Glenn Beck really got under my skin today, so it’s time to dismantle another arch-conservative argument. Up for debate this time: the Second Amendment.
Why conservatives hold this amendment sacred, and not the First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendments, I will never understand. Conservatives are eager to suspend the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unlawful search and seizure under the guise of protecting the country from the specter of terrorism, but refuse to consider losing the Second Amendment in order to halt violent crime. Violent crime, by the way, kills a lot more Americans every year than terrorism has in its history.
Provoking this particular discussion is a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia, a city whose urban area has long been among America’s most violent.
Beck invited John Stoessel on the program to discuss whether college students should carry loaded weapons in an effort to stop school shootings. Their conclusion: arm everyone, and everyone will be safe.
We can look at a similar policy of lethal deterrents, and note that the death penalty has had no effect in reducing violent crime in this country, and that Canada, Japan, and all countries in Western Europe, where the death penalty has been abolished, all have much lower rates of violent crime. In most of those places, they don’t allow concealed weapons either.
So, we can consider Beck’s argument that, in his words, “It doesn’t reduce crime to take away guns,” to be entirely fallacious. From New York to Baltimore to Atlanta, the last of which can hardly be considered a liberal stronghold, mayors and police departments have been joining forces to get guns off the streets.
At both Northern Illinois and at Virginia Tech, the aggressors used weapons that they had purchased legally. They passed background checks, accepted the waiting periods, obtained their registered firearms, and committed their crimes. Do Beck and Stoessel honestly believe that these two young men would have killed 37 people between them if they were unable to purchase guns cheaply and easily?
On to the next horrifying assertion. Stoessel: “In most states it is legal to carry a gun, on your person. And those states have no more crime, because criminals know, if you rob somebody, you might be packin’.” This is the most ludicrous assertion I have ever heard. No more crime? Stoessel has claimed that there is no longer crime in the following states, where anyone who meets the legal criteria may carry a concealed weapon: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Somehow, that doesn’t seem correct.
Beck later says, “These gun-free zones, doesn’t it say, ‘Ok, nobody here to stop you.’” Stoessel agrees, so let’s break that one down next.
I highly doubt that criminals evaluate whether a homeowner has a gun before robbing them. I can only assume that Beck has a sticker on his front door, which reads, “If you come a’robbin’, I’ll come a’shootin’.” Otherwise, how are criminals to know he has an armory in his linen closet? Sean Taylor, the late Redskins safety, had a gun in his home. The men who robbed his house knew this. He was armed with a machete at the time of the assault. He was shot and killed regardless. They shot him through the bedroom door. He would never have had the opportunity to shoot them first.
It should never come down to a case of quick-draw. Basic probability states that you’d only win 50% of the time. The other 50%, you’d be dead, with your gun still in your back pocket. I can’t imagine finding many people willing to play those odds.
In suggesting that the general public begin carrying guns in order to reduce violent crime, Beck seems to advocate a system of vigilante justice -- one where anyone with a gripe dishes out his or her personal brand of justice. He prefers this to a system in which we resolve personal disputes without saber-rattling (literally) or lethal violence, and where we entrust our police officers with the public safety.
Dearest Glenn, do you truly believe that the police are incapable of preserving law and order? Is the national consortium of urban mayors and law enforcement professionals who have banded together to reduce gun-ownership wrong? Are we to believe you, Glenn, or the people we trust to serve and protect?
John Stoessel cites the Appalachian Law School (ALS) shooting, where armed students subdued a shooter in 2002, as an instance of more guns resulting in fewer deaths. It is the only example he cites of students ending a shooting with their own firearms.
Stoessel neglects three important points regarding the Appalachian Law incident:
First, the two students who subdued the shooter retrieved their firearms from their cars. They were not carrying weapons at the time of the shooting, thus this is not an example of the efficacy of a concealed carry law, as the weapons were not concealed on their bodies, and would not fall under the jurisdiction of a concealed carry law. In most states, a person does not need a concealed carry permit to keep a weapon “safely encased” in his or her car.
Second, the three people (two armed, one unarmed) who subdued the shooter at ALS fired a total of zero shots. The shooter dropped his gun as he was confronted, and was then tackled by a group of students who held him in place until local officers arrived. Thus, the fact that the confronting students’ weapons were loaded had little to do with the eventual resolution. Stoessel also ignores important counter-examples, such as the 1999 Heath High School shooting, where a group of unarmed students gang-tackled the shooter after he began firing.
The third point that Stoessel ignores is by far the most important. At ALS, the two men who subdued the shooter were off-duty police officers. One was an active member of the Grifton Police Department in North Carolina, the other was a sheriff’s deputy from Asheville. These were not just college students; they were police officers who had been trained and drilled in the proper use of a firearm, and who had passed through the rigors of law enforcement.
This was not an example of two ordinary students pulling weapons from their backpacks. These were trained officers who were fortunate enough to be at the right place at the right time, retrieved their personal weapons from a safe location, and calmly ended the confrontation. How can we believe that anyone else would exercise the same restraint and sober decision-making as these two police officers? Furthermore, how many times might we see someone become involved in a drunken confrontation at a frat party, and pull out a licensed and legally-possessed weapon in retaliation?
It is worth noting that the officers who prevailed at ALS did not feel it necessary to carry guns on their bodies. They’re police officers, and would have been within their rights by doing so. No one understands the dynamic of concealed weapons better than members of the law enforcement community, and these two chose to leave their weapons in a safer place.
Neither Stoessel nor Beck seems aware of the primary fallacy of their argument. Three students died at Appalachian Law before the shooter was subdued. Yes, the armed officers prevented the shooter from killing more people. However, simple mathematics argues that the shooter would have killed three fewer people if he had been unable to procure a gun in the first place.
How many more students will lose their lives at the hands of people who should, under no circumstances, be trusted with a firearm, but who we allow to possess one at all times? What would prevent a controversial debate, a professor-student confrontation, or a large gathering from turning into a shooting gallery? Dueling organizations might well turn a campus into the Wild West.
If aggressors could not obtain guns in the first place, what need would there be for anyone to use a gun in self-defense?
Glenn Beck is concerned about my right to own a gun, and cites John Adams’ statements about my inalienable rights. What about my right to live free of fear, and not be caught in the crossfire as I walk down Fraternity Row? Given the choice between the inalienable right of owning a gun, and that of pursuing happiness, I’d much rather have the latter.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Meaningful Topic, Meaningful Analysis
Since no one at MSNBC or CNN seems to be able to discuss last night’s debate in anything other than sports terminology (e.g. “low-scoring affair,” “tonight we saw hockey as opposed to basketball,” “a few field goals for Clinton, but no touchdowns”), I think it’s time to discuss some important items of my own.
The Suicide Squeeze Experience (the one true Fantasy Baseball League) is back online. The draft is four weeks away, so it’s time to start planning.
First things first. Last season was not kind to Total BeastandJack. Although my team finished in the top 5 in most of the major categories, we got unlucky on a lot of the match-ups and wound up finishing in the cellar. It didn’t help that I used the first overall pick in last year’s draft on Albert Pujols, who proceeded to have the worst season of his career.
There are reasons for optimism. I can keep five players from last season, and although my 25-man roster is pretty weak, my top five are as good as anyone’s. Let’s run down the list of potential holdovers.
Pujols is still all-world caliber at first, and a lock. That’s one.
At third base, I have Miguel Cabrera, now in Detroit, with better ballpark and a killer offense. Even with Dolphin Stadium and the woeful Marlins around him, he would have been a first rounder, so he stays. There’s two, and the infield corners are set.
Derek Jeter is top-notch at short, and supposedly he’s more agile coming into camp this year, so we might see a recovery in his base-stealing prowess -- always a big part of the Jeet-appeal. I could never drop The Captain (yes, capitalized) anyway.
Now, it gets a little trickier. Two keeper slots remain, and 3/4 of the infield is set. Let’s move on the outfield, as this was an area that killed me last year.
I had a disastrous outfield coming out of the draft. I took Tampa center-fielder Rocco Baldelli in the 6th round, believing that his colossal talents would finally come through in a healthy season. He’d been hurt each of the previous three years, but he has five tools, and I’d seen him do lots of terrific things in games he played against the Yankees. Center-field is a weak position anyway, which enhances the value of a guy who hits for power and average with speed to spare. He batted .204 in April, with 4 home runs and no steals, tweaked his hamstring in the first week of May, and never returned. Rocco had better hope he never meets me face to face.
That draft choice was a part of a mistaken philosophy that prioritized position value over total value. I chose a potential top-five center-fielder instead of a top-15 corner outfielder, because of the shallow talent pool in center. Of course, the scoring system doesn’t care where a player plays, just how frequently he hits the ball and how many bases he touches afterwards. I over-thought my draft philosophy. At the time that I drafted Baldelli, I could have taken Matt Holliday or Magglio Ordonez. I’m not making that mistake again.
Left field was also a debacle. I took Nick Swisher two rounds after I drafted Baldelli. I hate Nick Swisher. He hit 35 homers in 2006, his second year in the majors, with a nice on-base percentage and decent average. In the middle rounds, he was the best bet for outfield power. The guy hit about 15 dingers for me, several when he was supposedly too hurt to play on a given day, and spent about 3 weeks on the DL before I released him at the end of July. Even Swisher’s real team (Oakland) traded him in the off-season. White Sox, enjoy the most mediocre corner outfielder in the American League.
This brings us to the lone bright spot in the 2007 Total BeastandJack outfield: Alex Rios. He’s young, and was virtually unknown before last season. I inadvertently scouted Rios in 2006, by virtue of watching him consistently own the Yankees. I cursed his name then, but when I saw him available in the 8th round, I snapped him up. He did not disappoint. He played 161 games, notched 191 hits, 43 (!) doubles, 24 homers, and led the Blue Jays with 17 steals. He also has an outstanding arm and produces outfield assists like a champ. The guy is a stud. He plays for an AL East rival, but the crazy thing is how much I love that kid.
