
I don’t want to suggest that the pundits look stupid this morning. More like complete freakin’ imbeciles. Count me among those who thought Obama was a runaway train, that he’d blow Clinton out of the water. (It’s early and I didn’t get enough sleep, so we just went ahead and mixed the metaphor.)
You had to see the crowds! Feel the energy! Okay, so in retrospect a lot of those people were probably college kids on break from Massachusetts or Maryland. Still, many of us sensed that we were witnessing history, a transition to a new era. Turning the page.
“You have to BELIEVE,” I told my jaded friend Von Drehle.
“In WHAT?” he said.
“In HOPE,” I said. I was just trying to get in the spirit of things, and be a true news medium.
In retrospect, I regret posting that item about Obama turning water to wine.
A little after midnight, in Nashua at the gym where Obama had spoken to his stunned supporters, a nationally known pundit said to me: “I spent half an hour today on television talking about the Clintons IN THE PAST TENSE.”
What happened?
Maybe it really was the “Ed Muskie in reverse” effect. That’s the Sid Blumenthal phrase. Clinton cleaned up among women, and women made up 57 percent (so I am told) of Democratic primary voters. Perhaps women rallied to the cause after the Emotional Moment. You heard what the woman from Bow told me yesterday: She suddenly switched from Edwards to Clinton after seeing the news clip of Clinton tearing up in Portsmouth. And several other voters told me they absolutely loved the EM.
Last night at the Obama rally, Sue Tice, a librarian at the high school who seemed floored by the results, said of the turnaround, “I really wonder if it was yesterday when Hillary became a person.”
And then there was the image of the boys ganging up on Clinton in the debate — and that snarky comment by Obama, calling Hillary “likeable enough,” which surely he meant to come out in a more jocular fashion. Never mind his intent: “Jokes don’t work,” said Dave Barry this weekend, and he knows a thing or two about that.
We’ve seen over the years that the New Hampshire Primary can turn on a gesture, a phrase, a single searing moment. Politics isn’t left-brained, it’s more reptilian than that.
We had buried Clinton by Monday night and had moved on to wondering what she’d do with the tattered remnants of her career. But guess what: the voters decide these things. It’s too soon to know precisely how this race stands and where it’s going and what’s going to happen, but from where I’m sitting — in the Manchester airport, ready to get the hell home — she’s the front-runner again.
And remember: Front-runners usually win.”

[Snip]

As I keep pointing out, there is nothing these people can predict accurately or analyze correctly (bar Pat Buchanan, who called the results in Iowa and New Hampshire). The print media’s timeless tenure is without justification.

Updated: The New Republic’s Vilification of Paul

Elections 2008, Federalism, Journalism, Media, Ron Paul

The less said about the New Republic’s vile write-up about Ron Paul the better.
On Pajama Media is where I first saw the exuberantly celebrated link to TNR’s hit piece. Pajama Media is a conglomeration of some of the lowliest neocons in the production of cyberspace ejaculate. Ditto “The New Republic”— warmongers all. They’ve never been right in any of their policy forecasts, and are mad as hell that Paul’s predictions usually pan out.
The stuff spewed by the author, who is fast becoming known as “Pimples” for obvious reasons, masquerades as investigative journalism, when it is no more than an ad hominem attack. The various contentions—mostly that Paul is alleged to have made offensive statements about crime and demographics—are not relevant to the campaign issues; these attacks do not address the issues Paul speaks to, but are, rather, personal attacks without proof.
Since it’s hard to hate the impish, good-natured Paul, I suspect that in Paul, his opponents have found man who has led an exemplary life—he has served his country and community, stayed married to his childhood sweetheart for 50 odd years, and is as devout a Christian as he is a constitutionalist. His actions alone make him the man his detractors can never aspire to be.
Disclaimer: “Pimples” appears to believe that advocating secession, which is no more than a peaceful political divorce, is racist and hateful. So in the interest of full disclosure, here is a piece I wrote. It appeared in Canada’s National Newspaper, the left-leaning Globe And Mail. It celebrates Canadian secessionism. But then the title is self-explanatory: “Raise a Toast to Western Separatism and Canada’s Good Health.”
Paul has issued a statement addressing The New Republic smears. Here it is.

Update: I imagined Andrew Sullivan, having endorsed Rep. Paul, would act like a man, for once, and stand up for Dr. Paul. But no: Sullivan became hysterical over the allegations against Paul. A sulking Sullivan has announced he no longer feels the same about the candidate he once praised so highly. Shame.

Hillary’s Hurting, But Will it Help?

