About Me

Name:The Secular Conservative
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Blog Roll

 

Primary Super Tuesday

Posted by The Secular Conservative on Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:01:47 PM
I keep hearing about all these primaries that are moving up on the schedule, and how they're essentially going to decide both candidates on one Super Tuesday nine months before the general election.  Oh yeah, and anyone who doesn't get in really early won't have enough money to get the primary votes, so late-comers don't have a prayer.  This concerns me because I like Newt, and he will be a late-comer if he gets in the race.

But this focus on a Primary Super Tuesday assumes one very important outcome: EVERY RACE ON THAT TUESDAY WILL GO TOWARDS A SINGLE CANDIDATE FOR EACH PARTY.  Right?  Because the only way it's decisive is if every state goes toward, say Obama and Rudy.  Then everyone else is clearly out of luck, right?

What no one considers is what happens IF EVERY RACE HAS A DIFFERENT WINNER. 

You see, the reason the primary system sucks now is because a few states have early primaries and each candidate focuses their attention on those states only.  Whoever wins the first two or three becomes the automatic frontrunner, so voters in later states change their voting behavior.  That's why it's so important to win in the early states, because the later states will be influenced by the results of the early states and it cascades across the country.

By having all (or most) of the primaries on one day, none of the early states can influence the later states, so we get a true sense of what the people want in each state.  If we get an honest outcome from each state, and each state picks the same candidate, we get a true frontrunner.  But we also have the opportunity to get a different winner in each state, which means following the early primaries, we still have a toss-up.  What can be more exciting than that?

So picture this: Each candidate raises and spends as much money as possible ahead of Primary Super Tuesday.  On Wednesday, everyone wakes up to find that no clear winner came out of all primaries.  But everyone is broke and donors don't know who to give money to for the later primaries and the general election.

What a mess, right?  Not for a late starter (like Newt), who can come charging in with a full campaign warchest, since he didn't waste it for all those months on the primary campaign trail.  For the right candidate, under the right circumstances, a Super Primary Tuesday could be a huge windfall, and current frontrunners could find themselves out of money with nine months to go. 

Let's not forget this is a marathon, not a sprint.

-tsc
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberals Are Not Opposed to Terrorism

Posted by The Secular Conservative on Monday, March 12, 2007 8:19:17 PM

I'm starting to believe that liberals aren't really opposed to terrorism.  In fact, I think they're "sympathetic to the cause" in most cases.  Sure, conservatives have given them the benefit of the doubt until now, but it may be time to call a spade a spade. 

Conservatives tell themselves that liberals simply disagree on moral grounds (e.g. war is bad); or they disagree because they're playing the role of opposition party; or perhaps they actually have another plan that won't be revealed until they reach the Oval Office.  These rationalizations help us believe the people on the other side of the aisle aren't really that different from us.

But what if liberals aren't actually opposed to terrorism?  I'm not saying they're FOR terrorism, but maybe they're not really AGAINST it either...
 
Some examples might help:

  • Insurgents -- Insurgents aren't really terrorists, they're just freedom fighters standing up to the evil empire.  What better way to support terrorism than to gloss over the actions that drew the U.S. into war, characterize their continued bad actions as minor compared to those of the great Satan, and provide a euphemism with "freedom" in the title?
  • Palestinians versus Israelis -- A classic case of blaming the victim for the actions of the aggressor.  I can't take credit for it, but my favorite way to summarize this argument goes like this: If the Israelis lay down their weapons, will the killing stop?  Of course not.  But if the Palestinians lay down their weapons, will the killing stop?  Absolutely.  This tells who really is to blame.
  • Danish cartoons -- Cartoons that portray Mohammad are bad, and it's necessary for the “Muslim Street” to riot around the world.  How do liberals portray these riots?  Justifiable, of course, since it was inappropriate for the cartoonists to violate religious precepts.  Rioting is the logical response, naturally.
  • Eco-terrorism -- Violence is acceptable when it's in the name of Mother Earth, at least as far as liberals are concerned.  Green Peace sinking a whaling boat?  No problem.  Burn down a Hummer dealership?  Perfectly justifiable.

So there you go, four examples of liberals NOT opposing terrorism.  The only comparable example I can think of from conservatives would be an abortion clinic bombing.  But when an abortion clinic is destroyed, conservatives widely denounce the killings, whereas liberals rationalize their kind of terrorism away, as I documented above.

It's as bad as supporting the troops but not supporting the war.  By calling it a civil war, by calling terrorists "insurgents" and "freedom fighters," liberals diminish the importance of this fight.  They undermine those who are fighting terrorism and, consequently, help the terrorists.

Some might think I've gone too far, but I'm tired of liberals euphemizing and glossing over terrorist activities.  It's time somebody called them on it.

-tsc

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »