Little Boy Bush

I did listen to the President's press conference this morning.

When I hear the President talking, I can't help but get this mental picture of a 7 year old boy just getting off the school bus and eagerly telling me what he just learned in school. The 7 yr old wants show you how smart he is by explaining his new info to you. You have to be careful how you ask any question since he will only know what he was just taught, and you don't want to bust his bubble of excitement.

Another way to describe it would be "a mile wide, but an inch deep" but I think "a mile" is overestimating it.

I do think that no matter which major candidate running actually wins this November, we will be getting a leader who will actually understand the issues at hand. That's going to be a big upgrade.

McCain's Adult Problem

Lots has been written about McCain's problems with the "base" of the GOP. These problems are over issues like immigration, campaign finance reform, tax cuts and so forth, but I think people are missing another big problem.

McCain wants to campaign like an adult. This means that he can disagree with his rivals without insulting them, without demeaning them, without questioning their intentions, their patriotism, their loyalty. He wants to have a rational national debate.

For too many on the right, this is almost as bad as saying you're pro-choice.

We saw this conflict come out into the open yesterday in Cincinnati. Bill Cunningham is just one of dozens of loud mouth, right wing talk show hosts who have a large audience that love their shtick of insults and rants. Cunningham has been on the local air waves for years and is also nationally syndicated on Sunday nights, taking the spot vacated by Matt Drudge.

His 10 minutes of brain dead ravings is normal for him. McCain's campaign could not have picked him without knowing this about him.

Now McCain has been trying to reach out to the right wing talk show audience, but has only had marginal success. The NYT attack on him was a big help in getting this audience to support him since the NYT is one of the talk show hosts' favorite targets.

But yesterday revealed the gulf between the adult approach of McCain's and the childish partisanship of the talk show hosts.

Cunningham goes for a no-substance insult fest and McCain feels obligated to apologize. Cunningham then goes on the air to attack McCain.

McCain is going to have a tough time appealing to the right wing talk show audience if he continues to take an adult approach.

They react more like the rabid fans of a college team. No more thinking about what they stand for, they just react emotionally to their rival. McCain is trying to have North Carolina fans recognize the worth of Duke fans, get Ohio State fans to appreciate the athletes of Michigan, Auburn fans to salute the worthiness of Alabama. It is tough sledding.

Hate and fear are hard to compete with.

She must know better

I can't figure out how Clinton could attack Obama for plagiarism and then take a riff from Edwards.

I would think if you examined the words of any politician, you'll be able to find passages from their speeches that are very similar to someone else's. That's a given.

And Obama borrowed from a friend who happens to be one of his campaign's co-chairs, so it just is not a big deal. They're friends. They have each borrowed phrases and phrasing from each other, so who cares.

The attack on Obama did not resonant with the voters at all, so Clinton should have just dropped it. But she went after him again during the debate.

That would have been viewed as just a waste of time, but then she ends the debate with her big emotional close that gets the audience going and the pundits praising, but she took it from Edwards. What do they say about people in glass houses?

I don't think her lifting a line from Edwards is a big deal at all, and I don't think anyone else would have cared either, except she made it a big deal.

McCain vs. NYT

So is the real scandal the NYT is reporting on today that McCain was literally in bed with a lobbyist or is it the fact that he was acting too French?

So after being endorsed by the NYT, does an attack by them help him in the eyes of the rabid right?

Not landing the punch

I've noticed that every time Obama is attacked, he finds a way to turn that attack around. The Clintons' attacks that Obama's stance on Iraq was a fairytale or that he brings false hope have been co-opted by Obama. Now he uses those charges in his speeches for major applause.

For the last couple of days, Bill and Hillary are using the line that the Democrats need to nominate a candidate with solutions, not speeches. They've been repeating this basic concept enough to try and magnify a real issue in some people's mind.

I will bet you that we will soon find this "solutions, not speeches" idea coming back at the Clintons with a vengeance. Obama knows how to use a line like that.

And the funny thing is, almost all the time the candidates speak, they could be accused of giving us speeches, not solutions. Unless they want the crowd to fall asleep, no one gives a speech filled with policy details.

Obama's just so much better at giving a speech than any of the candidates this primary season, his opponents just have to try and turn his strength against him.

Watching Clinton stumbling around trying to land a punch in this campaign, I feel like I'm watching Sonny Liston versus Muhammad Ali (okay, I know he was Cassius Clay at the time).

Value of endorsements

I heard that John Glenn endorsed Hillary Clinton, and I realized that I didn't care. It didn't have an impact one way or another on me. I like John Glenn. He is a true American hero several times over, but I believe that endorsements just don't seem to help Clinton as much as they do Obama.

