Way back before the Republican primary campaigns commenced, the leftist Daily Kos site's denizens were contemplating who would be the most dangerous (to them (and President Obama of course). I noted numerous comments along the lines of "Mike Huckabee really scares me".
Of course they would not go so far as to assign any positive attributes (apart form acknowledging the obvious, that he is a very good speaker/communicator) to Huckabee. Rather, damning with faint praise along the lines of "he comes across as less bat-shit crazy than all the others" and " although a conman he comes across as plausible" and other comments along those lines.
In reality, the "Kossites" had every reason to be concerned for their beloved Obama and the real threat that an Huckabee candidacy would have created for the Democratic party at the 2012 election.
With the Republicans having, arguably, the worst candidate in Romney, running the worst campaign in living memory, the GOP came within a few percentage points of winning Florida (lost by less than one percent) Ohio 2.97% and Virginia 3.87%. If those had been won with a better candidate, then one further state would have been needed to have won in the Electoral College.
It is unimaginable that Huckabee would have run a worse campaign than Romney. Would he have railed against the "47%"? Would he have had overseas tax haven problems, and not have divulged his tax returns?
Would he have been depicted as an elitist, business and worker destroyer capitalist of the worst sort?
Heck no, and with that advantage for the Obama team gone, which negatives they hammered at Romney early and hard, the administration would have had to have run on its record. A Huckabee candidacy, free from all these distractions, would have hit, plausibly and continually, at the Obama administrations many failings, and of course most particularly, their poor unemployment record.
Huckabee also had the advantage of being a known (and avuncularly popular) previous candidate, with no major personal failings for the left to rail against. He would have been a very good debater and, as the left feared, would have come across as reasonable and sensible. It would have been a totally different campaign, and would have had a totally different result.
The other, significant advantages ensuing from an Huckabee campaign would have been a much higher turnout from conservatives who didn't trust Romney, because they saw him as an "Etch-a Sketch" flip-flopper on abortion and "Obamacare (Romneycare).
There would have been a higher turnout from Evangelicals who didn't like Romney's Mormonism as well. The increase in turnout from these two groups alone would have made a significant difference in the GOP's vote, and may have, by themselves, been enough to give Huckabee the win.
Being perceived as a genuine conservative, Huckabee would not have had to place a perceived ultra- conservative on the ticket as VP candidate (an Huckabee/Rubio team would have been formidable). The team would not have needed to include the boring and ineffectual campaigner that Paul Ryan was. It is also inconceivable that Huckabee would have excluded Sarah Palin from the convention, and insulted the Paul forces.
If Huckabee had declared early he would have won the Ames poll, and then the Iowa primary comfortably, which would have stopped the Bachmann distraction in its tracks.
He would have won South Carolina by which time Santorum would have be a factor of no importance. It is unlikely that he would have let himself be rail-roaded in Florida like Gingrich was. But, even if he lost that state, his delegate toll would have been increasing, and he would have gone on to win the nomination from a field that was not as splintered on the right as the one Romney faced.
Whilst it would have been unlikely that he would have done significantly better with the Black vote than Romney, he might have been perceived as less of an elitist, and the Black turn-out might have been less. With Hispanics, the same factor may have been in play-certainly he couldn't have done any worse and very well would have done better, especially with an Hispanic running mate.
As far as the extra state that the GOP would have needed to win it is there, in Iowa,won by Obama with just 51.99% of the vote) that Huckabee would have had his biggest advantage. He is very popular in Iowa, which launched him on the national stage. If the Evangelicals which figure so strongly in that swing state had turned out for him en-mass, he could have won it, and won the presidency.
Only Huckabee knows his state of mind as regards these events, and what might have been. For those who would have wished the GOP to have won in 2012 though, it is a matter of great regret, and America's loss, that Huckabee (especially as Palin also declined) declined to run.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Orriel Smith's New Folk Album Reviewed;"Throughout, her crystalline voice tickles the heavens, never less than emotionally enthralling."
To read about Orriel's career, hear some tracks and see original video's from her early career go TO THIS LINK
To hear all tracks from this new CD which is available for purchase AT THIS LINK
*******************************************************
Orriel Smith: A Voice Forever In the Wind
From: EFolk music.com
Orriel Smith's debut album, A Voice In The Wind, was released by Columbia nearly 50 years ago. In the intervening years, Ms. Smith has released several albums of “cluckoratora”, wherein she clucks famous arias from the likes of Mozart, Verdi, and Puccini. However, her heart has always been close to the folk songs of her youth. She returns there for her new release, A Voice Forever In the Wind.