The caveat is that he’s not MVP material, and productive right fielders are a dime a dozen. So, on those grounds, he’s not worth keeping, because his production in right (though ridiculously consistent) is not superlative enough to rank him above the 50 other guys who can ably play that position.
But here’s where Total BeastandJack caught a lucky break. Vernon Wells spent most of September on the DL, and the Jays plugged Rios into Wells’ spot in center field. Rios is already above average in right. Considered as a center fielder, he’s behind only Curtis Granderson and Carlos Beltran in terms of all-around ability. He’ll move back to right this year, with Vernon (who is so bad, he even sucks in the video game) healthy again. But, because Rios played 20 games in center field last year, he’s eligible to play that position all year long for Total BeastandJack. Alex Rios, center-fielder, welcome back to the team. Please see the equipment manager for a jersey.
We’ll leave it there for now. Four spots are set. Pitchers, catchers, and second basemen remain, all vying for that final spot. It’s an open competition during Spring Training.
The Suicide Squeeze Experience (the one true Fantasy Baseball League) is back online. The draft is four weeks away, so it’s time to start planning.
First things first. Last season was not kind to Total BeastandJack. Although my team finished in the top 5 in most of the major categories, we got unlucky on a lot of the match-ups and wound up finishing in the cellar. It didn’t help that I used the first overall pick in last year’s draft on Albert Pujols, who proceeded to have the worst season of his career.
There are reasons for optimism. I can keep five players from last season, and although my 25-man roster is pretty weak, my top five are as good as anyone’s. Let’s run down the list of potential holdovers.
Pujols is still all-world caliber at first, and a lock. That’s one.
At third base, I have Miguel Cabrera, now in Detroit, with better ballpark and a killer offense. Even with Dolphin Stadium and the woeful Marlins around him, he would have been a first rounder, so he stays. There’s two, and the infield corners are set.
Derek Jeter is top-notch at short, and supposedly he’s more agile coming into camp this year, so we might see a recovery in his base-stealing prowess -- always a big part of the Jeet-appeal. I could never drop The Captain (yes, capitalized) anyway.
Now, it gets a little trickier. Two keeper slots remain, and 3/4 of the infield is set. Let’s move on the outfield, as this was an area that killed me last year.
I had a disastrous outfield coming out of the draft. I took Tampa center-fielder Rocco Baldelli in the 6th round, believing that his colossal talents would finally come through in a healthy season. He’d been hurt each of the previous three years, but he has five tools, and I’d seen him do lots of terrific things in games he played against the Yankees. Center-field is a weak position anyway, which enhances the value of a guy who hits for power and average with speed to spare. He batted .204 in April, with 4 home runs and no steals, tweaked his hamstring in the first week of May, and never returned. Rocco had better hope he never meets me face to face.
That draft choice was a part of a mistaken philosophy that prioritized position value over total value. I chose a potential top-five center-fielder instead of a top-15 corner outfielder, because of the shallow talent pool in center. Of course, the scoring system doesn’t care where a player plays, just how frequently he hits the ball and how many bases he touches afterwards. I over-thought my draft philosophy. At the time that I drafted Baldelli, I could have taken Matt Holliday or Magglio Ordonez. I’m not making that mistake again.
Left field was also a debacle. I took Nick Swisher two rounds after I drafted Baldelli. I hate Nick Swisher. He hit 35 homers in 2006, his second year in the majors, with a nice on-base percentage and decent average. In the middle rounds, he was the best bet for outfield power. The guy hit about 15 dingers for me, several when he was supposedly too hurt to play on a given day, and spent about 3 weeks on the DL before I released him at the end of July. Even Swisher’s real team (Oakland) traded him in the off-season. White Sox, enjoy the most mediocre corner outfielder in the American League.
This brings us to the lone bright spot in the 2007 Total BeastandJack outfield: Alex Rios. He’s young, and was virtually unknown before last season. I inadvertently scouted Rios in 2006, by virtue of watching him consistently own the Yankees. I cursed his name then, but when I saw him available in the 8th round, I snapped him up. He did not disappoint. He played 161 games, notched 191 hits, 43 (!) doubles, 24 homers, and led the Blue Jays with 17 steals. He also has an outstanding arm and produces outfield assists like a champ. The guy is a stud. He plays for an AL East rival, but the crazy thing is how much I love that kid.
The caveat is that he’s not MVP material, and productive right fielders are a dime a dozen. So, on those grounds, he’s not worth keeping, because his production in right (though ridiculously consistent) is not superlative enough to rank him above the 50 other guys who can ably play that position.
But here’s where Total BeastandJack caught a lucky break. Vernon Wells spent most of September on the DL, and the Jays plugged Rios into Wells’ spot in center field. Rios is already above average in right. Considered as a center fielder, he’s behind only Curtis Granderson and Carlos Beltran in terms of all-around ability. He’ll move back to right this year, with Vernon (who is so bad, he even sucks in the video game) healthy again. But, because Rios played 20 games in center field last year, he’s eligible to play that position all year long for Total BeastandJack. Alex Rios, center-fielder, welcome back to the team. Please see the equipment manager for a jersey.
We’ll leave it there for now. Four spots are set. Pitchers, catchers, and second basemen remain, all vying for that final spot. It’s an open competition during Spring Training.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Oops
Back in the Fall, I had thought Chris Dodd would be on Hillary’s veep shortlist. He’s an experienced Senator, just to the left of moderate, well-spoken, a white male, friendly to her in the debates, etc. Well, he endorsed Barry Obam today, so I suppose that won’t happen. And while we’re at it, we can slot his name into the Obama shortlist.
Hillary has has probably sealed her fate over the past few days. She’ll be a Senator for as long as she wants, but nothing more. Her campaign has disintegrated into chaos.
Tonite’s debate should be very interesting. Only a week removed from, “I am honored to be here with Barack Obama,” she’s going to have a very hard time walking back from “Shame on you, Barack Obama.” Supposedly that was an unscripted moment. Her handlers would have done well to reign her in on that one.
The argument was over Obama campaign mailers regarding NAFTA, which are of course factual. She may oppose it now, but regardless of her vehemence, both she and her #1 campaign surrogate (whose name rhymes with “Hill Clinton”) fought hard for it in 1993. NAFTA was the signal achievement of Bill Clinton’s first term, while healthcare reform died on the table. I still remember learning about NAFTA in history class during 4th grade. NAFTA was, and remains, a very big deal. Hillary can’t expect anyone to consider only her recent history on that matter. This incident is indicative both of Hillary’s foolishness regarding the astuteness of the electorate, and of her laziness in working to convince them of her virtues.
Hillary has done something I have never seen before in a presidential race -- she has completely reversed my opinions of her, both personal and professional. Prior to the primary season, I liked most of her policy positions, thought she was a savvy politician, and gave her more credit for being honorable than did most people. Over the course of the last three months, however, she has shown herself to be unimaginative, brutal, and clueless.
She seized the anti-Bush, anti-war, pro-people mantle early in the campaign, and was right to do so. But, as the U.S. economy went from bad to worse, and foreign trouble spread beyond Iraq, she lost touch with popular sentiments. Voters are eager for solutions. Things are bad right now, and will likely remain bad for years. A few pragmatic, though major, policy shifts will not cure national pessimism. It will take a sea change to fix everything that’s gone wrong in the last decade.
The problems range beyond the institutional Washington quagmires. There’s more to the divide than a widespread hatred of George W. Bush. Conservatives and liberals across the country have been conditioned to despise each other, and that is a serious problem that will require reforming our attitudes toward the government and toward each other. People want to move forward and stop fighting with each other, but someone has to set the tone. Hillary never picked up on that sentiment. Obama did, and here we are today.
Hillary missed a big opportunity with this Drudge photo flap. It’s racist and wrong for all the obvious reasons -- namely perpetuating the fear-mongering and false belief that Obama is a Muslim. The Clinton campaign had an opportunity to denounce the photo, and they didn’t. They said it was a covert smear job by the Obama campaign. Drudge cited the photo to a Clinton staffer, though, so that holds no water.
Hillary had the chance to come out hard against the intentions behind the photograph. She could have said any of the following: this is unacceptable; we would never do this, and it’s beneath the dignity of the Democratic party; we don’t tolerate that behavior on my staff, and we’ll fire anyone we find to be responsible. She could have taken the high road and looked righteous, but instead she just took a swing. Wrong choice.
Hillary has recently come out against Obama’s idea of change by saying that we have seen some of the worst changes imaginable over the last seven years. This is true, but wouldn’t she like to take the fright that our government has become and change it into something far better -- something not limited by the major policy achievements of the years 1993-98?
This campaign has recently shifted from being one about a choice between three excellent candidates, into a battle of good and evil.
Hillary sarcastically mocked Obama’s rhetoric at a rally over the weekend, lampooning the idea that we can unify the country and achieve some positive, lasting impact in our lives.
Perhaps someone could make a “No, you can’t” video starring Hillary. Who told her that it’s a good idea to seem as mean as John McCain, and as crotchety as Fred Thompson? More importantly, who forgot to tell her that people never vote against hope?
Her recent tactics are cruel and unnecessary. She’s hurting everyone but McCain. What’s more, it’s too late. These attacks might have introduced some self-consciousness into Obama’s campaign last year, undercutting him before he could build national support, but now it looks cruel and desperate. It must never have occurred to Clinton that if you mock Obama’s idealism, you mock those who believe in Obama because his idealism resembles their own. It is a colossal, and hopefully final, mistake.
