The Presidential Race - Reading The Tea Leafs - More Questions Than Answers

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

To be one hundred percent fair, Republicans could retain the White House this year; nevertheless I do not believe they will. In fact they should have never lost Congress, nevertheless they did, mainstream, republicans were very surprised of the 2006 congressional results, as almost everyone, this time they seem resigned to loose the White House, or at least they won’t feel surprised if they do. Why? They feel down, feisty, but down. The republicans have done mistakes, without any doubt, some of them, major mistakes, but in an election year with only 4.8 percent unemployment rate they should feel happier but they don’t. They should feel more confident, considering they have a nominee that appeals greatly to the independent and the moderate, and that the democrats are engaged in an awful confrontation, additionally whoever becomes their nominee will be of an untested material, a woman or a black male.

Common wisdom suggests that divided democrats with an untested type of nominee should not be a match for someone like John McCain. Nevertheless, again, mainstream republicans aren’t feeling good, simply they seem unable to get along with him, or they do not want to get along with him.

Perhaps republicans do not want neither the White House nor recover Congress; perhaps they assume that the next four years the US will face extreme economic turmoil and serious terrorist attacks affecting the biggest cities in the country such as New York, DC and LA. Therefore, it is better for them to see the spectacle from the distance while a democrat president and a democrat congress juggles with one major problem after another. Perhaps republicans see that in four years they would be able to return to power with a candidate of their like and additionally retake congress. Considering this scenario, perhaps the democrats shouldn’t take the White House but let McCain to be the next president, so far appears that John McCain is as a big pain in the butt for republicans as a democrat would be, with the big caveat that anything going wrong during the next four years would be blame on the Republicans and not on the Democrats.

The Establishments and their Troubles - Part II

or the year of living dangerously

Alexander P. De Filippi

Saturday, February 09, 2008

The Democrat powerful establishment is having for first time in a very long time, decades, great difficulties in assuring the nomination of its favorite, in this case Senator Hillary Clinton. The establishment has almost always been able to defeat the rebel, no matter how well organized and enthusiastic the rebel and their supporters have been, as happened with Governor Dean back in 2004. The reasons why they are having so much problems with the present rebel, Senator Obama, are varies, in fact requires several detailed pages to explain it and is beyond the scope of this short article. Nevertheless, I will mention just one, the big TV, newspaper, and radio networks (they are one of the members of the Democrat establishment, in my humble opinion) have insisted so much, in order to improve their ranking among other things, that both parties are corrupts, that a perception against usual politics has been created. Lou Dobbs, Bill O’Reilly and many other commentators in the media have attacked politicians in both parties, the ones they do not favor (they haven’t been impartial), that an impression in people minds have been created (correctly to an extent) that both parties are corrupt, hence all or most politicians are corrupt as well. Because most politicians are older white males, a very simplistic perception is around, both parties are corrupt, politicians are corrupts, then, white older males, who are the faces of these parties, are corrupt as well. Senator Obama, looks different from the usual politician, younger than most, and black, that set him apart from the views about politics as usual, hence many democrats and more and more independents and moderates as well are given him a serious look. If the phenomenon continues and he keeps captivating democrats, and gaining support among moderates and independents, perhaps he not only have a chance of winning the democrats nomination but also the presidential election as well, and that would be pandemonium for both establishments. In fact, both establishments would be running to get from him some kind of deal, if they do not get it, could Senator Obama become the Salvador Allende of the United States?

The republican establishment is in troubles as well, no as much as the democrat’s, but nonetheless in muddy terrain, John McCain has never been its favorite. The Republican establishment avoided getting themselves in troubles by remaining, at least in appearance, out of the presidential race, they did not try to push governor Huckabee down the throat of the republicans, perhaps they had doubts about his candidacy from the very beginning, if that was the case, they were right. They saw that in Iowa Huckabee won, but the Iowans participated, moderates and independents included, in the Democrat caucus by a very large margin. The confirmation that Huckabee was a weak candidate came out of South Carolina a state that the governor should have won easily. Therefore, John McCain, the man the establishment hated, has become precisely the one that may save the republicans from loosing the White House, it appears that Huckabee would be a good option as a vice-president, but if the Obama phenomenon keeps growing and election models star to show that he can win over independents and moderates even in November, Huckabee may be a bad option as vice-president as well, and, maybe, John McCain will need another moderate as a vice-president, perhaps a minority, perhaps a Hispanic or a woman.