Democrats, Elections 2008, Hillary Clinton

As you know, reason and realism are what guides this writer—she tries her best, at least. The slobbering sentimentality that has been conflated with authenticity in our culture sickens; it’s corrupting too. But there is a huge gulf between sentimentality and real emotion. The trick is to be able to tell the one from the other.
During the debates in New Hampshire, ABC’s anchor prefaced a question to Hillary by saying, “Iowans liked Obama more than you.” Hillary looked stung and, for once, allowed her words to reflect her wounds. She told “Charlie” how painful that was. And she looked humble and hurt. The media missed that one, but it was Genuine Moment Number One.
Hillary’s Second Genuine Moment came as she teared-up during a meet-and-greet at a coffee shop in Portsmouth, N.H. She looked rather nice too.
To the extent that she exposed her usually rigid, puritanical, driven self—to that extent she scored points. The problem is that women, her voting bloc, can’t distinguish a fake Oprah moment from a real display of valuable feelings. (Not all feelings are valuable; some people are more capable than others of harboring valuable feelings—and thoughts.)
So, the value of such a display of emotion depends on the ability of people to distinguish fake from fabricated. I doubt American culture facilitates such perspicacity. (Here’s an example of wickedness; of hate-the-opponent-all-the-time; of “Hot Air.”)
Unfortunately for Hillary, even when she does finally let her guard down and reveals a side of herself nobody has seen before, it might never be appreciated.

Analysis: Paul In New Hampshire

Classical Liberalism, Elections 2008, IMMIGRATION, Ron Paul

* DEMEANOR. Rep. Paul seemed disengaged and was the only candidate who didn’t jump in and interject—he didn’t partake, even though the forum was open to it. The others did. Campaigning must be ever so exhausting, even for the spry Dr. Paul. Fatigue may have set in. It’s understandable. But it was also obvious.
* SIMPLIFY. When Giuliani manages to better articulate basic, free market principles vis-à-vis healthcare, for example, you know that Paul’s advisers are faltering. He has not mustered the knack for breaking down complex concept like inflation into simple intellectual building blocks. Sure, none of us knows what it’s like to stand up there in opposition to the statist mainstream and speak about freedom and liberty. But then none of us has decided to take on a run for office, as Paul has. Paul, moreover, has done this before.
* IMMIGRATION. The Paul campaign has come out with an innovative ad on illegal immigration. As I said in “Ron Paul’s Electability”—well before all the contretemps over the ad erupted—Paul is hardcore on illegal immigration. He has the best proposals. Rather than focus on Paul’s excellent, passive, non-aggressive devices to bring about the attrition of illegals, the media, including my own WND, has concentrated on the usual suspects: the loudest, most marginal, licentious, left-libertine crazies currently protesting the Paul ad. The tinfoil folks have discovered Paul is no lefty. Rather, he’s a man of the Old, classical liberal Right. As such, Dr. Paul defends with perfect congruity the sovereign nation-state bounded by borders. I’ll be speaking to this issue in my forthcoming, Friday, WND weekly column.
Suffice it to say that when the topic came up during the NH debate, Paul ought to have touted his own pointers as they appear in the ad. Instead, in a habit he seems to be honing, he responded to a question about immigration with an answer about the national ID card, and…inflation. Bad form. Yes, those of us who’re in the intellectual trenches of the fight for liberty know Dr. Paul makes a good point. But it’s the wrong point to make in a timed debate about specifics.
Again, here he ought to have enumerated the points made in his ad—his commitment to abolish both welfare benefits and birthright citizenship puts a Paul administration in the lead on illegal immigration.
* NARROW THE FOCUS. Paul failed to focus his answers on the questions—especially with respect to healthcare. Cardinal Rule: Don’t reply to a question about healthcare with an answer about inflation. As Paul purported, “You have to deal with the monetary issue to solve the problem of the medical issue.” This is very broadly true, but it doesn’t answer the voter’s need to know what Dr. Paul’s policy prescription is for healthcare. Sadly, the voter believes this too is a government responsibility.
Neither do you reply to the same question with this retort: “The resources are going overseas. We’re fighting a trillion-dollar war, and we shouldn’t be doing it. Those resources should be spent back here at home.” Paul’s reply here implies that government ought to fund healthcare rather than gratuitous warfare. He didn’t mean it, but it sure sounded as if he did.
Contrast that with Giuliani’s
The reality is that, with all of its infirmities and difficulties, we have the best health care system in the world. And it may be because we have a system that still is, if not holy [sic], at least in large part still private. To go in the direction that the Democrats want to go — much more government care, much more government medicine, socialized medicine — is going to mean a deteriorated state of medicine in this country. … I said jokingly in one debate, if we go in the direction of socialized medicine, where will Canadians come for health care?
Giuliani links the private sector with efficient healthcare delivery; government to shortages and inefficiencies.
* BE PRECISE. Bandying about expressions and phrases such as “federal mandates,” or “forced benefits” confuses the voter. Better to use simple words to spell out how the Federal Frankenstein has compelled the states by law to provide free medical care, education, and assorted welfare largesse to illegals. Similarly, don’t throw about the word inflation. Rather, speak of—in context only, not as an antidote to every problem—more paper money in the system causing every unit to depreciate. … A simplified inflation explanation is in “Dubya the Devaluer.”