Monthly Archives: January 2008

Ideologues try to come to grips with McCain’s ‘weakness’

The poor ideologues in the Republican Party — you know, the ones who don’t give a damn who can actually become president, as long as their candidate thinks exactly the way they do about everything — don’t know whether to spit or go blind with John McCain as their presumptive nominee. And I gotta tell ya, I’m loving it. My happiness will be complete once the ANGER faction of the Democratic party is similarly discombobulated by having Barack Obama as their nominee.

Anyway, to see what I’m saying, read The Wall Street Journal. In today’s paper alone, you can read this story:

For the first time in a presidential campaign already a year old, Republicans have a clear front-runner in Arizona Sen. John McCain. By nearly all accounts, he is the candidate many Democrats least want to face, the one who would best remake his party’s battered image and draw independent voters needed to win in November.

But Sen. McCain still confronts a problem both in the remainder of the nomination race, and, if he wins, in the fall: He is simply loathed by many fellow Republicans, often for the very bipartisanship and maverick streak that attracts independents. His biggest, and perhaps final, test comes Tuesday, when 21 states hold contests — most of them open only to Republican voters….

Then there’s this piece, which observes:

All eyes were on Mr. McCain, who after winning three contests in the pivotal states of New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida, is now considered the front-runner. He took his time in the spotlight to blast Wall Street. "There’s some greedy people on Wall Street that perhaps need to be punished," Mr. McCain said in response to a question about how to help people keep their homes and avoid foreclosure.

The emphasis is mine. That’s gotta hurt, if you’re a WSJ kind of guy, coming from the likely GOP nominee. Then there’s this piece about all the big-money guys who just don’t know what to do now:

Rudy Giuliani, the onetime Republican presidential front-runner, retreated from the race and backed John McCain. But Mr. Giuliani’s well-heeled supporters might not throw their money behind the cash-strapped Arizona senator so fast.
    "We haven’t decided what we’re going to do," says T. Boone Pickens, the Dallas tycoon who has raised more than $1 million for Mr. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, since late 2006….

Then you get to the opinion pages, where pundits struggle to understand just why this iconoclast keeps winning:

    John McCain beat Mitt Romney by 5.5 points in New Hampshire and by five again in Florida. Three months ago, Mr. McCain was a 10% cipher in Florida, with no organization and no donors. This week one saw why John McCain is basically five points better than Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani, at the most fundamental job in politics — connecting.
    When Mr. McCain took the stage in Sun City, the applause was polite. When he finished, he got a standing ovation. He has been at this game a long time, and his ability to sense and ride the emotional flow of an audience is astonishing.
    It discomfits some, including me, that Mr. McCain seems like a live, capped volcano. But in front of an audience like this, and before a younger group two days later at the Tampa Convention Center, he stood with that tight, little upper body of coiled electricity and plugged his message of honor, commitment and threat straight into the guts of his listeners….

Finally, one must turn to the oracle itself, the very LEAD EDITORIAL of the hallowed WSJ, under the headline, "McCain’s Apostasies" (I am not making this up!), to learn this:

    Mr. McCain’s great political strength has also long been his main weakness, which is that his political convictions are more personal than ideological. He believes in duty, honor and country more than he does in any specific ideas.
    These personal qualities are genuine political assets, and they are part of his appeal as a potential Commander in Chief. Among other things, they help explain why he held firm on Iraq when the fair-weather hawks lost their resolve. But he is now on the cusp of leading a coalition that also believes in certain principles, and its "footsoldiers" (to borrow a favorite McCain word) need to be convinced that the Senator is enough on their side to warrant enthusiastic support…

You can just see them all thinking, Whaddayagonna DO with a guy who believes in "duty, honor and country" more than he believes in, I don’t know, some worthwhile idea like cutting taxes? How can you trust a guy like that? How can you turn your back on him?

The thing that gets me is that these people are dead serious. They think "duty, honor and country" are all very well and good in a Boy Scout, or a character in a movie or something, but a little bit dangerous in a Leader of the Free World.

I am so glad that for once we’ve got an alternative — and maybe by the time it’s over, two alternatives — to the greedheads on one side who think "Me First and the Gimme-Gimmes" is an "idea," and one to live by, and those on the other side who think what this country needs is somebody to FIGHT with Republicans, as though virtue is thus defined. Thank the Lord for John McCain and Barack Obama.

But can Ah-nold whup Chuck?

Ahnold

N
ow that the GOP nomination has come down to a simple, pedestrian question of whether Mitt Romney canMccain_2008_arnoldwart
spend enough on California TV ads to raise his chance of getting the nomination above snowball-in-hell status (I picture Ritchie Rich just shoveling the cash out of his swimming-pool full — or am I thinking of Scrooge McDuck?), all true, plainspoken, vicariously macho men find themselves wondering the following:

  • Maybe Mike Huckabee’s an also-ran in the pantywaist, artificial world of politics, but in nature, red in tooth and claw, couldn’t Chuck Norris whup Ah-nold without breaking much of a sweat?
  • Why has Jerry "The King" Lawler remained silent, letting Ric Flair hog all the glory?
  • If Gary Cooper were alive, and took on the whole lot of ’em, all by his lonesome (which you know he would if it came right down to it), would he prevail?
  • Is it just me or does Rudy Giuliani, who took on all Five Families and just missed getting whacked by a single vote on the Commission, actually look happier now that he’s given up? And what does that mean for America future, when a quitter is happier than a scrapper? Could Gary Cooper ever have been happy if he’d quit? I don’t reckon so.