The Establishments and their Troubles

Alexander P. De Filippi

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Both parties establishments are having serious troubles with their favorites, I believe that so far the democrat establishment can still save senator Hillary Clinton from a defeat at the hands of senator Barack Obama, but I am not so sure about governor Huckabee. It seems that in the case of the republicans the two factions that make up the establishment are divided, in effect, it appears that the business, oil, military oriented corporative community is not comfortable with a protestant minister as a nominee, you can see signals of that by the endorsements of McCain nomination by the Florida governor and the Florida senator Mel Martinez, perhaps an important section of the Republican Party sees Senator McCain as more electable than Huckabee, because of his appeal to moderates and independents, and perhaps they have already cut a deal with the Senator. However, Senator McCain won’t be acceptable to all conservatives because of his past confrontations with mainstream republicans, for that reason Senator McCain may nominate governor Huckabee as his vice-president, at first glance that mix could win anything that the democrats can throw. Additionally, president McCain may die, his age remember, before his term, leaving Huckabee as the first protestant minister in the White House.

On the Democrats side things look more troublesome than in the republicans’, the rebels and the establishment are in a tough duel, tougher than the one they had with Governor Dean back in 2004, although this time the rebels are making more troubles for the establishment than in that past occasion. I’m still of the opinion that Hillary Clinton, no one hundred percent sure though, will be the nominee, let’s see.

Religion

Religion, My View

http://alexanderdefilippi.blogspot.com/

Alexander P. De Filippi

Until a few years ago I was an atheist, then I became an agnostic and finally I became a believer in God, or did I? Although I have accepted the existence of a benign universal force that is everywhere and I have also become a believer in the existence of a very malign force equally powerful, I have a great deal of issues with the interpretation that all religions give of God. People have said trough the years that the devil is in the details, I can’t agree more with them, “the Devil is in the details” and religions are full of details that instead of taking people closer to God they are in fact moving people away from God or at least keep them at a distance. In fact those details are so dangerous that make many believers fanatics, and no religion is exempt of them, especially Judaism and the two religions that emerged from it, Christianity and Muslims.

I believe that God, or this benign universal force, if you don’t want to call it God, is communicating or attempting to communicate with all of us at all time, and is trying to steer us in a very constructive way. I see this benign force wanting us to be concern with our bodies, to take care of them properly, that we eat right, we don’t smoke, we drink moderately, work out, etc. Also I am of the opinion that this benign force wants us to live in peace, to make progress socially and industrially, that we take care of all of us like good people care about the rest.

By the same token I believe in this universal, evil force, that is attempting to steer us precisely in the opposite direction, to be absolutely individualistic, to live life like the atomic bomb is going to fall in the next few hours, or days, so what to care of the environment or anything by that matter but having the most fun we can regardless of the pain we cause to everybody else.

I have come to believe that religious people emphasizes so much the details that in fact they have become stern allies of devil forces; they scare people away from them; they antagonize people that were in fact getting close to them. Also they are very absorb in the idea that someone “has” to believe in God and attend to church service to be a good person. According to that version many Mafioso are good Christians and many environmentalist friendly “atheists” are evil.

What God wants? How God define when you are being good or bad, when you are walking toward the light or toward the darkness. Here we have the first and biggest problem of all, how me, or anyone, including the pope, can know God’s will? Every religious person can tell you, that God is everything, that God is everywhere, that God is bigger than the Universe, existed before and will exist after the Universe is gone. Then how any person knows His will? If God is bigger than the Universe, and we know that the Universe is massively huge, meaning the earth is to our galaxy what a grain of sand is to all the grains of sand of all beaches on the planet, and the same goes for our galaxy in its relation to all the galaxies, then how a human on this earth, can know the will, the thinking of God? Many religious people strongly believe they know the will of God to the point they can even regulate “the time we suppose to get out of our beds”.

I find offensive and terrible dangerous when religious people arrogantly assume to know the will of God to such degree. My views, considering that I can’t comprehend God’s will to that degree, takes me to guide myself using principles. For example, I believe God wants us to take care of this planet, to take care of the environment in the same way He wants us to take care of our bodies, keep it clean and healthy, do not pollute it. Nevertheless, taken care of the environment is an idea that did not come from religious people, in fact is an idea that came from the liberal atheist side back in the sixties, from the hippies movement, from them it expanded to today to everyone, in fact religious people have become environmentally friendly over the last decade. Therefore, about the environment, who was acting according to God’s will first? Religious people or precisely those that in the sixties were seen as lazy and godless? In fact even today the most radical people in protecting the environment aren’t religious, they still in the non religious side of the equation. Why this happen? How come, protecting the Earth, protecting the environment, protecting God’s creation is an issue that religious people still do not take to heart as much as the non religious? Because God is talking to “everyone”, to “everyone”, all the time, if religious people could not hear or doesn’t want to hear the message “protect the home I have given you” then He talks to others, using a different language. How many times have we have heard the phrase “God works in mysterious way”? well it is true.

Religious people believe that you have to believe in God to be in touch with God, I do not believe so, I believe that you are in touch with God’s design if you walk toward the light more often than when you walked to the darkness. I believe you are closer to God or to the benign force by your actions according to principles related to the main design than to the details specified by those people interpreting “God’s will”. The example I just gave about the environment and the “hippies” and religious people approach to it trough the decades, illustrates who was walking, in that major respect, to the light and who was walking to the darkness, today is easy to understand and accept this example, but try to explain it to religious people in the sixties, it would have been impossible, the same thing happens today about other issues.

