Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The death of David Foster Wallace has meant that I have been reading obits of David Foster Wallace, and revisiting some things that I hadn't seen the first time through. GJA twigged me to "The Broom of the System" when it came out, but Wallace* was a prolific guy, so there is quite a bit (including "Infinite Jest") that has gotten by me. This profile of John McCain, which ran in Rolling Stone in 2000, was new to me. In view of what has now become apparent about McCain I'd have to say that Wallace now appears naive. A lot of people were fooled, and Wallace at least gets to why that would be. Some people have suggested that McCain has changed, and ask what Wallace would have made of him today, but McCain didn’t change. People don’t change, not like that. Eight years ago he looked better than Bush because Bush was so completely out of his depth. Although I’m less inclined to believe that military experience is much of a qualification for national office than some are**, at least McCain had actual military experience; Bush was the worst kind of shirker***, and then he was technically a deserter and that told us something about his character. Although I am not so inclined to believe that being a senator is a strong selling point for a Presidential candidate, McCain had Washington experience, and that had to count for more than being a partial owner of the Texas Rangers. Although neither man actually went out and made their own money, at least McCain married his.
There was also the sense back then that McCain was running his own campaign, and that Bush was merely an anointed catspaw****. That’s changed– but it has changed because McCain has allowed it to. He’d have gone along eight years ago too, but it wasn’t his turn. Because he is hot-tempered (and spoiled) he came off as a straight talker because he mouthed off. That wasn’t honesty– it was a tantrum.
On his best day McCain is a mediocrity. He got caught in a financial scandal, and has based his career on that road to Damascus moment and his POW experience. McCain-Feingold is really his only legislative achievement, and it is mostly unconstitutional. He is unpopular in his party because he is kind of a jerk. Look at the toadying lickspitles he is friends with. Lindsey Graham, a tower of pudding. Joe Lieberman, a hissing and a byword. Across the aisle there’s John Kerry, a brother in arms who McCain has betrayed every single time it was convenient to John McCain to do so. Kerry’s judgment is implicated by his inclination to tap McCain for VP, but it says worse things about McCain that he denied being asked, and that he did nothing to halt the shameful swiftboat attacks made on Kerry. John McCain isn’t interested in anyone else, and is a servant to his own ambition. Always has been, probably. The one time in his life that he can point to as evidence to the contrary is the time in the Hanoi Hilton, and Wallace picks up on that, and writes movingly about it. When was the second time? Was it when he came home and found his shattered wife, then divorced her? Was it when he met the woman who was to become his second wife, and realized that with her money he could become anything? (Anything except an admiral.)
Was even that one time so noble? I believe that he was in horrible pain, to be sure. Probably he thought he was going to die; probably he wished he could die-- but could he have accepted the offer of early release? Wallace thinks that almost anyone would have, and that McCain did something heroic by thinking outside himself, but I'm not so sure. How do you go home like that? How does the son of an admiral go home and say, "I couldn't take it any more?" It's not just his family-- although it is not difficult to imagine him in his cell thinking, "I've fucked up everything else in my life. I wouldn't even be here if I hadn't fucked up. This is the final exam, Johnny boy. Get this right." If he had done anything else he couldn't have faced the shame of seeing his father, and he wouldn't have been able to face the shame of seeing his classmates and fellow officers-- his whole life was the Navy. Look at his mother, even today. Do you think for a minute that John McCain wanted to come home and tell his mother that he'd failed again? Watching her at the convention you couldn't help but imagine that she was thinking, "I hope this works out. It will make up for his leaving the Navy without achieving flag rank." How hard was it, really, to get being a POW right? Pain would have been nothing compared to having to live with the shame. So sure he suffered, but there doesn't seem to me to be anything extraordinary about it-- in his mind probably there really wasn't a choice. Maybe it seemed more remarkable to David Foster Wallace, whose brain chemistry betrayed him, and who proved to be unable to deal with existential pain. For a guy like McCain, what he went through was five years of being at the dentist. Hell, being a plebe was designed to make what McCain went through tolerable, and the notion of giving up unimaginable.
McCain hasn’t changed. He’s the admiral’s son, the guy who came home from the war and reckoned that he was entitled to a wife who was younger and prettier– and richer. He’s the guy who took the free vacations, and hung around with Charles Keating because that’s what you get to do when you are a senator. He is disrespectful to his current wife because he is disrespectful to all women– they exist as objects to him, as do reporters and staff. The fact that reporters and staff put up with it reflects on their personal self-esteem issues-- something that Wallace gets right*****. It is hardly a credential-- it just means he is a jerk. If the fawning press could get over it we would be in a better position to see it for what it is.
I suspect a lot of people say that they “used to like” McCain because they are unwilling to admit that they were wrong about him. It’s okay– he is a type, and that type has an appeal. Everybody gets fooled sometimes, and McCain has fooled a lot of people. But don’t kid yourself. He has always been prepared to do whatever it takes to get what he wants. He is the same man he has always been.
Every four years I dig out something to read about a past election. Sometimes it is one of Teddy White's "Making of the President" series, a lot of the time because of how old I am it is something about the various Nixon campaigns. This year, because I spent some time with my Uncle Fred, the only other Norman Mailer fan I know, it was Mailer's account of the Kennedy convention, "Superman Comes to the Supermarket". This piece, by Michael Chabon, "Obama & the Conquest of Denver" is Maileresque, and is a bit more clear-eyed than Wallace's McCain article from eight years ago. Perhaps what is appealing about the Wallace article is that it is trying so hard to avoid being cynical. For me, I like EGA's recent quip: "I'm also probably going to go ring bells and talk tomorons swing voters with my friend Susan's beau. (How could anyone possibly not know whom they're voting for? Don't these people watch TV?)". Every single thing about McCain's campaign has been so blatantly cynical and dishonest that it is difficult to understand how anyone could believe him. Even if you agree with him on something -- assuming you can get his position on something to settle down long enough to agree with him-- how can you be confident that he means it? Once in his life he did the right thing, and on that basis he expects people to look past the rest? I don't get it. Are people that stupid? I suppose I know the answer, but I wish I didn't.
There is a great W.C. Fields bit in which he is asked how he got the name "Honest John". It is terrific mostly because it is the only filmed version of his famous pool table routine, and if you haven't seen it you should. Fields plays pool, and is brilliant, and as he chalks his cue, and does this and that he tells a long anecdote about how once in a bar a guy took out his glass eye and then later Fields found it and returned it. "And ever since that day," he says, "I've been known as Honest John." People say they want a candidate that is "like them", but they don't mean it. The Obama family has one car and one house. They went to fancy schools, but they went to them on their own records. They were nobody's legacies. Obama is his own invention, and American in a way, as he has pointed out, that can only happen in America. Families like the McCains are everywhere. There is nothing unique about being a military brat. There is nothing about going into the service because your father did and his father did that isn't something that they do in France or China, or Saudi Arabia or in any other country that has a military, which is all of them. Most of us don't go into the military, and as a result some of us fetishize it somewhat. Some of that may be liberal guilt. Because of my age I joke that people my age went into the military for one of two reasons: either they got a bad lottery number, or the judge gave them a choice. That's not completely true, of course-- I know a number of capable, qualified people who served honorably, and are today honorable individuals. None of them make a fetish out of anything but hard work, and now that I think of it, none of them married beer heiresses, so I guess that makes them just like us. Or more like us than Honest John McCain.
I'm not saying that this race should be about character-- what both Chabon and Wallace demonstrate pretty conclusively is that we can't really know anything about the true character of either of these men. Part of what I am saying is that the people who seem inclined to vote on "character" also seem to be backing the wrong horse, but what I really want to say is that character is the wrong question. If that is really the best that the the McCain people have then what they have essentially demonstrated is that they have no ideas-- none at all. This should come as no shock. Bush and Cheney had ideas, but they were all bad. McCain's idea is that it is his turn to be President, and if being like Bush is the way to get there, then he is completely prepared to throw any idea he ever had-- and it is not like there were ever a lot-- right over the side to get there.
* Perhaps the best way to remember him is to use footnotes.
**Recall that Gore volunteered, and served as an enlisted man. Military service was different for McCain-- although he also was, technically, a volunteer, he was a Service Academy legacy. It seems unlikely that McCain ever considered *not* going into the military. Gore went because it seemed to him the right thing to do. Clinton didn't because it didn't to him. Clinton was, technically, correct, which got him into hot water. Being technically correct often did that to Clinton.
***Bush? Pulled strings, Texas Air Guard, and when he found he didn't care for it, he ducked out.
**** Wallace would have loved the opportunity to use this word.
***** Last footnote. Read the article. Wallace was good, even when he was wrong. I'm sorry he is dead, because I enjoyed reading him. I enjoy a lot of his contemporaries more, even though I hate them all because I am not one of them, but Wallace was unique and valuable. It is a shame that he didn't leave us with more.
There was also the sense back then that McCain was running his own campaign, and that Bush was merely an anointed catspaw****. That’s changed– but it has changed because McCain has allowed it to. He’d have gone along eight years ago too, but it wasn’t his turn. Because he is hot-tempered (and spoiled) he came off as a straight talker because he mouthed off. That wasn’t honesty– it was a tantrum.
On his best day McCain is a mediocrity. He got caught in a financial scandal, and has based his career on that road to Damascus moment and his POW experience. McCain-Feingold is really his only legislative achievement, and it is mostly unconstitutional. He is unpopular in his party because he is kind of a jerk. Look at the toadying lickspitles he is friends with. Lindsey Graham, a tower of pudding. Joe Lieberman, a hissing and a byword. Across the aisle there’s John Kerry, a brother in arms who McCain has betrayed every single time it was convenient to John McCain to do so. Kerry’s judgment is implicated by his inclination to tap McCain for VP, but it says worse things about McCain that he denied being asked, and that he did nothing to halt the shameful swiftboat attacks made on Kerry. John McCain isn’t interested in anyone else, and is a servant to his own ambition. Always has been, probably. The one time in his life that he can point to as evidence to the contrary is the time in the Hanoi Hilton, and Wallace picks up on that, and writes movingly about it. When was the second time? Was it when he came home and found his shattered wife, then divorced her? Was it when he met the woman who was to become his second wife, and realized that with her money he could become anything? (Anything except an admiral.)
Was even that one time so noble? I believe that he was in horrible pain, to be sure. Probably he thought he was going to die; probably he wished he could die-- but could he have accepted the offer of early release? Wallace thinks that almost anyone would have, and that McCain did something heroic by thinking outside himself, but I'm not so sure. How do you go home like that? How does the son of an admiral go home and say, "I couldn't take it any more?" It's not just his family-- although it is not difficult to imagine him in his cell thinking, "I've fucked up everything else in my life. I wouldn't even be here if I hadn't fucked up. This is the final exam, Johnny boy. Get this right." If he had done anything else he couldn't have faced the shame of seeing his father, and he wouldn't have been able to face the shame of seeing his classmates and fellow officers-- his whole life was the Navy. Look at his mother, even today. Do you think for a minute that John McCain wanted to come home and tell his mother that he'd failed again? Watching her at the convention you couldn't help but imagine that she was thinking, "I hope this works out. It will make up for his leaving the Navy without achieving flag rank." How hard was it, really, to get being a POW right? Pain would have been nothing compared to having to live with the shame. So sure he suffered, but there doesn't seem to me to be anything extraordinary about it-- in his mind probably there really wasn't a choice. Maybe it seemed more remarkable to David Foster Wallace, whose brain chemistry betrayed him, and who proved to be unable to deal with existential pain. For a guy like McCain, what he went through was five years of being at the dentist. Hell, being a plebe was designed to make what McCain went through tolerable, and the notion of giving up unimaginable.
McCain hasn’t changed. He’s the admiral’s son, the guy who came home from the war and reckoned that he was entitled to a wife who was younger and prettier– and richer. He’s the guy who took the free vacations, and hung around with Charles Keating because that’s what you get to do when you are a senator. He is disrespectful to his current wife because he is disrespectful to all women– they exist as objects to him, as do reporters and staff. The fact that reporters and staff put up with it reflects on their personal self-esteem issues-- something that Wallace gets right*****. It is hardly a credential-- it just means he is a jerk. If the fawning press could get over it we would be in a better position to see it for what it is.
I suspect a lot of people say that they “used to like” McCain because they are unwilling to admit that they were wrong about him. It’s okay– he is a type, and that type has an appeal. Everybody gets fooled sometimes, and McCain has fooled a lot of people. But don’t kid yourself. He has always been prepared to do whatever it takes to get what he wants. He is the same man he has always been.
Every four years I dig out something to read about a past election. Sometimes it is one of Teddy White's "Making of the President" series, a lot of the time because of how old I am it is something about the various Nixon campaigns. This year, because I spent some time with my Uncle Fred, the only other Norman Mailer fan I know, it was Mailer's account of the Kennedy convention, "Superman Comes to the Supermarket". This piece, by Michael Chabon, "Obama & the Conquest of Denver" is Maileresque, and is a bit more clear-eyed than Wallace's McCain article from eight years ago. Perhaps what is appealing about the Wallace article is that it is trying so hard to avoid being cynical. For me, I like EGA's recent quip: "I'm also probably going to go ring bells and talk to
There is a great W.C. Fields bit in which he is asked how he got the name "Honest John". It is terrific mostly because it is the only filmed version of his famous pool table routine, and if you haven't seen it you should. Fields plays pool, and is brilliant, and as he chalks his cue, and does this and that he tells a long anecdote about how once in a bar a guy took out his glass eye and then later Fields found it and returned it. "And ever since that day," he says, "I've been known as Honest John." People say they want a candidate that is "like them", but they don't mean it. The Obama family has one car and one house. They went to fancy schools, but they went to them on their own records. They were nobody's legacies. Obama is his own invention, and American in a way, as he has pointed out, that can only happen in America. Families like the McCains are everywhere. There is nothing unique about being a military brat. There is nothing about going into the service because your father did and his father did that isn't something that they do in France or China, or Saudi Arabia or in any other country that has a military, which is all of them. Most of us don't go into the military, and as a result some of us fetishize it somewhat. Some of that may be liberal guilt. Because of my age I joke that people my age went into the military for one of two reasons: either they got a bad lottery number, or the judge gave them a choice. That's not completely true, of course-- I know a number of capable, qualified people who served honorably, and are today honorable individuals. None of them make a fetish out of anything but hard work, and now that I think of it, none of them married beer heiresses, so I guess that makes them just like us. Or more like us than Honest John McCain.
I'm not saying that this race should be about character-- what both Chabon and Wallace demonstrate pretty conclusively is that we can't really know anything about the true character of either of these men. Part of what I am saying is that the people who seem inclined to vote on "character" also seem to be backing the wrong horse, but what I really want to say is that character is the wrong question. If that is really the best that the the McCain people have then what they have essentially demonstrated is that they have no ideas-- none at all. This should come as no shock. Bush and Cheney had ideas, but they were all bad. McCain's idea is that it is his turn to be President, and if being like Bush is the way to get there, then he is completely prepared to throw any idea he ever had-- and it is not like there were ever a lot-- right over the side to get there.
* Perhaps the best way to remember him is to use footnotes.