Huckabee_2008_norris_wart

A dialogue about Hillary

Hello Mr. Warthen:

    Thank you for your reply. I posted to this effect in response to the blog entry in question, the one along the lines of "Watch Out, Hillary’s in Victim Mode." With all due respect, I feel it was totally unprofessional, snarky and uncalled for. Several others flamed you for it in the comments section, and you replied apologetically, to your credit, to one of them – "redd," I think it was.
    As I said in a second comment, in response to your apology of sorts, I know Mrs. Clinton. I had the pleasure of working on her campaign staff in 1992 on the Clinton-Gore ’92 campaign. She was kind, gracious, courteous and considerate to us several young ‘uns from around the country who had dropped everything to come help her and him. I have seen a side of her you most likely have not. She is not a two-dimensional cartoon villainess. She is a very bright, forceful, intense advocate for the causes in which she believes, and yes, she can be tough as nails. When was the last time that was a fault in a political leader.
    I could go on – but the notion that she is somehow evil and that Obama is pure as the driven snow is a bit much to take. Did you see where he turned his back on her last night, even as she had the good grace to extend a hand in friendship and good grace to Sen. Kennedy, who had just endorsed him? Do you forgive his campaign for fanning the flames of a race war so as to win South Carolina, based on Bill Clinton calling his claims of purity on the Iraq War a "fairy tale"?
    All I am saying is they’re both playing tough, at times dirty political hardball. Neither campaign is peopled with saints. They will, however, either of them, almost certainly do a better job than has Mr. Bush, given the opportunity. Be fair. That’s all. Personal invective of the sort you directed toward her should be beneath someone of your station.
    My two cents.

                            Christopher A. Stratton, Esq.
                            West Hartford, CT

From: Warthen, Brad – External Email
To: Christopher Stratton
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:00 PM
Subject: RE: Who’s the real victim?

    Thanks for going to the trouble to further share your thoughts (mind if I post them?).
    I think if you go back before this past week, you won’t find a whole lot of criticism of Sen. Clinton from me. The closest you’ll find will be my column openly worrying about the fact that a Clinton nomination would worsen polarization in the country. And if you can spot anything "snarky" in that — anything other than what I just said, an expression of concern (my distaste for our nation’s increasing partisan divisions is long-established).
    Over the past week, however, I’ve formed an increasingly negative impression. You can probably track it day by day on my blog. It really got started AFTER our editorial board meeting with Obama. I’ve just been more and more alarmed at the idea of her winning the nomination, and more and more glad we chose Obama.
    Maybe the things I’m reacting to were always there; or maybe it’s stepped up in the past week (which seems to be the conventional wisdom). Or maybe before last week, I was just trying so hard not to choose between them before our meetings that I let a lot of stuff slide. I don’t know. I do know that I’ve taken a different tone the past week, and that it reflects what I’ve been thinking…

Hello Again, Mr. Warthen:
    I very much appreciate your kindly following up on my thoughts and comments, and I respect that your general bent appears to be more deliberative and thoughtful than the taunt against Sen. Clinton which was my introduction to you. And yes, of course, please feel free to post my remarks from the prior e-mail below.
    I think the difficulty here is the translation between the more private, extraordinarily decent Hillary I have seen up close on several occasions and the sometimes over-intense Hillary that comes across in public. I think she may not see herself as the world sees her (as is true for so many of us, but for so few of us does it matter so much as it does for her). She has certain natural tendencies which don’t come off super well before a broad audience. She is a very, very intense figure. She is brilliantly intelligent and passionately committed to her causes. And she has the courage and the confidence of her convictions. And because of the courage and confidence, she ordinarily trusts her natural reactions, which at times are, to put it bluntly, to kick fanny and take names – to vanquish her opponent via sheer intelligence and intensity, in the first instance, and by other means at times as well. This is a role that suited her well as the wife of a major political figure, a sort of enforcer for her husband and an intellectual heavyweight who could also simply outsmart and out-argue dadgum near any foe.
    Now, though, those tendencies can come off as over-intense and scary when she is gunning to be the top dog in our country – and in the world for that matter. I think she may be starting to see that, but she is having to feel her way through this minefield in front of the entire world and is not extraordinarily sure-footed about it, and this has somewhat shaken her confidence – she doesn’t know when to trust her instincts and when not to. Add to that that she is up against an opponent who, sheerly as a stump salesman and presence, has the agility and grace of a lead dancer in the New York City Ballet. (The problem I have with Mr. Obama, whom I admire greatly and sincerely, is not with his talent, it’s with his seasoning, his reliability, his depth of experience and understanding. For me, Hillary is money in the bank on policy, a deeply smart, sensible, practical hand. Oddly enough, it is a bit of a conservative, cautious streak in me that is part of why I am supporting her. Personal loyalty is part of the equation for me, but by no means all.)
    Speaking of personal loyalty, Mr. W, please note that it is no coincidence that so many people who work or have worked for Sen. Clinton are fiercely loyal, and it’s not due to some brainwashing regimen, to that I can personally attest. She is extraordinarily gracious, courteous, respectful, considerate and loyal. She is a very fine friend to have and is widely loved, not merely liked, by those who spend more than a little time in contact with her. I have heard it said many times that people who have known them both have a pronounced tendency to favor her over her husband, and – remember – it was he who long ago said, back when they were finishing law school, that she, not he, should be the one who ran someday for president. I think he was deeply wise on many levels in that insight. (I think he was a very fine president on policy, by and large, but I think his personal flaws and weaknesses – and not just the philandering business – greatly undermined what could have been a far more successful presidency than it was.)
    So, catching my breath here for a moment, if she does win election to the presidency, Mr. W, I think Ms. Clinton will diligently and energetically do the rather extensive clean-up job that our federal government needs. She, better than nearly anyone, knows the extent of the damage and the fixes and repairs that need to be put into place across the broad expanse of our federal government. She will pursue these improvements and repairs with great energy, consideration and intelligence. With utmost respect, I do not believe Senator Obama can match her in these regards. She is, in my considered opinion, on balance, the better choice, but that is not to say that others cannot reasonably disagree. (I would, though, so love to see a ticket headed by her with him as the VP and still and yet hold out hope that this can happen – remember Sen. Kerry rather disliked Sen. Edwards and JFK and LBJ were not exactly chums.)
    Lastly, what I have difficulty abiding is numerous supporters of Sen. Obama’s viewing this as a clear cut, obvious choice between good and evil. It is not, and that is foolish. There are too many people whose tempers are running too hot. I hope we can heal this rift in our party, to which both sides have contributed far too much. It is highly counterproductive.
    That’s my bit for tonight.

