Category Archives: 2008 Presidential

Read My Lips: ‘No New Taxes’ is a stupid, irresponsible thing to say

47 Replies

George H.W. Bush’s "no new taxes" pledge was a watershed moment for me. It was an idiotic thing for a reasonably bright man who knew better to say, and we know why he said it, right? To charm the Reagan revolutionaries, who might otherwise have listened to all that "wimp factor" talk.

But it was more than that to me. It caused me to become permanently disenchanted with campaign promises in general. No one knows what kinds of decisions he will face in office. There is something very phony about pretending to know, and presuming to predict what you will do. You end up with such absurdities as the latest George Bush spouting against nation-building, then spending most of his time in office trying to do just that (although botching it badly enough, for most of that time, to convince us he was never that into it).

This idea developed further as I moved from news to editorial in the early ’90s. News is about "What did he say; what did he do; what did they other guy do; did their actions match their words?" and other stuff that just makes me tired now. I began to think more about what candidates, and far more importantly, office-holders should do. I thought more and more about the nature of representative democracy, and came to appreciate the system more deeply. And the more I thought about it, the more I came to appreciate character over specific policy proposals. I think our system works best when we elect a candidate we trust to make good decisions come what may. I care less about the specifics of policy proposals (which in most cases will never become reality in that form), and more about the quality of the individual proposing them. Past actions count a lot. So do words, in the sense that they reveal the kind of person the candidate is. The fact that a candidate is the kind of person who would want to do a certain thing will matter more than the specifics. So would the intangible qualities revealed in the way the candidate communicates his or her ideas. For that reason, the fact that Obama speaks of approaching challenges as one nation, and is able to sell that approach to voters, contrasted against Sen. Clinton’s world view of life as a constant struggle against Republicans, matter more to me than the specifics of, say, their respective health care plans. If their health care plans were polar opposites, it would mean something. But they’re not, and I don’t care to quibble over them. This approach can be extremely frustrating to such people as today’s caller.

It does make a difference to me when a candidate lacks a serious proposal to address health care. I criticized John McCain on this point several months back. But as important as this issue is to me, it’s not a make-or-break one in considering the presidency. Truth is, no candidate but Dennis Kucinich wants to do what I want to do on the issue — and Rep. Kucinich cancels that out by putting me off on other issues. Among the Republicans, Mitt Romney probably came the closest to wanting to do anything good — but that wasn’t nearly enough, and it didn’t cancel the reasons NOT to support Romney. (Biggest reason? Rather than run as a guy who’d done something smart on health care in Massachusetts, he tried to pander to every impulse to be found in his party, and tried to get ahead by pulling other candidates down. Character.)

This brings us to what John McCain said this week: "No new taxes." This was a reprehensible thing to say. I know McCain is a national-security guy and just isn’t into the stuff that the anti-tax part of his party obsess over. That’s one of many things I like about him. But that doesn’t excuse him from throwing them a bone to this extent, even if he did it so badly that it wasn’t convincing (as Nicholas Kristof says, "he is abysmal at pandering").

Now let’s pause for a moment to make sure you understand what I’m saying. The tax haters don’t understand why I say it’s inexcusable to say, before you’re even in office, "No new taxes." That’s because they think the only thing to do with a tax — ever, under any circumstances — is to cut it, and they think anyone who doesn’t agree with their extreme must be their extreme polar opposite, which to them means that person, in one of their favorite phrases, "never saw a tax he didn’t like." They really say things like that. It doesn’t bother them a bit that such accusations are insupportable, and that in fact evidence exists to the contrary. Their world view is just that simple, and just that wrong.

McCain’s world view is not that simple, and therefore it is profoundly wrong for him to say what he said, even if he just said it to shut them up so we can talk about more important things (understandable, but still not excusable). Perhaps he believes that there never will be a need during a McCain presidency to raise a tax, so what’s the harm?

Here’s the harm: Let me put it in terms that he might understand, because they would touch more closely upon his own deeply held values. Think how stupid, how grossly irresponsible, it would be for the man who would be commander in chief to say, "I will never take military action" in office. See what I’m saying? You might like to think you’d never have to send another soldier into harm’s way, and you might want voters to know you’re the kind of guy who likes to think that. Perfectly understandable. But perfectly wrong. The would-be commander in chief of the world’s one superpower just can’t take force off the table like that.

Mind you, this is not a perfect comparison — a president has greater leeway in taking military action than he does in making tax policy (properly speaking, the purview of Congress; all the president can do is make non-binding proposals or wield the blunt instrument of the veto — he can’t even veto line items). But my point is that the thing that’s wrong here is not the policy question itself. Peace is a fine thing. Not raising taxes is a fine thing.

But you cannot know what future situations will call for, and it’s wrong to try to tie your hands in advance. And it’s particularly wrong to do it to win votes.

It’s not the policy; it’s the character. And saying "no new taxes" this way places a stain upon John McCain’s. (It also makes him look desperate; if he’ll say that to appease the extremists, would he actually consider such a disastrous choice as Mark Sanford for veep? It was the desperation and the irresponsibility in this statement on taxes that caused me actually to worry about something I had dismissed as merely ridiculous before.)

Does the stain disqualify him? Not in my eyes. His virtues far outweigh this sin. And consider that the pandering, hands-tying statements that Sens. Barack and Clinton routinely make regarding Iraq are far more egregious. I am somewhat reassured to believe that both of them know better, but it doesn’t make me think more of their characters.

Nor does it cause me to dismiss them altogether — particularly not Obama, whose character seems so much better suited to the office than Mrs. Clinton’s.

All of us are stained; no one is qualified to throw the first stone. But I do pick up these stones as I find them, and place them on the balance. As I weigh them, I’m still very glad we endorsed John McCain and Barack Obama. The one perfect guy isn’t actually running.

Today’s audio feedback

2 Replies

As you know, I keep trying to get folks who send me their thoughts and observations via e-mail either to submit them for consideration as a letter to the editor, or to come to the blog. I’m one of the world’s worst time managers, but as bad as I am, I DO try to limit the amount of time spent on purely private communications. Bring it out into the open, and let’s talk — that’s my approach.

That’s a little trickier to do with those who leave their thoughts at length on my voicemail. Trickier, but not impossible. Here’s my phone call of the day. This lady had a LOT to say about the relative merits of Barack Obama as compared to Hillary Clinton. The short version: She likes Hillary. Obama — well, she manages to compare him to George W. Bush. How? Well, listen. Here’s the audio clip.

As you will see, she explains that she called me to protest, although belatedly, our endorsement of Obama. Apparently, she explained at such length that she overran the rather generous amount of time afforded by my voicemail. Well, her voice will be heard now — at least by those of you who have the patience.

Just another slice of daily life in the editorial department.

Here’s what Don Fowler was talking about

4 Replies

Speaking of parties and partisanship, I ran across something interesting in our archives yesterday while searching for something completely unrelated. You may (but probably don’t) recall this from my account of my exchange with Don Fowler last month regarding his having urged Hillary Clinton not to speak to our editorial board:

But I’d never had such a frustrating conversation with someone as well
educated and experienced as Don, his party’s former national chairman.
He kept clinging to this notion that we would never endorse anyone with
the name Clinton — which made no sense to me — what’s in a name; are
we Montagues and Capulets here? I mean, if he knows that, he
knows something I don’t know. He said he based his absolute conclusion
on a visit he made to the editorial board on Bill Clinton’s behalf in
1996. Not remembering the specifics of that meeting, I didn’t get into
it, but I pointed out that of the five current members of the board,
I’m the only one who was on the board then. No matter. He suggested
that the fix was in, that we would endorse the Republican no matter
what, and that it must hold just as true today as then.

Now I can say I do recall the specifics of that meeting, because I ran across a forgotten column that was inspired by it. Here it is, in its entirety:

THE STATE
PARTIES: WHAT ARE THEY GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
Published on: 11/05/1996
Section: EDITORIAL
Edition: FINAL
Page: A10
By BRAD WARTHEN
Don Fowler came to visit last week, to try to persuade our editorial board to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket. There never was much chance of that, but we were glad to talk with him anyway.
    Don Fowler is the Columbian who took the helm of the Democratic National Committee in one of that party’s darkest hours, when Newt Gingrich and his enfants terrible had supposedly captured the hearts and minds of all "normal people" for good.
    Today, less than two years later, there is talk of the Democrats taking back the House, on the coattails of the first Democratic president to win re-election since 1936. That gives Mr. Fowler reason to feel pretty good about being a Democrat these days — the gathering storm over Asian campaign contributors notwithstanding (much of which has broken in the days since our interview). So it probably seemed inappropriate when I asked him this question: "What earthly good are political parties to our country today?"
    He apologized that he’d have to preface his answer with a brief historical overview. And like the college lecturer he has been, he proceeded to do just that. I settled in to wait patiently. I really wanted an answer to this question.
    You see, I have this prejudice against political parties. I consider them to be among the most destructive factors in public life today. It’s not that the parties themselves cause the nastiness and intellectual dishonesty that stain our political discourse. They just provide a means for these phenomena to manifest themselves without individuals having to take responsibility for any of it. Far worse, partisan considerations militate against solutions to the real problems that face our society.
    A lot of smart people whom I otherwise admire, such as political writers David Broder and E.J. Dionne, have suggested in years past that the main thing wrong with Congress is that party discipline is a thing of the past — too many members out there pursuing their own agendas on their own terms instead of working their way up through the party system the way God and Sam Rayburn intended.
    But I think that we’ve all seen altogether too much partisan groupthink in recent years. For instance: The most responsible thing Bill Clinton tried to do in his first year in office was to present a deficit-reduction plan that was a model of nonpartisan sobriety, and which was destined to actually improve the situation. So, of course, not one Republican in either house of Congress voted for it. Not only did they vote against it, they’ve spent the past three years misrepresenting it to the people.
    But that pales in comparison to the disinformation campaign the GOP conducted over the Clinton health plan. The plan never had a chance, which in a way was too bad, seeing as how most Americans wanted something done about health-care costs and availability, but what was that next to the need for the GOP to achieve its strategic objectives?
    The voters punished the GOP for that by giving it control of the Congress. Now, the party had to govern. So Republicans set about trying to rein in Medicare costs.
    Turnabout’s fair play, thought the Democrats in unison, and they proceeded to torpedo the GOP’s effort to be sensible by scaring the nation’s old people half to death. It worked. Never mind the fact that Medicare is still a mess — the Democrats are resurgent, having prevented the GOP from doing anything to help the country.
    That’s what political parties do for us. What would I replace them with? Nothing. I’d send each successful candidate into office all by his lonesome. He couldn’t get into office or stay there by characterizing his opponent as a "tax- and-spend liberal" or someone who "wants to take away your Social Security." He’d have to come up with sensible ideas, and sell them on their merits. His colleagues, having no overriding partisan strategies, would be more likely to weigh the ideas on the same basis.
    Back to Dr. Fowler. The short version of his answer to my question goes like this:
    There has historically been a consensus in our country about certain basic principles, such as individual freedom, the sanctity of elections, the dominance of the private sector in our economy, the Bill of Rights and the viability of our basic structure of government.
    That leaves room for disagreement and political competition over such things as economic interests. So the Democrats have positioned themselves as representing the interests of the less well off, while Republicans have appealed to the more fortunate (and those who think they will be). Americans, Dr. Fowler went on, are not a very political people. We like to go about our individual pursuits, and only pay attention to electoral politics when the time rolls around to go vote.
    So it is, he said, that elephants and donkeys and such provide a service to our inattentive electorate: "The political party provides a political shorthand for enabling them to vote their economic interests without talking about it and arguing about it every day."
    Precisely. That’s exactly why I don’t like parties, only I would say the same thing in a slightly different way: Political parties enable us to vote without having to think.
    All content © THE STATE and may not be republished without permission.

So what does this tell us? It tells me that Dr. Fowler read my statement that "There never was much chance of" our endorsing Clinton-Gore in 1996, and extrapolated it to mean that this editorial board, even with turnover that left me as the only surviving member of the 1996 board, would never endorse anyone named "Clinton."

This seems like a stretch to me for several reasons. First, this wasn’t even a column about not endorsing Clinton. Our endorsement of Bob Dole had run two days earlier. Here’s a copy of it. That editorial was written not by me, but by my predecessor, who retired in 1997. A little historical footnote here: I would have written the editorial except that by that point in the campaign, I could no longer do so in good conscience. Dole had run such a disastrous campaign that I could not be the one to tell voters (even anonymously) that he was better able to run the White House. So my editor, who still preferred Dole, wrote it instead. Dr. Fowler had no way of knowing any of that. But the context of the statement was clear: We had just endorsed Dole, and all that we had written about the race up to that point led naturally to such a conclusion — including editorials I had written myself, earlier in the campaign. I still thought Dole was a better man than Bill Clinton; I just no longer thought he’d be a better president. It was also clear I wasn’t going to win any argument on that point — hence my wording in that column.

Second, anyone who read past that perfectly factual, supportable observation (that there was no way the board would endorse Clinton), would get to the other points I made, which took either a balanced, or even positive, view of Mr. Clinton. For instance, just to repeat myself:

    … The most responsible thing Bill Clinton tried to do in his first year
in office was to present a deficit-reduction plan that was a model of
nonpartisan sobriety, and which was destined to actually improve the
situation. So, of course, not one Republican in either house of
Congress voted for it. Not only did they vote against it, they’ve spent
the past three years misrepresenting it to the people.
    But that pales in comparison to the disinformation campaign the GOP
conducted over the Clinton health plan. The plan never had a chance,
which in a way was too bad, seeing as how most Americans wanted
something done about health-care costs and availability, but what was
that next to the need for the GOP to achieve its strategic objectives?…

Again, remember: I am the only editorial board member left from those days. And could a reasonable person conclude that the guy who wrote that passage would never, ever endorse Bill Clinton — much less "a Clinton?" I would say not. I would say that this was a guy I had a chance of winning over. But that’s just me.

Anyway, all that aside, the point of the column was, as the headline suggests, to decry the disastrous effect that the political parties have on our politics. This has been a recurring theme in my work ever since, and I have never wavered from it. If you’ve read the paper on anything like a regular basis, there’s really no excuse for misunderstanding me on this point.

The villain of the piece was not Bill Clinton, or even Newt Gingrich, but the Democratic and Republican parties.

Why would Sanford be a disastrous choice for McCain? Don’t get me started

31 Replies

Alternative headline I rejected: "Why I think Mark Sanford is a big phony." I considered that for one reason: It got a lot of attention the last time I applied that thought to a politician, and that’s what this situation calls for. The nonsense we’re hearing about Mark Sanford being considered as a running mate for John McCain is nothing but buzz — buzz that Mr. Sanford himself has carefully laid the groundwork for over the years, stroking media types inside the Beltway while neglecting South Carolina. It’s a thing without substance, amplified by Sunday talk shows. But in politics, buzz begets buzz, and before the volume on this particular noise rises too high, allow me to point out a few things.

Earlier today, I called someone I know who was close to the McCain campaign in South Carolina and said, "Consider this to be a crisis line call. I need you to reassure me of something very quickly…" The person I called laughed, and said, "I know exactly why you’re calling." This person had heard the buzz too, and thought it just as ridiculous as I did. He went on to say there was no way such a thing would happen. Good to hear. And it’s what I would expect to hear — there’s no way the John McCain I’ve described and praised in The State and in this forum could make such a mistake. But this is a matter of such import that I don’t believe in leaving anything to chance.

On the offhand slight risk that something like this could happen, let me offer just a few of the reasons why it shouldn’t. I’m not offering these in any order, so take them any way you like. Nor is this list all-inclusive. I’m just trying to get some of these things on the record:

