Wednesday, July 30, 2003
Senator Springer:
The word on the street is that former Cincinnati mayor and infamous daytime talk show host, Jerry Springer, is coming close to a decision on whether or not to run for Senate. It brings a smile to the face of a cutthroat conservative to see the Dems may have this fiasco to deal with come election season. Springer has patched together a unique constituency consisting of drunken hillbillies, single mothers whose daughters dress way too sexy, proponents of inter-species marriage, and people concealing their real sexual orientation from their significant others. Sure this sounds like an unbeatable confederation of sympathetic interest groups, but can they be mobilized on election day? Will a marathon of "Wild On" episodes on E! keep these people away from the polls and on their couches eating Cheese Puffs and drinking cheap malt liquor? Only time will tell, but even other Democrats are poking fun at the potential candidate. I would expect this to stop immediately if Springer wins the nomination. The one principle that the Dems always follow is to never attack an official or candidate with a (D) after their name. After all, these are the same people who are supporting Gray Davis even as he drags California ever closer to third-world status. Bill Clinton was able to get away with just about every crime short of murder and they treat him as if he's the earthly reincarnation of JFK.
The Strategy:
First, let's all pray that Jerry Springer wins the nomination of his party faithful. Second, conservatives need to make Springer the poster boy for the Dems in 2004. There is no conceivable way that middle America can have have confidence in a party who would put forth Jerry Springer as their candidate. Right next to your Bush/Cheney '04 campaign button should be a button that reads Springer/Unfaithful Hermaphrodite '04.
The word on the street is that former Cincinnati mayor and infamous daytime talk show host, Jerry Springer, is coming close to a decision on whether or not to run for Senate. It brings a smile to the face of a cutthroat conservative to see the Dems may have this fiasco to deal with come election season. Springer has patched together a unique constituency consisting of drunken hillbillies, single mothers whose daughters dress way too sexy, proponents of inter-species marriage, and people concealing their real sexual orientation from their significant others. Sure this sounds like an unbeatable confederation of sympathetic interest groups, but can they be mobilized on election day? Will a marathon of "Wild On" episodes on E! keep these people away from the polls and on their couches eating Cheese Puffs and drinking cheap malt liquor? Only time will tell, but even other Democrats are poking fun at the potential candidate. I would expect this to stop immediately if Springer wins the nomination. The one principle that the Dems always follow is to never attack an official or candidate with a (D) after their name. After all, these are the same people who are supporting Gray Davis even as he drags California ever closer to third-world status. Bill Clinton was able to get away with just about every crime short of murder and they treat him as if he's the earthly reincarnation of JFK.
The Strategy:
First, let's all pray that Jerry Springer wins the nomination of his party faithful. Second, conservatives need to make Springer the poster boy for the Dems in 2004. There is no conceivable way that middle America can have have confidence in a party who would put forth Jerry Springer as their candidate. Right next to your Bush/Cheney '04 campaign button should be a button that reads Springer/Unfaithful Hermaphrodite '04.
Dems on the Run:
Something tells me these guys would be in a lot more trouble if they were from the other side of the aisle. Some Texas State Senate Dems have decided to take in the sights over in New Mexico rather than do their jobs, giving them the power to block a redistricting vote. It's amazing to me that the Texas Dems aren't looking like complete fools doing something this childish. If these guys were Republicans, I think CNN would be more likely to classify the situation as a constitutional crisis rather than a quirky state government spat. Republicans in the minority are most often depicted as cry-babies, but Democrats get the beloved underdog tag. Let's hope the reality on the ground in Texas is different than what the big media is reporting.
Something tells me these guys would be in a lot more trouble if they were from the other side of the aisle. Some Texas State Senate Dems have decided to take in the sights over in New Mexico rather than do their jobs, giving them the power to block a redistricting vote. It's amazing to me that the Texas Dems aren't looking like complete fools doing something this childish. If these guys were Republicans, I think CNN would be more likely to classify the situation as a constitutional crisis rather than a quirky state government spat. Republicans in the minority are most often depicted as cry-babies, but Democrats get the beloved underdog tag. Let's hope the reality on the ground in Texas is different than what the big media is reporting.
