There is a minor little skirmish going on in feminist-land over the quasi-revelation that Michelle Obama will be spending more time raising her kids than in trying to be the Assistant President. It seems the fems are looking more for a Hillary activist-type than a Jacqueline Kennedy-style Cosmo fashion plate & stay-at-home mom. For right now, Mrs. Obama appears to be headed down the mommy path.
This article is intriguing, even though I’m not sure I really believe it in total. But he makes a couple of interesting observations:
Most conservatives did show up on Election Day, but a significant number voted Democrat. Mr. Obama picked up one-third more conservative voters than Sen. John Kerry, at 20 percent. Self-identified conservatives in exit polling comprised 34 percent of voters in both 2004 and 2008, yet the number who called themselves Republican dropped from 37 percent to 32 percent. In an evenly split nation, the GOP losing 14 percent of its base overwhelmed almost everything else.
and
Two key right-leaning constituencies deserted Republicans: security moms and Catholics. Though the media has made the “gender gap” a household term, the more apt classification was a “marriage gap.” Single women were heavily Democrat, and married women leaned Republican. “Security Moms” became the label for married mothers attracted to the hawkishness of the GOP.
Hmmmm.
A number of interesting observations have percolated throughout the Interweb in the aftermath of the 2008 election - arguments about the “youth vote”, the “center-right versus center-left,” pushing aside social conservative issues, etc. But one of the most thought-provoking topics receiving attention is the issue of the presence (or lack thereof) of the Right in the online “Web 2.0″ universe. As a technology geek by trade, this topic is near and dear to my heart.
Much has been made of the aforementioned “youth vote” in the post-election analysis, and within that discussion are implications that the youth were energized by the online presence of the Obama campaign. Tools such as YouTube, Twitter, Friendfeed, numerous blog sites, SMS, etc. were used to not only educate, but to “activate.” A huge portion of Obama’s fundraising was done via the web - small donations that eventually added up to huge numbers (please, let’s not get into the issue of overseas donations, etc. - that’s really not the point). These tools were used to empower activism, through GOTV-type projects, state-by-state campaign events, as well as fundraising. I am not 100% convinced that there is an obvious correlation between the high percentage of the 18-29 crowd that voted for BHO and his online presence…since youth are already steeped in online culture, and youth seem to lean left to start with, it is difficult to assign a direct cause/effect relationship proving that Obama’s leverage of technology led to his success with that demographic. But it certainly didn’t hurt.
Happy Thanksgiving from the bs family! To commemorate Thanksgiving, I give you the greatest TV scene ever produced.
As they say in the Clint Eastwood movie, Hang ‘em. Hang ‘em high.
I continued to be stunned by the obsession with the rights of the Somali pirates - these “enemies of the human race” (hostis humani generis). They are entitled to a a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging (bonus points if you recognize that movie line).
Using analogies is always risky, as they often fall apart under scrutiny. But in this case, I’ll take the risk. And it’s Sunday, so the Biblical reference is apropos.
In the Old Testament, Moses wrote of the trials of the Israelites as they wandered the desert during their forty years of exile. During this period, the LORD provided the Israelites with manna (”manna from heaven”) to eat. Every night manna appeared on the ground, and the Israelites would gather it and cook it for their food…that was pretty much all they had:
The manna was like coriander seed and looked like resin. The people went around gathering it, and then ground it in a handmill or crushed it in a mortar. They cooked it in a pot or made it into cakes. And it tasted like something made with olive oil. When the dew settled on the camp at night, the manna also came down.(Num 11:7-8)
Eventually the Israelites tired of the manna and complained to Moses about having to eat manna every day (the Israelites complained about a lot of things during those years) and looked back to the “good ol’ days” in Egypt where they didn’t have to eat manna. Rather than manna, the Israelites wanted meat. Moses took their complaints to the LORD, and He responded.
“Tell the people: ‘Consecrate yourselves in preparation for tomorrow, when you will eat meat. The LORD heard you when you wailed, “If only we had meat to eat! We were better off in Egypt!” Now the LORD will give you meat, and you will eat it. You will not eat it for just one day, or two days, or five, ten or twenty days, but for a whole month - until it comes out of your nostrils and you loathe it - because you have rejected the LORD, who is among you, and have wailed before him, saying, “Why did we ever leave Egypt?” ‘ ” (Num 11:18-20)
So what does this have to do with anything RedState-ish?
I wrote last week on the problem of the Somali pirates. Michael B. Oren, via the WSJ, has done an excellent job of documenting the history of the pirate problem in the Jeffersonian period and how we dealt with it then…and how that applies to today’s situation.
Read it here.