This from Jeff Penczak's review on Terrascope:
Accompanying herself on guitar and with sparse orchestral arrangements performed by Don French, Smith delivers an impassioned collection of traditional folk songs from Ireland, Britain, America, Mexico, Russia, and Aotearoa/New Zealand. The backing ranges from a softly intertwined guitar and orchestra on opener, ‘She Moved Through The Fair’ to her gently plucked acoustic guitar on ‘Lady Mary’ and ‘Songs My Mother Taught Me’, to the a capella marvel, ‘Come All You Fair and Tender Ladies’ that finds her in as fresh and fine a voice as those early recordings.
Throughout, her crystalline voice tickles the heavens, occasionally operatic, but never less than emotionally enthralling. Think back to that voice wafting from the radio towards the end of the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers and you’ll get an idea of the immaculate purity and emotion in Smith’s vocal pyrotechnics.
‘Danny Boy’ is as heart wrenching as any version you’ll ever hear, and her other tales of death, forbidden love, and lost virginity snuggle warmly up alongside songs of faith and devotion, including the a capella ‘Were You There When They Crucified My Lord’ / ‘Amazing Grace’ medley that’ll bring tears to the eyes of angels. Record companies don’t release albums like this any more, which may explain why Ms. Smith has elected to release it herself. You can find it at the link above. It’s one of the summer’s earliest treats. (Jeff Penczak )
‘Danny Boy’ is as heart wrenching as any version you’ll ever hear, and her other tales of death, forbidden love, and lost virginity snuggle warmly up alongside songs of faith and devotion, including the a capella ‘Were You There When They Crucified My Lord’ / ‘Amazing Grace’ medley that’ll bring tears to the eyes of angels. Record companies don’t release albums like this any more, which may explain why Ms. Smith has elected to release it herself. You can find it at the link above. It’s one of the summer’s earliest treats. (Jeff Penczak )
Orriel Smith Artist Page
CLICK ON PICTURE TO HEAR THIS STUNNING VERSION OF POKARE KARE ANA
CLICK ON PICTURE TO HEAR THIS STUNNING VERSION OF POKARE KARE ANA
Pokare kare Ana, Po Atarau (Now is the Hour)
by orriel1 • 15,237 views
Orriel Smith from the 2011 release "A Voice Forever in the Wind" Pokarekare Ana is a traditional New Zealand love song, Po Atarau is a farewell to Maori soldiers in the World Wars 1 & 2 translated...
All Comments (2)
- ·
- ·
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
My New Catholic Followers On Twitter Are Fascinating. I Wish I Could Be A Catholic
Since I wrote some posts recently which touched on Catholic values,challenges and reactions, and especially since Lisa Graas, "Catholic Lisa" and I became mutual Twitter followers,
I have seen a substantial number of Tweets from Catholics on subjects all and sundry.
And quite fascinating, entertaining, interesting, scholarly and challenging they,the tweets and the Tweeters, are too.
Apart from the social/political aspect and content, what Ifind particularly interesting is the seeming utter dedication to their faith for so many, the rewards that brings to them and, above al,l their living a life of utter certainty.
It is that last aspect which I find most intriguing, coming from a Protestant ethos. That is not to say of course that untold numbers of Protestants, particularly Evangelicals, don't lead a life of complete religious certainty but, in my experience, it is not something I have personally encountered that often.
To have, not only a total faith without question, but to go even further in it than I have ever seen expressed, is a new expereince for me. To quote, or paraphrase one Tweet (as best I remember it) "my day is complete as I experience God intertwined with every fabric of my being".
I would dearly love to have such certainly of faith. It would free up a lot of mental to-ing and fro-ing over the meaning of life and all that but I don't think I ever will within the Protestant framework. There are trade-offs I gather though-I, on the other hand will not experience "Catholic guilt' whatever that is, which I understand (from plays and movies at least) is a real thing!
If this certitude is so attractive, then why don't I simply apply for membership? I am too long in the Protestant tradition-Anglican/Episcopalian fancy dress is as far as I will ever go as far as ritual is concerned (I found Presbyterian services too stark on the other hand).
I would prefer my church leaders to be married (to the opposite sex). Whilst doctrine is not something I concern myself with all that much if I had to vote I would prefer the Protestant mass and the Prtotestant's democratic hierarchy.
