by on

Gene Schwimmer thinks so:

“Barack Obama is a one-term president. If present trends continue, the next president will be a Republican. Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, your Aunt Petunia.

Or Sarah Palin. Whoever the Republicans nominate in 2012 becomes president in 2013. And that’s the key word: “Republicans.” Whoever the Republicans nominate.”

In my opinion, this is absolutely not true. There are very, very few Republicans who can defeat Obama that I know of. Mitt Romney hasn’t got a chance. However, it might comfort Schwimmer to hear that Sarah Palin has by far the best shot at defeating Obama. (Scott Brown also has a slim shot, but I don’t think he’s conservative enough for the base.)

Obama is a two-term President unless the economy stays at this level of unemployment or worse and  Palin gets the Republican nomination. As I see it, if the economy is still bad and Obama is up against Romney or someone like that, Obama’s charisma will enable him to make everyone forget about real issues. Likewise, if the economy improves much at all (as I expect it to) and Palin is the nominee, Obama and Palin will cancel out each other’s charisma, and Obama’s edge in experience will enable him to win.

by on

Their battle has already made for a weird ad, but how are the non-charismatic three doing lately?

Well, apparently, they’re busy arguing over who will do what to Israel. It seems to me that this is unlikely to be an important issue with the voters of California, given the shape it’s in, but maybe I’m wrong.

In any case, this is what happens when there is no charismatic or anti-charismatic candidate in an election for everyone to love or hate. (This is the majority of elections, by the way.) They just sort of meander from issue to issue, scandal to scandal, and external factors determine the election.

by on

So say scientists. 

To be fair, other scientists say that the world is, in fact, warming. I assume we’ll only know for sure when a) we are all burned alive or b) we all freeze to death.

I’ve always been sort of conflicted about the whole global warming/climate change/whatever debate. On the one hand, it always seemed slightly hysterical and a little too perfect in how well it suited the leftist worldview. On the other hand, common sense suggests that more humans engaging in new kinds of activities is bound to produce some of sort of change in the overall climate. Of course, part of the problem is that I’m not a climate scientist. 

Personally, I’ve been operating on the assumption that human activity affects the climate in ways that are variable and hard to measure, and that it’s a huge oversimplification to call it “warming”. The leftists say that this is a bad thing, and use it as an excuse to push for various changes in society; some of which are relevant, and others which are not. Because it is impossible to tell which is which, conservatives dismiss the entire issue as a hoax so they don’t have to deal with it. The upshot is that one side says human activity is very, very bad for the planet and should be minimized, and one side that says it has no effect.

FYI, my suspicion is that some country will ultimately figure out how to manipulate human activity (more precisely, chemical emissions) in such a way as to control the climate. Whichever country does this will basically rule the world. I suspect that most climate research is actually dedicated to figuring out the relationship between human activity and climate; so as to be the first country to harness this power.  (But remember, I’m not a climate scientist.)

by on

On The Daily Show, Newt Gingrich falsely claimed Richard Reid was an American citizen.  

The “Shoe-bomber” and “Underwear-bomber” cases are very similar, yet Republicans are oddly reluctant to admit  it.

by on

…is what the Republicans say the Democrats are.

First of all, why is this news? The Republicans always say that. Second, while his policies seem to be weaker, Obama’s track record against Jihadism compares favorably with George W. Bush’s and Bill Clinton’s after their respective first years in office. 

I’ll agree his position on torture seems naive, and his foolish decision not to fire Napolitano immediately after the December 25th failed attack ought to be ridiculed. But these apparent flaws cannot negate his success in objective terms. The arguments against trying terrorists in civilian court are, in my opinion, fairly weak. 

As of this moment, the case against Obama himself as weak on terror is basically a joke. Now, the case against the Democrats in Congress, particularly Harry Reid, is a much better one. Reid is a weak person by nature, and his infamous assertion that the Iraq war was “lost” is one that should haunt him. 

The Democrats overall philosophy intuitively seems to be weaker, but that is not backed up by the data.

by on

For that matter, what was something memorable that somebody said at a SOTU address?

Yeah, I can’t think of any either.

So, Obama certainly hasn’t got much in the way expectations to beat. I recommend he keep it short–about twenty minutes should do it–and make it consist solely of listing his accomplishments of the past year, and wind down by repeating a memorable catchphrase, such as: “Yes, we did.” There needs to be much fist-shaking and voice-raising while saying this phrase.

Arrogant? Yes. Divisive? Yes. But complete confidence in himself is what he needs to project. Obama is charismatic enough to talk people into agreeing with him if he seems sure of what he’s saying.

He won’t do this, I’m sure. He’ll probably try something bipartisan and conciliatory. Something like: “Well, this year sucked, and I know you’re all unhappy about it. In the coming year, I’ll reach across the aisle to work with Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate to pass bipartisan yadda yadda yadda.”

Oh, well.

by on

Today the Supreme Court ruled that businesses and unions can spend their own money on political ads endorsing or opposing a candidate. This raises a question I have long wondered about: how effective are political ads?

Do you really base who you are going to vote for on what ads on TV say? If  there are a lot of people who are that gullible, the Nation is doomed no matter what the Supreme Court rules on this issue. Seriously, I can barely remember any ads from the last Presidential campaign. And I’m fairly confident that my decision was not swayed by them one way or another.

I can’t speak for most people on this issue. And let’s face it; if you’ve brainwashed someone correctly, they’ll swear up and down they were not brainwashed. So I can’t be sure the ads didn’t affect me. 

A friend of mine was telling me that the real danger here is that corporations will disguise the ads to look like authentic news broadcasts–like is sometimes done in infomercials. This will confuse people into believing they’re watching a unbiased newscast that’s saying “Candidate X eats babies.”

I don’t buy it. The only people stupid enough to fall for that are probably already watching their favorite propaganda network (Fox news or MSNBC) anyway. Their votes are locked in. The swing voters aren’t, for the most part, dumb enough to be tricked like that.