![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
And then there were two-and-a-half
Not really a surprise: McCain and Romney split Florida, with Giuliani in third. Pretty much what I expected, but I believe it means that Giuliani is toast: he staked everything he had on winning it. I'll be surprised if he stays in the race at this point. So I think that leaves the Republicans with three candidates who have any credibility, maybe really only two: still too many, but gradually weeding...
no subject
He will do better in New York. I know he will get at least one vote.
no subject
no subject
And now, he's toast. He staked what credibility he had on Florida: he *had* to win that (or at least come in a strong second) to rebuild his cred. Without that, I expect far too many people to regard voting for him as a wasted vote, and instead focus on the 2.5 candidates who have a chance. If he gets 10% on Super Tuesday I'll be surprised. (Although at this point, I suppose he may as well stay in until then.)
I have to say, though, I'm amazed that both races are still so tight. Both parties still have two candidates seriously duking it out, plus one spoiler. Very exciting (and, given how much I despise Romney, a bit scary)...
no subject
no subject
no subject
It's all about how Giuliani presents himself and his priorities. For instance, look at his campaign ads and speeches. They *hammer* 9/11, over and over and over again. And yes, this was a great tragedy -- but man, it's wasn't the worst tragedy in American history, and it was now a fairly long time ago. All of World War II happened in less time than the time between 9/11 and today.
So what is he trying to accomplish? Fear, basically. His message, quite consistently, is, "The world is a frightening and scary place. You need Me to protect you from it." It's a fundamentally authoritarian message -- indeed, it's practically the essence of the authoritarian message. It's the kind of story that dictators sell when they're trying to take over.
Also, it's a fundamentally divisive message. Fascism generally has to have a Bad Guy, usually a boogeyman. In this case, it's Islamic Terrorism. Not just terrorism, mind -- *Islamic* Terrorism. That's what the 9/11 message keeps driving home. Those Ay-Rabs are the bad guys. Oh, he'll claim otherwise, that he's all sweetness and light towards the non-terrorists. But then he'll turn right around and continue to emphasize that Islamic Terrorists are the greatest threat we face today, and that insinuates into the American mental landscape the notion that "Islam == Bad".
And let's be clear: it isn't. Really, I'm rather disappointed that America has proven so cowardly that a single attack traumatized it so badly. Yes, it was a horror, but we need to get on with our collective lives. There are a lot of other problems in the world that are far more dangerous in the long run, and they require strong but subtle diplomacy if we're going to navigate them successfully -- not the brute-force approaches that Giuliani appears to favor.
Fascism is also very bound up with a fanatical attention to *loyalty*: the whole concept is people bound together. Giuliani's instincts very clearly run in that direction, just as much as W's do -- you're either with him or against him. Read up on him and his upbringing -- it's actually a tad creepy, with mob overtones all over it. He has too often emphasized loyalty as an absolute. Admittedly, that's usually *personal* loyalty, which doesn't match the fascist ideal very well -- but the two tend to be rather closely related in practice.
So yeah: I think he's essentially a fascist at heart. Most politicians are guilty of the same sins to some degree, but he does so more than the rest of the current bunch. He's hammering the war drums too hard, and for all the wrong reasons; he's trying to get people to be afraid, so that they will fall into the arms of the state; and he personally is too much about "us vs. them". Put together, and I think he'd be a terrible president, exactly what this country doesn't need right now.
(Oh, and just in case it isn't clear: yes, Bush is even *more* clearly a fascist, and Cheney probably even moreso. But they're leaving office, and largely discredited anyway, so I'm not worrying about them so much: they're largely yesterday's problem.)
no subject
It's a fine line, moreso because of the PC tendency to need to not say anything bad about anyone in particular. There was *one* attack on US soil. If that were it, I think you'd be on target. But it wasn't. There have been attacks in England, Madrid, Indonedia... Iraq, whose terrorist attacks were previously held at bay only by that strongman Saddam Hussein. Then there's Lebanon, not just Hezbollah attacking Israel but terror attacks in the country itself. Not to mention Gaza and the West Bank. Oh, and I almost forgot Egypt. Go back a few more years and we have Yemen, and Italy. There is ONE thing that links all these acts, and it's not a tenuous link.
Exhortations to terror are being spouted by imams, are being shouted in houses to worship. They're being repeated by the official state-sponsored media of theocratic nations. Should we attack all these countries? Of course not. But should we pretend that they are our friends? THAT would be dangerous. The vast majority of terrorist action in the world today *is* Islamic terrorism. Sure, I wish it weren't so, but it's the fact, and we ignore it at our peril.
no subject
Of course, since Edwards has been playing himself up as the one "grown-up" in the Democratic debates, then dropping out can be viewed as the "grown-up" thing for him to do, given the reality of the status of his campaign. Plus, it better positions him to once again be considered a potential running-mate (though I doubt that that would happen - certainly not with Clinton and I don't think he adds much of anything to an Obama ticket)
no subject
And he's a southerner, which doesn't hurt. Between that and general dissatisfaction with the Republicans, it might put some of the South into play -- and if the Democrats take any significant fraction of the Deep South, this could go from being a win to a wipeout.
So I think it's possible. Whether it's *likely*, I have no idea -- most importantly, I have no clue how the two feel about each other or what the chemistry would be like, and that matters a lot...
no subject
Edwards has the rest of an undistinguished Senate term over Obama in experience, nothing on the foreign side, and could not carry his state in '04 (and probably would've lost if he'd run for Senate re-election then). Edwards wasn't a particularly good Veep candidate in '04; in addition to not picking up NC, he didn't do well against Chaney in the debate. The people who'd vote for Edwards aren't voting for either McCain or Romney, so he adds zilch to a ticket.
If Obama wants to roll the dice with a second minority, I'd think Richardson compliments him well in terms of covering his weaknesses. Another possibility might be a former military type, although probably only Powell or maybe Clark come across as significant with respect to McCain's military record.
no subject
I think the race issue brings the south into play all by itself, look at the turnout for the SC democratic primary as an example.
I doubt that the Obama camp is that worried about the left side of the Democratic party. If Obama's the candidate, it's unlikely that they'll jump over the the Republicans.
It's my guess that Obama would be more likely to pick someone with a lot of foreign policy or economic expertise to counter the complaints about his inexperience. Edwards wouldn't really add much for him in that regard.
no subject