This sarcastic reviling of Obama demonstrates that Hillary has no interest in healing the divisions that have ruined the government and created discord across the country. Perhaps she doesn’t think it’s possible. Perhaps she doesn’t want to make nice with Republicans (understandable). Or, perhaps she appreciates the current political mechanism, and doesn’t mind the politics of fear. Maybe she’s arrogant enough to think we should beat the GOP at their own game. That seems to be the most likely mindset.
If that’s the case, then she misses the point yet again. If we could take away the GOP’s ability to play the terror card every time they need to pass a bill on corporate security, we might finally have a government that works for the benefit of its constituents and the world at large. Hillary seems all too willing to continue playing by the GOP’s rules. GOP rule #1: everyone loses.
Meanwhile, Texas is a statistical dead heat, and Ohio polls are wide in their variance -- some have her up by 11 percentage points, some by as few as 3. She’ll probably win Ohio (no one cares about Chris Dodd there), but that’s not enough. She has to run up the score.
Trailing in national polls, and by over 100 pledged delegates, she needs to flash some swing-state dominance. She won’t win Texas by the margin she needed to in order to close the delegate gap, so she needs to win Ohio by at least 10 points -- and in all likelihood more like 20. If she loses Texas, regardless of the margin, then it’s over for her. Dean and Superdelegates (great name for a band) will never allow this fight to go on to Pennsylvania -- a full 7 weeks away. The chances continue to dwindle, and she’s increasingly unlikely to make a successful case to secure the nomination.
The crazy thing is that I still wouldn’t weep if she were in the Oval Office, because she might get some good things done. But if Obama is not on the ticket, we’ll have lost a level of faith in candidates and the political process that we might never recover, at least not until the next generation of unspoiled voters comes of age.
Hillary has has probably sealed her fate over the past few days. She’ll be a Senator for as long as she wants, but nothing more. Her campaign has disintegrated into chaos.
Tonite’s debate should be very interesting. Only a week removed from, “I am honored to be here with Barack Obama,” she’s going to have a very hard time walking back from “Shame on you, Barack Obama.” Supposedly that was an unscripted moment. Her handlers would have done well to reign her in on that one.
The argument was over Obama campaign mailers regarding NAFTA, which are of course factual. She may oppose it now, but regardless of her vehemence, both she and her #1 campaign surrogate (whose name rhymes with “Hill Clinton”) fought hard for it in 1993. NAFTA was the signal achievement of Bill Clinton’s first term, while healthcare reform died on the table. I still remember learning about NAFTA in history class during 4th grade. NAFTA was, and remains, a very big deal. Hillary can’t expect anyone to consider only her recent history on that matter. This incident is indicative both of Hillary’s foolishness regarding the astuteness of the electorate, and of her laziness in working to convince them of her virtues.
Hillary has done something I have never seen before in a presidential race -- she has completely reversed my opinions of her, both personal and professional. Prior to the primary season, I liked most of her policy positions, thought she was a savvy politician, and gave her more credit for being honorable than did most people. Over the course of the last three months, however, she has shown herself to be unimaginative, brutal, and clueless.
She seized the anti-Bush, anti-war, pro-people mantle early in the campaign, and was right to do so. But, as the U.S. economy went from bad to worse, and foreign trouble spread beyond Iraq, she lost touch with popular sentiments. Voters are eager for solutions. Things are bad right now, and will likely remain bad for years. A few pragmatic, though major, policy shifts will not cure national pessimism. It will take a sea change to fix everything that’s gone wrong in the last decade.
The problems range beyond the institutional Washington quagmires. There’s more to the divide than a widespread hatred of George W. Bush. Conservatives and liberals across the country have been conditioned to despise each other, and that is a serious problem that will require reforming our attitudes toward the government and toward each other. People want to move forward and stop fighting with each other, but someone has to set the tone. Hillary never picked up on that sentiment. Obama did, and here we are today.
Hillary missed a big opportunity with this Drudge photo flap. It’s racist and wrong for all the obvious reasons -- namely perpetuating the fear-mongering and false belief that Obama is a Muslim. The Clinton campaign had an opportunity to denounce the photo, and they didn’t. They said it was a covert smear job by the Obama campaign. Drudge cited the photo to a Clinton staffer, though, so that holds no water.
Hillary had the chance to come out hard against the intentions behind the photograph. She could have said any of the following: this is unacceptable; we would never do this, and it’s beneath the dignity of the Democratic party; we don’t tolerate that behavior on my staff, and we’ll fire anyone we find to be responsible. She could have taken the high road and looked righteous, but instead she just took a swing. Wrong choice.
Hillary has recently come out against Obama’s idea of change by saying that we have seen some of the worst changes imaginable over the last seven years. This is true, but wouldn’t she like to take the fright that our government has become and change it into something far better -- something not limited by the major policy achievements of the years 1993-98?
This campaign has recently shifted from being one about a choice between three excellent candidates, into a battle of good and evil.
Hillary sarcastically mocked Obama’s rhetoric at a rally over the weekend, lampooning the idea that we can unify the country and achieve some positive, lasting impact in our lives.
Perhaps someone could make a “No, you can’t” video starring Hillary. Who told her that it’s a good idea to seem as mean as John McCain, and as crotchety as Fred Thompson? More importantly, who forgot to tell her that people never vote against hope?
Her recent tactics are cruel and unnecessary. She’s hurting everyone but McCain. What’s more, it’s too late. These attacks might have introduced some self-consciousness into Obama’s campaign last year, undercutting him before he could build national support, but now it looks cruel and desperate. It must never have occurred to Clinton that if you mock Obama’s idealism, you mock those who believe in Obama because his idealism resembles their own. It is a colossal, and hopefully final, mistake.
This sarcastic reviling of Obama demonstrates that Hillary has no interest in healing the divisions that have ruined the government and created discord across the country. Perhaps she doesn’t think it’s possible. Perhaps she doesn’t want to make nice with Republicans (understandable). Or, perhaps she appreciates the current political mechanism, and doesn’t mind the politics of fear. Maybe she’s arrogant enough to think we should beat the GOP at their own game. That seems to be the most likely mindset.
If that’s the case, then she misses the point yet again. If we could take away the GOP’s ability to play the terror card every time they need to pass a bill on corporate security, we might finally have a government that works for the benefit of its constituents and the world at large. Hillary seems all too willing to continue playing by the GOP’s rules. GOP rule #1: everyone loses.
Meanwhile, Texas is a statistical dead heat, and Ohio polls are wide in their variance -- some have her up by 11 percentage points, some by as few as 3. She’ll probably win Ohio (no one cares about Chris Dodd there), but that’s not enough. She has to run up the score.
Trailing in national polls, and by over 100 pledged delegates, she needs to flash some swing-state dominance. She won’t win Texas by the margin she needed to in order to close the delegate gap, so she needs to win Ohio by at least 10 points -- and in all likelihood more like 20. If she loses Texas, regardless of the margin, then it’s over for her. Dean and Superdelegates (great name for a band) will never allow this fight to go on to Pennsylvania -- a full 7 weeks away. The chances continue to dwindle, and she’s increasingly unlikely to make a successful case to secure the nomination.
The crazy thing is that I still wouldn’t weep if she were in the Oval Office, because she might get some good things done. But if Obama is not on the ticket, we’ll have lost a level of faith in candidates and the political process that we might never recover, at least not until the next generation of unspoiled voters comes of age.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The Sweet Taste Of Victory
The Teamsters endorsed Obama today, as did Ben and Jerry (yes, the ice cream guys). Teamsters + Ben and Jerry’s = extremely mixed results.
Bill Clinton had one of his less-savvy moments on the stump today:
42nd President: If she win in Texas and Ohio, I think she’ll be the nominee.
Crowd of Hillary Fans: Woooo! (enthusiastic)
42nd President: If you don’t deliver for her, I don’t think she can be. It’s all on you.
Crowd: wooo...wait, huh? (sadder, and much less enthusiastic)
Hm. Perhaps a little more direct that the Clinton campaign might have liked. At least he didn’t hit anyone this time.
Hillary lost again. She’s trailing by a considerable enough margin that she now needs not only to win both Texas and Ohio, but to run up big victories just in order to pull even in delegates. With Obama eating into Hillary’s base (ew) everywhere, and Texas in a statisical dead heat, that doesn’t appear likely. It seemed like she would give Obama a fight in WI, but she lost by 17 percentage points.
We’re getting closer and closer to an Obama mandate, while the chances of Hillary claiming that mantle are becoming almost nil.
In a show of uniformity, journalists everywhere are saying that she needs to refocus her narrative to position herself ahead of Obama. But this idea raises an interesting question: Did Hillary have a narrative in the first place?
Probably not. At this point, she seems guilty of the same miscue that neutered Rudy Giuliani’s bid, and which has continued to hurt John McCain -- she assumed too early that she would win her party’s nomination, and began establishing herself as a likable candidate for independents. She ran to the center before she had secured the support of her base.
The high number of people who rated her “unfavorable” was her biggest problem during the Summer and Fall. The perception of her as an overly ambitious robo-woman -- more than a little sexist, since few people would make such a statement if a male candidate was so authoritative and hard-bitten -- handcuffed her early on. It seems as though she sought to soothe these negative perceptions, and presented herself as nice, agreeable, and moderate. The last one is the sticking point.
Trying to hold a middle road, she couldn’t hit her opponents as hard as they hit her without confirming her unfavorable stereotype. Every Democrat attacked her, and, as the presumptive nominee, so did the top Republicans. She grinned and bore it. That’s all well and good if you’re in office, but she never carved out an image, never distinguished herself, and never honed a narrative. As a result, the most ready adjective now used to describe Hillary is “flawed.” “Flawed but Prepared” doesn’t make for a knockout campaign poster.