I’ve been a broken record on this one: there was very little attention paid to socon issues, especially religious ones, during the 2008 election season. And Pew backs me up (well, not personally, but you get the idea) in this great article. They say it best here:
The “culture war” issues that have been prominent in past elections, such as abortion and gay marriage, received minimal attention in 2008. The coverage they did receive tended to come in the form of reaction to statements by the candidates and quickly receded without generating any sustained narrative. When Palin was introduced to the nation as McCain’s running mate, her parenting choices raised the issue of abortion, but only momentarily. In one of the more episodic narratives – evangelical megachurch pastor Rick Warren’s presidential forum held at his church – the candidates’ answers on a question about abortion gained attention in the press the week of the event.
Attention Kathleen Parker: are you listening?
I can endure a lot. And with Kathleen Parker, I have. The Left’s pet quasi-Republican is at it again. Her criticisms of Sarah Palin during the campaign were bad enough. But now she joins the chorus of those aching to throw social conservatives under the bus. Oh, but it’s not just socons - it’s Christian socons in particular.
Her latest screed is particularly offensive. It is mocking, rude, and insulting:
As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.
Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.
I’m bathing in holy water as I type.
To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn’t soon cometh.
News flash, Kathleen: social conservative causes that are important to Christans were hardly in the forefront during this election.
In the movies, pirates are a lot more fun. Now, this is serious. In the last 24 hours in the waters off Somalia, two more merchant vessels were captured by Somali “pirates.” These tinhorn twerps in their “pirate ships” (which come closer to resembling recycled tinfoil than actual boats) have somehow been able to overpower numerous large cargo ships, one of which is a oil supertanker carrying over $100M in cargo. A second ship was also captured today - an Iranian freighter carrying a cargo of 30,000 tons of grain. Oh, and don’t forget - a ship carrying Russian tanks is still in the possession of another band of Somali pirates.
It appears that Missouri will remain a Red State in the 2008 election. Not all of the provisional ballots have been counted yet, but McCain remains ahead by approximately 5000 votes and it would take a big turnaround for MO to go to Obama. This is a rather big deal, as MO has been a bellweather state for decades, only missing the winner twice since 1904 (1956 - Stevenson over Ike, and 2008)…the best “bellweather percentage” in the US. MO has moved ever so slightly left from the 2004 election - Kerry won only three counties in MO in 2004…in 2008, Obama won nine, but in both cases, the Dems took the major metro areas of St. Louis and Kansas City, and Boone County, the left-leaning home of the University of Missouri.
In Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District, Rep. Todd Akin easily won re-election over Bill Haas, whose only prior political experience was as a member of the St. Louis School Board. Akin won with a 62.3/35.4% margin over Haas, wtih the Libertarian candidate picking up the rest, despite the fact that much of St. Louis County strongly favored Obama in the POTUS race. However, most of Akin’s district falls in the more wealthy and more Republican precincts on the west side of the county. His district also extends into St. Charles County and farther north into Lincoln County. Both St. Charles and Lincoln are traditional GOP strongholds, but even they trended farther left in this election. While Obama’s huge rally in October was widely covered as drawing nearly 100K of his acolytes fans, it was not widely reported that a rally for John McCain and Sarah Palin drew over 20K in a small minor-league ballpark in O’Fallon, MO, shortly before the Republican Convention…another sign of the strength of the GOP in my neck of the woods.
Akin was elected in a close race for former Rep. Jim Talent’s House seat in 2000. However, in the subsequent elections, he has seen relatively little competition. And we hope it remains that way.
Akin is one of the House’s most reliable conservative votes. The American Conservative Union has awarded Akin a 97.4% lifetime rating, and 100% in 2007. He is a strong social conservative who votes consistently pro-life. He has a Master’s of Divinity degree from the Presbyterian Church in America’s Covenant Seminary in St. Louis, and he is a member of the PCA…which is fairly indicative of his social conservative credentials. He is what I consider a solid 3-legged stool Republican - strong in all three key facets of conservatism (social, fiscal, and defense).
Just this afternoon, I heard Rep. Akin on KMOX radio, describing his opposition to the GM bailout proposal (listen to the interview here). Akin believes that Chapter 11 is the only way to remedy the structural issues with the GM corporation (expenses, governmental regulations, labor problems, etc.). Contrast Akin’s position with that of US Senator Christopher “Kit” Bond (R), who supports the bailout package. Note: This is not a slam on Sen. Bond - while I don’t particularly agree with him on this one, his conservative record with the ACU is over 80%, which isn’t perfect, but it’s not bad - much better than the Leftist Senator from MO, Claire McCaskill (8% rating from the ACU).
I have been fortunate enough to have good, solid GOP representation in MO during the time we’ve lived here…until the 2006 election, when McCaskill won James Talent’s Senate seat (Talent had served out the remainder of the term of the late Mel Carnahan). It has been quite nice to not have to worry about the vote of my House rep! Unfortunately, the MO governor seat was won by Democrat Jay Nixon, the current Missouri Attorney General - a position given up by current MO Governor Matt Blunt. He will be another one sorely missed by conservatives in Missouri. (One bit of good news from this year - Kenny Hulshof was running against Jay Nixon for the governorship, and his seat was up for grabs. Blaine Luetkemeyer held Hulshof’s seat in District 9 for the GOP, despite the fact that the lefty stronghold of Columbia is in the district. This was a key one for the MO delegation and for the House Republicans.)
now that David Frum is leaving National Review.
Who will be our new target?
I’ll take this opportunity to bump my own RedHot off the front page. But in staying with the same spirit of that earlier article - this one again addresses the issue of the supposed need of the GOP to move to the middle. But why? IS there a middle? James Gimpel seems to think not. He doesn’t mince any words:
The research suggests that those who at various times occupy this center, often described as moderates or independents, are not very knowledgeable about or interested in politics. They do not follow campaign coverage closely, are inconsistent in their policy views, and are often not able to identify what positions are liberal or conservative.
What characterizes the centrist voter is not some peculiar set of policy positions, but rather ignorance of policy issues in general, coupled with vague impressions of the “goodness” or “badness” of the times. So-called centrist or moderate voters can’t even be counted on to vote.
His conclusion backs my points I’ve made in prior posts and diaries: …But the path to victory is to find a candidate who will pull the center in their direction, not to modify policy stances in hopes of making inattentive and ambivalent voters pay heed.
Schmack!
This is why I continue to love to read Jonah Goldberg.
There has been much discussion in the media and here on Redstate as to the future direction of the GOP. My observation is that most of our commenters and diarists would prefer the GOP to move right of where we’ve been with John McCain…with a few notable exceptions. Mr. Goldberg presents a very concise and cogent explanation about why a move to the right makes sense, and more importantly, why it is almost an impossibility for the party to be fiscally conservative and to move farther left socially.
I love this:
Economically conservative social liberals are the “jackalopes of American politics,” in the words of National Review’s Kate O’Beirne. The press keeps telling us they exist out there in huge numbers, but when you go looking for them, they refuse to emerge from the bushes.
In fairness, many people do describe themselves this way. Most of the time we simply call them “Democrats.” Those who call themselves Republicans should more properly be called “confused.”
Economically conservative social liberals = “jackalopes.” Excellent.
It appears Deroy Murdock got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
You don’t hear this kind of thing too much from the ranks of the Right (well, maybe once or twice here on RS):
Nevertheless, Bush is the GOP’s Jimmy Carter, a weak bumbler who embarrassed his constituents, betrayed his philosophical movement, sank his party, and eventually surrendered the White House to the opposition, this time led by the Senate’s Number One liberal, still in his first term. Bush should retire quietly to Texas, where he can drive his truck, chop wood, and avoid the limelight for the balance of his natural existence.
Bush could use someone to sweep the leaves at his ranch. I nominate Karl Rove. Why on Earth is he always on TV spewing advice? As “the architect” of the oxymoronic Big Government Conservatism, he counseled Bush to solidify power by spending like a Democrat, slapping tariffs on steel, and locking away his veto pen for six years. Under Rove, the administration’s communications efforts made the Tower of Babel sound like a news channel. This would be bad enough if the GOP were unprincipled but in control. Oops! The GOP lost Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. Thanks, Karl.
That’s gonna leave a mark.
On The Day After, David Frum wrote an election post-mortem that told the GOP that we must move left. His words:
College-educated Americans have come to believe that their money is safe with Democrats – but that their values are under threat from Republicans. And there are more and more of these college-educated Americans all the time.
So the question for the GOP is: Will it pursue them? To do so will involve painful change, on issues ranging from the environment to abortion. And it will involve potentially even more painful changes of style and tone: toward a future that is less overtly religious, less negligent with policy, and less polarizing on social issues.
I’ve read a couple of Frum’s works, and he is consistent in imploring the GOP to move more to the middle. This seems to be a theme, and it’s creeping into the writings of our diarists and commenters. And frankly, I’m a little annoyed by it.
I’m getting ready to go to church, where I will be standing in front of the congregation to pray for our Prez-to-be. I offer this article from Ligon Duncan on how Christians are to pray for Mr. Obama.
From 1 Timothy 2:1-2 - I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.
I understand that not everyone on RS is a Christian, but for those who are, please keep in mind what our duty is as such. I don’t believe God says we have to agree with everything Obama says or does, nor should we back down from opposing what is wrong. As the days, weeks, etc. go along, I’ll simply be praying that he and his buddies don’t destroy the country.
In the aftermath of the election, many Obama supporters have lost their reason to live. They’ve now become … the undead.
Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are
Hide your children. Lock your doors.