Now, I don't think most voters tie their voting decisions to one person's endorsement, no matter how high profile. But Obama is still such an unknown to most voters that an endorsement gives voters more confidence that there is something really there.

Obama gets people's attention. He is such a gifted speaker, and his post-racial, post-partisan message is exciting, but some voters doubt what he can really do if elected. He doesn't have a track record of actual accomplishment, so an endorsement can add some substance to the concept that is Obama.

We know who Clinton is or who McCain is, so an endorsement from some pillar of their party just doesn't carry that much weight. I guess you can view their need for gathering endorsements as a rearguard action.

Hillary needs Glenn's endorsement so Barack doesn't get it, but that is about it.

Romney's Less than Super Tuesday

I've been reading The Corner this morning. There are a number of anti-McCain conservatives that post there so I wanted to learn how they viewed Super Tuesday.

I find it interesting that a number of them have decided that southern conservatives can't vote for a Mormon. None of the posts I read had any data to support that but they seem to think that was the only reason someone could vote for McCain or Huckabee.

I don't think there is only one reason.

I think a lot of conservatives look at Romney and see a fake. No matter how many times Rush, Hannity, Dobson and the rest try to slam McCain and build up Romney, voters still see a guy who flipped on so many issues that they can't believe what he says and who he is.

Just this week, he flipped again on gun control. In December on Meet The Press, he said he would sign an assault weapons ban, but when being interviewed by the gun loving Reynolds on PJ Media, he says he would not sign any gun control legislation. The man does know his audience.

If he had campaigned as the expert on the economy from the start, he might have gained a more solid base, but he tried to become the social conservative. He not only doesn't have a history of being a social conservative, he has a history of being moderate to liberal on the issues.

It is very hard to see how Romney can stop McCain now, and he doesn't do well in what people would call red states.

The talk radio pundits are trying to push a bad product and the people ain't buying.

Is Ann for real?

The short answer to that question is no.

Ann hasn't been a legitimate pundit for years. She is more like a professional wrestler compared to a real sport competitor. It's all about self-promotion, outrageousness and such.

I've wondered why anyone listens to her for more than comic relief.

I'm not saying she isn't smart. She has made millions with her act, and at some level she might even believe some of it. But it is an act.

When she appears on a show, that is a sign that the show is not serious about the subject at hand, but it is serious about entertainment and ratings. Like a professional wrestler, Ann ignites the passions of the audience. Either they want to cheer her on or boo her.

Pro wrestlers need the attention (positive or negative) in order to be successful, perform in large arenas and get the big paydays. If the crowd is apathetic, they end up wrestling in a converted barn in front of dozens.

With her bizzaro world logic of supporting Clinton over McCain, Ann is working hard to stay in the arenas.

Right wing off the deep end

I've always been amazed at the coordination of the right wing noise machine's message. And right now the meme they are pushing is McCain is so terrible,they would rather see the democrats get the White House and be responsible for the resulting carnage so the conservatives can ride back into DC on their white horses in 2012. That seems to be the united message of Rush, Sean, Ann, NRO and such. Though I believe there are some on the right who are not yet prepared to go along with that strategy. They have hope that Romney can still win or at least force a brokered convention.

I wonder what all of the reasons are for such a strategy. I can think of afew:

1) Rush, Fox News and such are seeing their ratings drop and figure that ratings would jump with a democrat in office they could attack.

2) They are seeing a base audience that is disillusioned after Bush. The right wing noise machine has had to "rally around our guy" a number of times over the past 7 years and they are losing their audience because they've had to go against their past "principles". With a liberal in office (hence why they like to label McCain as a liberal), they can go back to their tried and true formulas.

3) Access to power. McCain doesn't listen to them. He seems to think Tim Russert is more important to talk to then Rush. These guys want access for several reasons, and don't like being shut out.

4) Some might actually sincerely believe... Who am I kidding? It's always about power and money.

5) #4 might be too cynical. Some might have been reading from the right wing talking points for so long they have become fanatics. Think of them as being like the 14 year old boy in Pakistan who has only gone to school at a radical madrasah. That boy believes the lessons he has been told to such a level that blowing himself up for the cause seems reasonable.

Rush and his ilk now think that any compromise of their positions is treasonist. Yesterday I listen to Rush condemn McCain because he reached has reached across the aisle in order to get things done. That's how our government is supposed to work!!!

In their quest for purity, they are demonizing any who stray. This explains their contempt for Congress since a legislative body can only work through compromise. This also explains their love of a strong and growing stonger executive branch.

I don't consider these pundits to truly be conservatives. Conservatives value the Constitution and do not seek to undermine it. They value the wisdom of the Founders. They understand the value of checks and balances and the need for compromise.