Wanting to de-polarize herself, she avoided taking clear positions on notable issues, and skipped tough Senate votes. She traded in a polarizing appearance for one of questionable authenticity. Obama has embraced who he is, while Hillary has run from her identity. If her own campaign can’t make her persona clear, how can she expect voters to assume they know her well enough to elect her.
There is one exception to her identity crisis, and it isn’t particularly positive: Hillary has presented herself, albeit only tacitly, as a political insider who can “get things done” once in office. As a sophomore Senator and former First Lady, she didn’t have a lot of choice there. Regardless, she embraced it, perhaps never having sensed how disastrous that image might be in an year when most of the electorate is furious with the establishment -- both Democratic and Republican.
Meanwhile, Barack was busy “changing the tone” of the campaign, coming down on the liberal side of every major issue, re-introducing optimism and positive thinking, and stoking the fervor of his supporters. He embraced change like no other candidate could, and let his natural gift for rhetoric take over.
The idea of “restoration” was the best response she had. We need to reclaim the White House from the Bush conservatives: Hillary consistently used variations on that phrase. Perhaps it never occurred to her campaign staff that voters might realize that electing any Democrat would accomplish that goal, and that the debate stage was teeming with more credible and charismatic candidates.
Hillary chose a strategy that would hold on to her most dedicated supporters, but which could never have built up such a sizable and enthusiastic base as Obama’s campaign has now built.
She has had to accept losses in every caucus state because her supporters simply don’t love her as much as Barack’s love him. Suffering 10 consecutive losses since Super Tuesday, and trailing by over one million votes since that date, she has looked less than gracious in defeat. Staff shake-ups and her husband’s apparent anger on the campaign trail has only fueled speculation that the Clinton campaign is stunned by the recent results, and is falling apart.
Recall Florida is Rudy Country. Giuliani spent millions on that idea, hoping to convince voters there to ignore the results from other states, so that he could end a four-week streak of losses. Now Hillary must follow suit. If her victories in Texas and Ohio are anything less than overwhelming, she might be out of contention. And even if they are overwhelming victories, it still doesn’t look good.
She was the presumptive nominee for over a year, and yet she may never have given herself a chance. As least, unlike Rudy, she managed better than a fourth-place finish.
Bill Clinton had one of his less-savvy moments on the stump today:
42nd President: If she win in Texas and Ohio, I think she’ll be the nominee.
Crowd of Hillary Fans: Woooo! (enthusiastic)
42nd President: If you don’t deliver for her, I don’t think she can be. It’s all on you.
Crowd: wooo...wait, huh? (sadder, and much less enthusiastic)
Hm. Perhaps a little more direct that the Clinton campaign might have liked. At least he didn’t hit anyone this time.
Hillary lost again. She’s trailing by a considerable enough margin that she now needs not only to win both Texas and Ohio, but to run up big victories just in order to pull even in delegates. With Obama eating into Hillary’s base (ew) everywhere, and Texas in a statisical dead heat, that doesn’t appear likely. It seemed like she would give Obama a fight in WI, but she lost by 17 percentage points.
We’re getting closer and closer to an Obama mandate, while the chances of Hillary claiming that mantle are becoming almost nil.
In a show of uniformity, journalists everywhere are saying that she needs to refocus her narrative to position herself ahead of Obama. But this idea raises an interesting question: Did Hillary have a narrative in the first place?
Probably not. At this point, she seems guilty of the same miscue that neutered Rudy Giuliani’s bid, and which has continued to hurt John McCain -- she assumed too early that she would win her party’s nomination, and began establishing herself as a likable candidate for independents. She ran to the center before she had secured the support of her base.
The high number of people who rated her “unfavorable” was her biggest problem during the Summer and Fall. The perception of her as an overly ambitious robo-woman -- more than a little sexist, since few people would make such a statement if a male candidate was so authoritative and hard-bitten -- handcuffed her early on. It seems as though she sought to soothe these negative perceptions, and presented herself as nice, agreeable, and moderate. The last one is the sticking point.
Trying to hold a middle road, she couldn’t hit her opponents as hard as they hit her without confirming her unfavorable stereotype. Every Democrat attacked her, and, as the presumptive nominee, so did the top Republicans. She grinned and bore it. That’s all well and good if you’re in office, but she never carved out an image, never distinguished herself, and never honed a narrative. As a result, the most ready adjective now used to describe Hillary is “flawed.” “Flawed but Prepared” doesn’t make for a knockout campaign poster.
Wanting to de-polarize herself, she avoided taking clear positions on notable issues, and skipped tough Senate votes. She traded in a polarizing appearance for one of questionable authenticity. Obama has embraced who he is, while Hillary has run from her identity. If her own campaign can’t make her persona clear, how can she expect voters to assume they know her well enough to elect her.
There is one exception to her identity crisis, and it isn’t particularly positive: Hillary has presented herself, albeit only tacitly, as a political insider who can “get things done” once in office. As a sophomore Senator and former First Lady, she didn’t have a lot of choice there. Regardless, she embraced it, perhaps never having sensed how disastrous that image might be in an year when most of the electorate is furious with the establishment -- both Democratic and Republican.
Meanwhile, Barack was busy “changing the tone” of the campaign, coming down on the liberal side of every major issue, re-introducing optimism and positive thinking, and stoking the fervor of his supporters. He embraced change like no other candidate could, and let his natural gift for rhetoric take over.
The idea of “restoration” was the best response she had. We need to reclaim the White House from the Bush conservatives: Hillary consistently used variations on that phrase. Perhaps it never occurred to her campaign staff that voters might realize that electing any Democrat would accomplish that goal, and that the debate stage was teeming with more credible and charismatic candidates.
Hillary chose a strategy that would hold on to her most dedicated supporters, but which could never have built up such a sizable and enthusiastic base as Obama’s campaign has now built.
She has had to accept losses in every caucus state because her supporters simply don’t love her as much as Barack’s love him. Suffering 10 consecutive losses since Super Tuesday, and trailing by over one million votes since that date, she has looked less than gracious in defeat. Staff shake-ups and her husband’s apparent anger on the campaign trail has only fueled speculation that the Clinton campaign is stunned by the recent results, and is falling apart.
Recall Florida is Rudy Country. Giuliani spent millions on that idea, hoping to convince voters there to ignore the results from other states, so that he could end a four-week streak of losses. Now Hillary must follow suit. If her victories in Texas and Ohio are anything less than overwhelming, she might be out of contention. And even if they are overwhelming victories, it still doesn’t look good.
She was the presumptive nominee for over a year, and yet she may never have given herself a chance. As least, unlike Rudy, she managed better than a fourth-place finish.
Monday, February 18, 2008
41 Days
Ohboyohboyohboyohboy!
Right now, in a field just off US-92 in Tampa, Joba Chamberlain is throwing a baseball. This fact fills me with joy.
Joba is not alone. Phil, Ian, Jorge, Mike -- a wonderful collection of names has already gathered in Florida.
Yes, spring training is finally upon us.
My fan stats have been trending solidly upward over the last few years. I broke triple digits in games viewed for the first time in 2006. While maintaining that level of success, the 2007 baseball season saw my fanship take a major step forward, as I set a career high in Yankee games attended (21). With age on my side, I think there’s plenty of room for growth there. In a few years, I might even contend for the triple crown: 100 games viewed, 20 games attended, and multiple playoff games attended. I could be primed for a breakout in 2008.
Unfortunately for me, that type breakout would wreak havoc on the other areas of my life. I was a pretty pathetic sight in August 2007. I developed a solid routine -- coming straight home from work in order to adjust my fantasy baseball lineup before the 7pm lock time, then spending the evening simultaneously following the Yankee game and reviewing the latest fantasy baseball news.
With Total BeastandJack (the fantasy squad) fighting for a playoff spot and the Yankees (a real baseball team) jostling for the AL East and Wild Card leads, there wasn’t much room for peripherals. I mostly stopped exercising that month, and my nutrition suffered. How well can a young man eat when he doesn’t allow time to cook a real meal before settling in for an evening of geeked-up sports? Answer: not well.
In addition, I started to lose track of my friends, and forgot almost entirely about moving myself towards some kind of sustainable career or lifestyle. By the end of August, I was living some kind of worrisome alternate life, which ran opposite to everything I would want for myself. I noticed a significant decline in my exposure to culture, socializing, and gratifying work. Those are all extremely important things, and they were all replaced by sports.
I was able to rectify most of those misdeeds during football season, but barely. I’m determined not to be one of those guys (i.e. the kind of guy I was last season).
I have a whole new set of goals this year. In 41 days, baseball games count. I’ll be spending that interval preparing myself to take a more relaxed approach towards the baseball season. I have mandated a toning-down of the fervor -- approximately a 30% overall reduction, though these things tend to be hard to police. I’ve set up some tangible parameters as well, and I’ll get into those in more depth as the season progresses.
If successful, this development -- called maturity? -- should go hand-in-hand with more progress in the other areas of my life, on top of helping me avoid the typical week-long funk at the end of the baseball season. Sustainable fervor, that’s the key.
It’s an experiment, and it’ll take resolve, but I think I can handle it. We’ll see how (and where) it goes.
Right now, in a field just off US-92 in Tampa, Joba Chamberlain is throwing a baseball. This fact fills me with joy.
Joba is not alone. Phil, Ian, Jorge, Mike -- a wonderful collection of names has already gathered in Florida.
Yes, spring training is finally upon us.