I have discovered a new, strikingly beautiful sweet shop but will make do with the plainer more homely sweets I was raised with. On the other hand, in an odd sort of way, seeing the depth of Catholic's faith has uplifted and reinforced mine for which I am grateful.
I have seen a substantial number of Tweets from Catholics on subjects all and sundry.
And quite fascinating, entertaining, interesting, scholarly and challenging they,the tweets and the Tweeters, are too.
Apart from the social/political aspect and content, what Ifind particularly interesting is the seeming utter dedication to their faith for so many, the rewards that brings to them and, above al,l their living a life of utter certainty.
It is that last aspect which I find most intriguing, coming from a Protestant ethos. That is not to say of course that untold numbers of Protestants, particularly Evangelicals, don't lead a life of complete religious certainty but, in my experience, it is not something I have personally encountered that often.
To have, not only a total faith without question, but to go even further in it than I have ever seen expressed, is a new expereince for me. To quote, or paraphrase one Tweet (as best I remember it) "my day is complete as I experience God intertwined with every fabric of my being".
I would dearly love to have such certainly of faith. It would free up a lot of mental to-ing and fro-ing over the meaning of life and all that but I don't think I ever will within the Protestant framework. There are trade-offs I gather though-I, on the other hand will not experience "Catholic guilt' whatever that is, which I understand (from plays and movies at least) is a real thing!
If this certitude is so attractive, then why don't I simply apply for membership? I am too long in the Protestant tradition-Anglican/Episcopalian fancy dress is as far as I will ever go as far as ritual is concerned (I found Presbyterian services too stark on the other hand).
I would prefer my church leaders to be married (to the opposite sex). Whilst doctrine is not something I concern myself with all that much if I had to vote I would prefer the Protestant mass and the Prtotestant's democratic hierarchy.
I have discovered a new, strikingly beautiful sweet shop but will make do with the plainer more homely sweets I was raised with. On the other hand, in an odd sort of way, seeing the depth of Catholic's faith has uplifted and reinforced mine for which I am grateful.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Left Agrees;"Not ALL Women Should Be Front Line Troops Only "Matching" Women" (Calling Boadicea)
Yes, I actually saw that bow to common sense (in part of course) on a leftist website. Even the blinkered left can't ignore the reality of the physical differences between males and females. Where these "matching" in size and strength females are to be found I am not sure ( and frankly don't want to know either) but, "calling Boadicea, the tribe of Amazons and of course Joan of Arc."
Obviously in a combat situation a man can carry a heavier load and has more physical endurance. In spite of leftist feminist wishes, Mother Nature created them that way.
In a combat situation where a wounded comrade needs rescuing under fire and to be carried bodily a long distance it is ludicrous, and potentially life threatening to both the rescued and the rescuer, to have a woman attempt to carry e.g. a 230 pound man.
As much as the feminists say that it is old fashioned and paternalistically "patriarchal" it is a very real possibility that a male may act differently in the face of a wounded female companion than if it were a male-again, to possibly both their detriment.
As for rape, kidnapping and bearing a rapist child, those too are very real possibilities-which I have discussed at length.
I note the radical left "Wonkette" has seen fit to ridicule opponents of having women in front line combat. I note they have not addressed the very real and very dangerous situations outlined above.
The editor, one Rebecca Schoenkopf, or "Commie girl" as she is self-styled, is never going to be (especially as a self-styled "big breasted Jewess") in the position of carrying a combat opponents child, nor bodily carry a 220 pound wounded man under fire.
Rather Schoenkopf and the other radical leftists can, like her, pontificate and prescribe for the "sisterhood" from the comfort and ease of her Los Angeles office whilst women and men die needlessly and sacrificed
on the altar of leftist feminism.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Women In Combat; "Rape" The Ultimate Challenge To Catholics
I was watching a documentary on the Congo and the wars to control the minerals used in cellphones. The mass killing, gross exploitation of the miners and the country as whole, the vice and corruption, the terrible lack of basic facilities were inhumanities almost beyond comprehension.
What was beyond comprehension was the use of terror as a political and military tactic. This was used against women and children primarily. Children, if not killed outright, were dragooned into guerilla forces and forced to under go a harsh regime of training-in reality utter brutalization. Women,were subjected to the most reprehensible dehumanization possible.
