११ नोव्हेंबर, २००५
Frontrunners.
WaPo's Chris Cillizza picks the likely frontrunners for the 2008 presidential race. My reaction to lists like this is what it has always been: these are all we've got? I never like any of them. These folks are out in front? Why is there no one better in front of them? At some point, we'll have to get serious and find someone we'll be able to tolerate. But ... oh, how I dislike every single one of these people! I mean I like Russ Feingold, but I can't see him as President. I can never see anyone as President.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१५ टिप्पण्या:
You don't like Rudy Giuliani? I would have thought he was just your cup of tea. Socially liberal, tough-minded, competent, top-notch law school. We don't know each other personally, but this matches the Anne Althouse blog personality almost precisely.
Good point, sean, I like Rudy too. (that makes me think of "rooty tooty fresh n fruity") Anyway, I thought Bush was lame, but he turned out to be a pleasant surprise--at least as far as being a hardass about the war. And really everything else is secondary to that.
I don't hate him. I just don't like the idea of him as President.
I'm at the early stages of accepting the idea that someone is going to have to be President.
If I had to pick someone off that list right now, I might very well pick him. I've got nothing against him.
Are Althouse readers generally big Giuliani fans?
I still think Mitt Romney would make a good candidate and president. Massachusetts found that as a conservative, and a Mormon, he didn't cause teenagers to have back alley abortions or declare a new State of Deseret-East. Being a businessman might trip him up and if Mrs. Clinton gets the nomination than most Republicans might be uncomfortable choosing between two candidates from the East Coast.
Giuliani was a great mayor of NYC, and a huge improvement over Dinkins, the mayor when I lived in Queens. Giuliani made the city a destination again.
However, I don't think Giuliani has the type of passionate support that would get him elected as a Republican. Like the governor of California, he is socially liberally, and too many Republican supporters want a candidate who remains commited to the social issues. Today it is popular, and all too convenient, to be a Republican who is functionally liberal on social issues.
As for Newt Gingrich: this is a man who had his time and squandered it. He wanders around as an "idea man", casting stones, while ignoring his own personal hypocrisy and hubris.
I think Hillary (who I cannot stand) makes an intriguing and worthwhile candidate, and I would like to see Jeb Bush in the mix, as I think he has the correct level of seriousness and depth- a smarter, more caring Bush.
What's there to like about Feingold? What about that he's a smart guy who stands up for what he believes in.
He was against the PATRIOT act and the Iraq war before it was cool. Even though at the time they were popular, he did the principled thing. But he's not a knee-jerk liberal, he voted for John Roberts and against the Bridge to Nowhere because those were also the right things to do.
Feingold-Obama in 08!
Ziemer,
1. Even in Wisconsin the farm vote is not so large that one should attribute positions you don't agree with to pandering. Why does the BGH issue get under your skin so?
2. Since you used the term in both comments and seem fond of it, you'll want to spell "pissant" properly in the future. Pissant means insignificant. Puissant means powerful.
Giuliani and Condi Rice!
Romney would be OK, but he had Bon Jovi play at the Salt Lake Olympics. I'm gonna give that guy the keys to the WH? He might get Poison or Nelson to pop up and play the Inaugural.
I wish Bill Owens (CO Gov.) would run. Rmney might be my man -- Bon Jovi aside. Gov. Good Hair from Texas "screwed the pooch"
Too bad Jeb would never win because I would vote for him and he's the best (better?) Bush. I think -- don't you live in FLA Victoria? Any thoughts on Jeb?
I'm delighted to see that Newt is on the list. I'm not quite ready to put a Gingrich '08 bumper sticker on my minivan, but I've found his writings and speeches in the last couple of years highly compelling, and he lays out an interesting vision for the GOP. So I'd like to see him in the primary, and as I've said before, I'd like to see Olympia Snowe in the primary. As with Newt, I'm not necessarily saying that I out-and-out want them in the White House, but that I very definitely want them in the primary.
My big problem with McCain - and, of course, with Feingold - is BCRA, which I continue to believe is facially unconstitutional, per comments here and here.
An election in '08? Hah! PNAC has already figured it out. Howard Dean will be sent to Guantanamo and Chalabi will be declare Imperator. Or something like that.
Chalabi with a red face mask and ordering the garroting of his enemies, who gets to be the servus, whispering in the Imperator's ear. Now seeing Howard Dean in chains and white chalk on his feet would definitely be satisfying.
I've never felt that opposing a technology that improves productivity just because it would be economically disruptive is wise. In the long run, the overall economy, and often even the affected sectors, benefit. So, yes, pandering to Luddites is a bad idea.
I've always looked at BGH/rBST differently. While there was a "Luddite" argument against BST, it seemed to me that there were two others that were not adequately considered.
The first is unintended health/environmental consequences. Although there is still some controversy about the short and medium term health effects of BST, the general scientific consensus in this country is that there is no health risk. However, there is much we don't know about the long term consequences of synthetic hormones passing into the environment and possibly accumulating in other food chains. While that is a speculative risk, I felt it was too casually dismissed in the FDA appoval. I'll grant that this is a problem in the FDA approval process generally, not just for BST. However, there is a long term problem that is well recognized within the dairy industry. Cows treated with BST increase their production, but also have increased mastitis, leading to more antibiotic use and all the long term problems associated with that.
The other issue is that many other countries have not approved BST and periodically use this as a justification to ban American dairy and beef products from their markets. While the productivity gains are real, the lack of access to overseas markets offsets some of the economic gain.
Throw in the fact that most polling data shows that voters aren't wild about BST and other synthetic hormones in the food industry, and it is easy for me to see why Feingold might have opposed its introduction. Now, I wasn't in Wisconsin back then, so I don't know what his particular arguments were at the time. Perhaps they were more narrowly focused on protecting traditional farming practices. I don't know.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा