Stop me if you've heard this one before.
An Arizona Republican senator runs for President and gets trounced, leading to internal bickering and backbiting that seems to guarantee the party is headed for entrenched backbencher status.
While that may seem to describe the current state of political affairs given Barrack Obama's electoral landslide over Republican John McCain, longtime GOP faithful could be excused for having a certain sense of deja vu.
In 1964 Lyndon Johnson crushed the bid of Sen. Barry Goldwater, of Arizona that had many debating the demise of the Grand Old Party. But within four years - thanks in a large measure to the Vietnam War and, to a smaller degree, the third-party candidacy of George Wallace - Nixon retook the White House for Republicans, ushering in a generation of GOP domination of the Oval Office, with the exception of the Watergate-fueled one term presidency of Jimmy Carter.
Obama's win did not approach Johnson's landslide, but was convincing. Although he "only" won by about 8 million votes out of 125 million cast (Johnson beat Goldwater by 16 million votes with only 70 million cast) Obama piled up a convincing 365-173 electoral victory (giving McCain Missouri's 11 electoral votes, though that state has yet to be officially declared).
Four years is several lifetimes in politics, as witnessed by the period between Johnson's 1964 drubbing of Goldwater to 1968's Nixonian comback. Then witness the tectonic change from 1972 - when Nixon piled up a 520-17 electoral victory over Democrat George McGovern, winning by 18 million votes - to 1974, when Nixon was forced to resign from office in disgrace after the Watergatge coverup.
So all those Republicans beating themselves up right now over the future direction of the party need only look backwards to see what "could be" again.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Winning is everything
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
And with national polls unaimously and dramatically indicating that the electorate is moving in droves towards Democratic candidate Barrack Obama, the John McCain campaign has begun to resemble the Titanic in its last throes.
Earlier this year McCain vowed to run a clean campaign on the issues. And you know something? I believe he meant it - at the time. But with his poll numbers plummeting and time running out I am sure McCain's political strategy team convinced him that the only way to reverse this trend is to go negative.
So we get Sarah Palin trotting out the sorry line that Obama was palling around with terrorists, as if Obama was in the room 40 years ago when Bill Ayers was plotting against the government as a member of the renegade Weathermen. Never mind that, as has been reported ad nauseum, the two served together on some education study panels and Ayers did throw a fundraiser for Obama during his first state legisaltive run, but there has been no evidence the two ever tipped any Iron City beers together.
We get Cindy McCain saying it sent chills through her when she found out Obama voted against funding for the Iraq War when her son was over there. Never mind that Obama's vote was against a bill that did not have a timetable for withdrawing the troops. Never mind that Sen. McCain also voted against legislation funding the war because it DID have a withdrawal timetable in it. Never mind that when the vote occured Cindy McCain probably didn't know Barrack Obama from Jack Reed.
We get the local pols introducing McCain at local rallies referring to Obama by emphasizing the candidate's middle name "Barrack Hussein Obama" as if that is the clinching evidence that he's a Muslim. Never mind that it has been well-documented that Obama is and always has been a Christian.
What is more disturbing about these campaign rallies is the audience response. Written and filmed accounts indicate the audience is stirred into a hateful frenzy, calling Obama "a bum," "a terrorist," and, at one Florida rally, an exhortation to "kill him."
Yeah, this is real presidential. This is bringing the country together.
Righteously indignant McCain supporters are going to boil over that it's a legitimate discussion of character. That these tactics (or is it a strategy?) are important to show the true measure of the man. And, of course, at the same time, they will dismiss their candidate's actions, as part of the Keating Five, in the S&L loan crisis.
They will say, "Obama does it, too." But the Democrats didn't raise the Keating Five issue - although it's a legitimate issue of McCain's legislative record - until after the GOP raised the Ayers issue. And no Democrats are using similar perjorative terms to describe the Republican candidate. You don't see bloodlust permeating the crowds at Democratic rallies.
No, this is the sad, sad show of a campaign that feels its chances of winning slip-sliding away and is willing to literally do and say anything to get that brass ring. And it unfairly tarnishes the patriotism of a respected man. Is this really how John McCain wants to be remembered after his inspirational military service and nearly three decades of public service?
When you're willing to call a presidential candidate dangerous your appeal is to those even below the lowest common demoninator. And who knows where that will lead?
And with national polls unaimously and dramatically indicating that the electorate is moving in droves towards Democratic candidate Barrack Obama, the John McCain campaign has begun to resemble the Titanic in its last throes.
Earlier this year McCain vowed to run a clean campaign on the issues. And you know something? I believe he meant it - at the time. But with his poll numbers plummeting and time running out I am sure McCain's political strategy team convinced him that the only way to reverse this trend is to go negative.
So we get Sarah Palin trotting out the sorry line that Obama was palling around with terrorists, as if Obama was in the room 40 years ago when Bill Ayers was plotting against the government as a member of the renegade Weathermen. Never mind that, as has been reported ad nauseum, the two served together on some education study panels and Ayers did throw a fundraiser for Obama during his first state legisaltive run, but there has been no evidence the two ever tipped any Iron City beers together.
We get Cindy McCain saying it sent chills through her when she found out Obama voted against funding for the Iraq War when her son was over there. Never mind that Obama's vote was against a bill that did not have a timetable for withdrawing the troops. Never mind that Sen. McCain also voted against legislation funding the war because it DID have a withdrawal timetable in it. Never mind that when the vote occured Cindy McCain probably didn't know Barrack Obama from Jack Reed.
We get the local pols introducing McCain at local rallies referring to Obama by emphasizing the candidate's middle name "Barrack Hussein Obama" as if that is the clinching evidence that he's a Muslim. Never mind that it has been well-documented that Obama is and always has been a Christian.
What is more disturbing about these campaign rallies is the audience response. Written and filmed accounts indicate the audience is stirred into a hateful frenzy, calling Obama "a bum," "a terrorist," and, at one Florida rally, an exhortation to "kill him."
Yeah, this is real presidential. This is bringing the country together.
Righteously indignant McCain supporters are going to boil over that it's a legitimate discussion of character. That these tactics (or is it a strategy?) are important to show the true measure of the man. And, of course, at the same time, they will dismiss their candidate's actions, as part of the Keating Five, in the S&L loan crisis.
They will say, "Obama does it, too." But the Democrats didn't raise the Keating Five issue - although it's a legitimate issue of McCain's legislative record - until after the GOP raised the Ayers issue. And no Democrats are using similar perjorative terms to describe the Republican candidate. You don't see bloodlust permeating the crowds at Democratic rallies.
No, this is the sad, sad show of a campaign that feels its chances of winning slip-sliding away and is willing to literally do and say anything to get that brass ring. And it unfairly tarnishes the patriotism of a respected man. Is this really how John McCain wants to be remembered after his inspirational military service and nearly three decades of public service?
When you're willing to call a presidential candidate dangerous your appeal is to those even below the lowest common demoninator. And who knows where that will lead?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Bailing out on America
So, the House of Representatives failed to get the job done Monday. And now its time to engage in the great American sport of finger-pointing.
Make no mistake. It wasn't a party-line vote. Democrats and Republicans alike bailed on the plan. But it's always fun to watch the hysteria after something like this. And, as usual, you can trust Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., to inject some humor into it all.
In remarks before the vote Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi blamed the economic policies of the Bush administration for the mess. Some Republicans said it was that partisan blast - Imagine! Partisan broadsides during an election year! - that prompted some to vote against the plan.
With his sharp wit, Frank burst that bubble.
"Somebody hurt my feelings so I'll punish the country," Frank said in a derisive blast at those Republicans.
Just as bad, many lawmakers fearing a voter backlash in an election year - Democrats and Republicans alike - ran for cover. Not exactly profiles in courage.
And then there's John McCain. Feeling his presidential chances slip sliding away, the Republican nominee was quick to blame the "partisan attacks" of Barrack Obama and his Democratic colleagues in Congress.
Never mind that it was run-and-gun McCain who tried to hijack the issue into the presidential race when he "suspended" his campaign to work on the deal. Turned out to be one of those bad "tactics" - or was that a bad strategy? Anyway the Pander Bear tried to play white knight by calling for the presidential confab on the bailout plan, which, according to reports, was extremely and unusually divisive. Then he tried to rally fellow Republicans around the bailout - another bad tactic apparently.
And when all this fails and it looks like McCain is going to take another political hit, he rushes to blame Obama, who, unlike his Republican opponent, has maintained a measured approach to the issue.
I don't like the idea that we all have to help clean up the mess left behind by the Needy Greedy Dirt Band, but the mess has got to be cleaned up. Once it is then we can go after those that caused it. But the economy is tanking and, before it gets out of control, it's got to be stabilized. The credit market is already feeling the pinch and Joe Sixpack will feel it soon enough if he can't get a home or car loan or a home equity loan or the interest rates on those loans go through the roof.
If you find out your child has driven your car on to the edge of a cliff and it's teetering, about ready to plunge over, it's probably better to rescue the car first and then sort out the blame later.
Make no mistake. It wasn't a party-line vote. Democrats and Republicans alike bailed on the plan. But it's always fun to watch the hysteria after something like this. And, as usual, you can trust Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., to inject some humor into it all.
In remarks before the vote Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi blamed the economic policies of the Bush administration for the mess. Some Republicans said it was that partisan blast - Imagine! Partisan broadsides during an election year! - that prompted some to vote against the plan.
With his sharp wit, Frank burst that bubble.
"Somebody hurt my feelings so I'll punish the country," Frank said in a derisive blast at those Republicans.
Just as bad, many lawmakers fearing a voter backlash in an election year - Democrats and Republicans alike - ran for cover. Not exactly profiles in courage.
And then there's John McCain. Feeling his presidential chances slip sliding away, the Republican nominee was quick to blame the "partisan attacks" of Barrack Obama and his Democratic colleagues in Congress.
Never mind that it was run-and-gun McCain who tried to hijack the issue into the presidential race when he "suspended" his campaign to work on the deal. Turned out to be one of those bad "tactics" - or was that a bad strategy? Anyway the Pander Bear tried to play white knight by calling for the presidential confab on the bailout plan, which, according to reports, was extremely and unusually divisive. Then he tried to rally fellow Republicans around the bailout - another bad tactic apparently.
And when all this fails and it looks like McCain is going to take another political hit, he rushes to blame Obama, who, unlike his Republican opponent, has maintained a measured approach to the issue.
I don't like the idea that we all have to help clean up the mess left behind by the Needy Greedy Dirt Band, but the mess has got to be cleaned up. Once it is then we can go after those that caused it. But the economy is tanking and, before it gets out of control, it's got to be stabilized. The credit market is already feeling the pinch and Joe Sixpack will feel it soon enough if he can't get a home or car loan or a home equity loan or the interest rates on those loans go through the roof.
If you find out your child has driven your car on to the edge of a cliff and it's teetering, about ready to plunge over, it's probably better to rescue the car first and then sort out the blame later.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Desperation samba
Well, so much for John "Pander Bear" McCain's vow to distance himself from the history of Republican attack campaigning.
In a page right out of the Karl Rove playbook, the McCain camp has been vigorously attacking Democratic candidate Barrack Obama for cancelling a visit to wounded troops in Germany. The McCain version is that Obama did so because base officials refused to allow reporters to accompany him on the visit. The Obama camp has denied that, but how is a voter to know who's telling the truth here?
Well, now comes a Washington Post report http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902286.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter that, in fact, base commanders were uncomfortable with Obama foreign policy advisor, retired Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, accompanying the candidate. Gration's presence might make it seem like a campaign event, the commanders felt.
There is no evidence that Obama cancelled the event because reporters could not accompany him.
But, confronted with this evidence, the McCain camp remains unapologetic. Seems like a sign of desperation to me.
In a page right out of the Karl Rove playbook, the McCain camp has been vigorously attacking Democratic candidate Barrack Obama for cancelling a visit to wounded troops in Germany. The McCain version is that Obama did so because base officials refused to allow reporters to accompany him on the visit. The Obama camp has denied that, but how is a voter to know who's telling the truth here?
Well, now comes a Washington Post report http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902286.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter that, in fact, base commanders were uncomfortable with Obama foreign policy advisor, retired Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, accompanying the candidate. Gration's presence might make it seem like a campaign event, the commanders felt.
There is no evidence that Obama cancelled the event because reporters could not accompany him.
But, confronted with this evidence, the McCain camp remains unapologetic. Seems like a sign of desperation to me.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Gays in the military
You know, I'm beginning to think that don't-ask-don't-tell should be a policy for the ignorant. But, then again, if you're ignorant it stands to reason you don't know you're ignorant, so you wouldn't be asking and how could you tell?
Well, it's pretty easy for most people to tell and it's apparent that some of the military establishment simply refuses to leave the past on the issue of gays and lesbians serving their country.
Recently a study panel made up of four retired military officers, including one who worked with President Clinton on implementing the don't-ask-don't-tell policy, determined that the presence of gays and lesbians in the service would not detract from the military's ability to do its job. Apparently the panel found no loss of discipline within the British and Israeli armed forces although gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly in both.
But the military establishment may be on to something when they insist it is different in America. Methinks the difference is that there is more intolerance here.
I can recall the debate leading up to the 1995 enactment of the Rhode Island law prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals in the areas of housing, credit, employment and public accomodations. The law simply said you can't refuse to rent or sell a house, deny credit, refuse to hire or refuse to allow someone in a restaurant or public museum simply because of their sexual orientation. But if you listened to that debate you'd have thought passage of the law was going to be the death knell of our society. Now, 13 years later, I can't say as I've ever heard of one complaint about that law and, despite the best intentions of the Bush administration to put us on the road to economic ruin, our society seems to be faring well.
I recall writing a column before the law passed saying, in time, people would look back and say "What was all the fuss about?" I think that has pretty much come to pass. My guess is that eventually the American military establishment will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century - although it might take until the 22nd century for that to happen - and realize that any able bodied man or woman who wants to serve their country should be allowed to do it no matter their sexual orientation.
Forcing them to keep their orientation secret only plays into the intolerance and hatred of those who seek to keep them under the establishment's thumb. I, for one, choose to be on the side of inclusion and against bigotry.
Well, it's pretty easy for most people to tell and it's apparent that some of the military establishment simply refuses to leave the past on the issue of gays and lesbians serving their country.
Recently a study panel made up of four retired military officers, including one who worked with President Clinton on implementing the don't-ask-don't-tell policy, determined that the presence of gays and lesbians in the service would not detract from the military's ability to do its job. Apparently the panel found no loss of discipline within the British and Israeli armed forces although gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly in both.
But the military establishment may be on to something when they insist it is different in America. Methinks the difference is that there is more intolerance here.
I can recall the debate leading up to the 1995 enactment of the Rhode Island law prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals in the areas of housing, credit, employment and public accomodations. The law simply said you can't refuse to rent or sell a house, deny credit, refuse to hire or refuse to allow someone in a restaurant or public museum simply because of their sexual orientation. But if you listened to that debate you'd have thought passage of the law was going to be the death knell of our society. Now, 13 years later, I can't say as I've ever heard of one complaint about that law and, despite the best intentions of the Bush administration to put us on the road to economic ruin, our society seems to be faring well.
I recall writing a column before the law passed saying, in time, people would look back and say "What was all the fuss about?" I think that has pretty much come to pass. My guess is that eventually the American military establishment will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century - although it might take until the 22nd century for that to happen - and realize that any able bodied man or woman who wants to serve their country should be allowed to do it no matter their sexual orientation.
Forcing them to keep their orientation secret only plays into the intolerance and hatred of those who seek to keep them under the establishment's thumb. I, for one, choose to be on the side of inclusion and against bigotry.
Only we know what's good for you
The Bush administration is intent on going out feet kicking. The audacity of their recent stance regarding withdrawal from Iraq is nearly unmatched.
Now even though a great many people in our own country would like to see some sort of withdrawal timetable, it's understandable that the Bushies continue their tunnel-vision thinking on the issue. It is their contention that a timetable would enable the insurgents, who would then bide their time and jump out of the bushes (no pun intended) once American forces left town. That's debateable, but at least they're being consistent.
But it's unconscionable when they refuse to comply with the Iraqi government request for some type of timetable. The Iraqis have insisted they will not sign any agreement about the future use of US troops in Iraq unless it includes a timetable for withdrawal. The Americans insist that issue is not on the table. That's funny. I read that both the Iraqi prime minister and the national security advisor had raised the issue.
Apparently the Bush administration chooses to treat the Iraqi government as some sort of unruly child who doesn't really know what's good for them.
I was under the impression that the war was, in part (although maybe just in small part) to set up a democratic government there. Now that the country does have its own government in place, apparently we don't care what they think.
But, again, that is just the Bush administration being consistent.
Now even though a great many people in our own country would like to see some sort of withdrawal timetable, it's understandable that the Bushies continue their tunnel-vision thinking on the issue. It is their contention that a timetable would enable the insurgents, who would then bide their time and jump out of the bushes (no pun intended) once American forces left town. That's debateable, but at least they're being consistent.
But it's unconscionable when they refuse to comply with the Iraqi government request for some type of timetable. The Iraqis have insisted they will not sign any agreement about the future use of US troops in Iraq unless it includes a timetable for withdrawal. The Americans insist that issue is not on the table. That's funny. I read that both the Iraqi prime minister and the national security advisor had raised the issue.
Apparently the Bush administration chooses to treat the Iraqi government as some sort of unruly child who doesn't really know what's good for them.
I was under the impression that the war was, in part (although maybe just in small part) to set up a democratic government there. Now that the country does have its own government in place, apparently we don't care what they think.
But, again, that is just the Bush administration being consistent.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Just win, baby
This is why Republicans are so successful nationally. As a group they are definitely of the Al Davis school of thinking. The Oakland Raiders head honcho is credited with coining the phrase "Just win, baby," when asked why he took so many chances on players other organizations had cut loose because of their wayward ways.
Unlike Democrats, Republicans have their primary squabbles, but usually close ranks once that battle has been fought. Witness the Reagan-Bush battle in 1980 or the Bush-McCain tussle in 2000. Republican voters know that, in their world, whoever wins that primary will be preferable to the Democratic candidate.
Democrats, for some reason, aren't as successful in patching up their differences. Apparently they are too sensitive for the rough-and-tumble of political races. Witness the ongoing enmity between Obama and Clinton supporters. Sure there were some rough patches during that bruising primary. Each side did what it thought best to win. That battle has been fought and it's over. Now is the time for Democratic voters to look at the battle ahead. The only question should be: How does Obama win in November?
One way not to win is to keep fighting the primary battle. A New York Times article today portrayed many Democratic supporters as whining, grudge-holding babies. When one Obama supporter was asked about donating to help Clinton retire her debt one said, "Not a penny for that woman or her husband." Another said, "Why would I help pay off debts that Hillary amassed simply to keep damaging Sen. Obama?"
Well, one reason might be to help win in November. If they think Clinton dumped on their candidate wait until they see what Republicans have in store for them this fall. Helping restore harmony will heal wounds and help attain the ultimate goal - the White House.
Clinton supporters are no better, crying sexism as the reason their candidate lost, and threatening to jump to the McCain camp. Besides being a crock, the charge only perpetuates the antagonism between the two camps and increases the liklihood of another four years of Republican White House rule and 30 to 40 years or conservative dogma eminating from the Supreme Court.
And if there ever was an election where tDemocrats need to take a tip from the Al Davis playbook it's this year.
Unlike Democrats, Republicans have their primary squabbles, but usually close ranks once that battle has been fought. Witness the Reagan-Bush battle in 1980 or the Bush-McCain tussle in 2000. Republican voters know that, in their world, whoever wins that primary will be preferable to the Democratic candidate.
Democrats, for some reason, aren't as successful in patching up their differences. Apparently they are too sensitive for the rough-and-tumble of political races. Witness the ongoing enmity between Obama and Clinton supporters. Sure there were some rough patches during that bruising primary. Each side did what it thought best to win. That battle has been fought and it's over. Now is the time for Democratic voters to look at the battle ahead. The only question should be: How does Obama win in November?
One way not to win is to keep fighting the primary battle. A New York Times article today portrayed many Democratic supporters as whining, grudge-holding babies. When one Obama supporter was asked about donating to help Clinton retire her debt one said, "Not a penny for that woman or her husband." Another said, "Why would I help pay off debts that Hillary amassed simply to keep damaging Sen. Obama?"
Well, one reason might be to help win in November. If they think Clinton dumped on their candidate wait until they see what Republicans have in store for them this fall. Helping restore harmony will heal wounds and help attain the ultimate goal - the White House.
Clinton supporters are no better, crying sexism as the reason their candidate lost, and threatening to jump to the McCain camp. Besides being a crock, the charge only perpetuates the antagonism between the two camps and increases the liklihood of another four years of Republican White House rule and 30 to 40 years or conservative dogma eminating from the Supreme Court.
And if there ever was an election where tDemocrats need to take a tip from the Al Davis playbook it's this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