The documentary, which was not a propaganda piece as the results of this deliberate program of cowing communities into submission was clearly visible without any commentary, interviewed women who, in their will to live and grow, provided the only spark of humanity.
The "rebels' if they didn't kill women outright cut of their hands and raped them. The program visited an hospital which specialised in reconstructive surgery as many women also had their genital slashed and it was there that a significant problem which may well arise for American women in combat surfaced.
One woman was carrying a two year old child which was the result of her having been raped. She, the mother, was as positive for the future as could be expected under the circumstances-allowing for the fact of course that she was in the sanctuary of the hospital. The child was smiling, was well fed, physiacally perfect and appeared innocent of any circumstances surrounding its life. It could, if given the chance, lead a happy and successful life.
This situation could well arise for American servicewomen in a front-line combat situation. If, for example, a woman was taken captive in e.g. the Middle East and was raped and held in captivity for three or more months and then was rescued what would her attitude to the unborn child she was carrying? If she was a devout Catholic would she carry the child to full term or would she abort it?
If the child was passed the stage where an abortion was legal/practicable safe would she keep it or put it our for adoption? If the latter case she would have to carry the mental and moral responsibility for her actions. That is not a judgement, it is a reality as in all these scenarios we are dealing with a life.
There have been many reasons advanced against having women serve in front line situations but the four letter word "rape" and its consequences, have not been raised or certainly addressed by those ultra-feminists who seem to want to push their barrow, no matter what the consequences might be for the women involved and their unborn or born child subsequent to a rape, in a combat situation.
This might be a matter for the Catholic hierarchy to weigh in on now before the consequences of women in combat becomes a moral issues after the fact.
What was beyond comprehension was the use of terror as a political and military tactic. This was used against women and children primarily. Children, if not killed outright, were dragooned into guerilla forces and forced to under go a harsh regime of training-in reality utter brutalization. Women,were subjected to the most reprehensible dehumanization possible.
The documentary, which was not a propaganda piece as the results of this deliberate program of cowing communities into submission was clearly visible without any commentary, interviewed women who, in their will to live and grow, provided the only spark of humanity.
The "rebels' if they didn't kill women outright cut of their hands and raped them. The program visited an hospital which specialised in reconstructive surgery as many women also had their genital slashed and it was there that a significant problem which may well arise for American women in combat surfaced.
One woman was carrying a two year old child which was the result of her having been raped. She, the mother, was as positive for the future as could be expected under the circumstances-allowing for the fact of course that she was in the sanctuary of the hospital. The child was smiling, was well fed, physiacally perfect and appeared innocent of any circumstances surrounding its life. It could, if given the chance, lead a happy and successful life.
This situation could well arise for American servicewomen in a front-line combat situation. If, for example, a woman was taken captive in e.g. the Middle East and was raped and held in captivity for three or more months and then was rescued what would her attitude to the unborn child she was carrying? If she was a devout Catholic would she carry the child to full term or would she abort it?
If the child was passed the stage where an abortion was legal/practicable safe would she keep it or put it our for adoption? If the latter case she would have to carry the mental and moral responsibility for her actions. That is not a judgement, it is a reality as in all these scenarios we are dealing with a life.
There have been many reasons advanced against having women serve in front line situations but the four letter word "rape" and its consequences, have not been raised or certainly addressed by those ultra-feminists who seem to want to push their barrow, no matter what the consequences might be for the women involved and their unborn or born child subsequent to a rape, in a combat situation.
This might be a matter for the Catholic hierarchy to weigh in on now before the consequences of women in combat becomes a moral issues after the fact.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Leftist Meme: 'Dem's Won 3/4 Last Presidential Popular Votes" Is Hubris.GOP Won 12 Of 18 In Their Ascendency
One of the latest leftist meme's in their ongoing post election gloating (which will end shortly as all these things do in the ongoing election cycle) is that the GOP is finished because of demographics etc etc.
They point to the Republicans losing the popular vote in three out of the last four elections as proof that the Republicans are forever a minority party of "old white men".
We've been through this before of course, after the 2004 election Republicans were gloating that "we control everything the presidency, both houses of Congress, a majority of governorships, and the Supreme Court. Four years later all that was reversed.
But to put the current 'three out of four losses" in perspective lets look at, courtesy of Wikipedia, the elections from 1860, when the Republicans first won the presidency, to the end of their first ascendency in 1928. Of the 18 elections, in the popular vote totals the GOP won 12 to the Democrats only 6 (in the Electoral College the score was Republicans 14 Democrats 4).
In point of fact it is more than possible that if it were not for Black voter suppression/Jim Crow laws the Republicans would have won the popular vote in 1876 and 1884 making the true margin 14 Republican popular vote wins to the Dem's 4.
Thus for the gloating Dem's to see another one of the mystical 'permanent-majority" scenarios ( enter the party of your choice) which have surfaced every time there is a big win for either party, is just the result of hubris.
They point to the Republicans losing the popular vote in three out of the last four elections as proof that the Republicans are forever a minority party of "old white men".
We've been through this before of course, after the 2004 election Republicans were gloating that "we control everything the presidency, both houses of Congress, a majority of governorships, and the Supreme Court. Four years later all that was reversed.
But to put the current 'three out of four losses" in perspective lets look at, courtesy of Wikipedia, the elections from 1860, when the Republicans first won the presidency, to the end of their first ascendency in 1928. Of the 18 elections, in the popular vote totals the GOP won 12 to the Democrats only 6 (in the Electoral College the score was Republicans 14 Democrats 4).
In point of fact it is more than possible that if it were not for Black voter suppression/Jim Crow laws the Republicans would have won the popular vote in 1876 and 1884 making the true margin 14 Republican popular vote wins to the Dem's 4.
Thus for the gloating Dem's to see another one of the mystical 'permanent-majority" scenarios ( enter the party of your choice) which have surfaced every time there is a big win for either party, is just the result of hubris.
| 1876 | Rutherford Hayes | Republican | 47.92% | −3.00% | 4,034,142 | −252,666 | Samuel Tilden | Democratic | ||
| 26 | 1888 | Benjamin Harrison | Republican | 47.80% | −0.83% | 5,443,633 | −94,530 | Grover Cleveland | Democratic | |
| 24 | 1880 | James Garfield | Republican | 48.31% | 0.09% | 4,453,337 | 1,898 | Winfield Scott Hancock | Democratic | |
| 25 | 1884 | Grover Cleveland | Democratic | 48.85% | 0.57% | 4,914,482 | 57,579 | James Blaine | Republican | |
| 27 | 1892 | Grover Cleveland | Democratic | 46.02% | 3.01% | 5,553,898 | 363,099 | Benjamin Harrison | Republican | |
| 33 | 1916 | Woodrow Wilson | Democratic | 49.24% | 3.12% | 9,126,868 | 578,140 | Charles Evans Hughes | Republican | |
| 28 | 1896 | William McKinley | Republican | 51.02% | 4.31% | 7,112,138 | 601,331 | William Jennings Bryan | Democratic | |
| 21 | 1868 | Ulysses Grant | Republican | 52.66% | 5.32% | 3,013,790 | 304,810 | Horatio Seymour | Democratic | |
| 29 | 1900 | William McKinley | Republican | 51.64% | 6.12% | 7,228,864 | 857,932 | William Jennings Bryan | Democratic | |
| 31 | 1908 | William H. Taft | Republican | 51.57% | 8.53% | 7,678,335 | 1,269,356 | William Jennings Bryan | Democratic | |
| 20 | 1864 | Abraham Lincoln | Republican | 55.03% | 10.08% | 2,211,317 | 405,090 | George McClellan | Democratic | |
| 19 | 1860 | Abraham Lincoln | Republican | 39.65% | 10.13% | 1,855,993 | 474,049 | John Breckinridge | Democratic | |
| 22 | 1872 | Ulysses Grant | Republican | 55.58% | 11.80% | 3,597,439 | 763,729 | Horace Greeley | Democratic | |
| 32 | 1912 | Woodrow Wilson | Democratic | 41.84% | 14.44% | 6,296,284 | 2,173,563 | Theodore Roosevelt | Progressive | |
| 36 | 1928 | Herbert Hoover | Republican | 58.21% | 17.41% | 21,427,123 | 6,411,659 | Al Smith | Democratic | |
| 30 | 1904 | Theodore Roosevelt | Republican | 56.42% | 18.83% | 7,630,557 | 2,546,677 | Alton Brooks Parker | Democratic | |
| 4 | ||||||||||
| 35 | 1924 | Calvin Coolidge | Republican | 54.04% | 25.22% | 15,723,789 | 7,337,547 | John Davis | Democratic | |
| 34 | 1920 | Warren Harding | Republican | 60.32% | 26.17% | 16,144,093 | 7,004,432 | James Cox | Democratic |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)