19/01: Chrome and Lust
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Category: US in Iraq.archive.iii
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
This excerpt from Pat Buchanan's latest requiem for our Iraq policy is no surprise in terms of theme or tone, but the unvarnished assessment is nevertheless jarring in its logic and ring of inescapable impending doom:
"Even should the surge succeed for a time, it may only push the inevitable into another year.
"And consider what it is we are asking Maliki to do.
"We want him to use Sunni and Kurdish brigades of the Iraqi Army, in concert with the U.S. Army, to smash the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, the most popular Shia leader in the country and the principal political support of Maliki. We are asking Maliki to turn on his ruthless Shia patron and bet his future on an America whose people want all U.S. troops home, the earlier the better.
"For Maliki to implement fully the U.S. conditions would make him a mortal enemy of Moqtada and millions of Shia, and possibly result in his assassination. Whatever legacy Bush faces, he is not staring down a gun barrel at that.
"The truth: There is only one U.S. policy guaranteed to work if we are resolved to keep Iraq in the U.S. camp. That is to send an army of 500,000 to 750,000 U.S. troops into Iraq for an indefinite period, to pacify Baghdad, retake and hold Anbar and secure the borders against jihadis. Even that kind of commitment, beyond the present capacity of the U.S. Army and Marines, would not secure America's position, once the inevitable withdrawal began.
"It is over. What we need to face now are the consequence of the folly of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice in launching this unnecessary and unprovoked war, the folly of the neocon snake oil salesmen who bamboozled the media into believing in this insane crusade to bring democracy to Baghdad in the belly of Bradley fighting vehicles and the folly of the Democratic establishment in handing Bush a blank check for war out of political fear of being called unpatriotic."
Read the entire piece here--courtesy of RCP.
"Even should the surge succeed for a time, it may only push the inevitable into another year.
"And consider what it is we are asking Maliki to do.
"We want him to use Sunni and Kurdish brigades of the Iraqi Army, in concert with the U.S. Army, to smash the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, the most popular Shia leader in the country and the principal political support of Maliki. We are asking Maliki to turn on his ruthless Shia patron and bet his future on an America whose people want all U.S. troops home, the earlier the better.
"For Maliki to implement fully the U.S. conditions would make him a mortal enemy of Moqtada and millions of Shia, and possibly result in his assassination. Whatever legacy Bush faces, he is not staring down a gun barrel at that.
"The truth: There is only one U.S. policy guaranteed to work if we are resolved to keep Iraq in the U.S. camp. That is to send an army of 500,000 to 750,000 U.S. troops into Iraq for an indefinite period, to pacify Baghdad, retake and hold Anbar and secure the borders against jihadis. Even that kind of commitment, beyond the present capacity of the U.S. Army and Marines, would not secure America's position, once the inevitable withdrawal began.
"It is over. What we need to face now are the consequence of the folly of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice in launching this unnecessary and unprovoked war, the folly of the neocon snake oil salesmen who bamboozled the media into believing in this insane crusade to bring democracy to Baghdad in the belly of Bradley fighting vehicles and the folly of the Democratic establishment in handing Bush a blank check for war out of political fear of being called unpatriotic."
Read the entire piece here--courtesy of RCP.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
This may be the biggest current under-reported news today. From iTWire here
The seizure of some crucial diaries and papers from people arrested in connection with the attack in Bangalore and Hyderabad led the police to alert IT companies in India to be more security conscious because they had found out that some militants had surveyed IT and call-center companies, to zero in on potential targets for future attacks.
Stratfor has a recent article on the threat, the full-text requires subscription, but this lead is free On Jan. 5, [2007] Indian police arrested a suspected militant near Jalahalli, a village just north of the important high-tech center of Bangalore. The arrest, the latest in a series of incidents connected to the high-tech industry, demonstrates the increasing militant focus on this vital sector of the Indian economy.
Terrorists appear to be targeting India's high tech and information centers. Success against these targets would be devastating for the Indian economy.
Important to America? Yes, India now is linked in with our own economy. India may be our staunchest long-term ally against Islamic terror. India is an important military ally as China expands its power.
The seizure of some crucial diaries and papers from people arrested in connection with the attack in Bangalore and Hyderabad led the police to alert IT companies in India to be more security conscious because they had found out that some militants had surveyed IT and call-center companies, to zero in on potential targets for future attacks.