**Recall that Gore volunteered, and served as an enlisted man. Military service was different for McCain-- although he also was, technically, a volunteer, he was a Service Academy legacy. It seems unlikely that McCain ever considered *not* going into the military. Gore went because it seemed to him the right thing to do. Clinton didn't because it didn't to him. Clinton was, technically, correct, which got him into hot water. Being technically correct often did that to Clinton.
***Bush? Pulled strings, Texas Air Guard, and when he found he didn't care for it, he ducked out.
**** Wallace would have loved the opportunity to use this word.
***** Last footnote. Read the article. Wallace was good, even when he was wrong. I'm sorry he is dead, because I enjoyed reading him. I enjoy a lot of his contemporaries more, even though I hate them all because I am not one of them, but Wallace was unique and valuable. It is a shame that he didn't leave us with more.
Friday, August 22, 2008
An interesting thing about McCain is that he really does have a terrible temper. Some of the things he has said to his wife have been quoted elsewhere and are remarkably nasty-- I wouldn't be sleeping on the couch in any of my wife's houses if I'd said that kind of stuff. He is apparently like this in his professional life as well. Timothy Noah reports that he harbors a personal dislike for Obama, which is interesting, and quotes an exchange of correspondence between the two members of the most exclusive club in the world that is really remarkable given that the institution prides itself on its civility. McCain, having been implicated in a corruption scandal once, now believes that he owns the issue, and that he himself is beyond all reproach. Apparently he had a notion about how the Senate should proceed with ethics reform, and when Obama had a different proposal (on a question of procedure, not substance) McCain went nuts. I have written probably more than my share of poisonous letters, and have taken to putting them aside for a day before sending them out. As fond as I am of the form, McCain's letter to Obama is so over the top that it is hard to believe that someone on his his staff didn't tell him to get a grip, or even just slide the letter under a blotter instead of sending it out.
AS I write this the Obama campaign has just launched an ad about the "How many houses" gaffe, and McCain is lashing back with an attack on Obama on the Tony Rezko thing. The McCain push-back is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it's really his best shot, and it is on "integrity"-- McCain's pet issue. By taking it now I'd say he has probably taken it too early. No doubt they'll keep pushing that button, but that is probably also a bad plan. The house thing really hurts McCain on several fronts, and bringing it up is just going to remind people that (a) he couldn't remember how many houses he owns (because he is very, very old); and (b) that McCain has many houses, (because he is very, very rich). That takes Obama's "celebrity" off the table. Even though Obama's house is a really nice house,
it is only one, and the chances are that Obama can find it himself without a staffer helping. Finally, it demonstrates that McCain really is an angry guy, with a hair-trigger temper. If he is this easily goaded, the chances are that he will blow up again, and I don't see that helping him. A couple more explosions like this and we may start seeing regular stories about McCain's arrested development. There may be women who are angry about Hillary, but I can't imagine that there are many in that group who will rush to vote for someone who got divorced because he was "turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again." I find McCain's record on reproductive freedom deplorable, but there is disagreement on that issue. Treating your wives poorly-- man, that's no way to get the ladies to vote for you.
And don't you wonder about what other senators McCain has teed off on? It would be interesting to see some of that coming to light, and it is bound to.
A big question mark in this campaign has been whether the Obama people will allow themselves to get cuffed around the way that Kerry (and Gore) did. Gore was caught flat-footed, and to some extent Kerry was too, I think. Kerry never expected that his military experience would be turned around against him. It was a stupid foundation for a campaign, and, ironically, a classic example of fighting the last war, and when he got Swiftboated Kerry couldn't believe it was happening. Obama seems to be working hard to move this election out of the culture wars of the 60's, and I say 'bout time.
The polling data is probably not all that reliable an indication of anything more than tendencies right now. As has been the case in the last three cycles turnout is going to be critical this year, and the things I'm reading suggest that Obama has a strong ground game set up. He's got the resources, too, and even if McCain is gaining ground, he's still playing catch-up ball. What we have seen so far tells us that one guy is capable of running a disciplined campaign with a focused message that can also quickly and creatively respond when necessary. The other guy, to his credit, keeps on coming. McCain's a stubborn cat, no doubt about it, and it would be a mistake to forget that. I doubt that the Obama people are counting on a McCain mistake to carry the day, but I think they may get one anyway.
AS I write this the Obama campaign has just launched an ad about the "How many houses" gaffe, and McCain is lashing back with an attack on Obama on the Tony Rezko thing. The McCain push-back is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it's really his best shot, and it is on "integrity"-- McCain's pet issue. By taking it now I'd say he has probably taken it too early. No doubt they'll keep pushing that button, but that is probably also a bad plan. The house thing really hurts McCain on several fronts, and bringing it up is just going to remind people that (a) he couldn't remember how many houses he owns (because he is very, very old); and (b) that McCain has many houses, (because he is very, very rich). That takes Obama's "celebrity" off the table. Even though Obama's house is a really nice house,
it is only one, and the chances are that Obama can find it himself without a staffer helping. Finally, it demonstrates that McCain really is an angry guy, with a hair-trigger temper. If he is this easily goaded, the chances are that he will blow up again, and I don't see that helping him. A couple more explosions like this and we may start seeing regular stories about McCain's arrested development. There may be women who are angry about Hillary, but I can't imagine that there are many in that group who will rush to vote for someone who got divorced because he was "turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again." I find McCain's record on reproductive freedom deplorable, but there is disagreement on that issue. Treating your wives poorly-- man, that's no way to get the ladies to vote for you.And don't you wonder about what other senators McCain has teed off on? It would be interesting to see some of that coming to light, and it is bound to.
A big question mark in this campaign has been whether the Obama people will allow themselves to get cuffed around the way that Kerry (and Gore) did. Gore was caught flat-footed, and to some extent Kerry was too, I think. Kerry never expected that his military experience would be turned around against him. It was a stupid foundation for a campaign, and, ironically, a classic example of fighting the last war, and when he got Swiftboated Kerry couldn't believe it was happening. Obama seems to be working hard to move this election out of the culture wars of the 60's, and I say 'bout time.
The polling data is probably not all that reliable an indication of anything more than tendencies right now. As has been the case in the last three cycles turnout is going to be critical this year, and the things I'm reading suggest that Obama has a strong ground game set up. He's got the resources, too, and even if McCain is gaining ground, he's still playing catch-up ball. What we have seen so far tells us that one guy is capable of running a disciplined campaign with a focused message that can also quickly and creatively respond when necessary. The other guy, to his credit, keeps on coming. McCain's a stubborn cat, no doubt about it, and it would be a mistake to forget that. I doubt that the Obama people are counting on a McCain mistake to carry the day, but I think they may get one anyway.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Here's a good example of why John Kerry is useless. Four years ago it was widely reported that he had reached out to John McCain as a potential running mate. the story appears to be true-- even McCain says he was approached, but he now denies that he was interested. The NYTimes now reports that, "Mr. Kerry declined last week to discuss his conversations with Mr. McCain, but three former Kerry strategists said that Mr. McCain had not immediately dismissed the notion of sharing the Democratic ticket. “McCain did not flat-out say no, regardless of what he’s saying now,” said one strategist who asked not to be named. “He was interested in this discussion.”
Some straight talk, from someone, would seem to be in order here, but Kerry refuses. Part of this is the culture of the Senate, and part of it may well be attributable to personal friendship between the two men, but it seems to me that Kerry has now made himself complicit in the myth of John McCain. Since persona seems to be all that McCain has going, Kerry might just as as well go out and stump for him. Kerry's judgment is questionable on the basis of the proposal itself, (something that McCain seems to acknowledge), but we are entitled to know, I think. Is the Straight Talker giving us the goods? If McCain would come out and say it-- "I felt ill-used by the Bush wing of the Republican Party, and I respect John Kerry. The offer was tempting, but I decided to wait and run on my own," then I'd say he really is the no-bullshit guy he's supposed to be. For Kerry it is a little more difficult. He has endorsed Obama, but the fact that he made the offer to McCain means that he reckoned McCain was qualified for the job. Once again his nuanced mind has painted him into a corner.
