8 thoughts on “ALEA JACTA EST**”

  • Brandon says:

    Good analysis, and I hope you're right. You know, watching McCain last night, it kind of makes me realize what he could've been. He didn't throw to much red meat to the evangelical base, he took a few jabs at his own party. There's still no way I would've voted for him if he had chose a moderate VP, and I realize I'm being naive in assuming he was sincere about all the "maverick" stuff. But his selection of Palin is just a sign of the extent to which the GOP has been hijacked by the religious right.

  • BK says:

    It is too bad about McCain. At one time he really was a maverick. I didn't agree with him on many issues – libertarianism is great in a utopia where equal opportunity and intelligence are honeslty valued and protected by a limited government. Too bad we're about 180 degrees from that society.

    At some level I get the impression he either genuinely thinks he still is or is so dissapointed in himself for not still being a maverick that he's working overtime to convince himself and everyone else that he still is.

  • peggy says:

    MMMM, LATIN QUOTES. I love you more and more each day, Ed. Speaking of love: I recommended your site to the AP government teacher, specifically the senatorial race section. We'll see if he ever speaks to me again… :)

  • mike says:

    I really like this writeup. I think it's less strategy and more desperate survival techniques. It was clear that if they didn't put someone extremely pro-life on the ticket (Romney doesn't count) it was over – not just on election day, but in terms of fundraising and keep the campaign's heart beating.

    I preferred Palin's speech when I heard it 16 years ago by the inventor of positive polarization – Mr. Patrick Buchanan.

  • NB says:

    I am glad to see that someone is writing about this pitt bull for the right got on the ticket. I like McCain as a moderate, but I am fearful about filling looming openings on the Supreme Court. Palin's "abstinence only" stance is so hypocritical. It didn't work for her and it didn't work for her daughter. An then to parade her entire family in front of the media two nights in a row indicates her willingness to subject them all to the full menu of celebrity horrors awaiting children in the spotlight. It appears she values electibility over her own family – what kind of "values" does that represent?

  • beau says:

    ed – so much of US politics (on both sides) seems geared towards "getting the vote out". this seems to me to further polarise (or polarize, if you prefer) the whole process. i'd be interested to read your take on compulsory voting.

    possible? unconstitutional? just never gonna happen?

    i think i recall you addressing this briefly in the past, but the archives are getting kinda extensive, and i am not having any luck searching…

  • Samantha says:

    I agree with your assessment of Palin. The only point I would argue in this piece is the baseball comparison, in that with a pitcher in one single game you've got a captive audience with no turnover on either team, which means no memory loss; i.e. it's logical to change strategy once the other team catches on. With Republican party politics, you've got to factor in the "I forgot" syndrome most Americans suffer from. I think in 2000, 2004, and 2006, Republicans were able to hit either brand new or forgetful audiences each time, and so were able to reuse the same tired illogical arguments they'd been using with so much success. Will it happen again? Who can say?

Comments are closed.