Stratfor has a recent article on the threat, the full-text requires subscription, but this lead is free On Jan. 5, [2007] Indian police arrested a suspected militant near Jalahalli, a village just north of the important high-tech center of Bangalore. The arrest, the latest in a series of incidents connected to the high-tech industry, demonstrates the increasing militant focus on this vital sector of the Indian economy.
Terrorists appear to be targeting India's high tech and information centers. Success against these targets would be devastating for the Indian economy.
Important to America? Yes, India now is linked in with our own economy. India may be our staunchest long-term ally against Islamic terror. India is an important military ally as China expands its power.
19/01: GW Bush Library and SMU
SMU appears to be the location for the future George W. Bush Presidential Library, much to the dissappointment of Baylor University, Waco.
Recently some faculty, and other United Methodists have objected to locating the library at the Southern Methodist University. I've spent a little time this morning at the website of the UMC protestors, here, which has as its mission statement
We the undersigned express our objection to the prospect of the George W. Bush library, museum, and think tank being established at Southern Methodist University. As United Methodists, we believe that the linking of his presidency with a university bearing the Methodist name is utterly inappropriate. We urge the Board of Trustees of Southern Methodist University and the South Central Jurisdiction of The United Methodist Church to reject this project.
On the site, however, I cannot find much justification for the objection. Specifically, there are no arguments or rationales offered as to why United Methodists should object to such a linkage. There is a list of references, but most of those appear to be the usual denunciations of the Bush administration over the "War on Terror", the War in Iraq, and the Federal government's handling of the Katrina aftermath. Nothing specifically Methodist.
I miss rational discourse.
Looking at the Southern Methodist University website: I do not even see the word "Methodist" on the front page. The university is referred to simply as SMU. In the "About Us" section SMU describes itself as
A private university of 11,000 students near the center of Dallas . . . And at the bottom of the page Founded in 1911 by what is now The United Methodist Church, SMU opened in 1915 with support from Dallas leaders. The University is nonsectarian in its teaching and committed to freedom of inquiry.
Doesn't sound like SMU is especially Methodist, so I have trouble believing that the opponents of the library wish to preserve the integrity of "Methodism".
Recently some faculty, and other United Methodists have objected to locating the library at the Southern Methodist University. I've spent a little time this morning at the website of the UMC protestors, here, which has as its mission statement
We the undersigned express our objection to the prospect of the George W. Bush library, museum, and think tank being established at Southern Methodist University. As United Methodists, we believe that the linking of his presidency with a university bearing the Methodist name is utterly inappropriate. We urge the Board of Trustees of Southern Methodist University and the South Central Jurisdiction of The United Methodist Church to reject this project.
On the site, however, I cannot find much justification for the objection. Specifically, there are no arguments or rationales offered as to why United Methodists should object to such a linkage. There is a list of references, but most of those appear to be the usual denunciations of the Bush administration over the "War on Terror", the War in Iraq, and the Federal government's handling of the Katrina aftermath. Nothing specifically Methodist.
I miss rational discourse.
Looking at the Southern Methodist University website: I do not even see the word "Methodist" on the front page. The university is referred to simply as SMU. In the "About Us" section SMU describes itself as
A private university of 11,000 students near the center of Dallas . . . And at the bottom of the page Founded in 1911 by what is now The United Methodist Church, SMU opened in 1915 with support from Dallas leaders. The University is nonsectarian in its teaching and committed to freedom of inquiry.
Doesn't sound like SMU is especially Methodist, so I have trouble believing that the opponents of the library wish to preserve the integrity of "Methodism".
19/01: Ali turns 65
Category: From the Heart
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Happy Birthday, Champ.
May your hands always be busy,
May your feet always be swift,
May you have a strong foundation
When the winds of changes shift.
May your heart always be joyful,
May your song always be sung,
May you stay forever young.
~~Bob Dylan
From the 110th Congress:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors Muhammad Ali, global humanitarian, on the occasion of his 65th birthday and extends best wishes to him and his family (read all here).
May your hands always be busy,
May your feet always be swift,
May you have a strong foundation
When the winds of changes shift.
May your heart always be joyful,
May your song always be sung,
May you stay forever young.
~~Bob Dylan
From the 110th Congress:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors Muhammad Ali, global humanitarian, on the occasion of his 65th birthday and extends best wishes to him and his family (read all here).