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
Gay Marriage:
Evidence is in that there has been a backlash of sorts against gay rights, most likely due to the highly publicized Supreme Court decision on sodomy. Just to make my personal views on gay issues plain-- I do not think homosexuality is immoral behavior and I do not think benefits for same-sex couples commensurate with those for heteros are the end of the world. But I do think that homosexuality in itself is a psychological or physiological defect and that the US should not bestow marriage rights on gay couples.
This being said, I strongly believe Christian conservatives need to drop this idea of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. My fear is that poll results showing a decrease in support for gay marriage will only increase their desire to pursue this divisive issue. The odds of passing the amendment and having it adopted by two-thirds of the states is next to impossible and rife with the possibility of conservatives making all kinds of gaffes during the debate that would only reinforce conservative stereotypes of piousness and intolerance. It's political suicide to place our support on an essentially negative issue. This issue is nearly impossible to put positive spin on. You might suggest defense of marriage, but defense from what-- hordes of evil homosexuals storming the gates of marriage? There's no way to play that game and not end up a loser.
President Bush needs to kill the debate by simply saying, "I don't agree with gay marriage and have serious questions about civil unions, however, it should be left up to the individual states to decide whether they will approve civil unions and recognize civil unions from other states." This statement would be perfect because it embraces the majority view of distaste for gay marriage, mentions a tolerant and less threatening alternative, and takes the issue off the national level by passing the buck down to the states. This issue is especially important because gays are a demographic that conservatives could actually tap into if they would just get their heads out of their asses. Their tendency as a group to be educated and wealthier than average make them more likely to be conservative. Republicans don't have to start wearing pink triangle lapel pins, but they certainly need to keep attacks on gay marriage in the vault, at least on the national level.
Evidence is in that there has been a backlash of sorts against gay rights, most likely due to the highly publicized Supreme Court decision on sodomy. Just to make my personal views on gay issues plain-- I do not think homosexuality is immoral behavior and I do not think benefits for same-sex couples commensurate with those for heteros are the end of the world. But I do think that homosexuality in itself is a psychological or physiological defect and that the US should not bestow marriage rights on gay couples.
This being said, I strongly believe Christian conservatives need to drop this idea of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. My fear is that poll results showing a decrease in support for gay marriage will only increase their desire to pursue this divisive issue. The odds of passing the amendment and having it adopted by two-thirds of the states is next to impossible and rife with the possibility of conservatives making all kinds of gaffes during the debate that would only reinforce conservative stereotypes of piousness and intolerance. It's political suicide to place our support on an essentially negative issue. This issue is nearly impossible to put positive spin on. You might suggest defense of marriage, but defense from what-- hordes of evil homosexuals storming the gates of marriage? There's no way to play that game and not end up a loser.
President Bush needs to kill the debate by simply saying, "I don't agree with gay marriage and have serious questions about civil unions, however, it should be left up to the individual states to decide whether they will approve civil unions and recognize civil unions from other states." This statement would be perfect because it embraces the majority view of distaste for gay marriage, mentions a tolerant and less threatening alternative, and takes the issue off the national level by passing the buck down to the states. This issue is especially important because gays are a demographic that conservatives could actually tap into if they would just get their heads out of their asses. Their tendency as a group to be educated and wealthier than average make them more likely to be conservative. Republicans don't have to start wearing pink triangle lapel pins, but they certainly need to keep attacks on gay marriage in the vault, at least on the national level.
Monday, July 28, 2003
The Dean Problem:
Centrist Democrats are getting scared that Howard Dean is going to serve up a big victory for the Republicans in the 2004 election. Dean possesses the perfect mixture of anger, muddled logic, political pandering, belief in big government, and outright ignorance to make him a perfect candidate for Democratic primary voters. Putting up a strong candidate, even if he is a loser, is crucial for the Dems this cycle. They have more Senate seats to defend than the Republicans in 2004 and look to remain the minority in both houses of congress and without the presidency. Let's hope Howard Dean gets the nod to run against the President next year and extends Bush's coattails across the country.
