I found this comment in a review of the second night of the Republican Convention in a post by cccc Liel Leibovitz at Tablet.
This is not to say that watching both conventions will get a sizable number of voters to stop worrying and learn to love Donald Trump. But it is to say that it’s becoming increasingly more clear that the Democrats’ real problem isn’t the party’s aging candidate or its rambunctious left flank but, rather, its relationship with reality itself.
WaPo has a story up with this headline: Republicans seize on liberal positions to paint Democrats as radical. It begins with this paragraph—
Sen. Kamala D. Harris is raising the possibility of eliminating private health insurance. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other prominent Democrats are floating new and far-reaching plans to tax the wealthy. In Virginia, Gov. Ralph Northam voiced support for state legislation that would reduce restrictions on late-term abortions.
A few days ago, Republicans were pouncing when they truthfully quoted Democrats. Now they are seizing. Whatever they’re doing, it seems to be getting under The Media’s skin.
There are some things about which I have a clear vision of the future, but the outcome of the November election isn’t one one of them. I have no idea of which party will wind up controlling either the Senate or the House of Representatives. If had to bet, I’d go with the Republicans hanging on in the Senate, but that’s almost an even money bet.
What I do foreseen is a rather nasty four weeks ahead. The Kavanaugh brouhaha has spun up both parties, and turnout will be critical. Donations are up on both sides.
What will be the Democrats’ end game? Will they triple down on the strategy they tried while opposing the Kavanaugh nomination? That brought out a crowd of protestors one observer described as looking like white millennial Starbucks customers. What effect would that stategy have on more traditional Democrats such as the minority (black and Hispanic) voters who helped defeat the gay marriage ballot initiative in California (Prop 8)?
What about the Republicans? Will they spend too much time celebrating and not enough time doing the hard work of getting their voters to the poles? After the Kavanaugh hearings, they wound up looking like the adults in the room. They’ve historically been tagged as the stupid party, but they look like the sane party for now. Will they find a way to blow that perception with undecided voters between now and the election?
Fasten your seat belts and stay tuned.
The cover of next week’s New Yorker says it all.
Ah, the politicization of Science … Both the Left and the Right do it, but the worst abuses of the past couple of decades have been on the Left. If asked to name an example of Progressive Pseudoscience, many conservative would point to the global warming scam. My pet peeve is something else, the alleged differences between the brains of Republicans and Democrats.
Supposedly, the difference is that Republicans are inherently more fearful, and the “scholars” behind the study used “science” in the form of MRIs to “prove” it.
Hank Campbell has a post over at Science 2.0 that explores the defects in this bit of Pseudoscience. Their methodology was poor, and their interpretation of their data worse. As Campbell points out,
Prior papers said everyone is motivated by fear, not just Republicans, and a later one determined that liberals are just being politically correct – when they get drunk and lose their inhibitions, they become more conservative.
Read the whole thing.
And the next time you try to convince a Progressive of something rational, buy him a beer.
The brouhaha over the DoJ’s leak investigation and AG Holder’s participation in the FBI’s searches of journalists’ phone records and emails points to a basic difference between the Obama and Nixon White Houses.
The Obama administration has used government employees to deal with leaks.
The Nixon administration’s plumbers were private contractors.
Both seem crooked, but at least one favored private enterprise.
The Republicans are handing out convention swag in Charlotte. (H/T, @toddstarnes)
Andrew Klavan has an interesting analysis of the Republican Presidential candidates in which finds that, when real world limitations are taken into account, Romney is least bad. The problem is that he’s not good enough. Read the whole thing.
As Mr. Klavan says, the problem is a lack of clear vision of where the country is and where it needs to go. President Reagan had his faults, but he understood that radical change was necessary. For example, he saw the need to move past containment of communism in foreign affairs. His view of how to handle the cold war was “we win.” Neither Mr. Klavan nor I see that sort of clear thinking in Romney.
[W]e need a man not just of policies but of vision, not just of proposals but of high ideals. A mere Romney might — might — take us back from the brink to which Obama has sped us, but that would only delay the fatal catastrophe. Worse, it would perforce recreate the exact same set of circumstances that got us into this mess in the first place.