19/01: An American Golden Age
Golden Ages happen, generally, when a series of unconnected events come together in a fortuitous way to form an extraordinary moment. For example, we often view the late-1950s and early-1960s in America as a Golden Age.
Of course, many will note that we whitewash much of the ugliness of the fifties in our mind's eye, remembering the era through the prism of black and white television series in which Father always knew best and problems evaporated every thirty minutes. The social critic's question in a nutshell: "Happy Days" for whom?
Notwithstanding that critique, the period stands out for so many of us (even, perhaps especially, those of us born after the fact) as a shining moment in our national story when so much was right with America. Why were the 1950s so grand? The Golden Age materialized, at least in part, as a result of the deprivation of the Great Depression, the sacrifice of the Second World War followed by the relief of victory and the great surprise of collective affluence.
On a personal scale, think of a typically rural American, raised on a farm somewhere in the heartland during the Great Depression, growing to maturity in an environment in which “want” was a perpetual state--but making do. Coming of age during our all-out national struggle to defeat fascism, this typical American joined the battle (if male, most likely went to war). For veterans of the fight for survival during the 1930s, defeating Hitler and Tojo seemed light duty (at least a fellow got three squares a day).
Returning home victorious, America's warriors were rewarded with the opportunity to attend college and buy homes on the G.I. Bill. For so many Americans, higher education, a tried and true path to upward mobility, proved the unexpected but hilariously happy consequence of their war service. America went to college in droves and emerged in the post-war world with the best educated most resourceful workforce on the planet. Born into deprivation, tested by war, the Greatest Generation understood the post-war opportunity and made the most of it. Happy Days.
One wonders if great success is possible without severe trials. How long can a golden age last? How long can a people maintain a level of excellence without a great cultural crisis to motivate them to higher achievement?
Are we in such a crisis? Or, more accurately, are we descending into such a period of crisis? Will this coming crisis mark the downward turning point in the great American drama—or will the next test mark the beginning of a cycle of renewal?
Or as Benjamin Franklin purportedly asked 220 years ago: "Is the sun rising or setting on the American experiment?"
Of course, many will note that we whitewash much of the ugliness of the fifties in our mind's eye, remembering the era through the prism of black and white television series in which Father always knew best and problems evaporated every thirty minutes. The social critic's question in a nutshell: "Happy Days" for whom?
Notwithstanding that critique, the period stands out for so many of us (even, perhaps especially, those of us born after the fact) as a shining moment in our national story when so much was right with America. Why were the 1950s so grand? The Golden Age materialized, at least in part, as a result of the deprivation of the Great Depression, the sacrifice of the Second World War followed by the relief of victory and the great surprise of collective affluence.
On a personal scale, think of a typically rural American, raised on a farm somewhere in the heartland during the Great Depression, growing to maturity in an environment in which “want” was a perpetual state--but making do. Coming of age during our all-out national struggle to defeat fascism, this typical American joined the battle (if male, most likely went to war). For veterans of the fight for survival during the 1930s, defeating Hitler and Tojo seemed light duty (at least a fellow got three squares a day).
Returning home victorious, America's warriors were rewarded with the opportunity to attend college and buy homes on the G.I. Bill. For so many Americans, higher education, a tried and true path to upward mobility, proved the unexpected but hilariously happy consequence of their war service. America went to college in droves and emerged in the post-war world with the best educated most resourceful workforce on the planet. Born into deprivation, tested by war, the Greatest Generation understood the post-war opportunity and made the most of it. Happy Days.
One wonders if great success is possible without severe trials. How long can a golden age last? How long can a people maintain a level of excellence without a great cultural crisis to motivate them to higher achievement?
Are we in such a crisis? Or, more accurately, are we descending into such a period of crisis? Will this coming crisis mark the downward turning point in the great American drama—or will the next test mark the beginning of a cycle of renewal?
Or as Benjamin Franklin purportedly asked 220 years ago: "Is the sun rising or setting on the American experiment?"
18/01: The Quran and War
A must read for anyone striving to understand the current conflict, this review of S. K. Malik's The Quranic Way of War. Malik is/was a Pakistani military officer. From Jihadwatch.
