Carol Platt Liebau: "Polarization" and "Electability"

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

"Polarization" and "Electability"

Dick Morris discusses the polarization factor and how it relates to some of the most oft-mentioned 2008 candidates.

Another way of thinking about polarization is as electability -- that is, polarizing candidates may be nominated, but they're unlikely to be elected. Kellyanne Conway -- one of the smartest women in politics, for my money -- has a different, and much-needed take on the topic here.


Blogger The Flomblog said...

With all due respect, Carol, you fell into the trap. By saying that she's one of the smartest "women" you either do her (or all of us men) a disservice.

Just an opinion from one of yo7ur biggest fans!

2:44 PM  
Blogger wile e coyote said...

The problem with Guiliani is that he is "pro-choice, pro-gun control and pro-affirmative action"?

Give Bush two more Supreme Court picks, and we'll be thankful he is. In fact, overturning Roe will require a "let's the states decide for themselves" attitude by Republicans or the party will fragment.

I do fault some right wing blogs with assuming that G-d has ordained a permanent Repbulican majority when W won both elections by a single state and the Republican Congress is going to be taken to the woodshed in 2006 for fiscal profligacy. If the right wing of the Republican majority doesn't show some restraint, it'll be watching Pres. Hillary's SCOTUS nominees appear before Judiciary Committee Chairman Kennedy (D Mass)

5:56 PM  
Blogger Pete said...

Just wondering - is "G-d" a misprint, or can you just not bring yourself to say, "God"? Whatever.

I like Rudy - but will not vote for him for the reasons stated - "pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-affirmative action." Definite turn-offs!

And BTW - overturning Roe, which was based on lies (you do know that, yes?) would correctly put the issue back in the hands of the states. And it never should have left the states in the first place. Of course, the left wing of the democratic party will fight that tooth and nail! What a surprise! Imagine - getting decisions back to the individual! How quaint!

5:12 AM  
Blogger COPioneer said...

We ran into a similar situation in Colorado in 2004. Bob Schaffer vs. Pete Coors in the primary. Coors and Co. spent a lot of money saying they had a better chance at beating Ken Salazar than Schaffer. I voted for Schaffer because he was much more solidly behind my values. Coors didn't beat Salazar because there was a lot of smearing about his big business attitude, and many conservatives couldn't vote for him because of his trashy beer commercials. Well, the rest is history and Ken Salazar is not the moderate he claimed to be. (I voted for Coors).

7:46 AM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

Traditional Jews do not write out the Word G-d in respect to the Commandment about taking the L-rds name in vein.

Thank you for asking

10:47 AM  
Blogger Pete said...

Thank you for answering - I hadn't thought about that reasoning and am glad you cleared it for me. No disrespect intended.

11:44 AM  
Blogger wile e coyote said...

Thanks for clarifying, Flomblog. Eight more of us on this site, and we'll have a minyan.

Pete: re Roe, a consistently conservative view should support returning the abortion issue to the states, whose right to regulate abortion has been curtailed.

Similarly, a conservative court should permit the states to regulate guns (subject to interstate commerce concerns) while subjecting racial affirmative action to true strict scrutiny review, making such programs exceedingly rare.

In other words, with an originalist majority on the Supreme Court, conservative objections to Guliani's policy preferences on the specfic issues identified should be alleviated.

11:53 AM  
Blogger Pete said...

We are in agreement on most of what you said, rzafft - that the issues of the individual and the Bill of Rights belongs in the hands of the states and therefore closer to the individual.

I will continue to disagree, however, that even if those issues were returned to their rightful owners, the states and individuals, that I should vote for some one who opposes those views. That is how we got where we are today - electing people who slowly eroded states rights and individual responsibility to the point that many, if not most, Americans think it is Fedguv's responsibility to care for them, cradle to grave.

If we can get it right, would it make sense to elect those who would work to return us to the wrong? I just don't think so. Franklin said they gave us "...a republic, if you keep it." We have not kept it, but if we return to it, let's not repeat history, and lose it - part II.

Just my opinion.

5:38 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home