Centrist Democrats are getting scared that Howard Dean is going to serve up a big victory for the Republicans in the 2004 election. Dean possesses the perfect mixture of anger, muddled logic, political pandering, belief in big government, and outright ignorance to make him a perfect candidate for Democratic primary voters. Putting up a strong candidate, even if he is a loser, is crucial for the Dems this cycle. They have more Senate seats to defend than the Republicans in 2004 and look to remain the minority in both houses of congress and without the presidency. Let's hope Howard Dean gets the nod to run against the President next year and extends Bush's coattails across the country.
Recall Update:
Over at Drudge is a report that the Clinton's might do some anti-recall campaigning in California. I love it-- talk about a way to get conservatives all riled up! Keep an eye on your wives and daughters, Golden Staters.
Over at Drudge is a report that the Clinton's might do some anti-recall campaigning in California. I love it-- talk about a way to get conservatives all riled up! Keep an eye on your wives and daughters, Golden Staters.
California Recall:
It appears as if Arnie won't be running for governor in the recall election, and I couldn't be happier. The last thing Republicans need is to win the recall. The best possible outcome would be for Davis to remain in office by a victory of a few percentage points. We need Californians to stay motivated to go out to the polls in the 2004 election and start to help win back some House seats. Nothing motivates political opposition more than a huge defeat, and I'm afraid the conservatives might be blowing their load with this recall fiasco. If the base was energized enough to actually get a recall organized, just imagine how riled up these guys are going to be under three more years of Gray Davis! Demographics suggest a Republican revolution in California is as likely Al Sharpton becoming president, but we can't very well go on surrendering the most populous state in the Union to the Democrats every election.
It appears as if Arnie won't be running for governor in the recall election, and I couldn't be happier. The last thing Republicans need is to win the recall. The best possible outcome would be for Davis to remain in office by a victory of a few percentage points. We need Californians to stay motivated to go out to the polls in the 2004 election and start to help win back some House seats. Nothing motivates political opposition more than a huge defeat, and I'm afraid the conservatives might be blowing their load with this recall fiasco. If the base was energized enough to actually get a recall organized, just imagine how riled up these guys are going to be under three more years of Gray Davis! Demographics suggest a Republican revolution in California is as likely Al Sharpton becoming president, but we can't very well go on surrendering the most populous state in the Union to the Democrats every election.
Bush and the Black Vote:
President Bush spoke today at the Urban League in Pittsburgh. While not as openly hostile to Bush(and Republicans in general) as the NAACP, the Urban League is still no picnic for the president. If Bush was able to get elected in 2000 with under 10% of the black vote imagine the success Republicans could have if they were able to take 30-40% of black votes. I think education and school vouchers provide the best opportunity to turn around their luck with black voters. I understand that there hasn't been a lot of time to focus on school vouchers with events overseas rightfully getting the most attention, but this should be the centerpiece of domestic policy for the administration. This is the one issue where large numbers of blacks disagree with liberal conventional wisdom, so why let it drop off the political map?
There are four key reasons why conservatives need to relentlessly to push for private school vouchers. 1) It's the best way to raise black achievment in school. 2) Breaking up the teacher's unions would have a huge impact in reducing campaign ads against conservatives and teachers' desires to indoctrinate their students with liberal propaganda. 3) People tend to be more conservative the more educated they are. 4) To score short term political points by focusing on an issue that many blacks agree with and would disproportionately benefit them.
What's the worst that could happen anyway? Alienating the black vote? Seems to me that with under 10% voting Republican it would be damn hard to alienate them any further.
President Bush spoke today at the Urban League in Pittsburgh. While not as openly hostile to Bush(and Republicans in general) as the NAACP, the Urban League is still no picnic for the president. If Bush was able to get elected in 2000 with under 10% of the black vote imagine the success Republicans could have if they were able to take 30-40% of black votes. I think education and school vouchers provide the best opportunity to turn around their luck with black voters. I understand that there hasn't been a lot of time to focus on school vouchers with events overseas rightfully getting the most attention, but this should be the centerpiece of domestic policy for the administration. This is the one issue where large numbers of blacks disagree with liberal conventional wisdom, so why let it drop off the political map?
There are four key reasons why conservatives need to relentlessly to push for private school vouchers. 1) It's the best way to raise black achievment in school. 2) Breaking up the teacher's unions would have a huge impact in reducing campaign ads against conservatives and teachers' desires to indoctrinate their students with liberal propaganda. 3) People tend to be more conservative the more educated they are. 4) To score short term political points by focusing on an issue that many blacks agree with and would disproportionately benefit them.
What's the worst that could happen anyway? Alienating the black vote? Seems to me that with under 10% voting Republican it would be damn hard to alienate them any further.
Sunday, July 27, 2003
Near Miss
Close, but no cigar-smoking maniac for the US troops. It looks as though we may have missed Saddam by as little as a day. It's encouraging to know that he is at least still in the country. But I guess there's still a part of me that would have loved to see him turn up in a French villa, sipping fancy French whine and reading Le Monde to reassure himself that he's still winning the war. If nothing else, it would have been great to see Chirac squirm for once instead of acting like a prententious asshole all the time. But we could still see something interesting; perhaps Saddam dragged out by Marines in his silk pajamas and a night cap complete with a fluffy ball on top. Tick-tock sucker-- it won't be long now. US troops are the most well-trained on the face of the Earth and you're running out of places to hide.
Close, but no cigar-smoking maniac for the US troops. It looks as though we may have missed Saddam by as little as a day. It's encouraging to know that he is at least still in the country. But I guess there's still a part of me that would have loved to see him turn up in a French villa, sipping fancy French whine and reading Le Monde to reassure himself that he's still winning the war. If nothing else, it would have been great to see Chirac squirm for once instead of acting like a prententious asshole all the time. But we could still see something interesting; perhaps Saddam dragged out by Marines in his silk pajamas and a night cap complete with a fluffy ball on top. Tick-tock sucker-- it won't be long now. US troops are the most well-trained on the face of the Earth and you're running out of places to hide.
Saturday, July 26, 2003
The Kobe Sensation:
The attention that the alleged sexual assault is receiving in the news media and the internet has reached an absurd level. But, as with any story, the media wouldn't cover it unless viewers were interested. Web searches for "Kobe Bryant" and "Kobe Bryant's Accuser" have gone into the stratosphere on all of the major search engines. Apparently the only three stories that have yielded more internet searches in the past few years have been the Iraq war, the 2000 presidential election, and 9/11. Nice to see this isn't the story that has piqued our interest the most, but it is still troubling in a way. However, the popularity on the internet has been driven to a great extent due to the fact that mainstream media has refused to release the accuser's name. On top of that, they cleverly decide to debate the merits of whether or not her name should be released, interview the radio host who has released her name, and mention how some web sites have chosen to out the girl. They practically threw down the gauntlet to their viewers to go out and independently seek the accuser's information. The poor girl now not only has her name and picture out in the public arena, internet jackals have released her phone number, home and e-mail addresses, and an aerial photograph of her home. They even released several photos of the wrong girl who has now gotten a lawyer to try and stop her pictures from being plastered all over the internet and becoming known as "the girl Kobe raped."
I believe that releasing the girl's address, phone number, etc. is reprehensible but the question as to whether her name and photo should be released is a different matter altogether. The argument against releasing her name is founded in the idea that rape is a unique crime in that victims are often stigmatized by their allegations and many decide not to come forward at all. This argument is sound only when it does not take into the account the stigma placed on the man accused. It's hard for me to believe that Kobe's reputation is not irreversibly tarnished by this allegation. The degree to which his name is besmirched will be commensurate with the outcome of the trial. Unless the girl turns out to be a raving psychopath, Kobe will have his reputation seriously damaged regardless of the trial's outcome. And, even then, this event would always be a bizarre footnote when discussing the player's life and career.
