Rants n Reviews

The most unlikely leader of the Republican race for the White House is John McCain. A few months ago, he was on his way out: No money, losing badly in the polls, on the “wrong side” of key issues (immigration and soft money, to name two).

Now, he’s leading the charge. Everybody on the Republican side, save for Romney, Paul, and McCain are out. It’s a three dog race, with one dog taking up the rear (Paul) while Romney figures out what he’s doing. McCain simply sticks to his message and wins.

On the other side, there are only two dogs left in the race: Clinton and Obama. Obama is clearly the leader for change, Clinton the leader for status quo. In the world of the Great Gatsby, she’s old money; Obama is new money.

Tomorrow will most likely spell out the eventual winners on both sides. If McCain or Romney sweep a bunch of states, they most likely will win their party’s nomination. Same goes for Clinton or Obama.

The clear losers in both races are John Edwards on the Dem’s side and Rudy Giuliani on the Repo’s side. Giuliani was so far ahead in the national polls, it’s hard to figure why he got trounced so soundly in the early races, except for the fact that he didn’t seem to want to win those early states. He put all his money in the Florida basket, and Floridians let him down.

Edwards lost his home state. The message couldn’t have been any clearer for him. Voters simply didn’t buy his story.

I think either of those fellows may become the lead dogs for the VP role. Time will tell. Tomorrow will be fun.

Every time anybody talks about the presidential race, the subject of experience comes up. I’m not sure what “experience” means in this context, so I’m going to “think out loud” by writing about my thoughts.

One of the discussion points always is: Who has it and who doesn’t? Hillary Clinton claims she has it. Lots of people seem to think that John McCain has it. Rudy Giuliani says Rudy Giuliani has it.

Everybody but Barack claims Obama doesn’t have it.

So just what is Experience?

Well, first off, nobody in this race has presidential experience. That we can all agree on, I think. Now, if Dick Cheney entered the race, one might be able to say that he has presidential experience. But he’d be the only one.

Is experience time served in public office? I suppose that could be a component of it. Is 10 years twice the experience of 5?

Does the nature of the public time served play a part? Certainly. I’d say that a person who had been mayor of a small town probably has less experience than a former governor of California, for example.

So there’s a level of importance and relevancy that should be factored in. A mayor of New York City might possibly have more relevant experience than, say, a city council member of a small unincorporated town.

Does accomplishment have anything to do with it? Certainly, merely getting elected serves as some sort of accomplishment, but there’s a difference between campaigning and governing, isn’t there? For example, George W. Bush is clearly a very good campaigner. His ability to “stay on point” is a skill that yielded superior returns, in contrast with his last two opponents, Al Gore and John Kerry. Their “nuanced” approaches to tackling the issues of the day, while perhaps more enlightened, certainly diluted their effectiveness in getting their points across with an ever-increasingly skeptical American voting public.

But Bush’s success as a campaigner hasn’t assisted him in his true mission, that of governing the American federal government. One might say that the very skills and competencies that makes one a good campaigner, almost by definition, makes one a horrible governor.

While on the subject of President Bush, I’d like to interject a thought about his experience prior to winning the presidency. He had a failed run at the US House of Representatives in 1978, prior to winning the race for Governor of Texas in 1994 and then getting elected for a second term. Texas has a “weak governor” in that he or she has no real power. Many of Bush’s claimed successes were merely his endorsements of programs that passed through the Texas legislature. In order to get pet projects passed into law, Bush certainly had to persuade the Texas legislature to assist; on this note, he did gain some political experience. Overall, though, I’d say he had comparatively little experience in government prior to winning in 2000.

So the claim that anybody who doesn’t have experience only has to look at our current president to conclude that perhaps having experience doesn’t matter a whole lot. In fact, it may be a disadvantage.

Let’s look at that for a moment by contrasting John McCain with Barack Obama. McCain has been a US senator for over 20 years, and before that, he was a representative in the US House for 4 years. So he a has a combined 25 years serving in a national office.

Barack Obama has been serving in high-level state and national office for over 10 years, serving first as a state senator in Illinois for several terms, then being elected US senator of Illinois in 2004.

Clearly, Obama has served less time than McCain. But does one have more relevant experience than the other? McCain has a pretty decent record as a US senator. He has introduced many bills and has his name attached to perhaps one of the most well-known pieces of legislation of the past 20 years, McCain-Feingold.

In contrast, Obama has introduced one bill that passed into law, Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act (as far as I know).

The $64,000 question is: Is it enough? Are Americans willing to trade experience for ideas? I’m not sure. Time and election results will tell. It looks like Democratic voters might be willing. But the general election is a whole new ballgame.

You can bet that Obama’s “lack of experience” will be contrasted with McCain, Giuliani, or Romney’s, if Obama wins the nomination of his party. I’d venture to guess that Clinton’s experience can be called into question, too, since she’s only served one more term than Obama and before that was First Lady (which has no official responsibility to the US government).

I am unaware of any success Hillary Clinton has as First Lady. She didn’t sponsor any bills, didn’t effect any change, didn’t get health care reform passed like the Clintons promised. I’m not sure what she’s done as a senator. Clearly, though, New Yorkers liked her enough to reelect her for a second term.

So, in conclusion, does experience matter? I doubt it as far as competency as a leader goes. But it will play a part in the general election, that you can be sure of!

Repugnican 2008 presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is turning out to be a perpetual liar. His latest fib, about “seeing” his father march with Dr Martin Luther King, is receiving a lot of attention in the blogosphere, but this is just one of many lies Romney has fabricated.

In that light, here are the Top Ten Lies told by Mitt Romney:

10. I am a Mormon
9. I am conservative
8. I am a hunter
7. I am the 2nd coming of Ronald Reagan
6. I cried when my church announced it would recognize blacks
5. I don’t get $400 hair cuts
4. I got tough on meth
3. I am tough on illegal immigration
2. My boys have served this country
1. I watched my father march with Martin Luther King
Bonus: #1: I am pro-life

10. Okay, Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Who cares? Obviously, every other religion in the world and many atheists care. They believe Mormonism is at best a disease, and at worst the Devil reincarnate. But I don’t give a damn. There are good Mormons and bad Mormons, just like everything else.

I hate it, though, when anybody stands up and tells me what their faith is. Don’t tell it — do it, be it, act it, live it. If you believe that Charlie Sheen is god, then, dammit, act like it. But don’t tell me, I’ll just think you’re freakin’ crazy.

9. Romney is not a Conservative. None of the self-described Republican candidates have any resemblance to a Conservative, in a fiscal sense or any other sense, except for maybe Fred “Flintstone” Thompson.

8. Brother, P-L-E-A-S-E! First, you were a hunter, without a license, then a varmint hunter. Come on, you hunt for campaign contributions, Elmer.

7. I knew Ronald Reagan, and you’re no Ronald Reagan! (Okay, I “knew” Ronald Reagan like Mitt “saw” his dad march with MLK — see #1 below.)

6. I bet he did, but not for the reason he implied. They weren’t tears of joy he shed, but rather tears of fears. White men are afraid of blacks, especially when it comes to sharing their faith. And aren’t blacks Islamic fundamentalists? That’s what our government and media want us to believe.

5. Right, you get $500 haircuts. You rich bastard.

4. Tough on meth, just like he got tough on all crime. Read more here about his lies on crime fighting.

3. Tough on illegal immigration? Sure.

2. Romney’s sons are serving his campaign, and by ridiculous extension, since he’s running for president, this country. What a crock of bullshit.

1. Romney suffers from dictionary dyslexia. Like Bill Clinton and his “depends on the definition of is…”, Romney is now backpedaling on his physically seeing his father march with MLK to his daddy told him so, to the not-so-literal march in terms of “I had his back.” Such a complete liar.

Bonus #1. As I said before, don’t say it, do it. Romney, by his very actions, was effectively pro-choice. Now he says he’s pro-life. But there is not a shred of evidence to support his lie. Maybe that’s the way he feels, but his actions while an elected official seem to indicate otherwise.

This concludes my Rant against Romney. Surely more lies will surface once Romney realizes he’s losing to a girl. Or a black man.