Some straight talk, from someone, would seem to be in order here, but Kerry refuses. Part of this is the culture of the Senate, and part of it may well be attributable to personal friendship between the two men, but it seems to me that Kerry has now made himself complicit in the myth of John McCain. Since persona seems to be all that McCain has going, Kerry might just as as well go out and stump for him. Kerry's judgment is questionable on the basis of the proposal itself, (something that McCain seems to acknowledge), but we are entitled to know, I think. Is the Straight Talker giving us the goods? If McCain would come out and say it-- "I felt ill-used by the Bush wing of the Republican Party, and I respect John Kerry. The offer was tempting, but I decided to wait and run on my own," then I'd say he really is the no-bullshit guy he's supposed to be. For Kerry it is a little more difficult. He has endorsed Obama, but the fact that he made the offer to McCain means that he reckoned McCain was qualified for the job. Once again his nuanced mind has painted him into a corner.
Monday, August 30, 2004
John McCain is, we are told, a popular politician. Courted by both Kerry and Bush, he allowed the idea that he might accept the VP nomination from Kerry to float out there, but then shut it down. He has been critical of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads, and he is praised for this, but it seems to me that it shouldn't be too hard for someone who was smeared by the same people the same way to come out against this sort of unscrupulous politics. In a way this is sort of typical of McCain's integrity: his big issue is campaign finance reform, and that's because he got caught out once himself. I am leery of that sort of virtue-- the reformed can be quiet about it, or they can become missionaries, and I suppose I prefer the former.
I also question the integrity and independence of someone who would stand with George W. Bush after having been attacked by him. Obviously McCain is doing this because he sees an opening, and in most politicians I suppose this wouldn't warrant much comment. From someone who enjoys McCain's reputation and popularity, however, I think we might be excused for expecting something more. I have never thought McCain was anything special-- he's a conservative Republican, as far as I can see: there is nothing in his voting record that suggest to me that he stands for anything that I agree with.
The Senate is a funny place: because it is small, the members have to learn to work with each other in order to get things done. This can lead to some very strange bedfellows: Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch are best buddies, for example. It is hardly surprising that two Vietnam Vets like Kerry and McCain would find that they had enough in common to become friends. I believe that the principals and the country believe that this election is important-- I think the most important in a generation. I think that it speaks poorly of McCain that with considerations of friendship and country on one side, and considerations of personal ambition and party loyalty on the other, he chose to stand with Bush and his own prospects four years from now.
I also question the integrity and independence of someone who would stand with George W. Bush after having been attacked by him. Obviously McCain is doing this because he sees an opening, and in most politicians I suppose this wouldn't warrant much comment. From someone who enjoys McCain's reputation and popularity, however, I think we might be excused for expecting something more. I have never thought McCain was anything special-- he's a conservative Republican, as far as I can see: there is nothing in his voting record that suggest to me that he stands for anything that I agree with.
The Senate is a funny place: because it is small, the members have to learn to work with each other in order to get things done. This can lead to some very strange bedfellows: Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch are best buddies, for example. It is hardly surprising that two Vietnam Vets like Kerry and McCain would find that they had enough in common to become friends. I believe that the principals and the country believe that this election is important-- I think the most important in a generation. I think that it speaks poorly of McCain that with considerations of friendship and country on one side, and considerations of personal ambition and party loyalty on the other, he chose to stand with Bush and his own prospects four years from now.
Monday, October 27, 2008
It is interesting to think about how the Obama campaign has worked, because it suggests that the same approach will be taken to governing the country. Obama has been a meticulous, careful planer, who consulted with legitimate experts, not just pols. He has been inclusive, campaigning everywhere, rather than targeted. Although the commentary about him is frequently about his personal qualities, he seems focused on substance. And he has run a tight ship. I can't think of a single misstep, and when circumstances have forced him to address something unforeseen-- as with the Rev. Wright-- he has managed to turn it into a legitimate point for important discussion. We're lucky-- he seems to have a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, a rare thing indeed. He is going to need both.
That said, it is more interesting to contemplate the trainwreck that McCain's campaign has been. The press he gets is still more fawning than he deserves, and that may be how he-- and the Republican Party-- ended up in this place, because the brutal fact of the matter is that the man is simply not suited to any role other than gadfly Senator. The piece in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine is a good example. Although it is less damning than Jane Mayer's article in the New Yorker last week, nevertheless portrays a candidate who has no real expertise in anything except shooting from the hip. Undoubtedly this is a big part of his appeal to reporters, but it is hardly a qualification for office. When you hold McCain's record up, what is there? He has virtually no legislative accomplishments, and the things that have distinguished his career have largely been institutional in nature-- forging compromise on filibuster rules, campaign finance-- it's all inside Senate baseball.
I'm not so sure that the Palin pick is what made the difference, but I can't imagine that Barrack Obama would have let some group of shadowy advisors tout him off a VP candidate that he really wanted. McCain's big selling point is supposed to be his character. I've never bought it, but you don't hear stories like this about a man of integrity:
“They took it away from him,” a longtime friend of McCain—who asked not to be identified, since the campaign has declined to discuss its selection process—said of the advisers. “He was furious. He was pissed. It wasn’t what he wanted.” Another friend disputed this, characterizing McCain’s mood as one of “understanding resignation.”
In a way McCain's campaign resembles Kerry's four years ago. They both tried to make their candidacy about their pasts, instead of the country's future-- and, of course, they were both wrapped up in the Culture Wars. Poor Vietnam, always a proxy for something.
That said, it is more interesting to contemplate the trainwreck that McCain's campaign has been. The press he gets is still more fawning than he deserves, and that may be how he-- and the Republican Party-- ended up in this place, because the brutal fact of the matter is that the man is simply not suited to any role other than gadfly Senator. The piece in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine is a good example. Although it is less damning than Jane Mayer's article in the New Yorker last week, nevertheless portrays a candidate who has no real expertise in anything except shooting from the hip. Undoubtedly this is a big part of his appeal to reporters, but it is hardly a qualification for office. When you hold McCain's record up, what is there? He has virtually no legislative accomplishments, and the things that have distinguished his career have largely been institutional in nature-- forging compromise on filibuster rules, campaign finance-- it's all inside Senate baseball.
I'm not so sure that the Palin pick is what made the difference, but I can't imagine that Barrack Obama would have let some group of shadowy advisors tout him off a VP candidate that he really wanted. McCain's big selling point is supposed to be his character. I've never bought it, but you don't hear stories like this about a man of integrity:
“They took it away from him,” a longtime friend of McCain—who asked not to be identified, since the campaign has declined to discuss its selection process—said of the advisers. “He was furious. He was pissed. It wasn’t what he wanted.” Another friend disputed this, characterizing McCain’s mood as one of “understanding resignation.”
In a way McCain's campaign resembles Kerry's four years ago. They both tried to make their candidacy about their pasts, instead of the country's future-- and, of course, they were both wrapped up in the Culture Wars. Poor Vietnam, always a proxy for something.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
The Observer reports that "During the first presidential debate in Mississippi, [Mccain]persistently avoided eye contact with Mr. Obama despite the moderator’s entreaties for the candidates to engage directly with one another. Mr. McCain’s advisers said afterward that he had done so deliberately in order to avoid becoming enraged."
Cindy McCain says that Obama has waged the "dirtiest campaign in American history."
I guess it's the arrogance I don't understand. I can understand being upset over seeing the Presidency slipping away, but what exactly has Obama done that can be considered "dirty"? And how dare McCain be angry? Can he possibly think that he is losing to someone who is less qualified than he is? McCain's qualification for the office amounts to being marginally less partisan than most Senators. Does he seriously think that he is more intelligent than Obama? Or more popular? Objectively speaking he can't believe the latter, because fewer people are going to vote for him. Does he think that hanging around Washington for thirty years has made him smart? Because he doesn't say that-- he says just the opposite.
Stupid, dirty-pool Democrats, being all smarter and more popular than me. How
rage-filled they make me! Maybe I can ask Sarah to borrow Ted Stevens' Hulk tie for the next debate.Wednesday, February 13, 2008
In another context altogether King Kaufman writes, "I have a bootleg recording of a concert at which a woman yells out "I love you, Bruce!" After a little cheer dies down in the crowd, Springsteen says, "But you don't really know me."
Kaufman is talking about the fact that we can't know public figures through their portrayal in the media, although it seems as though we do, an interestingly clear eyed observation, and an important one in the context of our civic lives this electoral cycle. It seems that voters are basing their decisions on "character" rather than on any specific policy differences between Barrak and Hillary, or McCain and Huck. This is nothing new, of course, but it is nevertheless disturbing when you consider that we really know very little about what these people are like. When you listen, as we did last night, to the stuff that Huckabee says, it quickly becomes apparent that he is not a particularly deep thinker, for all that he is a very engaging speaker. Hardly a surprise-- his degree is in Divinity, not in anything analytical. McCain, sounding more like Bob Dole every day, likewise has very little of substance to say-- he is platitudinous, nothing more. Really, the only candidates left on the board who say specific things about specific stuff are good old Mike Gravel and HRC. Obama certainly has the intellectual chops, and when called upon to do so he can display them, but he does better at rallies than in debates for a reason-- in debates, specifics win, and Hillary has those. Actually, it is when Clinton gets away from her policy wonk roots that she loses me-- she didn't vote for this horrible war because it was good policy, after all, she did it out of political expedience, or cowardice, or both. That is, I think that's why-- but actually, I don't know. I can't know. Her statements about why she voted that way do not have the ring of truth to me, ("I trusted the President." What! How could you? You have got to be kidding me!) but it is impossible for me to know why she did what she did if what I am basing this on is an assessment of her character.
I get almost none of my news from television, and I wonder if this affects the way I process my political opinions. I read, and I argue with the radio, and both of these encourage a more analytical approach than tv news. Reading and arguing are what we do in our glamor profession-- when you roll in the video monitor at trial, you can see the jury relax, like slipping into a warm bath. They are abandoning their critical reasoning skills when the tape starts to roll, and that means that they are about to start making decisions based on impressions-- like the impressions we have about our politicians. McCain is a straight-talking maverick-- until you look at his voting record. Hillary is a liberal-- until you look at her voting record. I'm not sure what Huckabee is supposed to be-- a bible thumping cracker, maybe, but that doesn't completely fit with his record as governor. Obama is the Black Kennedy, I guess, but who knows what that is supposed to mean. If these are the evaluative criteria that we we use, why would anyone think that voting for people is the way to find leadership that will accomplish anything worthwhile? With democracy you get the government you deserve, maybe, even if it isn't what you think you want.
Kaufman is talking about the fact that we can't know public figures through their portrayal in the media, although it seems as though we do, an interestingly clear eyed observation, and an important one in the context of our civic lives this electoral cycle. It seems that voters are basing their decisions on "character" rather than on any specific policy differences between Barrak and Hillary, or McCain and Huck. This is nothing new, of course, but it is nevertheless disturbing when you consider that we really know very little about what these people are like. When you listen, as we did last night, to the stuff that Huckabee says, it quickly becomes apparent that he is not a particularly deep thinker, for all that he is a very engaging speaker. Hardly a surprise-- his degree is in Divinity, not in anything analytical. McCain, sounding more like Bob Dole every day, likewise has very little of substance to say-- he is platitudinous, nothing more. Really, the only candidates left on the board who say specific things about specific stuff are good old Mike Gravel and HRC. Obama certainly has the intellectual chops, and when called upon to do so he can display them, but he does better at rallies than in debates for a reason-- in debates, specifics win, and Hillary has those. Actually, it is when Clinton gets away from her policy wonk roots that she loses me-- she didn't vote for this horrible war because it was good policy, after all, she did it out of political expedience, or cowardice, or both. That is, I think that's why-- but actually, I don't know. I can't know. Her statements about why she voted that way do not have the ring of truth to me, ("I trusted the President." What! How could you? You have got to be kidding me!) but it is impossible for me to know why she did what she did if what I am basing this on is an assessment of her character.
I get almost none of my news from television, and I wonder if this affects the way I process my political opinions. I read, and I argue with the radio, and both of these encourage a more analytical approach than tv news. Reading and arguing are what we do in our glamor profession-- when you roll in the video monitor at trial, you can see the jury relax, like slipping into a warm bath. They are abandoning their critical reasoning skills when the tape starts to roll, and that means that they are about to start making decisions based on impressions-- like the impressions we have about our politicians. McCain is a straight-talking maverick-- until you look at his voting record. Hillary is a liberal-- until you look at her voting record. I'm not sure what Huckabee is supposed to be-- a bible thumping cracker, maybe, but that doesn't completely fit with his record as governor. Obama is the Black Kennedy, I guess, but who knows what that is supposed to mean. If these are the evaluative criteria that we we use, why would anyone think that voting for people is the way to find leadership that will accomplish anything worthwhile? With democracy you get the government you deserve, maybe, even if it isn't what you think you want.
Friday, October 24, 2008
I'm just shy of old enough to remember this poster, I think, but it is now officially my favorite thing about Joan Baez. Or Mimi Farina, for that matter. I like the update too. It is interesting that sex and sexuality have played such a big role in this election-- HRC, of course, and the Obama Girl. I guess it got overheated with the selection of Governor Palin. It would take a more astute cultural commentator than I am to tease the meaning out of all this-- the fecund former beauty queen with the expensive wardrobe, the Kennedy-esq youth and vigor of the Harvard educated Democrat. What troubles me is that it all resembles 60's Culture Wars redux, and the poster brings that home. The promise of the Obama campaign that has the greatest appeal to me has been the notion that we might get past that. Obama is not a narcissistic Baby Boomer, and hasn't seemed interested in revisiting those fights. Dragging the Weathermen into this 
election hasn't worked, even as 60's nostalgia. It seems to me that we would be well advised to put the 60's away, but I wonderif that's what's going to happen. I thought it was a positive development when, during the third debate, the two candidates clearly stated their positions on reproductive choice. There was none of the tip-toeing around that has characterized the discussion of this issue in the past. McCain is against it, and said so, and Obama is in favor, and likewise said so. McCain has been on the Hill for so long that he got tripped up on the "litmus test" question, but we knew what he meant. It will be very difficult after this for anyone to argue over what the majority of Americans think about this issue, and the Supreme Court will undoubtedly notice this. Johnson and Nixon were both brought down because they couldn't think of a way out of Vietnam. Their mistake was that they looked to the past for a template, and there wasn't one. Vietnam was a new thing, a proxy war in the post-nuclear age, and they lacked the creativity to deal with it. Similarly, the economic meltdown that we are now in is different from anything we have ever seen-- it is a collapse of liquidity and credit in a global economy, a completely new thing. My sense is that Obama recognizes a truth about America that McCain would never be able to acknowledge-- that ending the Iraq war, and addressing the problem of global terrorism, and restoring the world's economic health are all things that can only be done if we are able to find ways to cooperate with the rest of the world. The notion of American Exceptionalism is a big part of how we got into this mess. Getting out is going to be a bitch. The Republican Party is bottoming out at just about the right time. If we can confine the sniping and the backbiting to the 20% or so that think George W. Bush is doing a hell of a fine job than maybe we have a chance of getting somewhere, but we aren't going to be able to do that if we behave in victory the way that they have.Monday, October 13, 2008
Something I have long puzzled over is how it is possible for Republicans to be in a majority. Over the course of my lifetime the GOP has always done the exact opposite of what its candidates promised. Nixon escalated the war, and instead of fighting crime appointed actual criminals to office. (Have any other Attorney Generals actually done time?) In fact, Nixon was himself a crook, something he proved by denying it. Ford was not elected, and therefore made no promises. We will skip him. St. Reagan presided over record deficits and growth in the size of government, and then Bush pere did the same thing-- and increased taxes. Shouldn't we have realized that when the present Bush promised to "restore honor to the Presidency" that it could only mean disaster? Why do people fall for this stuff? Melinda Henneberger finds a voter who says, ""I never did like George Bush, and he's turned out to be a disaster I contributed to." Still, she's voting Republican again this year because the lesson she takes from the failures of the Bush presidency is that experience in national politics is everything. And McCain has more of it. "George Bush didn't have enough experience, and look what happened. Obama has two years in the Senate and two years campaigning," and that's not enough, especially given "the mess we're in now."
See, and there's my answer: People are idiots. Does Henneberger's voter seriously think that the hole we are in is the result of Bush's inexperience? Good grief! Certainly it is true that Bush was inexperienced, but now that he has gained the constitutional maximum experience does she think that he'd be a better President? All Presidents are inexperienced to one extent or another. What distinguishes this President is that (a) he is profoundly ignorant; (b) he is incurious; and (c) he is convinced that his religious faith compensates for (a) and (b). He is incapable of believing he can be wrong, because his most deeply held belief is that he must be right.
Inexperience has nothing to with why Bush will leave office with the nation in its worst straits since-- when? The Depression? The Civil War? The fact is that Bush was surrounded by what may have been one of the most experienced Cabinets in history, but because he was weak-minded the country was manipulated by Cheney into a terrifying parody of its best instincts. McCain is a version of the same person as Bush, and anyone who can't see that has probably been voting Republican and wondering why it hasn't worked for his entire life. These are the people who think that the photo of the liberated McCain shaking Nixon's hand is somehow validating.
They'll have an exciting choice next go-round. It looks to me as though Caribou Barbie is enjoying the attention and will be back for more, or perhaps they'd prefer the classic rock stylings of Mike Huckabee. It is interesting to contemplate the careers of GOP second bananas. Nixon sat out 64, but came back like black jumpsuit Elvis. Bill Miller went home to Jamestown and was never heard from again. Agnew went to jail. Rocky had a bellyful, and spent his final years with his stamp collection. Dole missed a turn because Bush screwed him over. For some reason Quayle never got any traction. Funny about that. Dole finally got his turn. I'm sure it pleased him. Kemp doesn't even come to Bills old-timer games anymore. I'm not sure why Cheney hasn't had martial law declared. My hunch is that he will retire to a palace in Saudi Arabia where he will be attended by an army of eunuchs.
See, and there's my answer: People are idiots. Does Henneberger's voter seriously think that the hole we are in is the result of Bush's inexperience? Good grief! Certainly it is true that Bush was inexperienced, but now that he has gained the constitutional maximum experience does she think that he'd be a better President? All Presidents are inexperienced to one extent or another. What distinguishes this President is that (a) he is profoundly ignorant; (b) he is incurious; and (c) he is convinced that his religious faith compensates for (a) and (b). He is incapable of believing he can be wrong, because his most deeply held belief is that he must be right.
Inexperience has nothing to with why Bush will leave office with the nation in its worst straits since-- when? The Depression? The Civil War? The fact is that Bush was surrounded by what may have been one of the most experienced Cabinets in history, but because he was weak-minded the country was manipulated by Cheney into a terrifying parody of its best instincts. McCain is a version of the same person as Bush, and anyone who can't see that has probably been voting Republican and wondering why it hasn't worked for his entire life. These are the people who think that the photo of the liberated McCain shaking Nixon's hand is somehow validating.
They'll have an exciting choice next go-round. It looks to me as though Caribou Barbie is enjoying the attention and will be back for more, or perhaps they'd prefer the classic rock stylings of Mike Huckabee. It is interesting to contemplate the careers of GOP second bananas. Nixon sat out 64, but came back like black jumpsuit Elvis. Bill Miller went home to Jamestown and was never heard from again. Agnew went to jail. Rocky had a bellyful, and spent his final years with his stamp collection. Dole missed a turn because Bush screwed him over. For some reason Quayle never got any traction. Funny about that. Dole finally got his turn. I'm sure it pleased him. Kemp doesn't even come to Bills old-timer games anymore. I'm not sure why Cheney hasn't had martial law declared. My hunch is that he will retire to a palace in Saudi Arabia where he will be attended by an army of eunuchs.
Monday, April 07, 2008
The hilarious part about a McCain-Rice ticket is that it would make sense in terms of their policy goals. Those policies are demonstrably disastrous, and unpopular to boot, but that really wouldn't be the point, would it?
It seems to me that the notion that this tandem would have cross-over racial appeal is off the mark, although I suppose if HRC somehow got the nomination she'd really only have one option to fill out her ticket.
Back to the GOP, though. The entire strength of McCain-Rice would be on foreign policy. McCain admits he doesn't know anything about economic policy, and Condy has no background in it either. It seems to me that the economy is the big unresolved issue in this election, isn't it? I mean, we've figured out the war (Bad idea. We hate it.)This pairing essentially amounts to saying, hey, you 22% of the electorate that still likes the way W and Cheney have things set up, here's your chance to get 4 more years! I don't see that as a big selling point.
It seems to me that the notion that this tandem would have cross-over racial appeal is off the mark, although I suppose if HRC somehow got the nomination she'd really only have one option to fill out her ticket.
Back to the GOP, though. The entire strength of McCain-Rice would be on foreign policy. McCain admits he doesn't know anything about economic policy, and Condy has no background in it either. It seems to me that the economy is the big unresolved issue in this election, isn't it? I mean, we've figured out the war (Bad idea. We hate it.)This pairing essentially amounts to saying, hey, you 22% of the electorate that still likes the way W and Cheney have things set up, here's your chance to get 4 more years! I don't see that as a big selling point.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Should I feel bad about thinking of John Edwards as the white Jessie Jackson? I suppose I should. For all his grandstanding over the years, the Rev. has a genuine track record. He's walked the walk, and accomplished way more than Edwards, and I say that as someone who completely buys into the notion that plaintiff's lawyers really do fight for victims rights, and work for greater economic justice. Edwards, I'm afraid, for all that I believe in his sincerity about the dislocations in American society, has a long way to go before he can seriously claim to be a genuine social crusader. I hope that the fact that he is now finished as a national candidate won't finish him as an advocate for the poor. If we don't see him swinging a hammer for Habitat sometime soon in the coming months we'll have our answer.
And speaking of former VP candidates, although Holy Joe makes a certain amount of sense as a McCain pick, I don't think it will happen. McCain might well ask; his other choices all seem pretty unpalatable, for one reason or another. You have to wonder who McCain's friends are, don't you? Kerry liked him well enough, but who else does? Lieberman seems like he'd be a natural, but Lieberman is just for Lieberman, and he knows that it'd be curtains for him if he jumped ship and lost. He has no interest in being a member of the minority party; and the Democrats, even though they are spineless curs, wouldn't invite him to their reindeer games any more. Lieberman probably thinks of himself as a good pick for Secretary of State, but he'll keep the GOP at arm's length until after the election.
And speaking of former VP candidates, although Holy Joe makes a certain amount of sense as a McCain pick, I don't think it will happen. McCain might well ask; his other choices all seem pretty unpalatable, for one reason or another. You have to wonder who McCain's friends are, don't you? Kerry liked him well enough, but who else does? Lieberman seems like he'd be a natural, but Lieberman is just for Lieberman, and he knows that it'd be curtains for him if he jumped ship and lost. He has no interest in being a member of the minority party; and the Democrats, even though they are spineless curs, wouldn't invite him to their reindeer games any more. Lieberman probably thinks of himself as a good pick for Secretary of State, but he'll keep the GOP at arm's length until after the election.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Usually losing Republican VP nominees fade back into the woodwork. Dan Quayle floated the idea of running for the top spot, but was laughed down; Jack Kemp's run was his last hurrah, and I assume that Dick Cheney is busily curating his art collection in his secret base in the extinct volcano. There was that lady from Alaska-- what ever happened to her? Getting the Democrat nod for the #2 spot gets you taken more seriously. John Edwards, saints preserve us, would have been the favorite in any other year.
Usually Republicans go with the runner up the next cycle. Bush beat McCain, McCain beat Mittens-- they are Royalists at heart. It won't go that way next time, though. The Republican standing this time was Newt, wasn't he? That's not happening again. Paul Ryan isn't going to go away though. I wonder if he might make a run at it. If memory serves the last sitting Congressman to be elected President was James Garfield. My hunch is that Ryan will bide his time. He is young enough to wait a few cycles, and his House seat is about as safe as possible. He's never had a job outside of government, and although his family is well-off he doesn't have a personal fortune.
Usually Republicans go with the runner up the next cycle. Bush beat McCain, McCain beat Mittens-- they are Royalists at heart. It won't go that way next time, though. The Republican standing this time was Newt, wasn't he? That's not happening again. Paul Ryan isn't going to go away though. I wonder if he might make a run at it. If memory serves the last sitting Congressman to be elected President was James Garfield. My hunch is that Ryan will bide his time. He is young enough to wait a few cycles, and his House seat is about as safe as possible. He's never had a job outside of government, and although his family is well-off he doesn't have a personal fortune.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Here's my question: how come Tim Russert doesn't ask questions like this? If they'd let the kids ask follow-up questions, we'd really be getting somewhere.
What is kind of galling, actually, is that CNN plays this story for cute laughs, rather than for what it is. McCain totally ducks the question about age, and although I suppose he should get some sort of credit for being candid about his bigotry, he isn't actually. "I appreciate your views," in this context means the same thing as, "With all due respect."
And what about this? "I was the only one of the major Republican candidates who adamantly, vociferously opposed the [former Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld strategy and fought hard for the strategy [of using more troops] that we're employing today," he told reporters. "The others thought it was fine. That's because they don't have the knowledge or background and experience that I do on issues of national security. That's a clear indication of it." First of all, I have never been exactly clear on what being a prisoner of war has to do with foreign policy expertise. Did they have a library there where he could study? Beyond that, is he seriously arguing that things are swell in Iraq? Because that is not the morning news I'm hearing.
Seriously, is McCain really going to run on a platform that amounts to four more years of the same? Because I am loving that strategy.
What is kind of galling, actually, is that CNN plays this story for cute laughs, rather than for what it is. McCain totally ducks the question about age, and although I suppose he should get some sort of credit for being candid about his bigotry, he isn't actually. "I appreciate your views," in this context means the same thing as, "With all due respect."
And what about this? "I was the only one of the major Republican candidates who adamantly, vociferously opposed the [former Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld strategy and fought hard for the strategy [of using more troops] that we're employing today," he told reporters. "The others thought it was fine. That's because they don't have the knowledge or background and experience that I do on issues of national security. That's a clear indication of it." First of all, I have never been exactly clear on what being a prisoner of war has to do with foreign policy expertise. Did they have a library there where he could study? Beyond that, is he seriously arguing that things are swell in Iraq? Because that is not the morning news I'm hearing.
Seriously, is McCain really going to run on a platform that amounts to four more years of the same? Because I am loving that strategy.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
This is the sort of toy I have wanted on election nights my entire life.
I really thought Obama had a better shot at New York than it turned out, but California didn't surprise me. Missouri is an interesting development-- I think he's got a long road, but I like his chances in Maryland and Wisconsin. Meanwhile, on the Red side of the dial, Huckabee continues to be patronized, and continues to roll along. He swept the South, which makes him a lot more important than anyone is admitting, and on the NBC News interview that I saw he was both feisty and charming. The media (like, for instance, the odious Tim Russert) act like Huck is McCain's sidekick, but I still think he has more potential. Mittens is all but out of the running, having demonstrated once more the counter-intuitive truth that money isn't what gets you the Republican nomination. I thought it was interesting that one of the talking heads said that McCain the Maverick (how conservative do you have to be to make these people happy?) should reach out to Phil Gramm in order to start mending fences. Phil Gramm knew how to throw it around like a drunken sailor, and seems to me to therefore be a more natural Romney ally.
I really thought Obama had a better shot at New York than it turned out, but California didn't surprise me. Missouri is an interesting development-- I think he's got a long road, but I like his chances in Maryland and Wisconsin. Meanwhile, on the Red side of the dial, Huckabee continues to be patronized, and continues to roll along. He swept the South, which makes him a lot more important than anyone is admitting, and on the NBC News interview that I saw he was both feisty and charming. The media (like, for instance, the odious Tim Russert) act like Huck is McCain's sidekick, but I still think he has more potential. Mittens is all but out of the running, having demonstrated once more the counter-intuitive truth that money isn't what gets you the Republican nomination. I thought it was interesting that one of the talking heads said that McCain the Maverick (how conservative do you have to be to make these people happy?) should reach out to Phil Gramm in order to start mending fences. Phil Gramm knew how to throw it around like a drunken sailor, and seems to me to therefore be a more natural Romney ally.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Joe Biden proves his worth. This campaign is smart, I'm telling you. Obama stays the course, he keeps it classy, and they stay on message. I'm no kind of Biden fan-- I think he is Exhibit A in how the Senate can turn a right thinking cat into a glad-handing pile of fluff. (McCain is on that exhibit list too.) Here, however, he keeps the discussion centered. He doesn't fall for the trap, he doesn't make it about personalities. If they can keep doing this it will work, because there is a limit to how far the stuff McCain/Palin will work.
Friday, September 26, 2008
It is difficult or me to imagine McCain being particularly coherent on the intricacies of the "bailout"-- I doubt that he has a very good grasp of the subject, and I suspect that he may well have blown it up as a deliberate ploy to avoid having to discuss it in anything more than soundbite depth.
Actually, I'd like to see anyone discuss this catastrophe in anything more than soundbite depth. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank have always impressed me as honest, hardworking, well-intentioned and intelligent, but they aren't economists. Neither is Dick Shelby, who has never impressed me as possessing any of the traits I just mentioned, except arguably intelligence. Arguably. I'd like some process here. I'd like to see some hearings, and if there is going to be a discussion in a room, I want to be able to watch it. I want it on the record, I want debates, and I want to get the sense that there is some sort of intelligent plan. We all know -- and yes, I'm looking at you, New York's Senate delegation-- what happened the last time you wrote this administration a blank check. Apparently Bush is irrelevant to this process-- whatever plan is settled upon will have to be passed by a veto-proof majority, because the sense I am getting is that the country isn't prepared to just take the Administration's word any more. 'Bout time. It is difficult to imagine a more thorough shambles than what we are looking at.
As for McCain, what we are seeing here, my friends, is a candidate who refuses to lose a war to win the Presidency, but will stop short of little else if that's what it takes. I've never liked his politics, but now we are learning that he is a despicable person as well.
A wants to move to Canada. I've always fancied the Netherlands. Or maybe Finland.
Actually, I'd like to see anyone discuss this catastrophe in anything more than soundbite depth. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank have always impressed me as honest, hardworking, well-intentioned and intelligent, but they aren't economists. Neither is Dick Shelby, who has never impressed me as possessing any of the traits I just mentioned, except arguably intelligence. Arguably. I'd like some process here. I'd like to see some hearings, and if there is going to be a discussion in a room, I want to be able to watch it. I want it on the record, I want debates, and I want to get the sense that there is some sort of intelligent plan. We all know -- and yes, I'm looking at you, New York's Senate delegation-- what happened the last time you wrote this administration a blank check. Apparently Bush is irrelevant to this process-- whatever plan is settled upon will have to be passed by a veto-proof majority, because the sense I am getting is that the country isn't prepared to just take the Administration's word any more. 'Bout time. It is difficult to imagine a more thorough shambles than what we are looking at.
As for McCain, what we are seeing here, my friends, is a candidate who refuses to lose a war to win the Presidency, but will stop short of little else if that's what it takes. I've never liked his politics, but now we are learning that he is a despicable person as well.
A wants to move to Canada. I've always fancied the Netherlands. Or maybe Finland.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Matt Taibbi's profile of Rudy Giuliani pretty much nails the guy: "New Yorkers had come to think of him as an ambition-sick meanie whose personal scandals were truly wearying to think about." The funny thing is that since this piece is in Rolling Stone we pretty much know that the rest of America doesn't think this way. Really, when was the last time that Rolling Stone called it right? You can't deny the insight: going back to Hunter Thompson and Tim Crouse the magazine has gotten it consistently right, while more mainstream slicks like Newsweek and its ilk have served up piffle that has suggested, inter alia, notions like "George W. Bush and Al Gore are essentially interchangeable". Count on it, if Giuliani gets the nomination you won't be seeing insights like Taibbi's reported anywhere in the New York Times. Right now I doubt that Rudy will prevail-- I am inclined to agree with Tom Negrino: "Republicans are royalists at heart, and they always nominate the guy whose turn it is. McCain's having a rough patch now, but as people and donors get a clearer view of Rudy and Mitt's flaws, they'll anoint McCain."
By the way, we caught a little of the Democratic candidates debate last night. Hillary seemed to be coming off quite well-- warm and funny, serious and smart. I liked Mike Gravel, too, because I always like the guy who is most hilariously doomed. Richardson has seemed like a good concept for a while, but I hadn't seen him in action-- turns out his style is simply awful. He has no shot. Biden is a moron, but we knew that. Obama and Edwards are both personally appealing, but need work. If I were handicapping based on what I saw I'd say it is Senator Clinton's to lose, but we aren't even at the Wood Memorial stage yet.
By the way, we caught a little of the Democratic candidates debate last night. Hillary seemed to be coming off quite well-- warm and funny, serious and smart. I liked Mike Gravel, too, because I always like the guy who is most hilariously doomed. Richardson has seemed like a good concept for a while, but I hadn't seen him in action-- turns out his style is simply awful. He has no shot. Biden is a moron, but we knew that. Obama and Edwards are both personally appealing, but need work. If I were handicapping based on what I saw I'd say it is Senator Clinton's to lose, but we aren't even at the Wood Memorial stage yet.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Is the 47% the end of Mittens campaign? Probably not: the world is full of chumps, and as Lance Mannion points out there are plenty of people who will vote Republican because they want to identify with rich people, even though they are not and never will be rich themselves. This sort of magical thinking is, I think, why a lot of people buy lottery tickets. On the other hand, have a look at the map to the right, which shows the states with the highest and lowest percentage of people who don’t file income tax returns.
From a purely political science perspective I think we can say that this episode has probably edged Florida (29 electoral votes) into the Blue Zone. Mittens has already written off Michigan (16) and Pennsylvania (20). Call it a hunch, but I think Ohio (18) is going Obama. That's 83 electoral votes. Romney will probably swing Indiana (11) and Missouri (10) back into the Red column, although neither is a lock: Todd Akin on the ballot in the latter has gotta motivate some Democratic voters, and Indiana might realize that the automobile industry is an important part of its economy. I think Obama may have the ground game to carry North Carolina (15)-- that's why they had the convention there, after all. Nevada (6) is almost certainly Blue.
My point is that even though this had the look of a close race, I'm not sure where Romney expects to gain ground. McCain's campaign was incompetent: I think McCain's strategy was to rely on his perceived charisma. Romney, I think, has thought that being a technocrat would carry the day, but he hasn't run as a capable manager-- he has been busily demonstrating that he is anything but. I'm not sure what he will look like in the debates. I have a hunch that he will look like the Audio-Animatronic character that stood on the podium during the Republican debates. That's unlikely to motivate anyone. Friday, August 29, 2008
Governor Palin is only slightly more qualified to be President of the United States than my mom. TCA is a restless soul, and when she and my father retired to the Tarheel State she got the itch and went into politics. She was a town council member and then mayor of a town more or less the size of Wasilla, and there was talk at one point of a run for Congress. She passed on that, since it wasn't really consistent with being retired, but there it is. An accident of history, if you will. A Vogue cover and a matter of a few years and it could have been my mom standing there being leered at by John McCain. Of course, my mom's a Democrat, so there's that too. I don't know much more about Governor Palin than anyone else outside of the 49th State, but I'm pretty sure I'd prefer my mom's platform. This selection really makes me wonder at the cynicism of the Republican party. I suppose it might work-- but I don't think it will. HRC's supporters didn't want just any woman-- they wanted HRC. In the Comments at Lawyers, Guns & Money someone said: "This is all about short-term control of the news cycle, stepping on the Obama speech. This is a tactical choice, not a strategic one. This isn't answering the Biden pick, this is answering the positive press on yesterday's speech.
"This is actually a pretty good window into what a McCain presidency would be like--short term fixes, lurching from crisis to crisis, totally misanalyzing problems and proposing bogus but flashy solutions that don't actually work."
I think that pretty much nails it, and I think there might be a backlash because the pick is so nakedly manipulative.
On the other hand, people are chumps. I have to keep reminding myself of this. Obama is running a campaign for grown-ups, and we've seen that fail time and again. Every four years I think about the SNL Bush-Dukakis Debate. "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy". It speaks volumes about the decline of public discourse that Bush pere now looks coherent, let alone like a statesman.
I'm sure Governor Palin is a lot of things. She seems articulate, and I imagine she is quite a bit more honest than the usual Alaska Republican, admittedly a low bar. On the other hand, the fact that she can stand there and accept this nomination without blushing is troubling. She is probably a lot closer in her beliefs to mainstream America than I am, and that's the most troubling thing of all. I take back saying that she is more qualified than my mom-- TCA would be a far better candidate.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Isn't it interesting that this year the Presidential race has such a Western orientation? McCain, of course, even though he isn't really of Arizona (born in the Canal Zone, a military brat who went to Episcopal High School in Alexandria and Annapolis for college. (In a way McCain is really more from the DC area than anywhere else. Cindy talks about being a single parent, which doesn't sound like he spends all that much time in the Grand Canyon State.) Palin is from the ultimate Western State-- Alaska is more Texas than Texas. And despite what Cokie Roberts says, Hawaii is likewise a Western State. This has happened before-- LBJ and Goldwater spring to mind-- but it still seems to say something about the frontier in the American mythos.