  • Before putting Sanford on a long list, much less a short one, McCain should ask some of the true-blue conservative Republicans who helped him win the S.C. primary what they think. Start with House Speaker Bobby Harrell and Attorney General Henry McMaster. And demand that they be absolutely, brutally honest. Tell them not to let any misplaced notions about Reagan’s "11th commandment" get in the way. I haven’t asked either of them about this, but I suspect that the honest assessment of either of those leaders would lead to the same conclusion: Don’t even think about it.
  • It occurs to me that the first person Sen. McCain would ask would be Lindsey Graham. And in most things, that would be a wise call. But I submit that as smart as Lindsey Graham is, he has not been here in the trenches, watching with frustration as Mark Sanford has frittered away the very real chance he had of making a positive difference as governor. Don’t get me wrong — I think Sen. Graham’s honest assessment would ALSO be that he should steer clear of Sanford. I’m just saying that those who’ve had front-row seats right here in SC since 2002 have much more relevant, up-to-date information.
  • Some would superficially say Sanford would be a good match for McCain — aren’t they both "limited government" conservatives? But here’s the glaring difference: John McCain has devoted his life to public service, and believes in going to great lengths to make sure government performs its vital role in society as efficiently as possible. Mark Sanford is not a good-government guy (as we thought he was when we endorsed him in 2002). He is an anti-government guy. He exudes contempt for the public sector and all who devote themselves to it. This is something that it takes time with Sanford to understand. I didn’t realize it myself until he’d been in office several months. When it finally hit me, I confronted him about, saying essentially: You ran as a "conservative," but you’re not that at all. You’re a pure libertarian, with all that entails. He did not disagree. This may sound like I’m awfully slow on the uptake, and maybe I am. But it’s easy to be color-blind in this range. Modern conservatism tends to have its strongly libertarian components, so it’s easy to miss when a candidate or officeholder crosses the line into radical libertarianism, to the expense of commonsense conservatism. At least I began to realize it in his first year in office, and didn’t have to wait until he vetoed the entire state budget in 2006.
  • Let’s elaborate on that veto for a moment. It was a watershed event. If you had doubted where Sanford was coming from before, you would have no excuse for doing so afterward. I urge you to go back and read my column on the subject. In that veto, Mr. Sanford demonstrated more clearly than ever that being a hero to the Club for Growth is far, far more important to him than the business of actually governing South Carolina. If his veto had been upheld, there would have been no government in South Carolina — no highway patrol, no prison guards, no anything. Of course, Mr. Sanford will say that he knew the Legislature would override him. What that says is that he relied upon the Legislature to be responsible, using that confidence as license to make a supremely irresponsible, completely ideological gesture. In that moment, he threw away what little credibility he had earned with his obsessively detailed budgets, which we had praised for doing what the Legislature should do: Set priorities, holding some government functions as higher than others. All that was thrown away with a stroke of the pen, which told us all that was just so much abstract posturing. But the governor was just expressing his disillusionment with the process, you say? Well in that case, why not resign from office? That would make the point in a more dramatic, and more effective, way, without abdicating stewardship of the state.
  • But he wouldn’t do that — resign, that is — because that would mean he was no longer positioned to be picked as someone’s veep. And Mark Sanford’s tenure as governor all points to that being his motive. It makes sense of all that doesn’t add up otherwise. Take his supercilious manner toward the Legislature… Taking those two pigs into the lobby makes a great anecdote if your plan is to develop a national reputation as an anti-pork crusader. And if you did it after all other ways of communicating were exhausted, it might even have some validity. But ask the conservative Republican lawmakers who run General Assembly whether Mark Sanford has done the due diligence in trying to work for them to the betterment of South Carolina, and rest assured: The majority would say the stiff-arming contempt that was the central feature of the piglet publicity stunt reflects the governor’s default mode of dealing with lawmakers of his own party.
  • That contempt toward his own fellow Republicans should not be seen, in UnParty terms, as a potential virtue. Yes, it has tickled me at times to see how Mark Sanford sneers at party hoopla, despising parties as I do. But there is no upside to set alongside this contempt — no record of reaching out to, and working with, Democrats or independents, either. Sanford’s independence from his party is not that of the stalwart iconoclast, but of the radical individual who needs no one, and acts accordingly. The political career of Mark Sanford has been all about Mark Sanford. This is not that he is an egomaniac; it is that this is his philosophy. He thinks everyone should be equally focused on self, and private concerns.
  • An illustration of that point: Back during the 2002 campaign, I understood Mr. Sanford’s oft-stated wish to make South Carolina a better, more welcoming place for his sons to grow up in as being standard politicanspeak for, "I want to make South Carolina a better place for ALL children to grow up in." But no. If you look at his policy positions, he really meant HIS sons. And he wanted to advance policies that encouraged everyone to think first of advantages to them and their own, rather than to South Carolina as a whole. An illustration of THAT…
  • … Take his position with regard to education. First, he has no interest in PUBLIC education whatsoever. One of his two great policy priorities (the other is reducing the income tax, to which I will return) is to divert state funds to pay people to take their kids out of public schools, thereby reducing public support for the schools, which leads to less funding, which leads to the reduction of the one biggest item in the state budget. His ideological defenders would say, "No, it’s not about STATE funds; it’s about letting taxpayers keep their OWN money." But that speaks to my point. The governor and his ideological ilk look at public policy as CONSUMERS, not as CITIZENS. A consumer holds to the ridiculous notion that the taxes a parent pays toward supporting public schools are a sort of user fee; therefore if the parent sends HIS kids to private school or homeschools, he shouldn’t have to pay the taxes. But folks, public schools don’t exist merely as a service to the kids who attend them at a given moment, or to their families. If they did, we wouldn’t HAVE public schools, since only about a quarter of taxpayers have kids in the schools at any given time. We have public schools because universal education is a crucial goal of the society as a whole. We have public schools in order to create an educated society, so we have people with skills to fill the overwhelming majority of jobs in the state. We have the schools so that kids have a chance of becoming informed, constructive citizens, voters and taxpayers, rather than rotting away on street corners or in prison. On the most basic level, we have them so that all of us — from toddlers to retirees — can live in safe, prosperous communities, rather than in a Somalia-like environment of despair. And it is one of those few things that the market would never, ever provide on its own, because only society as a whole — rather than private actors — can profit from providing universal education (as opposed to targeted service to segments of the market, which can be profitable to a provider.)
  • To repeat a point I made in my column Sunday, this same kind of Philosophy of the Self is what informs the governor’s other great policy priority: Cutting the state income tax. Our Legislature is full of conservatives who LOVE cutting taxes, but relatively few of them would cite the governor’s choice — the income tax — as their priority. For one thing, it’s not relatively high. But the governor chooses that one for reasons related to what someone at the state Chamber of Commerce once said to me about the S.C. Policy Council: It doesn’t speak for business, or anyone who is creating jobs or might create jobs and wealth for the community. It speaks for people who have put all that behind them, who have made their pile and just want to shelter it from taxes. So would the governor’s approach to tax policy. This is also his economic development policy, almost entirely. He simply does not believe in the government investing in anything like endowed chairs; he believes the way to stimulate the economy is to make this a more attractive place for those who place legal tax evasion first and foremost.
  • Nothing Mark Sanford has done in his life, in either the public or private sector (and he’s spent very little time in the latter, so no balance for the ticket there), demonstrates any qualification or aptitude to be serve as president, should it come to that.

Disregard all political considerations for a moment: For the reasons above, and many more, placing Mark Sanford a heartbeat away from the presidency would be a great disservice to the nation. But if you want to consider the politics:

