Monday, January 14, 2008
In watching the vote totals in New Hampshire I was struck by the fact that twice as many Democrats voted as Republicans.
What to make of this. Well, the Democrats definitely have a choice between something new and something old. The Republicans, well, they can chose one of: a cross-dressing gun grabber, a compassionate conservative with Jimmy Carter's foreign policy and tax instincts, a cranky old man with designs on the first amendment, a member of the Borg, an isolationist throwback, or a conservative who won't cooperate with the press. In other words, same old, same old. Why *would* a Republican bother to show?
The Democrats, for all that there's not an inch of idealogical air between them, are interesting. There's the Stalinist, the New Guy, and ... well, that's it, isn't it. Hillary's got that look you associate with insane Prussian generals from around WWII. That whole Junkers, grim Democrat thing. Obama, well, he's happy, happy, joy, joy.
The Republicans? Well, you might get a decent candidate out of the combined best attributes of any three of them. Individually, well, I think they're mostly losers.
Except for Fred Thompson. I still see the matchup being Hillary versus Thompson.
UPDATE: David Brooks is enjoying the Democrat internecine warfare:
UPDATE (1/20/08): After listening to Fred's speech this past weekend, I think he's going to quite the race soon. Sod. So, that leaves a three-way race between Huckabee (religious faction), Romney (economic faction), and McCain (defense faction). Of the three, who would I trust to give Putin the hairy eyeball? McCain, obviously. On everything else, I wouldn't trust him out of sight.
What to make of this. Well, the Democrats definitely have a choice between something new and something old. The Republicans, well, they can chose one of: a cross-dressing gun grabber, a compassionate conservative with Jimmy Carter's foreign policy and tax instincts, a cranky old man with designs on the first amendment, a member of the Borg, an isolationist throwback, or a conservative who won't cooperate with the press. In other words, same old, same old. Why *would* a Republican bother to show?
The Democrats, for all that there's not an inch of idealogical air between them, are interesting. There's the Stalinist, the New Guy, and ... well, that's it, isn't it. Hillary's got that look you associate with insane Prussian generals from around WWII. That whole Junkers, grim Democrat thing. Obama, well, he's happy, happy, joy, joy.
The Republicans? Well, you might get a decent candidate out of the combined best attributes of any three of them. Individually, well, I think they're mostly losers.
Except for Fred Thompson. I still see the matchup being Hillary versus Thompson.
UPDATE: David Brooks is enjoying the Democrat internecine warfare:
The problem is that both the feminist movement Clinton rides and the civil rights rhetoric Obama uses were constructed at a time when the enemy was the reactionary white male establishment. Today, they are not facing the white male establishment. They are facing each other.
UPDATE (1/20/08): After listening to Fred's speech this past weekend, I think he's going to quite the race soon. Sod. So, that leaves a three-way race between Huckabee (religious faction), Romney (economic faction), and McCain (defense faction). Of the three, who would I trust to give Putin the hairy eyeball? McCain, obviously. On everything else, I wouldn't trust him out of sight.
Comments:
Post a Comment