My fan stats have been trending solidly upward over the last few years. I broke triple digits in games viewed for the first time in 2006. While maintaining that level of success, the 2007 baseball season saw my fanship take a major step forward, as I set a career high in Yankee games attended (21). With age on my side, I think there’s plenty of room for growth there. In a few years, I might even contend for the triple crown: 100 games viewed, 20 games attended, and multiple playoff games attended. I could be primed for a breakout in 2008.
Unfortunately for me, that type breakout would wreak havoc on the other areas of my life. I was a pretty pathetic sight in August 2007. I developed a solid routine -- coming straight home from work in order to adjust my fantasy baseball lineup before the 7pm lock time, then spending the evening simultaneously following the Yankee game and reviewing the latest fantasy baseball news.
With Total BeastandJack (the fantasy squad) fighting for a playoff spot and the Yankees (a real baseball team) jostling for the AL East and Wild Card leads, there wasn’t much room for peripherals. I mostly stopped exercising that month, and my nutrition suffered. How well can a young man eat when he doesn’t allow time to cook a real meal before settling in for an evening of geeked-up sports? Answer: not well.
In addition, I started to lose track of my friends, and forgot almost entirely about moving myself towards some kind of sustainable career or lifestyle. By the end of August, I was living some kind of worrisome alternate life, which ran opposite to everything I would want for myself. I noticed a significant decline in my exposure to culture, socializing, and gratifying work. Those are all extremely important things, and they were all replaced by sports.
I was able to rectify most of those misdeeds during football season, but barely. I’m determined not to be one of those guys (i.e. the kind of guy I was last season).
I have a whole new set of goals this year. In 41 days, baseball games count. I’ll be spending that interval preparing myself to take a more relaxed approach towards the baseball season. I have mandated a toning-down of the fervor -- approximately a 30% overall reduction, though these things tend to be hard to police. I’ve set up some tangible parameters as well, and I’ll get into those in more depth as the season progresses.
If successful, this development -- called maturity? -- should go hand-in-hand with more progress in the other areas of my life, on top of helping me avoid the typical week-long funk at the end of the baseball season. Sustainable fervor, that’s the key.
It’s an experiment, and it’ll take resolve, but I think I can handle it. We’ll see how (and where) it goes.
Friday, February 15, 2008
The World Tilts Obama
He's cut into Hillary's lead in Texas, and won the SEIU endorsement, which should help him in the working-class demographic that Clinton counts on in Ohio and elsewhere. Superdelegates from states he has won, who had been aligned with Clinton, have also begun to shift support over to him.
Some superdelegates, however, most notably in Harlem, still remain with Hillary despite Obama having convincingly won their districts, which raises the question: is there any way that Hillary can win the nomination without looking like she's circumventing the voters?
Say she wins both Ohio and Texas on March 4 (and she does have to win both), it won't be by a very large margin. The delegates would still be essentially deadlocked. If it takes superdelegates, or a backroom compromise, to hand her the nomination, voters won't appreciate that. Some have even implied they will vote for McCain (newly pro-torture) in the general if that happens.
She has already argued in favor of seating the delegates from Michigan and Florida's demi-primaries, where she ran unopposed, and many voters elected to skip the primaries because they knew the delegates would not be counted. The candidates all agreed to that in advance, so at best, that's changing the rules in the middle of the process, at worst it's cheating.
Even if you count the votes from Michigan and Florida, Obama leads in the popular vote. He's also won a majority of States. If he can continue to string together victories, and win amongst as broad a cross-section of the populace as he has been recently, then he can legitimately claim a mandate. The only mandate Hillary could potentially claim, barring a Mike Huckabee level miracle, is a mandate with party insiders, who favor her support of the status quo.
You'd like to assume that the DNC (hello, Howie) is smart enough to not allow that happen. It would alienate voters and completely undermine confidence in the political process, just as Barack Obama is on the verge of restoring that confidence.
Perhaps something will happen in the next few weeks, but right now it looks like Clinton will appear to have stolen the nomination, if she gets it. It would be lovely to see some selflessness from her, as opposed to an increase in nasty attacks and ethically questionable political moves. The election is far from over, and she's already beginning to look like a sore loser.
Obama seems to have the favorable rhetoric, and has taken substantial and correct positions on the focal issues. Hillary will have a hard time beating that, and then turning around and winning the November election. Obama would be riding a wave of populist enthusiasm, Hillary a wave of mutilation.
We'll see how things shake out on March 4. Here's hoping it doesn't get as messy as it might...
Some superdelegates, however, most notably in Harlem, still remain with Hillary despite Obama having convincingly won their districts, which raises the question: is there any way that Hillary can win the nomination without looking like she's circumventing the voters?
Say she wins both Ohio and Texas on March 4 (and she does have to win both), it won't be by a very large margin. The delegates would still be essentially deadlocked. If it takes superdelegates, or a backroom compromise, to hand her the nomination, voters won't appreciate that. Some have even implied they will vote for McCain (newly pro-torture) in the general if that happens.
She has already argued in favor of seating the delegates from Michigan and Florida's demi-primaries, where she ran unopposed, and many voters elected to skip the primaries because they knew the delegates would not be counted. The candidates all agreed to that in advance, so at best, that's changing the rules in the middle of the process, at worst it's cheating.
Even if you count the votes from Michigan and Florida, Obama leads in the popular vote. He's also won a majority of States. If he can continue to string together victories, and win amongst as broad a cross-section of the populace as he has been recently, then he can legitimately claim a mandate. The only mandate Hillary could potentially claim, barring a Mike Huckabee level miracle, is a mandate with party insiders, who favor her support of the status quo.
You'd like to assume that the DNC (hello, Howie) is smart enough to not allow that happen. It would alienate voters and completely undermine confidence in the political process, just as Barack Obama is on the verge of restoring that confidence.
Perhaps something will happen in the next few weeks, but right now it looks like Clinton will appear to have stolen the nomination, if she gets it. It would be lovely to see some selflessness from her, as opposed to an increase in nasty attacks and ethically questionable political moves. The election is far from over, and she's already beginning to look like a sore loser.
Obama seems to have the favorable rhetoric, and has taken substantial and correct positions on the focal issues. Hillary will have a hard time beating that, and then turning around and winning the November election. Obama would be riding a wave of populist enthusiasm, Hillary a wave of mutilation.
We'll see how things shake out on March 4. Here's hoping it doesn't get as messy as it might...
Congressional Huevos
Yesterday, I began writing about my recent frustrations with Congress. The whole situation in the Legislature, especially the prioritizing of fruitless steroid hearings, really irked me. It seemed like other matters, including the potentially disastrous new FISA, should take precedence over Roger Clemens, but I’ve completely changed my mind over the course of the last 24 hours, so I scrapped it and wrote this.
To begin with, the background on FISA. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is what sets the rules for spying: on whom you can spy, and how can do it. The whole reason this exists, and it has been around for decades for this purpose, is to protect American citizens from unlawful search and seizure (see: U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV).
Say you’re the CIA, and you want to go outside the general methods afforded you by FISA, don’t worry, you have options. All you have to do is go before a judge, in a FISA court where the records are sealed, state your case, and obtain a warrant. No one gets tipped off, and you can still spy to your heart’s content. It only takes a few hours, and protects law-abiding Americans from all kinds of J. Edgar Hoover style villainy.
It’s been like this for decades, and the CIA, NSA, and FBI have all learned to live with it. It’s an important check on law enforcement. They’re there to protect citizens, but too much power in the hands of the authorities is not democracy, it’s totalitarianism (see: Orwell, George; Huxley, Aldous).
The Bush Administration, as per usual, wants to turn the tables. Not on terrorists, mind you, but on the American public. They want to get rid of FISA altogether, so that the NSA can eavesdrop on anything they want to. No warrants, no restrictions. This is every bit as bad as the Patriot Act. Bush and his allies seek to open up all sorts of totalitarian methods, using the ambiguous threat of terrorism. No one seems to understand that it’s counterintuitive to sacrifice the essential provisions of democracy in the name of defending that system of government.
Law enforcement has been circumventing the law for years. Three months ago, former AT&T employee Mark Klein blew a whistle. He testified that, at the AT&T headquarters on San Francisco’s Folsom St., there is a 1200 sq. ft. room, # 641A, where every bit of data sent through AT&T’s network of wires and airwaves is copied and stored, so that federal agents can examine it later. He knows this because he personally oversaw the room's operation, and designed the system that feeds the data into the storage facility.
No selectivity. Every bit of sent data, every phone call, every internet transaction, is saved. This is rife with potential abuses. Anytime you make a political donation, sign up for the Planned Parenthood mailing list, look up information on communism, buy a book on atheism, etc.: all of that is saved. God forbid you should look at porn.
Thus, we have a major problem on our hands. With no such thing as privacy, every action you make that involves a wire or airwave can potentially be used against you at a later date: perhaps in a formal investigation, or perhaps as simple blackmail.
The Fourth Amendment would theoretically stand in the way here, but no one seemed too concerned about it. It’s more than just a slippery slope, it’s a precipice: you ignore civil protections once, and where does it stop?
Perhaps we could re-write the Miranda Act, and have it read to everyone when they’re born, “Keep in mind that everything you do on the phone or on the internet, ever, can be used against you for any purpose your government deems fit.”
Civil liberties groups did the right thing, and sued AT&T, Verizon, and other telecommunications companies for unlawful search and seizure. The lawsuits are pending. A legal challenge is likely the only way to find out what has been happening with this data, and to make sure that our rights remain intact in the future.
Which brings us back to FISA. FISA is the kind of bill that has to be renewed every once in a while. It expires this month. In the Act’s renewal, GOP lawmakers attached an extra provision: retroactive immunity for all of the major telecoms. This would mean that American citizens whose Fourth Amendment rights were violated, and blatantly so, would have no legal recourse. Thus, we will not be able to defend basic civil liberties from the infringement of major corporate interests.
The GOP has these corporate interests in mind. The telecoms have long been among the most powerful and well-established of lobbying groups in Washington, so their beneficiaries in Congress are loathe to disobey them at this point. With immunity, the telecoms and the Federal Government would form a partnership of surveillance, where everything is on the record and every citizen is treated as a suspect.
The FISA bill stalled in Congress, for the obvious reasons. Even the most jaded legislators had jitters about passing a law that effectively nullifies one of the Constitution’s great civil liberties.
Bush trotted out his standard ploy: if you don’t pass this act, America is at risk. Never mind that there hasn’t been an attack on American soil since Sept. 11. People are plotting against us this very second, and if we don’t pass the bill right now, terrible things will happen and you (Congress) will be at fault.
I realize it sounds like I’m exaggerating his meaning, but I’m actually downplaying his rhetoric. This is his actual statement, made last week in the Oval Office. As you’ll see, it is much more inflammatory, “At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning new attacks on our country. Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make September the 11th pale by comparison.”
Rarely has a President so patently and cruelly stoked his nation’s fears, with so little substance. Given the context, I can think of few more shameful statements he has made.
The Senate bit on the fake, and passed the bill on Tuesday with only 29 Senators voting against it. John McCain voted in favor the bill. Barack Obama was one of the 29 who voted against it. Hillary Clinton was not, instead choosing to abstain. On the day of the Potomac primaries, with all three candidates campaigning in the area, Hillary opted to skip the crucial vote, in order to avoid taking a stand on a volatile, though seemingly cut and dried, issue.
If you needed another reason, besides his composure, to support Barack Obama over Clinton and McCain, you have one.
Yet, in a reminder of the value of a bicameral legislature, the House diverged from the Senate. They passed the FISA bill, but without the immunity provision. It went to the President’s desk, and, in a brave defense of national security, he....refused to sign the bill into law.
Congress then offered a 30-day extension of the old FISA in order to cover the time until a compromise could be struck. No, said the President: a bill with immunity or nothing. He ordered the House to pass the Senate’s version of the bill, and pronto. Having played fear politics over the bill already, Bush thus made his position perfectly clear: the telecoms’ immediate corporate interests are important enough to jeopardize the same national security he had so inappropriately trumpeted the week before.
Urgency isn’t particularly important for FISA anyway, because any actions approved during the previous Act remain valid for a full year. It’s not as though the Act’s expiration will cause NSA to stop listening to our phone calls tomorrow. So, regardless of what the President says, Congress has plenty of time to craft a quality law, rather than rush a destructive one.
Yesterday afternoon, the House leadership finally showed some huevos on civil liberties, which brings me to the reason I wrote this post.
I had been fuming for about a week over the hearings the House Oversight Committee chose to hold regarding the MLB steroid scandal. At this point, it’s depressing, it’s old news, and information gets us nothing. The House has no power to rectify the problem anyway, and the players stonewall, just as they did during the first round of hearings 3 years ago. It seemed like a colossal waste, especially when there are pressing matters that include FISA, a $150 billion tax rebate, and a half-dozen other crises facing the legislature.
Perhaps it was a brilliant political maneuver. Yesterday, when the GOP attempted to bring FISA to a vote before the House, the Democratic leadership promptly decided to end the session of Congress without voting for the bill.
It was no accident. Congressional Democrats actively chose to ignore the President’s shameful and baseless fear-mongering, table the bill, and wait until they returned to session. They called his bluff, and when they return, they’ll likely find Republicans more convinced of Democratic resolve.
One wonders if the Democrats saw this fight coming, and opted to hold lengthy, visible baseball hearings to dominate the news cycle and make themselves seem busy -- the equivalent to a public-opinion filibuster. Maybe the steroid hearings had nothing to with it, but you have to love the walk out regardless.
Might we finally have a legislature that won’t fall for the President’s deceptions -- one that will stand tough in the face of Constitutional degradation and an Executive Branch run amok? Time will tell.
To begin with, the background on FISA. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is what sets the rules for spying: on whom you can spy, and how can do it. The whole reason this exists, and it has been around for decades for this purpose, is to protect American citizens from unlawful search and seizure (see: U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV).
Say you’re the CIA, and you want to go outside the general methods afforded you by FISA, don’t worry, you have options. All you have to do is go before a judge, in a FISA court where the records are sealed, state your case, and obtain a warrant. No one gets tipped off, and you can still spy to your heart’s content. It only takes a few hours, and protects law-abiding Americans from all kinds of J. Edgar Hoover style villainy.
It’s been like this for decades, and the CIA, NSA, and FBI have all learned to live with it. It’s an important check on law enforcement. They’re there to protect citizens, but too much power in the hands of the authorities is not democracy, it’s totalitarianism (see: Orwell, George; Huxley, Aldous).
The Bush Administration, as per usual, wants to turn the tables. Not on terrorists, mind you, but on the American public. They want to get rid of FISA altogether, so that the NSA can eavesdrop on anything they want to. No warrants, no restrictions. This is every bit as bad as the Patriot Act. Bush and his allies seek to open up all sorts of totalitarian methods, using the ambiguous threat of terrorism. No one seems to understand that it’s counterintuitive to sacrifice the essential provisions of democracy in the name of defending that system of government.
Law enforcement has been circumventing the law for years. Three months ago, former AT&T employee Mark Klein blew a whistle. He testified that, at the AT&T headquarters on San Francisco’s Folsom St., there is a 1200 sq. ft. room, # 641A, where every bit of data sent through AT&T’s network of wires and airwaves is copied and stored, so that federal agents can examine it later. He knows this because he personally oversaw the room's operation, and designed the system that feeds the data into the storage facility.
No selectivity. Every bit of sent data, every phone call, every internet transaction, is saved. This is rife with potential abuses. Anytime you make a political donation, sign up for the Planned Parenthood mailing list, look up information on communism, buy a book on atheism, etc.: all of that is saved. God forbid you should look at porn.
Thus, we have a major problem on our hands. With no such thing as privacy, every action you make that involves a wire or airwave can potentially be used against you at a later date: perhaps in a formal investigation, or perhaps as simple blackmail.
The Fourth Amendment would theoretically stand in the way here, but no one seemed too concerned about it. It’s more than just a slippery slope, it’s a precipice: you ignore civil protections once, and where does it stop?
Perhaps we could re-write the Miranda Act, and have it read to everyone when they’re born, “Keep in mind that everything you do on the phone or on the internet, ever, can be used against you for any purpose your government deems fit.”
Civil liberties groups did the right thing, and sued AT&T, Verizon, and other telecommunications companies for unlawful search and seizure. The lawsuits are pending. A legal challenge is likely the only way to find out what has been happening with this data, and to make sure that our rights remain intact in the future.
Which brings us back to FISA. FISA is the kind of bill that has to be renewed every once in a while. It expires this month. In the Act’s renewal, GOP lawmakers attached an extra provision: retroactive immunity for all of the major telecoms. This would mean that American citizens whose Fourth Amendment rights were violated, and blatantly so, would have no legal recourse. Thus, we will not be able to defend basic civil liberties from the infringement of major corporate interests.
The GOP has these corporate interests in mind. The telecoms have long been among the most powerful and well-established of lobbying groups in Washington, so their beneficiaries in Congress are loathe to disobey them at this point. With immunity, the telecoms and the Federal Government would form a partnership of surveillance, where everything is on the record and every citizen is treated as a suspect.
The FISA bill stalled in Congress, for the obvious reasons. Even the most jaded legislators had jitters about passing a law that effectively nullifies one of the Constitution’s great civil liberties.
Bush trotted out his standard ploy: if you don’t pass this act, America is at risk. Never mind that there hasn’t been an attack on American soil since Sept. 11. People are plotting against us this very second, and if we don’t pass the bill right now, terrible things will happen and you (Congress) will be at fault.
I realize it sounds like I’m exaggerating his meaning, but I’m actually downplaying his rhetoric. This is his actual statement, made last week in the Oval Office. As you’ll see, it is much more inflammatory, “At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning new attacks on our country. Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make September the 11th pale by comparison.”
Rarely has a President so patently and cruelly stoked his nation’s fears, with so little substance. Given the context, I can think of few more shameful statements he has made.
The Senate bit on the fake, and passed the bill on Tuesday with only 29 Senators voting against it. John McCain voted in favor the bill. Barack Obama was one of the 29 who voted against it. Hillary Clinton was not, instead choosing to abstain. On the day of the Potomac primaries, with all three candidates campaigning in the area, Hillary opted to skip the crucial vote, in order to avoid taking a stand on a volatile, though seemingly cut and dried, issue.
If you needed another reason, besides his composure, to support Barack Obama over Clinton and McCain, you have one.
Yet, in a reminder of the value of a bicameral legislature, the House diverged from the Senate. They passed the FISA bill, but without the immunity provision. It went to the President’s desk, and, in a brave defense of national security, he....refused to sign the bill into law.
Congress then offered a 30-day extension of the old FISA in order to cover the time until a compromise could be struck. No, said the President: a bill with immunity or nothing. He ordered the House to pass the Senate’s version of the bill, and pronto. Having played fear politics over the bill already, Bush thus made his position perfectly clear: the telecoms’ immediate corporate interests are important enough to jeopardize the same national security he had so inappropriately trumpeted the week before.
Urgency isn’t particularly important for FISA anyway, because any actions approved during the previous Act remain valid for a full year. It’s not as though the Act’s expiration will cause NSA to stop listening to our phone calls tomorrow. So, regardless of what the President says, Congress has plenty of time to craft a quality law, rather than rush a destructive one.
Yesterday afternoon, the House leadership finally showed some huevos on civil liberties, which brings me to the reason I wrote this post.
I had been fuming for about a week over the hearings the House Oversight Committee chose to hold regarding the MLB steroid scandal. At this point, it’s depressing, it’s old news, and information gets us nothing. The House has no power to rectify the problem anyway, and the players stonewall, just as they did during the first round of hearings 3 years ago. It seemed like a colossal waste, especially when there are pressing matters that include FISA, a $150 billion tax rebate, and a half-dozen other crises facing the legislature.
Perhaps it was a brilliant political maneuver. Yesterday, when the GOP attempted to bring FISA to a vote before the House, the Democratic leadership promptly decided to end the session of Congress without voting for the bill.
It was no accident. Congressional Democrats actively chose to ignore the President’s shameful and baseless fear-mongering, table the bill, and wait until they returned to session. They called his bluff, and when they return, they’ll likely find Republicans more convinced of Democratic resolve.
One wonders if the Democrats saw this fight coming, and opted to hold lengthy, visible baseball hearings to dominate the news cycle and make themselves seem busy -- the equivalent to a public-opinion filibuster. Maybe the steroid hearings had nothing to with it, but you have to love the walk out regardless.
Might we finally have a legislature that won’t fall for the President’s deceptions -- one that will stand tough in the face of Constitutional degradation and an Executive Branch run amok? Time will tell.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Obamacans v. Hillarycan’ts
I have a lot of fondness for the Clinton years, and The William J. Clinton Foundation does extraordinary public health work in communities that don’t get a lot of help otherwise. I’ve enjoyed watching Hillary’s dominance in two Senate races, and she has brought attention to New York’s Congressional delegation for the first time in awhile. Furthermore, in all practical terms, Hillary Clinton would make a very good president.
But, as I told my piano teacher Monday night, while he delayed the start of my lesson so that we could listen to Randi Rhodes on Air America, Hillary’s candidacy has begun to offend me personally.
After she loaned her campaign $5 million, reporters asked where the money came from. That was a week ago, and she still has no intention of answering that question. She won’t disclose her tax returns, while Obama has made his public and called on her do do the same. Transparency isn’t too much to ask for on this one.
Trepidations abound. Let’s say we elect her this year. There are sealed documents at the Clinton Library in Little Rock that relate to her time in the Bill Clinton White House. She suppressed them during this year’s campaign, and won’t disclose them until 2011, just in time to derail her re-election campaign.
When he left the White House in September, Karl Rove used his Meet the Press exit interview to talk about Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. Hillary Clinton is a very intelligent woman. If there’s dirt on her somewhere, it’s safe to assume she knows about it. Whether Rove has scandalous information, or thinks she’ll lose because she’s polarizing, or just wants to fabricate something that will destroy her, this guy is itching to go after her in the general election.
She seems eager for that confrontation as well (she’s already offered a challenge to McCain), and she clearly wants to vindicate herself more than anything. She could be pushing herself right into an embarassing defeat, without any concern for the damage she might do to progressive politics. This seems like the highest level of selfishness. She would put the hopes and future of the Democratic party on her, only to allow it to come crashing down with her.
Of course, Bill Clinton was re-elected despite Whitewater and Paula Jones, so Hillary might finagle two terms anyway, but that seems highly unlikely. And it’s worth noting that those scandals set the stage for the Gingrich-Delay-Santorum “Republican Revolution” of 1994, which effectively neutered the remaining years of the Clinton Presidency, and from which we're only now beginning to escape.
It’s always been a “51%” strategy with the Clinton campaign. She plans on doing just well enough, by winning the Democratic strongholds and the minimum number of swing states, to win the November election.
George W. Bush introduced us to the principle of being the president only of the people who voted for you. Hillary Clinton might push herself all the way to the White House, and while she might have enough connections to get some work done early on, she will never have a mandate. Her supporters lack enthusiasm, and her detractors can’t even bear to look at her. Plenty of presidents have lacked mandates, but of the four major Democratic and Republican candidates remaining, there’s one who already has his mandate: Barack.
I’m tired of being nervous about the Democratic party. I'm tired of waiting around for the next far-right hatchet job, knowing that Republicans play psychological politics much better than Democrats. The Democratic majority in Congress can’t govern because the GOP can make any action (e.g. restoring habeas corpus, protecting citizens against illegal eavesdropping by telecom companies, etc.) seem like capitulating to terrorists.
With his irresistible form of inspiration, Obama might finally have found a solution to the Democrats' rhetorical inadequacy. Hillary offers nothing that can’t be undone by a well-timed Fox News Alert.
The Clinton campaign staff has tried to convince her donors, superdelegates, and would-be voters not to pay any attention to the news (including the firing of most of that staff) for the rest of the month. She feels almost Bushian in her need to ignore facts in order to seem viable. She has not publicly acknowledged the results of a primary since Super Tuesday. At least John McCain congratulated Mike Huckabee over the weekend.
Hillary has gotten to a point where she not only lies, but does it unnecessarily and with chilling calmness. In an interview with CNN last night, Clinton said, “There’s a very big difference, because I’m for universal healthcare...something that Democrats since Harry Truman have been pushing for, and Senator Obama does not.” Wow, so Obama opposes a bedrock Democratic principle, and he’d willingly undo half a century worth of work. Perhaps I was wrong about Barry Obam, so let’s do some research.
Later in the same interview, Clinton said, “My plan is fully paid for, it would open up the Congressional health plan.” Upon checking the Healthcare section of the Obama campaign website, we find this overview:
Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
So, the Obama and Clinton plans are essentially the same. Neither one, sadly, is ideal, but let’s not pretend as though one is for National Healthcare, and the other against. In terms of preference, it comes down to whom you trust. That’s where Barack wins the argument. In fact, the perceptions of trust and honesty have been emblematic of Hillary’s struggles throughout the primary season.
Republicans have begun coming out for Obama. They call themselves “Obamacans.” They say have united behind Barack because they can sense the possibilities he represents. There are a lot of Republicans who hate Bush 43, and who weren’t that wild about Bush 41 either. They all hated Bill Clinton, so these are people who haven’t been content with a President in 20 years. After two decades, they’re ready for a sea change. So are Democrats. For the first time since the inception of cable news, we might not have to live in constant fear of the next Democratic downfall.
Democratic strategist (and undecided superdelegate) Donna Brazile condensed Hillary’s woes very well last night. She said Hillary made a tactical error in positioning herself as “the anti-hope candidate,” later asking, “where’s the joy?”
Clinton runs a pessimistic, jaded type of politics that make it hard for even the most dedicated Democrats to get behind her. Perhaps we could call this group “Hillarycan’ts.”
After all, Obama can. Hillary can’t.
But, as I told my piano teacher Monday night, while he delayed the start of my lesson so that we could listen to Randi Rhodes on Air America, Hillary’s candidacy has begun to offend me personally.
After she loaned her campaign $5 million, reporters asked where the money came from. That was a week ago, and she still has no intention of answering that question. She won’t disclose her tax returns, while Obama has made his public and called on her do do the same. Transparency isn’t too much to ask for on this one.
Trepidations abound. Let’s say we elect her this year. There are sealed documents at the Clinton Library in Little Rock that relate to her time in the Bill Clinton White House. She suppressed them during this year’s campaign, and won’t disclose them until 2011, just in time to derail her re-election campaign.
When he left the White House in September, Karl Rove used his Meet the Press exit interview to talk about Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. Hillary Clinton is a very intelligent woman. If there’s dirt on her somewhere, it’s safe to assume she knows about it. Whether Rove has scandalous information, or thinks she’ll lose because she’s polarizing, or just wants to fabricate something that will destroy her, this guy is itching to go after her in the general election.
She seems eager for that confrontation as well (she’s already offered a challenge to McCain), and she clearly wants to vindicate herself more than anything. She could be pushing herself right into an embarassing defeat, without any concern for the damage she might do to progressive politics. This seems like the highest level of selfishness. She would put the hopes and future of the Democratic party on her, only to allow it to come crashing down with her.
Of course, Bill Clinton was re-elected despite Whitewater and Paula Jones, so Hillary might finagle two terms anyway, but that seems highly unlikely. And it’s worth noting that those scandals set the stage for the Gingrich-Delay-Santorum “Republican Revolution” of 1994, which effectively neutered the remaining years of the Clinton Presidency, and from which we're only now beginning to escape.
It’s always been a “51%” strategy with the Clinton campaign. She plans on doing just well enough, by winning the Democratic strongholds and the minimum number of swing states, to win the November election.
George W. Bush introduced us to the principle of being the president only of the people who voted for you. Hillary Clinton might push herself all the way to the White House, and while she might have enough connections to get some work done early on, she will never have a mandate. Her supporters lack enthusiasm, and her detractors can’t even bear to look at her. Plenty of presidents have lacked mandates, but of the four major Democratic and Republican candidates remaining, there’s one who already has his mandate: Barack.
I’m tired of being nervous about the Democratic party. I'm tired of waiting around for the next far-right hatchet job, knowing that Republicans play psychological politics much better than Democrats. The Democratic majority in Congress can’t govern because the GOP can make any action (e.g. restoring habeas corpus, protecting citizens against illegal eavesdropping by telecom companies, etc.) seem like capitulating to terrorists.
With his irresistible form of inspiration, Obama might finally have found a solution to the Democrats' rhetorical inadequacy. Hillary offers nothing that can’t be undone by a well-timed Fox News Alert.
The Clinton campaign staff has tried to convince her donors, superdelegates, and would-be voters not to pay any attention to the news (including the firing of most of that staff) for the rest of the month. She feels almost Bushian in her need to ignore facts in order to seem viable. She has not publicly acknowledged the results of a primary since Super Tuesday. At least John McCain congratulated Mike Huckabee over the weekend.
Hillary has gotten to a point where she not only lies, but does it unnecessarily and with chilling calmness. In an interview with CNN last night, Clinton said, “There’s a very big difference, because I’m for universal healthcare...something that Democrats since Harry Truman have been pushing for, and Senator Obama does not.” Wow, so Obama opposes a bedrock Democratic principle, and he’d willingly undo half a century worth of work. Perhaps I was wrong about Barry Obam, so let’s do some research.
Later in the same interview, Clinton said, “My plan is fully paid for, it would open up the Congressional health plan.” Upon checking the Healthcare section of the Obama campaign website, we find this overview:
Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
So, the Obama and Clinton plans are essentially the same. Neither one, sadly, is ideal, but let’s not pretend as though one is for National Healthcare, and the other against. In terms of preference, it comes down to whom you trust. That’s where Barack wins the argument. In fact, the perceptions of trust and honesty have been emblematic of Hillary’s struggles throughout the primary season.
Republicans have begun coming out for Obama. They call themselves “Obamacans.” They say have united behind Barack because they can sense the possibilities he represents. There are a lot of Republicans who hate Bush 43, and who weren’t that wild about Bush 41 either. They all hated Bill Clinton, so these are people who haven’t been content with a President in 20 years. After two decades, they’re ready for a sea change. So are Democrats. For the first time since the inception of cable news, we might not have to live in constant fear of the next Democratic downfall.
Democratic strategist (and undecided superdelegate) Donna Brazile condensed Hillary’s woes very well last night. She said Hillary made a tactical error in positioning herself as “the anti-hope candidate,” later asking, “where’s the joy?”
Clinton runs a pessimistic, jaded type of politics that make it hard for even the most dedicated Democrats to get behind her. Perhaps we could call this group “Hillarycan’ts.”
After all, Obama can. Hillary can’t.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Idle Speculation
It’s a new blog; we start in media res...
For some reason, no one thinks McCain will run with Huckabee. If that’s the case, then congratulations to Mike Huckabee, because he has really screwed McCain. Apparently, McCain is as bad a Republican as he is a human being. Given that, Huckabee seems like the natural VP choice. He has God’s endorsement on all issues, and, like McCain, is certifiably crazy, only in a more GOP-centric way. Evidently, though, he raised Arkansans’ taxes once too many and didn’t send enough of his fellow citizens to the electric chair, so he has no credibility with the base.
It’s a peculiar time when an ordained Baptist minister who doesn’t believe in science, and who has promised to close the IRS, secure Constitutional amendments banning abortion and gay marriage, avoid diplomacy at all costs, and build a wall along the Rio Grande isn’t considered conservative enough to be a real Republican. Oh, and also, he plays bass guitar. Awesome.
To return to the running-mate issue, McCain has real problems. He forgot the PEMDAS of electoral politics, which is that you run to your base in the primary, then to the middle in the general. Now he’s faced with having to win over the hearts and minds of his party after gaining the nomination.
On top of his unpopularity with voters, he supposedly has a violent temper and a generally nasty disposition that has left him largely reviled in both houses of Congress, so lawmakers aren’t exactly lining up to be paired with the man in a rough year for Republicans.
Maverick’s natural choice for a Goose would have included the soon-to-be retired Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, but he’s a party pariah and, on those, the GOP has a strict limit of one per presidential ticket.
Lieberman would have been a killer selection with independent voters (or at least those who love intractable wars and hate rational thinking), but again, he needs a hard-liner now. Neither man is truly a “moderate,” and in fact Lieberman might be more of a Republican than McCain, but on that ticket, image is everything. That will really cost McCain in the end. McCain-Lieberman would have made for a horrible presidency, but also would have had a great chance at winning the general election.
Schwartzenegger would need an amendment, and that ain’t happening by November.
So, with no make-up sesh with Romney on the horizon, who might it be?
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been getting some mentions, but that idea seems awfully dull. He’s from a state the GOP desperately covet in a presidential election, but has had a fairly controversial administration and is not particularly strong on any one issue. However, he’s also one of McCain’s national co-chairs, and seems to have set himself up to balance his ticket on the right side, so he’s the most likely.
Lindsey Graham is a big surrogate, and hasn’t left McCain’s side in what seems like weeks, so he could already be the running-mate. He’ll be on the short list at least. He’s southern and very conservative (what up, base?), so he makes plenty of sense. But, as is the case with Pawlenty, he just isn’t much fun to think or talk about.
My dark horse pick is George Allen, about whom scarcely a word has been said since November 2006. As a Governor and a Senator, he had been considered a GOP golden boy for the better part of a decade. If not for one extremely racist slip-up, he’d likely be testing language for his convention speech right now. He’s certainly popular enough with conservatives, and, more importantly, he’s young. When your nominee will turn 73 next year, it’s useful to have a vigorous presumptive future nominee on the ticket.
The most disturbing prospect came out of this week’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). We now have a small but vocal group of conservative hard-liners who are pushing for Condoleeza Rice. Neocons, enjoy your dream ticket of ignorance and foolhardiness: McCain-Rice ’08!
The group (it might actually be just one guy, or Condi herself) even has its own non-catchy slogan, “Think Condi ’08” and a website: thinkcondi.com. According to the website, she’s a great candidate for the following reasons:
Foreign Policy Experience
Support of the 2nd Amendment
The latter is a fine assertion, but as for the former...how did all that foreign policy she experienced work out? Oh...right. It’s a little sad that the GOP has beaten the bushes to find an acceptable VP candidate, and rejoices over finding a person with exactly two minor qualifications.
The website itself is really something to behold. It includes a “Headlines” section with a link to this inauspicious article, and an “Issues” section which reads, simply: Coming Soon!
I think they’ve made a more accurate commentary than they intended.
And now, in closing, some fun with punctuation:
“Think Condi.”
“Think, Condi!”
“Think ... Condi?”
For some reason, no one thinks McCain will run with Huckabee. If that’s the case, then congratulations to Mike Huckabee, because he has really screwed McCain. Apparently, McCain is as bad a Republican as he is a human being. Given that, Huckabee seems like the natural VP choice. He has God’s endorsement on all issues, and, like McCain, is certifiably crazy, only in a more GOP-centric way. Evidently, though, he raised Arkansans’ taxes once too many and didn’t send enough of his fellow citizens to the electric chair, so he has no credibility with the base.
It’s a peculiar time when an ordained Baptist minister who doesn’t believe in science, and who has promised to close the IRS, secure Constitutional amendments banning abortion and gay marriage, avoid diplomacy at all costs, and build a wall along the Rio Grande isn’t considered conservative enough to be a real Republican. Oh, and also, he plays bass guitar. Awesome.
To return to the running-mate issue, McCain has real problems. He forgot the PEMDAS of electoral politics, which is that you run to your base in the primary, then to the middle in the general. Now he’s faced with having to win over the hearts and minds of his party after gaining the nomination.
On top of his unpopularity with voters, he supposedly has a violent temper and a generally nasty disposition that has left him largely reviled in both houses of Congress, so lawmakers aren’t exactly lining up to be paired with the man in a rough year for Republicans.
Maverick’s natural choice for a Goose would have included the soon-to-be retired Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, but he’s a party pariah and, on those, the GOP has a strict limit of one per presidential ticket.
Lieberman would have been a killer selection with independent voters (or at least those who love intractable wars and hate rational thinking), but again, he needs a hard-liner now. Neither man is truly a “moderate,” and in fact Lieberman might be more of a Republican than McCain, but on that ticket, image is everything. That will really cost McCain in the end. McCain-Lieberman would have made for a horrible presidency, but also would have had a great chance at winning the general election.
Schwartzenegger would need an amendment, and that ain’t happening by November.
So, with no make-up sesh with Romney on the horizon, who might it be?
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been getting some mentions, but that idea seems awfully dull. He’s from a state the GOP desperately covet in a presidential election, but has had a fairly controversial administration and is not particularly strong on any one issue. However, he’s also one of McCain’s national co-chairs, and seems to have set himself up to balance his ticket on the right side, so he’s the most likely.
Lindsey Graham is a big surrogate, and hasn’t left McCain’s side in what seems like weeks, so he could already be the running-mate. He’ll be on the short list at least. He’s southern and very conservative (what up, base?), so he makes plenty of sense. But, as is the case with Pawlenty, he just isn’t much fun to think or talk about.
My dark horse pick is George Allen, about whom scarcely a word has been said since November 2006. As a Governor and a Senator, he had been considered a GOP golden boy for the better part of a decade. If not for one extremely racist slip-up, he’d likely be testing language for his convention speech right now. He’s certainly popular enough with conservatives, and, more importantly, he’s young. When your nominee will turn 73 next year, it’s useful to have a vigorous presumptive future nominee on the ticket.
The most disturbing prospect came out of this week’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). We now have a small but vocal group of conservative hard-liners who are pushing for Condoleeza Rice. Neocons, enjoy your dream ticket of ignorance and foolhardiness: McCain-Rice ’08!
The group (it might actually be just one guy, or Condi herself) even has its own non-catchy slogan, “Think Condi ’08” and a website: thinkcondi.com. According to the website, she’s a great candidate for the following reasons:
Foreign Policy Experience
Support of the 2nd Amendment
The latter is a fine assertion, but as for the former...how did all that foreign policy she experienced work out? Oh...right. It’s a little sad that the GOP has beaten the bushes to find an acceptable VP candidate, and rejoices over finding a person with exactly two minor qualifications.
The website itself is really something to behold. It includes a “Headlines” section with a link to this inauspicious article, and an “Issues” section which reads, simply: Coming Soon!
I think they’ve made a more accurate commentary than they intended.
And now, in closing, some fun with punctuation:
“Think Condi.”
“Think, Condi!”
“Think ... Condi?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)