Posted on 01/07/2008 9:05:07 PM PST by jazusamo
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
It was not that long ago that the big political question was how Rudolph Giuliani would do against Hillary Clinton in the November election.
The Iowa caucus votes have made that question sound like ancient history, if not science fiction. The results of the Iowa caucus are only a small part of the story of this election year but their implications are significant.
One implication that reaches well beyond politics is that a state that is 95 percent white gave its biggest vote total to a black man.
More Iowa women voted for Obama than for Hillary. So much for the "race, class and gender" mantra among the intelligentsia.
So much also for the "inevitable" or "invincible" candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the biggest story out of Iowa is that 71 percent of Democrats voted against Hillary.
The next biggest story is that no one in either party won a majority. It is still a wide-open race in both parties.
As for the Republicans, Mike Huckabee won by 8 percentage points in a state where 60 percent of the Republican voters were evangelicals.
However surprising his victory, it was not massive by any means and the large evangelical factor will not be there in most other states, even among Republican voters-- much less in the general election in November.
With all the media attention to the various political rivalries in both parties, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that all of this is ultimately about choosing a President of the United States.
The question of what kind of President each candidate would make is infinitely more important than all the "horse race" handicapping that dominates the media.
By far the best presentation as a candidate, among all the candidates in both parties, is that of Barack Obama. But if he actually believes even half of the irresponsible nonsense he talks, he would be an utter disaster in the White House.
Among the Democrats, the choice between John Edwards and Barack Obama depends on whether you prefer glib demagoguery in its plain vanilla form or spiced with a little style and color.
The choice between both of them and Hillary Clinton depends on whether you prefer male or female demagoguery.
Among the Republicans, there are misgivings about the track record of each of the candidates, especially those who have shown what Thorstein Veblen once called "a versatility of convictions."
There are fewer reasons for misgivings about Fred Thompson's track record in the Senate but more reason to be concerned about what his unfocussed and lackluster conduct of his campaign might portend for his performance in the White House.
When it comes to personal temperament, Governor Romney would rate the highest for his even keel, regardless of what events are swirling around him, with Rudolph Giuliani a close second.
Temperament is far more important for a President than for a candidate. A President has to be on an even keel 24/7, for four long years, despite crises that can break out anywhere in the world at any time.
John McCain trails the pack in the temperament department, with his volatile, arrogant, and abrasive know-it-all attitude. His track record in the Senate is full of the betrayals of Republican supporters that have been the party's biggest failing over the years and its Achilles heel politically.
The elder President Bush's betrayal of his "no new taxes" pledge was the classic example, but the current President Bush's attempt to get amnesty for illegal aliens, with Senator McCain's help, was more of the same.
President Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon probably cost him the 1976 election and cost the country the disastrous Carter years.
McCain's betrayals include not only the amnesty bill but also the McCain-Feingold bill that violated the First Amendment for the illusion of "taking money out of politics." His back-door deal with Democrats on judicial nominations also pulled the rug out from under his party leaders in the Senate.
The White House is not the place for a loose cannon.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
How do you propose to stop abortion?
Hank
Some one beat ya to it this time, j! : )
His “Applied Economics” is also very excellent. I still need to read “Basic” though.
Probably voting for Huckabee so that pro-abortionists can really pack the judiciary!
I was so taken with the book I bought eight copies and sent then to my kids and nieces and nephews. The book is clear and lucid – unusual for economics. $25 at booksamillion.com with free shipping.
You Betcha!
But, but, just yesterday Michael Medved told us in his self-righteous, finger wagging way that McCain's not a RINO, and that we need to stop characterizing him that way.
Thomas Sowell might make a better President than some of the candidates.
Regarding your comment, Hell Yes! He'd at least be smarter than any of them, and honest.
I haven’t read that one yet but did read ‘Black rednecks and White liberals’. Excellent book!
After “Basic Economics,” read “Applied Economics.” Then you’ll have to stop watching TV news, because you’ll have a stroke when they mention anything to do with economics!
Then read “The Vision of the Anointed,” or the earlier version of same, “Knowledge and Decisions.” K&D took me 4 months to read, but it completely changed my outlook on life.
John McCain trails the pack in the temperament department, with his volatile, arrogant, and abrasive know-it-all attitude.
Sowell nails it, as usual!
(Pass it on!)
All the candidates try to compare themselves with Reagan but none of them seem to understand what made Reagan. It was his selection of a small number of big things he wanted to accomplish and his pressing of those goals throughout the campaign and his focused attention on those goals accompanied with not bothering to whack at the other contenders or to defend against them. If you don’t have the big goals and do not consistently push them you have to use up your time doing petty offense and defense. By not attacking his opponents Reagan did not lend them any attention. By pressing the Few Big Goals he kept the press on himself and the popular attention on himself. Couple that with insistent optimism and humor and it rendered him unbeatable. None of the current candidates has goals to articulate. They are all process people except maybe Thompson and he does not seem to have any drive.
BTTT
Very good article.
He is right. You don’t need loose cannons in the WH; nor do you need people that out and out lie.
I wish I could pile on and say that Dr Sowell would make a better President than any of the candidates. Except if you read the following article, he apparently wants those of us who consider abortion to be national suicide to be patient (after 35 years and millions and millions of lost babies) because it's not a winning issue on the national level. I can't believe that he used Lincoln and slavery as an analogy without mentioning the God aweful carnage of the Civil War. It took killer angels with Mini balls to end slavery Dr. Sowell not patience, not "recognizing the limits of your power", not "coalition building" and not "political missionary work".How do you propose to stop abortion?
All I hear is crickets. Not surprisingly, since "the awful carnage of civil war" is the obvious alternative he raises to "'recognizing the limits of your power" . . . "coalition building" and . . . "political missionary work".
Then read “The Vision of the Anointed,” or the earlier version of same, “Knowledge and Decisions.” K&D took me 4 months to read, but it completely changed my outlook on life.
Knowledge and Decisions was Sowell's breakout book; he had not attracted much notice before that. It is a classic.
I kept taking it back to the library, checking it in, and checking it back out. Nobody else in the county wanted it :-).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.