                            Cheers,

                            Christopher A. Stratton, Esq.
                            West Hartford, CT

Intense international media interest in SC

   

Today I was favored with a visit from Zoe Rachel Usherwood, Foreign Affairs Producer for Sky News in the U.K. That’s her in the video above explaining her mission, which had been previously represented to me as follows in the initial request for a meeting:

… I work with The Palmetto Council for International Visitors (PCIV), a non-profit volunteer organization located in the World Affairs Council office in Columbia, SC. We are an affiliate of the Columbia Council for International Visitors, as well as a member of the National Council for International Visitors partnered with the U.S. Department of State. PCIV designs and implements professional programs for international leaders who have been selected by the State Department to visit South Carolina.
    We currently have an upcoming visitor that has specifically requested to meet with local media members during her visit.
    Ms. Zoe Rachel Usherwood is the Foreign Affairs Producer for Sky News in the United Kingdom. If possible she would welcome a meeting on Thursday, January 31st. or Friday, Feb. 1. Her biography is also attached for your consideration.
    These State Department guest has specifically requested to meet with local media concerning the election process, so we hope to be able to arrange a meeting(s) with you. These meetings last around an hour and would generally include an informal discussion about your coverage and a question/answer session.

I pass this on as a way of bringing you up-to-date regarding a phenomenon I mentioned previously here — the intense national and international interest in South Carolina during the recent primaries, which resulted in a lot of folks wanting to interview me for a change, creating such situations as me shooting video of someone shooting video of me, etc. Weird stuff.

  • I think Ms. Usherwood is the last for awhile, but last week was fairly hectic. Some examples:
    Several things didn’t work out, either because of my time, or missed communications — NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and NPR’s "On Point." On two additional occasions, Michele Norris tried to get me on "All Things Considered," but it never worked out. CNN wanted me to run down to Charleston for an interview one evening, but I declined.
  • On Wednesday, I did another live thing on the phone at some ungodly hour of the morning about our Obama endorsement on C-SPAN’s "Washington Journal." I had done the same 10 days earlier, that time on a SUNDAY morning, about our McCain endorsement.
  • Friday, I phoned in an interview with the Here and Now program on public radio out of Boston. That night, when I went by to visit my new twin granddaughters, my son-in-law said his sister-in-law in Boston had mentioned hearing me. This was reassuring, because it was good to know somebody was listening to some of this stuff I was doing.
  • Later that morning I had a good time chatting with a soundman named Anthony Birchley and a reporter named Kevin, both of the BBC, when they came down to my office to tape a segment. Kevin is an Arsenal fan, and he and Anthony had trouble taking in the fact that Williams-Brice Stadium, which looms outside my window, is a mere college sports venue.
  • Friday was actually kind of a blur. I had turned down an interview with one Danish journalist, but ended up having someone else from that country call on the phone and we talked for a while. At least I’m in demand in Copenhagen. That night, when I was standing in line trying to get in to the Obama rally, I met a Swedish reporter who, when she learned who I was, pulled out the notebook.
  • On the Saturdays of both the Republican and Democratic primaries, I did an hour live from a tent on the State House grounds with Alhurra TV. Alhurra is a U.S. government-funded operation that broadcasts into the Mideast. It’s sort of like Voice of America in Arabic. This was the trickiest of all the interviews, as my host was speaking to me in Arabic, and he was a lot louder than the man who was translating into my earpiece. But I got through it. (In the picture at the bottom of this post you see a reporter for Alhurra doing a standup in the tent just after the show I did).
  • Before I could get away from the tent, Emile Baroody of Dubai TV approached me and asked if we could talk that night. I told him I was committed to S.C. ETV from 8 to 10, so he said how about after that? I said OK, we traded phone numbers, and he asked me where ETV was located. I told him it was near that stadium south of town that Arsenal might envy.
  • Driving away, I saw I’d missed a call, from Gal Beckerman with Columbia Journalism Review. I agreed to meet him at the Starbuck’s on Gervais, and we spoke for about an hour. The place was full of out-of-town (and country) media here for the Democratic Primary. Gal (pronounced "Gaul," it’s an Israeli name) wanted to talk to me about… get this… all the media that was in town wanting to talk to me. So I was interviewed by one medium wanting to know about other media interviewing a media guy. This, if anything, topped the irony of my French TV experience.
  • That night, I did my ETV gig; maybe you saw me. Anyway, as I was packing up my laptop to head home, whom should I find, right there in the studio, but Emile from Dubai? Based on my sketchy directions, he had come out to ETV, asked permission to use their studio, and here he was with his cameraman ready to take advantage of the lighting. That Emile is one enterprising guy.

What did we talk about?  To a great extent, stuff that you could probably talk about as well as I could. Beyond that we talked about our endorsements of McCain and Obama — that was the easiest, and for me most relevant, topic.

Anyway, that completes my report on the reports. The bottom line is that I figure my experience was sort of a microcosm of what was happening to South Carolina the last couple of weeks. The eyes of the world were most assuredly upon us.

Alhurra_005

Kathleen Sebelius sounds kind of like UnParty material

Obama_sebelius_wart

Until a couple of days ago, I had never heard of Kathleen Sebelius. That may seem odd since I once had charge of the political reporters at the largest newspaper in Kansas. But that was more than 20 years ago, and I long ago shook the dust of that place from my shoes, thank the Lord.

Then on Sunday, I heard this advance feature on NPR about Gov. Sebelius, who was to give the Democratic response to the State of the Union address. I was ready to be displeased in principle, because I’ve always thought those responses to be an offensive institution in practice as well as in theory. The Constitution requires a state of the union message. The "response" is just partisanship for partisanship’s sake; it has existed mainly to have an argument.

But I was pleased at what I heard about this governor who has "spent years learning how to get along with her political opponents," and the piece on the radio seemed to promise something different this time, more along the collaborative lines of the recent economic stimulus deal.

Then came her actual response the next night, which is worth reading. An excerpt:

Good evening. I’m Kathleen Sebelius, governor of the state of Kansas, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. I’m a Democrat, but tonight it really doesn’t matter whether you think of yourself as a Democrat or a Republican or an independent or none of the above…

And so I want to take a slight detour from tradition on this State of the Union night. In this time, normally reserved for a partisan response, I hope to offer something more: An American response. A national call to action on behalf of the struggling families in the heartland and across this great country. A wake-up call to Washington, on behalf of a new American majority, that time is running out on our opportunities to meet our challenges and solve our problems….

Nice beginning. You’ve got this UnPartisan’s attention. Sure, she goes on to give a challenge to the president that is very Democratic in nature, and he as a Republican is bound to take exception to parts of it. And sure, she gets in the usual antiwar licks. But she presents it all in terms that an independent like myself can respect, instead of spewing the usual vile mess we hear out of Washington. I’ve got no problem with Democrats and Republicans setting different sorts of ideas out in competition with one another. I just want them to do it in a way that doesn’t make me want to turn a hose on them.

So — lots of UnParty points for Gov. Sebelius. How could she top that?

Like this: by endorsing Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president who embodies the same kind of "One Country" approach that she tried to invoke in her address Monday night.

The only way she could possibly top herself would be to endorse John McCain as well, he being the natural Republican counterpart of Sen. Obama. Sure, I know that’s asking a bit much, like whipped cream on top of hard candy. But just think: If she did that, we’d have to give her the UnParty nomination for president on the spot!

Sebelius_state_of_the_wart

Obama staffer reports good initial results from Edwards pullout

Just talked to Kevin Griffis, lately the S.C. press guy for the Barack Obama campaign. Although he still has his (803) cell phone, he’s now moved on to Virginia.

When I caught him he was walking around the statehouse there, trying to harvest former Edwards supporters for Obama. He says it’s going quite well; he’s finding a lot of receptiveness among lawmakers, particularly from the more conservative parts of the state where they can’t imagine going for Sen. Clinton.

One thing he says he’s not running into in Virginia — any reluctance on the part of white lawmakers to back his guy. But then, he’s come to accept that as a matter of course, since he didn’t run into it in South Carolina, either.

Romney outgunned McCain 10 to 1 in Florida, and still lost

At least we don’t have to worry about whether pore ol’ Mitt Romney was able to get his message out in Florida. Check out this WashPost story, "After Romney’s Barrage, McCain Stands Tall:"

    In Florida, as he did in other early states, Romney blanketed the airwaves with ads financed partly by his own fortune. According to Nielsen Co., Romney ran nearly 4,500 ads in Florida by Monday, compared with 470 by McCain.

How much longer do you suppose it will take Gov. Romney to get the fact that the voters aren’t buying what he’s trying to sell — or perhaps I should say, aren’t willing to sell what he’s trying to buy?

This was brought to my attention by McCain backer Bob McAlister, who observed, "It is absolutely stunning that our guy overcame such odds. I don’t know if that’s ever happened — being outgunned on the air 10 to 1 and still win convincingly. It just shows that character and integrity can still trump glitz."

Maybe this guy should do some McCain trading cards

Mccain_strong

B
ack on this thread weldon VII observed,

That’s a really nice picture of McCain. Who took it?

The answer to your question is, an AP photog named Charles Dharapak. Here’s the caption that moved with the photo:

Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., smiles while speaking to reporters outside a polling station in St. Petersburg, Fla., Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2008, on the morning of Florida’s Republican Presidential Primary. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Either that Dharapak guy is a great photographer and McCain should hire him, or the candidate himself is more photogenic now that he’s well on his way to the nomination. In any case, as evidence for both of these theories, I offer two more Dharapak images. Above, we have the "strong commander in chief" McCain. Below, we have "happy to win in Florida" McCain.

Maybe this guy should publish a serious of McCain bubble-gum trading cards. If he does, I get a cut for thinking of it — don’t I?

Mccain_happy

More good news for Obama: Edwards is getting out

Edwardsquits1

No more splitting the non-Clinton (or anti-Clinton) vote. Or do you have an alternative interpretation? I don’t think there is a significant anyone-but-Obama movement out there the way there is for his opponent, but maybe you’re seeing something I’m not.

Anyway, here’s a link about John Edwards’ decision to accept the inevitable — much too late, but at least he didn’t wait another week.

Put this news together with the unequivocally good news for Obama — the Kennedys and Toni Morrison and Kathleen Sebelius (can Al Gore be far behind?), this adds up to some serious Mo heading into next Tuesday.

Given all the good-news boosts Obama has gotten in the last few days, it makes Sen. Clinton’s trek down to Florida to celebrate her "win" more understandable — how else was she going to get a positive image out there?

P.S. — Edwards has now made his announcement; here’s his speech.

Edwardsquits2

So Hillary can’t make a concession speech in S.C., but she publicly celebrates a meaningless win in Florida?

Hillaryfla

Actually, I just said pretty much all I had to say in the headline.

Saturday night, I initially posted this with the headline saying, "HIllary’s concession speech." Then I realized it was just an e-mailed statement, so I changed the headline to reflect that, expecting the actual speech momentarily. It didn’t come. I saw Edwards give his concession/nonconcession speech (not quitting, although what he’s going on for, I don’t know). But no Hillary.

Did I miss it? I was busy being on live TV and all, so maybe I missed it. Did y’all see it or hear it? I ask because it seemed pretty bizarre for her to be cavorting about on a stage transported by a campaign "victory" that gave her no delegates, in a state which the Democratic candidates had pledged (and I’m using the term "pledge" here loosely) not to campaign in, in a "contest" that was obviously a measure of starting-point name recognition.

If Obama had campaigned there, do you really think she would have run away with it? Seems doubtful, but I’d be interested to hear arguments to the contrary.

Anyway, either I’ve missed something (which is highly probable), or this sequence of events — no concession on Obama’s stunning victory in S.C., celebration of the meaningless win in Florida — would seem to be terra incognita in the Clintons’ exploration of the limits of gracelessness.

I can’t go home ’til McCain wins

Mccainwinfla

Having commandeered one of the HDTV receivers at a 5-Points bar, I’m running a tab on Yuenglings, trying to will McCain over the finish line in Florida.

Thirty-three percent of the vote in, and still neck-and-neck with that mannequin, Romney.

At least tonight will settle Rudy "Florida Strategy" Giuliani’s hash for good. Did you read that strong endorsement of McCain in The New York Times? Way brutal to our boy Rudy…

"…a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square."

No more Hizzoner in his own country.

Vincent Sheheen’s plan to revamp state gummint

Vincent_004

 

State Sen. Vincent Sheheen came by to explain his government restructuring plan, which he wrote about recently in this op-ed piece.

The significance of Vincent’s initiative (and I call him “Vincent” on account of knowing his daddy and his uncle before I knew him) is that it constitutes a credible, worthwhile government restructuring approach from within the General Assembly, the place where governor’s plans generally go to die.

Over the years, I’ve generally just given the legislative side of restructuring a lick and a promise when I write about restructuring. In the Legislative State, lawmakers can already do pretty much anything they have a mind to do, whereas the executive has been kept purposefully too weak to perform its constitutional role. Back when I did the Power Failure series, I referred to the fact that the Legislature would need to be more serious about advice and consent, and to a lesser extent oversight, if the executive were empowered to do its job. But that always seemed to me a secondary consideration, one that only became important after you do the executive.

Vincent’s idea is to stress the legislative part every bit as much as the executive, if not more so. His Government Accountability Act of 2008 would formalize lawmaker’s oversight of executive agencies, making legislative hearings looking into agencies’ performance more routine. What would be the virtue in that? Well, everybody about had a cow over the recent legislative probe into the Corrections Department, and with good reason — several good reasons, in fact. The unusual investigation WAS politically motivated, legislators didn’t have the staff to do a relevant critique and the Legislature as a whole hasn’t budgeted responsibly for corrections in many years.

Vincent’s proposal would make hearings standard operating procedure, which would lower the stakes when they happen, and thereby help lower defensiveness. Committees would have staff (an expense, but cheaper than the kind of waste it might prevent) to do a professional job in reviewing agency procedures and budgets. And the committees doing the probing would be the same ones responsible for a rational, programmatic budget for the agency. Rather than having a single committee do all the budget work, the committees with oversight authority would bring their expertise to bear to draft more realistic budgets, agency by agency.

As for the executive revamp, there are three main items:

  1. Create an Inspector General’s office empowered to look into just about anything in the executive branch, with independence from the governor.
  2. Eliminate three constitutional officers — not the ones that it makes the most sense to eliminate (such a list would include Education Superintendent and Adjutant General), but the ones that Vincent thinks most doable, given the proclivities of the Legislature: Comptroller General, Secretary of State, and Commissioner of Agriculture. (Basically, what this would constitute would be a start.)
  3. Takes purely administrative functions away from the Budget and Control Board, and vests them in a new Department of Administration. The constitutionally hermaphroditic board would still, inappropriately, have power to make policy decisions.

There’s a lot I would change in this, and a lot farther I would go, but this plan has one virtue over anything Gov. Sanford or anyone else has proposed lately: political viability.

At least, I hope it does. If we can’t do this much, we’ll never have responsible, accountable government in this state.

Obama’s full victory speech

Obama_victory_speech

Catching up with stuff now I’m back at the office, here is a copy of Barack Obama’s wonderful victory speech from Saturday night. That is, this is a copy of the prepared remarks. You can view the video here:

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama

South Carolina Primary Night

Saturday, January 26th, 2008

Columbia, South Carolina

Over two weeks ago, we saw the people of Iowa proclaim that
our time for change has come. But there were those who doubted this country’s desire
for something new – who said Iowa was a fluke not to be repeated again.

Well, tonight, the cynics who believed that what began in
the snows of Iowa was just an illusion were told a different story by the good
people of South Carolina.

After four great contests in every corner of this country,
we have the most votes, the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of
Americans we’ve seen in a long, long time.

They are young and old; rich and poor. They are black and
white; Latino and Asian. They are Democrats from Des Moines and Independents
from Concord; Republicans from rural Nevada and young people across this
country who’ve never had a reason to participate until now. And in nine days,
nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying that we are
tired of business-as-usual in Washington, we are hungry for change, and we are
ready to believe again.

But if there’s anything we’ve been reminded of since Iowa,
it’s that the kind of change we seek will not come easy. Partly because we have
fine candidates in the field – fierce competitors, worthy of respect. And as
contentious as this campaign may get, we have to remember that this is a
contest for the Democratic nomination, and that all of us share an abiding
desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration.

But there are real differences between the candidates. We
are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We’re
looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington – a status quo that
extends beyond any particular party. And right now, that status quo is fighting
back with everything it’s got; with the same old tactics that divide and
distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are
health care they can’t afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.

So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we’re
up against.

We are up against the belief that it’s ok for lobbyists to
dominate our government – that they are just part of the system in Washington.
But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and
this election is our chance to say that we’re not going to let them stand in
our way anymore.

We are up against the conventional thinking that says your
ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to
the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and
judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a
common purpose – a higher purpose.

We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause
politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make
college affordable or energy cleaner; it’s the kind of partisanship where
you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea – even if it’s one
you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it’s bad for
our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.

We are up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say
anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly
what’s wrong with our politics; this is why people don’t believe what their
leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance
to give the American people a reason to believe again.

And what we’ve seen in these last weeks is that we’re also
up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign, but feed the
habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation. It’s the
politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon. A
politics that tells us that we have to think, act, and even vote within the
confines of the categories that supposedly define us. The assumption that young
people are apathetic. The assumption that Republicans won’t cross over. The
assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor, and that the poor don’t
vote. The assumption that African-Americans can’t support the white candidate;
whites can’t support the African-American candidate; blacks and Latinos can’t
come together.

But we are here tonight to say that this is not the America
we believe in. I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a
white South Carolina or a black South Carolina. I saw South Carolina. I saw
crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white
children. I saw shuttered mills and homes for sale that once belonged to
Americans from all walks of life, and men and women of every color and creed
who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud
flag. I saw what America is, and I believe in what this country can be.

That is the country I see. That is the country you see. But
now it is up to us to help the entire nation embrace this vision. Because in
the end, we are not just up against the ingrained and destructive habits of
Washington, we are also struggling against our own doubts, our own fears, and
our own cynicism. The change we seek has always required great struggle and
sacrifice. And so this is a battle in our own hearts and minds about what kind
of country we want and how hard we’re willing to work for it.

So let me remind you tonight that change will not be easy.
That change will take time. There will be setbacks, and false starts, and
sometimes we will make mistakes. But as hard as it may seem, we cannot lose
hope. Because there are people all across this country who are counting us; who
can’t afford another four years without health care or good schools or decent
wages because our leaders couldn’t come together and get it done.

Theirs are the stories and voices we carry on from South
Carolina.

The mother who can’t get Medicaid to cover all the needs of
her sick child – she needs us to pass a health care plan that cuts costs and
makes health care available and affordable for every single American.

The teacher who works another shift at Dunkin Donuts after
school just to make ends meet – she needs us to reform our education system so
that she gets better pay, and more support, and her students get the resources
they need to achieve their dreams.

The Maytag worker who is now competing with his own teenager
for a $7-an-hour job at Wal-Mart because the factory he gave his life to shut
its doors – he needs us to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our
jobs overseas and start putting them in the pockets of working Americans who
deserve it. And struggling homeowners. And seniors who should retire with
dignity and respect.

The woman who told me that she hasn’t been able to breathe
since the day her nephew left for Iraq, or the soldier who doesn’t know his
child because he’s on his third or fourth tour of duty – they need us to come
together and put an end to a war that should’ve never been authorized and never
been waged.

The choice in this election is not between regions or
religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it
is not about black versus white.

It’s about the past versus the future.

It’s about whether we settle for the same divisions and
distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for
a politics of common sense, and innovation – a shared sacrifice and shared
prosperity.

There are those who will continue to tell us we cannot do
this. That we cannot have what we long for. That we are peddling false hopes.

But here’s what I know. I know that when people say we can’t
overcome all the big money and influence in Washington, I think of the elderly
woman who sent me a contribution the other day – an envelope that had a money
order for $3.01 along with a verse of scripture tucked inside. So don’t tell us
change isn’t possible.

When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and
Latinos can’t join together and work together, I’m reminded of the Latino
brothers and sisters I organized with, and stood with, and fought with side by
side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don’t tell us change
can’t happen.

When I hear that we’ll never overcome the racial divide in
our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom
Thurmond, who’s now devoted to educating inner-city children and who went out
onto the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign.
Don’t tell me we can’t change.

Yes we can change.

Yes we can heal this nation.

Yes we can seize our future.

And as we leave this state with a new wind at our backs, and
take this journey across the country we love with the message we’ve carried
from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire; from the Nevada desert
to the South Carolina coast; the same message we had when we were up and when
we were down – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope;
and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we
can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a
people in three simple words:

Yes. We. Can.

OK, so is it now ‘about’ the Irish Catholic vote?

Obama_kennedy_wart2

Barack Obama receives the endorsement of Caroline Kennedy.

Noting the endorsement of Barack Obama by the Kennedy clan, I’m reminded of those who think this campaign is "about race" just because black voters in S.C. went for Obama so big.

This got me to thinking about 1960. What I was thinking was that JFK’s own demographic probably went just as big for him, but no one would ghettoize him. Obviously, he could not have been elected if those were the only folks who preferred him to his opponent.

I haven’t found anything that speaks directly to my question regarding the Irish, but I did find this. Here’s an excerpt from a synopsis of The American Catholic Voter: Two Hundred Years Of Political Impact, by George J. Marlin, with the relevant part highlighted:

    Marlin’s analysis provides an in-depth look at two of the more celebrated Catholic election contests, the candidacy of Al Smith in 1928 and the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960. Where Smith was hurt by anti-Catholicism outside the major cities, Kennedy was able to hold together the old FDR coalition. As Marlin noted, the 1960 election of JFK was a victory not for Catholicism, but for liberalism. The tenuous hold the Democratic Party had on Catholics — Kennedy received 70% of the Catholic vote after Ike had "stolen" millions of them in 1952 and 1956 — camouflaged the fact that Kennedy’s Catholic vote percentage was 10 percentage points lower than what Al Smith had received, not withstanding the efforts by the Kennedy family, a supportive liberal media, and big city machines like Chicago’s Richard Daley that pulled out all the stops for JFK.