The media is the closest thing the US has to a fourth branch of government, given that it is the entity that is most responsible for the protection of our rights and freedoms. After all, if your rights were violated or your freedoms fettered, how likely is it that the situation would be remedied without a free press to report it? I make this analogy in part because I believe that revealing the name of the accused rapist and not the accuser is tantamount to a violation of Kobe's right to equal protection under the law. In a society where one is innocent until proven guilty, it is of the utmost importance to ensure both parties are placed on equal footing. There can be no doubt that only having the media reveal the name of the accused places this person at a distinct disadvantage, especially given that the "media circus factor" must have made an impact on the pool of likely jurors. I believe that the media should release the girl's name and picture. The fact that courtesy towards the alleged victim has trumped fairness towards the alleged perpetrator is a shame. Besides, if the major media outlets had simply shown the girl's name and photo, its hard for me to imagine the accuser being any worse off. Aerial photos??? Gimme a break.
The attention that the alleged sexual assault is receiving in the news media and the internet has reached an absurd level. But, as with any story, the media wouldn't cover it unless viewers were interested. Web searches for "Kobe Bryant" and "Kobe Bryant's Accuser" have gone into the stratosphere on all of the major search engines. Apparently the only three stories that have yielded more internet searches in the past few years have been the Iraq war, the 2000 presidential election, and 9/11. Nice to see this isn't the story that has piqued our interest the most, but it is still troubling in a way. However, the popularity on the internet has been driven to a great extent due to the fact that mainstream media has refused to release the accuser's name. On top of that, they cleverly decide to debate the merits of whether or not her name should be released, interview the radio host who has released her name, and mention how some web sites have chosen to out the girl. They practically threw down the gauntlet to their viewers to go out and independently seek the accuser's information. The poor girl now not only has her name and picture out in the public arena, internet jackals have released her phone number, home and e-mail addresses, and an aerial photograph of her home. They even released several photos of the wrong girl who has now gotten a lawyer to try and stop her pictures from being plastered all over the internet and becoming known as "the girl Kobe raped."
I believe that releasing the girl's address, phone number, etc. is reprehensible but the question as to whether her name and photo should be released is a different matter altogether. The argument against releasing her name is founded in the idea that rape is a unique crime in that victims are often stigmatized by their allegations and many decide not to come forward at all. This argument is sound only when it does not take into the account the stigma placed on the man accused. It's hard for me to believe that Kobe's reputation is not irreversibly tarnished by this allegation. The degree to which his name is besmirched will be commensurate with the outcome of the trial. Unless the girl turns out to be a raving psychopath, Kobe will have his reputation seriously damaged regardless of the trial's outcome. And, even then, this event would always be a bizarre footnote when discussing the player's life and career.
The media is the closest thing the US has to a fourth branch of government, given that it is the entity that is most responsible for the protection of our rights and freedoms. After all, if your rights were violated or your freedoms fettered, how likely is it that the situation would be remedied without a free press to report it? I make this analogy in part because I believe that revealing the name of the accused rapist and not the accuser is tantamount to a violation of Kobe's right to equal protection under the law. In a society where one is innocent until proven guilty, it is of the utmost importance to ensure both parties are placed on equal footing. There can be no doubt that only having the media reveal the name of the accused places this person at a distinct disadvantage, especially given that the "media circus factor" must have made an impact on the pool of likely jurors. I believe that the media should release the girl's name and picture. The fact that courtesy towards the alleged victim has trumped fairness towards the alleged perpetrator is a shame. Besides, if the major media outlets had simply shown the girl's name and photo, its hard for me to imagine the accuser being any worse off. Aerial photos??? Gimme a break.
I hear this is the most annoying web page ever. But I could be wrong.
Meeae is a dork.
My name is Will King and this is my first blog. I'm so freakin' excited!
