What do they have to do with each other?
Quite a bit.
Part of the blogging hiatus was a camping trip with TG and Littlest Guy and several other family-units to the Isthmus on Catalina Island. Kayaking, hiking, snorkeling, sunscreen, more kayaking.
The other families are from my West LA days, and they're wonderful, rich West Los Angeles Democrats almost to a BMW-driving dad and Mercedes-driving mom. We talked a fair amount of politics :^)
One of them is a lawyer and was lamenting the Robert nomination and what he perceived as the even worse second appointment Bush was likely to make...with the possibility of one or two more before his term is over.
"What can we do?" he lamented.
"Well, we could win some f**king elections," I replied.
I pointed out the secular shift in power toward the Republican Party as the Democrats pull up the ladders for the working class who aren't in big, money-donating unions and as they embark on a culture war designed to make Main Street in Omaha feel a little more like Rockridge Avenue in Berkeley.
As the party's center of mass - its ideas, plans for the future, and credibility about performance in the past - get hollowed out, it appeals less and less to mainstream voters and more and more strongly to a smaller and smaller "committed base."
The fantasy, of course, is that as soon as the vanguard speaks up and is heard by the lumpen proles, they will understand the inalterable truth of the vanguard position and rise up marching to vote. Mercedes George Galloway is a "probably literally" card-carrying member of that aggrieved vanguard. And by supporting him - hell, by not running him out of the country in tar and feathers on a rail - the Left and the Democrats are sending a clear message to those suburban housewives and husbands about where they stand and what they expect. They stand with bullhorns waiting for the masses to follow them to the polling places.
Hasn't happened yet.
Middle-class, middle-aged, middle-valued voters keep driving away from the Democrats.
They are driving Bush's numbers down...but their numbers are falling as fast or faster, and to win elections, the GOP don't have to beat the bear, they just have to beat the Democrats.
So the party has a choice. It can embrace passionate opposition to the powers that be - Kerry's deeply amusing "speaking truth to power" - or they can decide that as one of the two national parties in the most powerful nation in the world, they should be the power and explain what exactly they would do with it.
Levee Socialism, anyone?
A rock ribbed Republican asks what's wrong with Rockridge? It isn't Telegraph Avenue. How vibrant is Main Street, Omaha?
"How vibrant is Main Street, Omaha?"
http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/1/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=1&passYear=2003&passListType=Misc&uniqueId=6098&datatype=Misc
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/1/2794.shtml
http://www.cwsomaha.com/html/About/omaha_facts.asp
Pretty vibrant.
Democratic senators are asking Roberts if he'll be on the side of the "little guy." Typical leftist gibberish. Roberts correctly stated that as a judge he must be on the side of the constitution. If the little guy is favored by the constitution, Roberts will be on the side of the little guy. Otherwise not. The rule of law. Simple. But not to the cretins like Biden, Schumer, etc etc
Excellent point. Democrats seem to think that an infinitely malleable concept such as "social justice," which means anything they want it to mean, can possibly trump the United States Constitutions. That's one reason the majority of americans distrust the demagogues leading the democratic party these days.
Why do Democrats have problems winning elections?
Let's use abortion as a proxy for extremism in American politics. Here I want to look only at the two extremes of this highly divisive issue. The surveys I've seen suggest that 22% of Americans feel that abortion should be absolutely available to any female of any age at any time for any reason at any stage of gestation. No restrictions, no questions asked.
On the other end, 3% ... that is THREE percent ...of Americans feel that abortion should be illegal in every and all circumstances except in the face of an imminent threat to the life of the mother.
The first thing that jumps out statistically is that three-quarters of Americans believe abortion should be restricted, particularly later in the pregnancy and with younger females. Parental notification is a case in point. Did you know that for minor females (under 18) the age of the father is inversely proportional to the age of the mother? The younger the female-under-18, the older the male who got her pregnant. So what is the "mainstream" on the issue?
By better than 3-to-1 it is not abortion on demand. Remember that when politicians try to describe conservative judicial nominees as "out of the mainstream."
Now, here's the statistical nugget, albeit a simplified and not entirely accurate one. You can safely assume that there are not many full-throated 'abortion-on-demand' types in the Republican Party. Similarly, you probably would not want to waste your time looking for absolute opponents of abortion amongst the Democrats. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.
Democrats (as in registered) are about 33% of the electorate. Republicans are about 37%. The 22% of Americans holding the extremist position on abortion are all Democrats. Safe bet here. Consequently, roughly two-thirds of Democrats hold the extremist position on abortion. They obviously, therefore, control the party. The extremists are in charge. That is not necessarily wrong, but it must be recognised.
On the other hand, the 3% of abortion extremists at the other end are all Republicans, yet they account for only about 8% of the party, which is enough to have some influence, but certainly not enough to exercise control. In fact, if they bolt in the face of a Giuliani or a Rice candidacy in 2008, there are probably far more than enough people in the 30% of Americans not registered Republican or Democrat that it won't ultimately make a difference.
You could come up with somewhat similar numbers for defence, war, security and intelligence issues. On the two most divisive issues of our time we find that charges Republicans are controlled by their extremists are exceedingly hard to support from the data. On the other side of the aisle, however, charges that the Democrats are controlled by their extremists are nearly self-evident from the data. That is a substantial--and historically- important--difference.
It's one big reason Democrats have a hard time winning elections -- when extremists constitute the internal majority you will usually end up as a minority party. The Republicans have largely isolated and marginalised their extremist wackos. To ordinary peoplehowever, it looks like the leftist wackos run the Democrats these days.
Bart Hall: Short and to the point, but nevertheless that is among the finest political essays I've ever read.
Ahh - I love inaccurate metaphors. Herb Caen (late of San Francisco) said "The difference between a small town and a big city is that in a big city, Main Street isn't." Looking at Google Maps, I think Omaha qualifies as a big city.
Meanwhile, Rockridge Boulevard is in Oakland, not Berkeley, as is the Rockridge neighborhood. You probably meant Telegraph Avenue, or maybe Shattuck Avenue.
Rockridge is full of shops which would probably not do well in a city full of Republicans, but it's someplace a Berkeleyite or Oaklander can take their censorious, very Republican great-aunt without fear of disapproval or getting mugged, unlike the shopping streets in Berkeley.
Uh, main street in Omaha is actually called Dodge Street. In fact I'm not sure Omaha has a Main Street. If it does I can assure you it is not the main street.
And no. I can't introduce you to Warren Buffet or any of the Fonda's.