  • If McCain can’t win South Carolina without Sanford on his ticket, he should quit now. While I believe Barack Obama would break the patter of recent decades to campaign here (after the turnout he inspired in the primary, he could hardly do less than to put in an appearance) and would have an outside chance, it would still be McCain’s to lose. And Hillary "Old School" Clinton wouldn’t even try here.
  • McCain should never make the mistake of thinking Mark Sanford is the kind of guy who would get him in good with the portion of the base that he needs to win over. Think about it: Who is it that GOP voters have been voting for as the McCain alternative? Mike Huckabee. Gov. Huckabee is, on many levels, the opposite of Mark Sanford. Consider this one aspect: Mark Sanford is the hero of the Club for Growth, for all of the reasons I cited above — they love a guy who prefers anti-government posturing to governing, and their membership tends to consist of kinds of people who are independently wealthy to the degree that they see themselves as not needing the rest of society, and wonder what value other see in any sort of government. Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee is anathema to the Club for Growth, and the feeling is mutual — he calls it the Club for Greed.
  • The rise of Gov. Huckabee to the point of becoming the ONLY Republican alternative to Sen. McCain reflects a yearning in the base for something Mark Sanford could not satisfy. Mike Huckabee is no country-club conservative, but — as he puts it himself — a Boys and Girls-Club conservative. He is someone who shares the appreciation that ordinary people have for society’s institutions and the important role that they play in our lives. He knows that regular folks rely on institutions — including government — to provide things that mere individualism cannot offer. This is why he was even willing to go along with a tax increase to make sure the state adequately provided the basic services citizens rely upon. As he also says, Mr. Huckabee reminds voters of the guy they work with. The Club for Growth is like Mitt Romney — it looks like the guy who wants to lay them off.
  • What’s the one issue that has been most damaging to McCain this year? It’s illegal immigration, and the huge resentment of it out in the base. Is Mark Sanford a likely spokesman for that resentment? Of course not. That’s not a Club for Growth, fat-cat type of issue by any stretch. Once again, Huckabee would be a far more likely asset in this regard. (But don’t think this is about pushing Huckabee — it’s just that he’s the guy most often mentioned, so he comes first to mind, and when he does, he stands head-and-shoulders above Sanford on point after point.)
  • McCain would have good reason to want to counter an Obama candidacy with someone younger and more representative of "change." But Mark Sanford is one of the few people he might choose who actually have less in the way of accomplishments in public office than Sen. Obama. And remember that there is an inspirational, populist element in the appeal of Obama (and of Huckabee as well). Sanford would not bring that. As lacking in success as his tenure as governor has been, it looks better than his six years in Congress. All he accomplished there was making headlines for sleeping on his futon — a fact that perfectly encapsulates his career (plenty penny-pinching publicity stunts, few actual accomplishments).
  • Remember, we’re not talking about a guy who achieved a lot in the private sector, either. He managed to make a nice little pile without having a big impact on the business world, and then he essentially retired. Sanford is no Mitt Romney. Sanford has spent most of his last two decades in public office; if he hasn’t accomplished anything in public office, what has he accomplished? The answer: not much.
  • An argument could be made that a governor would help balance the ticket. And for a longtime senator, that’s true. But why this governor? Why a governor who is essentially an anti-governor? Why not someone like the governor of Florida, who not only could help deliver a critical swing state (remember the election of 2000), but who actually supported the McCain campaign when it counted.
  • That brings me to my last point for the moment (I know I’m leaving things out, but at some point I’ve got to go home for the day). In classic Mark Sanford style, our governor sat out the recent primary. At a time when both U.S. senators and other top Republicans laid their reputations on the line stating preferences at a critical moment in our state’s and nation’s history, at a time when most Republicans in the state were working as hard as they could for the candidate of their choice, Mark Sanford kept his theoretical options open by staying out of it. His apathy was palpable. There was nothing in it for Mark Sanford, so why make the gesture. Far better to choose someone who endorsed ANOTHER candidate (that could at least add balance) than someone who did not care whom was nominated.

I’m sure that the above rambling list will add to further discussion, and I will have additional points to make. For now I will close with the thought that there is a galaxy of reasons why Mark Sanford would be an awful choice for veep, and no good reasons to the contrary. Y’all take it from there.

McCain increasingly turns toward November

14 Replies

Here’s an excerpt from a McCain release that illustrates what we’re seeing more and more, which is the "presumptive" nominee starting the general election campaign:

   

The Washington Post this week clearly laid out one of the key differences at stake in the coming general election. The Post reported, "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure more than $340 million worth of home-state projects in last year’s spending bills, placing her among the top 10 Senate recipients of what are commonly known as earmarks, according to a new study by a nonpartisan budget watchdog group." Barack Obama is no better; he requested and received over $91 million of our hard-earned tax dollars for his own special interests and earmarks.
    What’s worse is that Senator Obama, who claims to be a candidate of "change," has refused to disclose the earmarks he requested prior to last year, when he started running for president. Washington needs change, but we will ever see it from someone who is part of the business as usual crowd in the Senate. How many earmarks did John McCain request last year? Zero.

This is a good place for him to start, since fighting pork gets him in good with those crybabies in his base we keep hearing about, and plays well with independents. Heck, even Speaker Pelosi has teamed up with Jim DeMint to fight earmarks.

One quibble, though: It makes no logical sense to say, "Barack Obama is no better," when in the same sentence you quantify the degree to which he was at least less bad: He sought $91 million worth of pork to Sen. Clinton’s $340 million. Assuming, of course, those numbers are accurate.

Huck Finn had a good rule of them that should be applied to political rhetoric: "Overreaching don’t pay."

‘Race Doesn’t Matter:’ A note from one who was there

13 Replies

Just got this kind e-mail today:

Dear Brad:

My name is Whitney and I’m an American black woman (I don’t fuss with that title "African-American, hell, I’m an AMERICAN first!!!!)

Anyway, I was at the South Carolina victory rally held for Barack Obama and I’ve been meaning to send you a thank you email for your wonderful blog dated Jan. 27, 2008 (that I have shared with other blacks who agree with you 110 percent) that it’s time to end these overly divisive and counterproductive tactics that use the false veil of racism to keep this country further divided.

Yes, there will always be those who strive for division, and they come in all colors, but your blog, along with the dynamic crowd at the event, and sound-minded voters across America agree that race doesn’t matter. There are some of us who are more interested in the character of an individual than with other superficial and artificial designations.

Kudos to you Brad, you have inspired me to start calling these so called "civil rights leaders" to tell them that enough is enough and to put their money where their mouth is….we need to acknowledge when progress has been made, instead of wallowing in some kind of "sorrow"…which sells books, fills auditoriums and subsequently polarizes those of us who may have otherwise worked together.

Thanks, Brad for your courage to speak the truth.

Whitney Larkins

To which I can only say, Thank you so much. I was sorry I couldn’t be there, and I enjoy hearing from folks who were.

More on Romney and McCain

8 Replies

Mccain_romney2_2

Just FYI, here’s the story on Romney backing McCain:

BOSTON — Republican campaign dropout Mitt Romney endorsed John McCain for the party’s presidential nomination and asked his national convention delegates to swing behind the likely nominee.
    "Even when the contest was close and our disagreements were debated, the caliber of the man was apparent," the former Massachusetts governor said, standing alongside his one-time rival at his now-defunct campaign’s headquarters. "This is a man capable of leading our country at a dangerous hour."
    "Primaries are tough," said McCain, referring to their earlier rancor. "We know it was a hard campaign and now we move forward, we move forward together for the good of our party and the nation."

