About Me

Name: Darrick Johnson
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

The Kang and Kodos Strategy

Hillary’s big win in Pennsylvania this week has compounded the Democrats problems. This is an election in which all the fundamentals appear to be in their favor, yet their destructive nominating process is putting all of that in danger.   As a Republican, this a beautiful thing to watch. For Democrats, though, this is a mess with no obvious good solutions.

If Obama wins, as is probable, he’s going to be a weakened candidate, with the continued Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and Tony Rezko problems. 

(Memo to Paul Shanklin, the time has come for a Hank Willams Jr. parody. Barack Obama sings “All My Marxist Friends”. Surefire hit. )

About 20% of Hillary supporters (about 10% of the party) would vote for McCain or stay home if Obama is the nominee. Even if only half of those follow through, Obama loses Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida handily. 

If Hillary wins, it will only be through some very, very shady work on the part of the former First Lady. Denver 2008 would look like Chicago 1968, and an embittered democratic party would go into the fall divided, clinging to their ipods and atheism, having made fools of themselves on national TV in the Mile High City.

So what options are left? There’s always the desperate call to Al Gore to be the compromise candidate, but Al Gore doesn’t exactly “Winner”. The fact that he’s an attractive “dream” candidate says more about the low expectations of Democrats than it does about Mr. Gore.

Democrats have to think outside the bun. As a conservative, my choice would be for the Democrats to nominate a tough on spending, defense hawk, with a great record of military service. He would have to toe the liberal line on some issues, to hold the party together, so they need to find someone that is a Global Warming alarmist, and is highly critical of President Bush. Only one man fits that description. The Democrats should nominate John McCain. Think of it. The Republicans would now be left scrambling for a nominee. Blue-collar Democrats, reluctant to pull the lever for a Republican, but not wanting unrepentant terrorists roaming the White House, would have their perfect candidate. Democrats would look wise and magnanimous, while pulling themselves off the ideological brink that Howard Dean and Barack Obama currently have them on.   Republicans could scramble to find the true conservative that eluded them during the primary. Whatever the outcome, Al-Qaeda continues to hemorrhage in the sands of Iraq, the federal budget shrinks, taxes don’t skyrocket, and adults run the war and the courts. 

It’s a happy version of the classic Simpson’s episode, when twin aliens, Kang and Kodos, assume the bodies of Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. Shortly before the election they reveal their true identities, and their intentions to make slaves out of all humans. But it’s a two party system, so the impending slavery is unavoidable. (Much to the displeasure of Ross Perot, on whom no one will “throw their vote away”).  

There’s one more form of the Kang and Kodos strategy, one that’s a little more sinister, and less fun for my fellow Republicans. Democrats, please stop reading here.   Here’s the plan: Call it a tie.  The Democratic Party is big enough for Obama’s Black Panther Marxism, and Hillary’s corrupt political machine. Nominate both.   Put Hillary on the ballot in states that she won, like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Run Obama in the states he won. As long as they don’t ever run in the same state, they could win enough electoral votes between them to deprive John McCain of 270 votes. Then it goes to the House of Representatives.   Barring a huge upset, Democrats will have solid control of the House in January of 2009. Then we’re back to the same fight we’re having now, Democrats picking between two closely matched candidates. Only now, they win the White House either way. It would be an ugly mess, but sometimes you have to win ugly.

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

Hillary Clinton: Queen Of Narnia?

At risk of losing my Operation Chaos merit badge, I cannot help but note some striking and disturbing similarities between Ms. Clinton, and The White Witch of Narnia.  (And these aren't merely references to pallor and, shall we say, stridency.)
 
1. Both women react with palpable fear and anger at the sight of warming temperatures, and melting glaciers.
2. Both have displayed strong opposition to public Christmas celebrations, particularly religious ones.
3. Children, particularly unborn ones in Hillary's case, are treated with disdain, except when they can be used as pawns for power.
4. Jadis, the White Witch, claims to rule Narnia, but is actually from distant Charn.  Hillary, Senator from New York, really from Arkansas (or Chicago, no one really knows.).
5. Jadis: Destroyed Charn rather than give up power.  Hillary, ready to destroy DNC rather than give up nomination. (Not that we're complaining)
6. Jadis:  Surrounded by loveable, yet ultimately corrupt and incompetent creatures.  Hillary:  Married to Bill.
 
I'm telling you, its Clark Kent and Superman...
 
Reader suggestions or additions?  Thats what comments are for...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The BCS-ification of politics

Every March, Americans are treated to the excitement that is March Madness. We love the upsets, the fearful way that number 5 seeds enter the court against their 12th seeded opponents, knowing that more money, boosters, a nicer arena and all their other advantages are worthless if they can’t defeat this underdog on the court. There are upsets, surprises, at the end, an undisputed winner.

Every December, Americans are treated to another spectacle. 5 or 6 college football teams will finish with 1 loss (except a small school, who will be undefeated), and all will claim the right to compete in the championship game, based on everthing but their record. Debates will rage about strength of schedule, margin of victory, “quality wins”, and based on these esoterics, reporters and coaches will arbitrarily pick 2 of them to compete for the title. And the title will be anything but undisputed.

Since Florida in 2000, the Democratic party has been bent on turning the March Madness of American politics into a BCS-like fiasco. See, March Madness isn’t very fun if all the pundits and press love you, but you still lose the game.   And Democrats have been doing a lot of losing. In 2000, on the losing end of the only score that mattered, the electoral college, Democrats complained about “the popular vote”, and absurd arguments took place about which states were more important, and confusing ballots, early calls, and all the data except what mattered. Bush won Florida in a squeaker, and thus the 270 electoral votes to be President. In 2004, Democrats complained about Diebold, crowded polls, and Swift Boat Vets. But they lost.   And now we are treated to the Hillary/Obama civil war. Republicans quickly learned that the number 1191 was important. It was 50%+1 of the convention delegates. Win 1191, and you’re the nominee, no questions asked. But our Blue friends are engaged in all their usual BCS scorekeeping. “Sure, Obama’s ahead, but Hillary won California, shouldn’t that count for something?” “I know Michigan and Florida broke the rules, but we have to count those votes, it would be Un-American not to.” “If Hillary wins with superdelegates, that just won’t be right.”

Here’s a novel idea: Win a majority of delegates, win the nomination. If at the end of the election, you determine that the rules don’t suit you, change them for next time.   The Democrats combination of super delegates, open primaries, and proportional awarding of delegates is a mess. But everyone knew the rules in advance.

The Democrats BCS strategy of electoral politics has been a bad thing for the country. It’s with quite a bit of pleasure that I’m watching their party thrown into chaos by these very same tactics.

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