Note that Al Smith got 80 percent of the Catholic vote, doing better than Obama did with black voters in SC. Of course, being so identified with the Catholic vote, he lost the election. The Clintons hope to convince Democrats that Obama is Al Smith — or more specifically, Jesse Jackson. which is the modern equivalent.

But the Kennedy clan believe he’s JFK in this race. They see him as someone who transcends his own putative demographic group, even though members of that group may for their part take great pride in him. They suggest that his charisma, a quality that reaches across all demographics, a quality that distinguished JFK from Smith, makes him the natural heir to Camelot. In that, they agree with President Kennedy’s closest adviser, Ted Sorensen.

Think I’m exaggerating? Read the op-ed piece by the princess of Camelot herself, headlined "A President Like My Father." And excerpt:

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama….
    Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.
    We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960….

Obama_kennedy_wartRep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., Caroline Kennedy, Barack Obama, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.

Holding my breath over Florida

Thought y’all might be interested in the latest Zogby numbers out of Florida. I’ve been holding my breath over this one for a week:

Released: January 28, 2008
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll: McCain Gets Endorsement Boost, Leads Again in Florida
Giuliani passes Huckabee; is stuck in a distant third place

UTICA, New York -– In what’s become a two-man game for the Republicans, Arizona Sen. John McCain now holds a slim lead over rival Mitt Romney while all others lag well behind in the Florida primary race, the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby telephone tracking poll shows.
    Boosted by a strong endorsement from Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, McCain has 33% support, compared to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who wins 30% backing. The two leaders have been locked in a tight contest ahead of Tuesday’s election. This three-day tracking poll, which surveyed 818 likely Republican voters, carries a margin for error of +/- 3.4% and was conducted Jan. 25-27.
    Eight percent of voters remained undecided in the tight race.
    In the battle for third place, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani is once again ahead of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, 14% to 11%. Huckabee had leapt ahead of Giuliani in yesterday’s three-day tracking poll, but he gave back three points in the last 24 hours and again trails Giuliani.
    Voters who identify themselves as conservative, a group that represents more than half the sample, have also reversed themselves. After giving Romney the edge, McCain now has the support of 34% to Romney’s 33%. In yesterday’s tracking poll, Romney led among those voters with 34% of their support to McCain’s 28%. Moderate voters consistently prefer McCain, giving him 44% of their support in the most recent poll, compared to Romney’s 15%. Among “very conservative” voters, Romney fares far better, winning 48% support to McCain’s 13%. Huckabee is actually ahead of McCain among the “very conservative” voters, winning 20% support.

McCain-Obama, and other match-ups

As I’ve expressed a number of times in the last few days — although it occurs to me it’s been on video or live TV mostly, and it’s past time I say it in writing if I haven’t already — my fondest wish for the fall is that John McCain will face Barack Obama. It would be a "no-lose proposition for the nation."

In fact, it would be the best choice of my adult lifetime. Yeah, I liked both Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford pretty much. And I had nothing particular against George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton in 92. But this would be the first time I was ever positively enthusiastic about either eventuality. As I’ve spoken about it in recent days, I’ve had to stop myself several times from referring to it as a "ticket," and remember to say "on the same BALLOT" instead.

As to which I’d prefer — well, I don’t know which I’d prefer. If I’m to be consistent with my constant thought of the past eight years, McCain is the man. Going into last week, I was pretty sure I still preferred him, Obama (AND Clinton) being so much less experienced. There is also his position on the war, which almost exactly matches my own.

But the excitement of the last few days has made me wonder about that. And if Obama wins the nomination — with the Super Tuesday odds still against him at this point — I’ll be even more pumped about his ability to lead us into a new kind of politics.

None of that will diminish my deep respect for McCain. But once my dream is realized — if both are nominees — I’ll be able to compare them more objectively than I can now. Now, I’m just rooting for both of them.

But if only ONE of them is nominated — say, we end up with Obama vs. Romney, or McCain vs. Clinton — that makes my own, personal preference for endorsement the easiest I’ve ever experienced. And I think it would be just as easy for the nation, because the two I prefer are the ONLY ones with appeal among independents and crossover voters.

Then, of course, if NEITHER is nominated… well, that would be what we’re used to, wouldn’t it: A bitter choice between bad and worse. Surely this country can do better than that, for once.

After what we’ve seen happen in South Carolina, my hope is higher than ever for a far better choice for the nation than we have seen in many decades.

An endorsement indifferent to race, gender

Folks who have read me over the years know that I am somewhat turned off by Identity Politics — all that "MY race," "MY gender" stuff. That’s one reason why I like a guy like Barack Obama, whose appeal transcends skin color. I am even more pleased that his supporters get it, chanting "Race Doesn’t Matter" in the moment of his South Carolina triumph.

So it is that I am further pleased by the way author Toni Morrison has endorsed Barack Obama. A friend passed on to me this bit from an ABCNews story about the letter of support she sent:

Morrison writes of her admiration for Hillary Clinton but says she "cared little for her gender as a source of my admiration".

"Nor do I care very much for your race[s]," Morrison continues to
Obama, "I would not support you if that was all you had to offer or
because it might make me ‘proud.’ "

Even better is this passage quoted by The Associated Press:

"In addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare
authenticity, you exhibit somethingObama_toni_morrison_2
that has nothing to do with age,
experience, race or gender and something I don’t see in other
candidates," Morrison wrote. "That something is a creative imagination
which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we
associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing
vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle
for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while
ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it.

"Wisdom
is a gift; you can’t train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or
earn it in the workplace — that access can foster the acquisition of
knowledge, but not wisdom," Morrison wrote.

When I read that passage, "if we believe cunning is insight," it occurs to me that her respect for Hillary Clinton must have suffered a setback in recent days, which may have led to this endorsement.

Mind you, this is the writer who dubbed Bill Clinton the "first black president." For HER to embrace the idea of brushing race aside is particularly meaningful. Just as it was so powerful for a victory won with 80 percent of the black vote to be celebrated with "Race Doesn’t Matter."

Black folk are, generally speaking, more mindful that white folks of race — it’s a source of much of the tragic cognitive divide in our country. If Obama’s support had been mostly white, that chant would have meant less. As it was, it was a huge step forward for us all.

Race doesn’t matter!

Since I was doing the live gig at ETV last night, I missed a lot of the action at the Obama victory rally. I heard his wonderful speech, and that was about it.

But afterwards, I spoke to Inez Tenenbaum, and it seems I missed a lot that it would have been great to have witnessed. One, which I’ll just mention and move on, was when Bill Clinton appeared on a screen and the crowd booed, probably the only negative moment in that night of joy. But it marked an important moment, in terms of S.C. Democrats rejecting the kind of hyperpartisan, do-anything-to-win approach to politics that the former president, Sen. Clinton, and their supporters (think Don Fowler) embodied. As Inez said, "Would you ever have imagined a crowd of South Carolina Democrats booing Bill Clinton?" Until last week, no.

But that sour note just served to emphasize the alternative that had just been embraced so emphatically by South Carolina voters — the joy, the hope, the welcoming, the affirmation that filled the hearts of the hundreds of thousands who came out to vote for Barack Obama.

And that led to what had to be the high point of the night — indeed, a high point in South Carolina history: That room full of people, black and white, young and old — but predominantly young — chanting "Race doesn’t matter! Race doesn’t matter!"

People who had long been involved in struggling to make South Carolina a better place for all people, only to be disappointed so many times as things dissolved in acrimony, looked at each other in disbelief, with chills running down their spines. They truly never thought they would see the day.

This was more than just a bunch of charged-up supporters giving a team cheer. It was THE message of the day. A half million people had turned out, thousands upon thousands of them who had never voted before or hadn’t voted in years because they were so turned off by politics as usual, and the overwhelming majority had chosen the man who embodies the fact that race doesn’t matter. He embodies it in his own life — a man with a white mother and a black, immigrant father, who grew up in Hawaii (and if you haven’t lived in Hawaii — I graduated from high school there — you can’t imagine the degree to which our whole mainland black-vs.-white thing makes NO sense to the people of the islands) and abroad, a man who can’t be pegged, either in his skin or his mind or soul, as being THIS or THAT.

And he embodies it in his message, as he so eloquently encapsulated in his victory speech (and as soon as I get the full text I’ll post it here).

They were, in advance, repudiating the divisive, identity-politics, racist message that the Clintons will try to see between now and Super Tuesday (I understand that Bill has already said something like well, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, too, as I had predicted he would). The very fact that the man whose message was the Race Doesn’t Matter got 80 percent of the black vote speaks volumes. That that was the chant in this moment of victory — rather than some cry of triumph on the part of blacks, or women (the majority of whom ALSO went for Obama), or any other demographic group — marked this as a tremendous moment in American history.

And that it happened HERE, in South Carolina, where once the majority of the state’s population was enslaved, where the Civil War started, where so many live in deep, inherited poverty, after all the scorn we have had to endure from the rest of the country over our race-based pathologies — what a wonderful, triumphant day for the people of this state!

Yesterday, we overcame so much. Thank God for this. We have overcome so much. Now, South Carolina has set the most positive example that can be set for the rest of the nation. I pray that the rest of the nation will understand the message. It has to; it just has to.

Because Race Doesn’t Matter!

What a TREMENDOUS victory speech!

Obama_victory

As I try to listen to Obama’s victory speech, my two fellow bloggers — one a Republican, the other a Democrat — over across the room are having an argument over the war, or something they always yell at each other about. I’m not really listening; I’m listening to Obama.

Rep. Jim Clyburn just walked into the studio. He’s the U.S. House Majority Whip, who enthusiastically advances his party’s line every day. He’s a fine, dedicated public servant, but he is SO a part of the system that Obama would lead us beyond.

Meanwhile, Obama is giving a speech that marks a huge, historic step forward toward wiping that all away, toward uniting our country so that we can all pull together in making this a greater place to live. What a contrast!

Here are my rough notes from that extraordinary, historic speech from the man who just won the most astounding victory this state has seen in a presidential primary in my 20 years of covering SC politics, the biggest victory that ANY candidate in EITHER party has won thus far in the 2008 campaign for the presidency:

Iowa
there were those who doubted this country’s

desire for something new

young and old, black and white

and yes, the republicans from rural Nevada

saying we are tired of business as usual in

Washington

this will not be easy, make no mistake of

what we are up against

the kind of politics that are bad for our

party, are bad for our country

running against:
exactly what’s wrong with our politics

why they tune out

give the American people a reason to

believe again.

habits that prevent us from getting things

done.

presumption that young people are apathetic
that Republicans won’t cross over

(that white can’t vote for black, that

black can’t vote for black)

I saw what america is (and what it can be)

When I hear we’ll never change… think of

the former Thurmond staffer who knocked on

doors for THIS campaign.

YES WE CAN heal this nation.
YES WE CAN…

the wind at our backs.

Out of many, we are one; as we breathe, we

will hope

(will overcome the cynicism)

YES WE CAN!

Thank you, South Carolina, we love you!

We just made us some history here in South Carolina.