Pictures, too. OK, go ahead. This is the cue for all you McCain-hating alleged "conservatives" to fulminate. Get it out of your systems. And don’t feel all alone — you are joined by McCain-haters on the left (OK, technically this one is a Bush-hating group, but it doesn’t mind hating McCain by association — how dare he occasionally agree with the guy?)

And neither group need feel lonesome, as once he sweeps by Hillary (which he will do if enough Democrats keep wising up), the Obama haters on the right will get good and geared up. That’s what partisanship is all about.

Mccain_romney

Cafeteria Jesus

10 Replies

Earlier this week I got a message from JESUSIN2008.COM, which called my attention to this recent piece in USA Today. We’re not talking about the Son of God here, but a personal construct of the site’s creator, Stephen Heffner.

Heffner, a fallen-away Catholic, picks and chooses his definition of Jesus, and invites you to do the same — a very American, and most unCatholic, pastime, by the way. Isn’t that pretty much the history of the Reformation — groups of folks going around inventing their own Jesuses? (OK, maybe not the liturgical churches, but don’t stop me; I’m on a rhetorical roll.)

Mr. Heffner is highly selective in building his Jesus. "There are only three rules on the site: no miracles, no preaching and no rude behavior," USA Today reports. No raising the dead, no Sermon on the Mount, no driving the money-changers from the Temple. None of that actual stuff that Jesus would do.

Visitors to the site are invited to pick running mates. In a quick glance, I didn’t notice any nominations for St. Peter. Obviously, no campaign consultants visit this site. Simon Peter would be loyal, would have that common touch that would help the ticket, and would be able to play the traditional veep "goon" role on the opposition with awesome effectiveness.

Of course, you don’t have to go to … well, wherever Mr. Heffner lives … to create your own Jesus (rather than, as most theologians would have it, letting Jesus redefine you). Adam Fogle just filed a TPS Report about a congressional candidate right here in S.C. who’s doing just that. Isn’t that special?

Looks like it might be over: Romney to back McCain

7 Replies

Just got this e-mail alert from the WSJ:

    Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has agreed to endorse Sen. John McCain and is asking his national convention delegates to swing behind the party front-runner, according to officials familiar with the decision. If all of Romney’s 280 delegates switch, McCain could quickly reach the total of 1,191 needed to clinch the nomination and end rival Mike Huckabee’s chances.

Make of it what you will.

McCain now a mathematical certainty — so tell me again why should I give?

19 Replies

McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis has put out a release claiming that it is now, after Tuesday, mathematically impossible for Mike Huckabee to catch him. An excerpt from the release, which you can read in its entirety here:

    Last night, after our strong victories in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, DC, I put together an analysis of the state of the race for the Republican nomination.  Including the delegates won last night, John McCain is now close to securing the number of delegates needed to be the presumptive Republican nominee.  In addition, it is now mathematically impossible for Mike Huckabee to win enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination; there simply aren’t enough delegates left at stake for him to win.

That’s cool. But something struck me: Mr. Davis sent this out within the context of asking donors for more money for the campaign.

Admittedly, I’ve never fully understood the power of the "bandwagon effect," but logically speaking (and logic IS an entirely different thing) this seems like a poor strategy for fund-raising: The battle is won! Give some more so we can continue the battle!

But if you think that’s a tough sell, how much less sense does it make to keep giving to Mike Huckabee’s campaign, as this release asks? Talk about your empty gestures.

But I’ll admit I’ll never be able to get into the head of the kind of person who gives this sort of money, because I’ll never have that kind of money to spare (totally apart from the fact that I am strictly forbidden to do so by newspaper policy). The very rich are different from you and me, Scott.

The good guys sweep the ‘Potomac Primary’

29 Replies

Mccainpotomac

Tuesdays are turning out to be especially fine in the year of our Lord 2008.

Another excellent result tonight, with these two headlines topping the WashPost‘s Web site:

I’ve been following politics professionally for more than three decades, and I’ve never seen go as well as they have this year, as my greatly preferred candidates in the Republican and Democratic contests both move from success to success.

I hope I’m not jinxing anything with all this joy, but I can’t help it. I’ve never had the chance to enjoy a presidential election like this in my adult life, and may never get it again, so I’m not going to play it cool by making this world a little colder (doesn’t quite work, does it, except in the song; logically, it should be "makes the world a little bit colder by playing it cool" — oh, well; just enjoy it).

Even Mike Huckabee, a candidate I sorta like also, is playing his part by making this McCain victory worth reporting. Those wins he had over the weekend help to make tonight more enjoyable. And the closer we come to Obama passing and beating Hillary — and he’s got the Mo now — the closer we come to that no-lose situation I’ve been hoping for, which goes like this:

  • McCain has always been the one Republican candidate who can win in the fall, and it is a tremendous blessing that he’s always been the one worthy of the office. So he could be president.
  • The so-called "conservatives" who hate him with an irrational, childish sort of spite will have to do one of two things: Line up behind him, or stay home and deny him the White House. This would be a tragic result except that …
  • If Obama is the Democratic nominee, the "conservatives’" petulance will result in electing HIM, the other very fine candidate in the race.

Either way, I get my way, but far, far more importantly, the nation is better served than it has been in many an election.

Anyway you look at it, Paul Simon’s gonna have to change the words to HIS song.

The only thing that can spoil all this is if Hillary Clinton manages to pull this thing out. That looks less and less likely, although at the same time I don’t EVER expect to see her bow out. She wants it too badly; the good of her party is nothing against that.

But that, you see, produces another wonderful result, because both of the following happen:

  • The "conservatives" get behind McCain as their only hope for heading off their worst nightmare, and
  • All of us independent swing voters who might have voted for Obama turn out strongly for McCain; she won’t get any of that vote to speak of.

Coo-coo-ca-choo, Mrs. Robinson. I do believe I see Joltin’ Joe coming back in from center field, on the run, the winning out in the web of his glove.

Obamapotomac

Stories that tell why we need single-payer

63 Replies

We continue to concentrate on the wrong thing — getting the uninsured into the present system — when we talk about health care reform.

Increasingly, those of us who are privileged to be in the system find that we can’t afford health care, either. The whole system is rotten, wasteful, too expensive and too inefficient. We pay more money to be sicker than folks in any other advanced nation.

There are a lot of problems with our system, but the biggest is the basic premise — employer-based health care through for-profit (and we’re talking for HUGE profits) private insurance companies.

If private health care coverage weren’t so expensive for all of us, the 1 in 7 who remain uncovered would be in it. But it is, and will be, expensive by definition. A profit has to be made.

A single-payer system is the logical way to go. It’s time we got logical about this monster that is now consuming 16 percent of our national economy.

I wrote this column — "‘Health care reform?’ Hush! You’ll anger the Insurance Gods!" — back in November because it’s time that people like me — in the top income quintile — started pointing out how unaffordable this wasteful system is for us, which means it’s worse for millions of others who are also in the system. An excerpt from that column:

    … I make more money than most people do here in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, and I live paycheck to paycheck, in large part because of the cost of being an extremely allergic asthmatic, and needing to do what it takes to keep enough oxygen pumping to my brain to enable me to work so I can keep paying my premiums and copays. My premiums in the coming year — we’re going to a new plan — will be $274.42 on every biweekly check, not counting dental or vision care. And I’m lucky to have it. I know that, compared to most, I’ve got a sweet deal!
    I’m in the top income quintile in the U.S. population, and we can’t afford cable TV, we’ve never taken a European vacation or done anything crazy like that, we haven’t bought a new car since 1986, and aside from the 401(k) I can’t touch until I retire (if I can ever afford to retire), we have no savings.
    Yet I will pay my $274.42 gladly, and I will thank the one true God in whom I actually do believe that I have that insurance, and that I am in an upper-income bracket so that I can just barely pay those premiums, and that neither my wife (a cancer survivor) nor I nor either of the two children (out of five) the gods still let me cover is nearly as unhealthy as the people I see whenever I visit a hospital…

On Jan. 6, we ran an op-ed piece from B.J. Welborn that told another middle-class story. An excerpt:

    But the picture is not always rosy. A recent experience made me realize that although I have a comfortable income and a good education, pay taxes and have an insurer pick up most of my health care costs, an overburdened and undermonitored health care system can leave me vulnerable and scared. Here’s my latest scare:
    Last year, an out-of-state company bought my husband’s firm in Columbia. We were forced to change our insurance. This change required baffling paperwork to keep my Gleevec coming, and though we tried valiantly to figure out the process, different people at the insurance company told us different things. The process dragged out; the clock was ticking for me. Soon, three weeks passed without my lifesaving drug. I wondered if anybody cared.
    I checked with my pharmacy and found it couldn’t order Gleevec from its supplier. I searched for Gleevec at other pharmacies. This drug, still in clinical trials, isn’t like a common antibiotic kept on drugstore shelves. I couldn’t find it. And even if I could find Gleevec, how would I pay for it? $3,000 this month, then $3,000 the next month?
    My anxiety mounted. When I washed my face, small blemishes bled, as they do when your blood can’t do its job. I was slipping through the cracks, and I was cracking up…
    The "what if" game is terrible. Millions play it, and one day, you or a
loved one could too. Anyone can get a chronic disease — diabetes, stroke,
mental illness, heart disease or cancer.
    Let’s face it: You, too, could slip through the cracks of our health care
system. So, it is up to you to make our potential leaders aware of what’s
really going on. It’s not just the poor and uninsured who are hurting, it’s
also millions of hard-working, middle-class Americans who foot the bill for
others’ health care…

Then, on Friday, Feb. 1, we had this letter to the editor:

Health coverage could make writer sick
    I am absolutely disgusted by the state of our nation’s health care.
    I am a college-educated woman with a bachelor’s degree, an employee of a prestigious university, but most important, a wife and a mother of young children.
    I live in fear that one of my family members will become seriously ill or simply require regular preventative care that my health insurance does not cover.
    For example, last year, I discovered that the health insurance for S.C. state employees does not cover routine pelvic exams, and without health insurance, that type of procedure can cost almost $200. And other medical procedures aren’t covered until after I meet the $350-per-person deductible.
    With one child in daycare and the costs of my children’s health care and regular childhood illnesses, I simply can’t afford to pay $200 or $350 or $550 for my own care. So I don’t go. And I hope that I don’t get sick.

MARTHA BROWN
Columbia

That letter prompted this one on today’s page:

Health insurance costs leave little for care
    I read the letter “Health care coverage could make writer sick” by Martha Brown with interest.
    While wholly sympathetic to her concerns, I feel, by comparison to many of us, she would be embarrassed by how good she has it.
    As a provider for a healthy and active family of four, I am shackled with a monthly insurance bill in excess of $800. For this, we are provided with a policy that covers only 80 percent after a $1,000 deductible per person. It would appear that our policy was written to provide for the economic health of our insurance company, rather than that of my family.
    Our provider enjoys strong local recognition, and I hope it is competitive with other carriers, but my bill has become a payment for asset protection rather than health care, and I’m not sure how well it provides for that.
    “Health care is expensive” is the most common explanation received when I question our agent, doctors and others about our situation, but price is irrelevant when, after insurance payments, no money is left over for health care.
    Surely, mine and Ms. Brown’s situation is not unique. We live in the greatest society that has yet existed, but our current profit-driven health care system is clearly in direct conflict with what is best for its citizens.

EDGAR PUTNAM
Columbia

More people should come forward with these stories. It’s embarrassing — neither of my two bosses, my employer or my wife, was particularly crazy about me going into such details — but this stuff needs to be available as we debate these issues. And we must debate them — the status quo is not sustainable.

Obama: ‘Those old categories don’t work’

15 Replies

Obama_2008_wart3

Further continuing the conversation that we continued here…

As you know, I’ve challenged the facile use of the word "conservative." My point is, you can’t just say "I’m conservative" or "he’s not conservative" and have it mean anything. You have to explain, conservative how — in what way? Because alone, the word has had the meaning leached out of it.