An excerpt:
The Quranic Concept of War
The Quranic Concept of War, by Brigadier General S. K. Malik of the Pakistani Army provides readers with unequalled insight. Originally published in Pakistan in 1979, most available copies are found in India, or in small non-descript Muslim bookstores. One major point to ponder, when thinking about The Quranic Concept of War, is the title itself. The Quran is presumed to be the revealed word of God as spoken through his chosen prophet, Mohammed. According to Malik, the Quran places warfighting doctrine and its theory in a much different category than western thinkers are accustomed to, because it is not a theory of war derived by man, but of God. This is God’s warfighting principles and commandments revealed. Malik attempts to distill God’s doctrine for war through the examples of the Prophet. By contrast, the closest that Clausewitz comes to divine presentation is in his discussion of the trinity: the people, the state, and the military. In the Islamic context, the discussion of war is at the level of revealed truth and example, well above theory—God has no need to theorize. Malik notes, “As a complete Code of Life, the Holy Quran gives us a philosophy of war as well. . . . This divine philosophy is an integral part of the total Quranic ideology.”
(Okie again) We are not in a War on Terror. We are in a war with radical Islamists. This is not a new war. We are in another hot period of the nearly 1400 year-long war of Islam against everyone else. We need to understand the enemy in order to defeat him.
An excerpt:
The Quranic Concept of War
The Quranic Concept of War, by Brigadier General S. K. Malik of the Pakistani Army provides readers with unequalled insight. Originally published in Pakistan in 1979, most available copies are found in India, or in small non-descript Muslim bookstores. One major point to ponder, when thinking about The Quranic Concept of War, is the title itself. The Quran is presumed to be the revealed word of God as spoken through his chosen prophet, Mohammed. According to Malik, the Quran places warfighting doctrine and its theory in a much different category than western thinkers are accustomed to, because it is not a theory of war derived by man, but of God. This is God’s warfighting principles and commandments revealed. Malik attempts to distill God’s doctrine for war through the examples of the Prophet. By contrast, the closest that Clausewitz comes to divine presentation is in his discussion of the trinity: the people, the state, and the military. In the Islamic context, the discussion of war is at the level of revealed truth and example, well above theory—God has no need to theorize. Malik notes, “As a complete Code of Life, the Holy Quran gives us a philosophy of war as well. . . . This divine philosophy is an integral part of the total Quranic ideology.”
(Okie again) We are not in a War on Terror. We are in a war with radical Islamists. This is not a new war. We are in another hot period of the nearly 1400 year-long war of Islam against everyone else. We need to understand the enemy in order to defeat him.
17/01: Democrats Impressive Start
Let's give credit where credit is due.
The Democrats in the House are off to a good start. Nancy Pelosi is taking advantage of friendly media to soft-sell herself as a sensitive and efficient Speaker of the House.
The 100 Hours Agenda is being implemented:
Tuesday, January 9: Implement the 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Wednesday, January 10: Increase the Minimum Wage
Thursday, January 11: Expand Stem Cell Research
Friday, January 12: Allow Negotiation for Lower Prescription Drug Costs
Wednesday, January 17: Cut Interest Rates on Student Loans
Thursday, January 18: End Subsidies for Big Oil and Invest in Renewable Energy
Here is the "Countdown Clock." If you are interested in checking the progress of the program, they are right on schedule.
These bills are passing, by the way, with large Republican votes in support. They are generally innocuous but ring with common sense and populist appeal.
Defying many of the predictions of wild-eyed Jacobins tearing down the fabric of the republic, the new majority has not moved to impeach the President, initiate a draft, defund the war, dismantle domestic surveillance of suspected terrorist supporters or even push through an agenda of San Francisco-style social revolution. Perhaps those things are in the offing, but, for now, the Democrats appear mild-mannered, competent stewards of the people's interest.
Despite some harsh rhetoric, they have opted for caution in dealing with the war and the President's plan to add troops in Iraq. They are allowing the Senate to take the lead in opposing the President, where some high-profile Republican Senators are set to abandon the President and give cover to the expected collapse of support among House Republicans. Instead of dusting off the War Powers Act, or moving to cut off money to troops in the field, the Democratic leadership is quietly setting the stage for a grassroots revolt against the President's authority to conduct the war.
The bad news for the GOP is that this leadership team is likely here for an extended period of time. It is unlikely that the electorate will eject this newly elected majority in 2008. Why would they?
An aside: In the Senate the prognosis is even worse in the near term. Eighteen incumbent Republicans senators are up for re-election in 2008. Those will be tough races. Why are conservative Republicans running for cover? George Allen, Jim Talent and Rick Santorum. Why are moderately conservative Republicans in swing states running for cover? Mike DeWine. This explains why the Republicans in the Senate are in full retreat.
The good news is that the Senate, in the long view, looks good for the Republicans. Since 1980, control of the Senate has changed hands repeatedly; that trend will likely continue. Barring complete disaster, we can expect the GOP to contest for the Senate as early as 2010.
When can we expect a GOP majority to return in the lower house? Perhaps if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, the traditional difficulties for the majority party affiliated with the sitting president will help the Republicans to fight their way back in 2010. But don't count on it. We may be talking about Speaker Pelosi in 2012 and 2014 and 2016.
The Democrats in the House are off to a good start. Nancy Pelosi is taking advantage of friendly media to soft-sell herself as a sensitive and efficient Speaker of the House.
The 100 Hours Agenda is being implemented:
Tuesday, January 9: Implement the 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Wednesday, January 10: Increase the Minimum Wage
Thursday, January 11: Expand Stem Cell Research
Friday, January 12: Allow Negotiation for Lower Prescription Drug Costs
Wednesday, January 17: Cut Interest Rates on Student Loans
Thursday, January 18: End Subsidies for Big Oil and Invest in Renewable Energy
Here is the "Countdown Clock." If you are interested in checking the progress of the program, they are right on schedule.
These bills are passing, by the way, with large Republican votes in support. They are generally innocuous but ring with common sense and populist appeal.
Defying many of the predictions of wild-eyed Jacobins tearing down the fabric of the republic, the new majority has not moved to impeach the President, initiate a draft, defund the war, dismantle domestic surveillance of suspected terrorist supporters or even push through an agenda of San Francisco-style social revolution. Perhaps those things are in the offing, but, for now, the Democrats appear mild-mannered, competent stewards of the people's interest.
Despite some harsh rhetoric, they have opted for caution in dealing with the war and the President's plan to add troops in Iraq. They are allowing the Senate to take the lead in opposing the President, where some high-profile Republican Senators are set to abandon the President and give cover to the expected collapse of support among House Republicans. Instead of dusting off the War Powers Act, or moving to cut off money to troops in the field, the Democratic leadership is quietly setting the stage for a grassroots revolt against the President's authority to conduct the war.
The bad news for the GOP is that this leadership team is likely here for an extended period of time. It is unlikely that the electorate will eject this newly elected majority in 2008. Why would they?
An aside: In the Senate the prognosis is even worse in the near term. Eighteen incumbent Republicans senators are up for re-election in 2008. Those will be tough races. Why are conservative Republicans running for cover? George Allen, Jim Talent and Rick Santorum. Why are moderately conservative Republicans in swing states running for cover? Mike DeWine. This explains why the Republicans in the Senate are in full retreat.
The good news is that the Senate, in the long view, looks good for the Republicans. Since 1980, control of the Senate has changed hands repeatedly; that trend will likely continue. Barring complete disaster, we can expect the GOP to contest for the Senate as early as 2010.
When can we expect a GOP majority to return in the lower house? Perhaps if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, the traditional difficulties for the majority party affiliated with the sitting president will help the Republicans to fight their way back in 2010. But don't count on it. We may be talking about Speaker Pelosi in 2012 and 2014 and 2016.
17/01: Can Obama Win?
Category: Campaign 2008.1
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The question of the day on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning (January 17, 2007):
Is Barack Obama experienced enough to be President of the United States?
Not surprisingly, Democrats assured us that he is. Republicans hooted at his brief career in national politics.
The truth is that winning the presidency is a combination of timing and likeability. That is, the timing must be right for your brand of change. If you are running against a popular incumbent, the record indicates that a challenger, no matter how smart, no matter how articulate, no matter how handsome, does not fare well. Think Dwight Eisenhower is 1956; Ronald Reagan in 1984; Bill Clinton in 1996. Was there a challenger anywhere in America capable of diverting those landslide reelection victories?
On the other hand, if you are running against a failed incumbent, and the collective sense of the American people is that change is necessary, almost any candidate, no matter how formerly unknown or inexperienced, can win on the first Tuesday in November. After twelve years of Democratic Party rule, any candidate could have beaten Martin Van Buren in the aftermath of the Panic of 1837. Similarly, any candidate could have bested Herbert Hoover, broken on the wheel of economic depression, in 1932.
Much more fluid are elections in which there is no incumbent or heir apparent to an administration in power. We are approaching just such a rare election in 2008.