The Presidential Race, My Take.

Update

http://alexanderdefilippi.blogspot.com/

Alexander P. De Filippi

Friday 4, January 2008

Wednesday 9, January 2008

This article will be updated trough the year.

Mainstream Republicans have reasons to celebrate and to worry about the news coming from the Iowa caucuses this past Thursday, January 3. In effect, Mike Huckabee, the mainstream candidate and future Republican presidential nominee easily won the election. The media calls Mitt Romney “the establishment candidate” because he has money, but the truth is, the real establishment candidate is Huckabee, who represents the George W. Bush line in all matters, from free trade, to immigration, in addition to his pro-life stance.

The mainstream or establishment candidate in the Republican Party is not determined by the amount of money or name recognition but by the base of support within the Republican Party that he has. Governor Mike Huckabee has in his favor the two main factions of the Republican Party, the Christian right and the business community. None of the other Republicans in the race can count on those two elements of support. Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Ron Paul have to divide among themselves the fiscally conservative, non-religious right, which is located mostly on the east and west coasts, and that does not surpass more than twenty percent of the Republican electorate across the country.

The second good news for Republicans came from the Democrats’ results, especially the fact that the establishment candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton, was in third place. I call her the establishment candidate because she has the media support and the most money from that business community, located mostly in California and New York. It is very difficult to believe that Barack Obama would win a presidential contest against Mike Huckabee. Therefore, if the Democrats nominate Senator Obama, they will lose the presidential election, an election that, based on the results of the 2006 congressional election, is up to the Democrats to lose.

The sobering or sour note for Republicans came from the Iowans’ participation in the caucus. Iowa isn’t New York. Iowa is a conservative state that went for George W. Bush in 2004 and slightly for Al Gore in 2000. Therefore, the fact that the number of people participating in the Democrats’ caucuses was two and a half times greater than those participating in the Republican caucuses is bad news for Republicans. Iowa has only seen benefits for the last seven years from the Bush administration, so they should be grateful to Republicans. Also, in that state, the grassroots Republican machine is almost as good as the one they have in the South. In fact, the Christian Republican grassroots machine runs well even in New York City. The Iowan local press isn’t liberal either, so that massive participation of people, including independents, in the Democrats’ caucuses, is impressive and should put the Republicans on notice that something as unusual as the awful results of the congressional and gubernatorial races of 2006 could happen again this year.

The Democrats’ conundrum: they have the momentum with the American electorate this year as they had it in 2006, so winning the presidential race should not be a problem for them. Nevertheless, in spite of the favorable winds, the Democrats find themselves unable to nominate a good candidate; any of the three main contenders, Obama, Edwards and Clinton is an easy target for Republicans. Any of those three should lose in a race against Huckabee. Any of those three will have to name a vice-president that can propel them, maybe Al Gore? Vice-president again? I do not know. I believe the Democratic establishment will be able to keep Hillary Clinton as its nominee. Unfortunately for Democrats, she is as bad as the other two. Therefore, their faith depends on two factors: the vice-president they name and a repetition of the 2006 phenomenon in which independents and moderates, nationwide, broke for the Democrats. They could make it easier for themselves to get the independent and moderate votes if they play the “minister card” against Huckabee. Independents and moderates that make up easily twenty percent of the electorate, tend to be non-religious; they tend to be moderate or independent because they do not take any position to the extreme, whether in politics, environment or religion. In addition, on this occasion, the Republicans, apparently, won’t have the Hispanic support as they did in 2000 and 2004. The media have manipulated the immigration subject in such a way that Hispanics, unfairly, perceive Republicans as anti-immigrants.

Update

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

If January 3 Iowa caucuses results was a victory for the republican establishment, Tuesday 8 in New Hampshire was a victory for the democrat establishment. Three issues I would like to address in this update, first the polls, second the Hillary Clinton victory and the independents votes.

1) The polls. Again the polls were wrong big time. In 2006, no poll predicted that the republican would suffer such terrible defeat at all levels, and in this occasion every poll predicted a major victory for Obama, again the pollster were wrong, maybe the new moon? Just kidding. For some reason in some occasions the pollsters are unable to get the pulse of the people.

2) Hillary Clinton victory. The democrat establishment was able to save Hillary even before Super Tuesday, and they did, using again, the power of the media. The media played again and again the Hillary “two sweet moments”, the Saturday comment at the debate “I am likable enough” and the Monday “tears”. Now that Obama appears vulnerable to the media machine, he appeared immune to it just until January 7, he needs the vote coming from Kucinich, Edwards and Richardson combine to defeat the democrat establishment’s money and media power, although in this case Richardson is a supporter of Hillary, but his supporters are either Edwards or Obama votes. Therefore Edwards and Kucinich should drop and declare their support for Obama.

3) Again most of the independents participated in the Democrats primaries than in the Republican one.