In these elections (this election), timing will be an important factor; that is, what is the zeitgeist of the American electorate? Does the economy drive the decision? National security? The national debt? Taxes? Integrity? These are all important factors.
But in this election in which there is no incumbent and no heir apparent, all things being equal, likeability will be an extremely strong determinant in the contest.
Do Americans care about experience? Not especially. Al Gore was much more experienced than George Bush, but Bush won the likeability contest by a wide margin (and, of course, John Kerry was incredibly unappealing). Jerry Ford was eminently more experienced and qualified to be president than Jimmy Carter--but Americans were ready for a change.
Henry Clay was the most qualified American statesman to never be president--but his accomplishments did not matter to Americans in 1844 when they elected virtually unknown James K. Polk over the Great Compromiser. J.Q. Adams boasted perhaps the finest record of public service in all our history--but he lost the popular vote in 1824 to the charismatic war hero, Andrew Jackson. JFK and LBJ in the Democratic contest for the nomination in 1960. JFK and Nixon in the general in 1960.
Moreover, add into the 2008 equation friendly media coverage of an Obama campaign, and you can easily envision how his inexperience could be an advantage. Voters tend to project their own views on fresh faces. In fact, during the modern era, extensive voting records have proved debilitating handicaps in media-driven elections.
I make no definite prediction here, but in answer to the question of whether Americans will elect an inexperienced person whom they like and to whom they can attach their optimism and desire for a change? Or can Barack Obama be elected? Bet the farm on it.
Note: Thanks to Citlalli for her consultation in the development of this post.
Is Barack Obama experienced enough to be President of the United States?
Not surprisingly, Democrats assured us that he is. Republicans hooted at his brief career in national politics.
The truth is that winning the presidency is a combination of timing and likeability. That is, the timing must be right for your brand of change. If you are running against a popular incumbent, the record indicates that a challenger, no matter how smart, no matter how articulate, no matter how handsome, does not fare well. Think Dwight Eisenhower is 1956; Ronald Reagan in 1984; Bill Clinton in 1996. Was there a challenger anywhere in America capable of diverting those landslide reelection victories?
On the other hand, if you are running against a failed incumbent, and the collective sense of the American people is that change is necessary, almost any candidate, no matter how formerly unknown or inexperienced, can win on the first Tuesday in November. After twelve years of Democratic Party rule, any candidate could have beaten Martin Van Buren in the aftermath of the Panic of 1837. Similarly, any candidate could have bested Herbert Hoover, broken on the wheel of economic depression, in 1932.
Much more fluid are elections in which there is no incumbent or heir apparent to an administration in power. We are approaching just such a rare election in 2008.
In these elections (this election), timing will be an important factor; that is, what is the zeitgeist of the American electorate? Does the economy drive the decision? National security? The national debt? Taxes? Integrity? These are all important factors.
But in this election in which there is no incumbent and no heir apparent, all things being equal, likeability will be an extremely strong determinant in the contest.
Do Americans care about experience? Not especially. Al Gore was much more experienced than George Bush, but Bush won the likeability contest by a wide margin (and, of course, John Kerry was incredibly unappealing). Jerry Ford was eminently more experienced and qualified to be president than Jimmy Carter--but Americans were ready for a change.
Henry Clay was the most qualified American statesman to never be president--but his accomplishments did not matter to Americans in 1844 when they elected virtually unknown James K. Polk over the Great Compromiser. J.Q. Adams boasted perhaps the finest record of public service in all our history--but he lost the popular vote in 1824 to the charismatic war hero, Andrew Jackson. JFK and LBJ in the Democratic contest for the nomination in 1960. JFK and Nixon in the general in 1960.
Moreover, add into the 2008 equation friendly media coverage of an Obama campaign, and you can easily envision how his inexperience could be an advantage. Voters tend to project their own views on fresh faces. In fact, during the modern era, extensive voting records have proved debilitating handicaps in media-driven elections.
I make no definite prediction here, but in answer to the question of whether Americans will elect an inexperienced person whom they like and to whom they can attach their optimism and desire for a change? Or can Barack Obama be elected? Bet the farm on it.
Note: Thanks to Citlalli for her consultation in the development of this post.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
The government makes life for Christians in Nigeria increasingly difficult. From Dhimmiwatch.
So what will happen when Muslims achieve majority status in some Western European nations by the end of this century?
So what will happen when Muslims achieve majority status in some Western European nations by the end of this century?