Similarly, the word "liberal." This is an excellent video clip of Barack Obama fielding questions about having been judged the Senate’s "most liberal" member. He does a pretty fair job of deconstructing the term, and then goes on to the more important point: "This is the old politics. This is the stuff that we’re trying to get rid of."

He is speaking to… what? … the real split in American politics, between the old-style partisan warriors that we swing voters long ago got sick of, and those who would lead a different kind of pragmatic, results-oriented discussion of issues.

Clinton_2008_wart2

Crazy Ivans

3 Replies

Tu95_bear_j

And here I thought we’d put the "Hunt for Red October" days behind us. The nouveau-oil-riche Russians are continuing to try to prove that they’ve got big ones, too — bombers, that is:

{Russia says bombers’ flyover of US aircraft carrier part of routine} patrol
{Eds: PMs.}
   MOSCOW (AP) – The Russian military said Tuesday that its bombers’ flyover of a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Pacific was part of a routine patrol conducted in accordance with international rules.
   Russian air force spokesman Alexander Drobyshevsky said in a statement carried by Russian news wires that the Tu-95 bombers didn’t violate any rules of engagement when they flew over the Pacific on Saturday.
   U.S. military officials said that one Tu-95 buzzed the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz twice, at a low altitude of about 2,000 feet, while another bomber circled about 50 nautical miles out. U.S. fighters were scrambled from Nimitz to intercept the bombers.
   Drobyshevsky said the Russian bombers conducted their flight "in strict compliance with the international rules of using airspace rules, over neutral waters and without any violation of other countries’ borders." He said the bombers were fulfilling their "assigned task" when they were escorted by the U.S. carrierborne fighters.
   The Saturday incident came amid heightened tensions between the United States and Russia over U.S. plans for a missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic.
   The U.S. has defended the plan as necessary to protect its European allies from possible attacks by Iran. But the Kremlin has condemned the proposal, saying it would threaten Russia’s security.
   Such Russian encounters with U.S. ships were common during the Cold War, but have been rare since then. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin Russia revived the Soviet-era practice of long-range patrols by strategic bombers over the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans last August.

Boys and their toys — right, ladies? Combine that facet of the male character with the Russian’s titanic inferiority complex over how the Cold War ended, and you’ve got … well, the New French. I wonder what the term is for Russian deGaullism? Putinism, perhaps? But that describes so many unpleasant things, doesn’t it?

Expect to see more of these incidents. And let’s pray one of them doesn’t turn really, really ugly.

This is why — or rather, this is another reason why, in addition to the war on terror, the rise of China, etc. — that in an era in which so many want to obsess about domestic issues, America’s role in the world is the first thing we ask presidential candidates about. Because that is Job One for the chief executive.

Scarred fighter vs. Something new

3 Replies

Obama_2008_wartback

Can’t seem to get off the theme of my Sunday column. The WashPost has a story today leading with the very same dichotomy between the two Democratic presidential candidates:

    Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama offered himself as "something new" at a pair of spirited, arena-size rallies in Maryland yesterday, while his primary rival, Hillary Clinton, portrayed herself as a "battle-scarred" fighter for the middle class at more intimate events held across the region on the eve of today’s primaries.

Maybe it’s new to the folks in the "Potomac Primary" region. It certainly sums them up — the scarred fighter of the bitter partisan wars vs. someone who would lead us beyond all that. As the WashPost notes in another story today, this is indeed an opportunity for voters to "influence one of the closest presidential nominating fights in memory."

And yet, while the contest may be close, the candidates couldn’t be farther apart on this central difference between them — a new beginning on one hand, more of the same on the other.

Clinton_2008_wartback

The real split in American politics

74 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
LATE ON SUPER Tuesday, I was typing on my blog in one room while Hillary Clinton was addressing her supporters on the TV in another.
    I couldn’t hear every word, but the ones that did cut through were telling:

    Now, we know the Republicans won’t give up the White House without a fight. Well, let me be clear — I won’t let anyone swift boat this country’s future.

    “Republicans.” “Fight.” “Swift boat.” Terms calculated to stir the blood of the Angry Faithful. Then, later: “Together, we’re going to take back America.”
    There was kinder, gentler stuff (if I’m allowed to borrow language from that other side) in the speech, about health care for all and supporting our veterans and helping the powerless. But Barack Obama talks about that stuff, too. Since these primaries are about choosing one or the other, one listens for the differences.
    Between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama, the difference lies in those fighting words. It’s a difference set out with great clarity in a recent letter to the editor in this newspaper:

    …(W)hile Sen. Barack Obama is an incredible orator and inspires hope for a post-partisan future, the reality of American politics is partisan. Astute voters realize this and want the candidate who is best suited to fight the Republican Party. Hillary Clinton and her team have gone toe-to-toe with the Republicans and beaten them more often than not.

    The reality of American politics is partisan. And Barack Obama is running on a platform of changing that reality. So, in his own way, is John McCain.
    The Democrats to whom Sen. Clinton appeals don’t despise Sen. Obama (they save that for Republicans), but they don’t see him as having his blood sufficiently up for doing battle with the “enemy.” And they’re right.
    Consider what Sen. Obama said in South Carolina on the night of his primary victory:

    We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents… 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’s the kind of politics that is bad for our party, it’s bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.

    In the Republican camp, Sen. McCain has done more than just talk about moving beyond mindless partisanship; he’s risked his political future repeatedly to work with Democrats to achieve goals that put country before party. Last week, he asked the Angry Faithful in his party to “calm down,” and defended his habit of working across the aisle. Self-appointed spokesman for the Angry Faithful Rush Limbaugh responded:

    When did the measure of conservatism… become reaching out to Democrats?… If this were a war, what we’re saying is, “Enemy, come on in, and come be who you are when you get here.”… We view those people as threats to the American way of life, as we’ve always known it…. We view them as people who need to be defeated, not worked with.

    The truly great irony here is that the Angries on the left and the right do work together. In their pas de deux of mutual loathing, they cling to each other so tightly that there’s no room for anyone who’d like to separate them and create a space for rational discourse, or — the gods of left and right forbid — agreement on issues.
    Here’s an example of how the left’s Angries work with their counterparts on the right: The left emotionally demands stem cell research, as Sen. Clinton did in her speech Tuesday. The right cries, No, Never! Ignored are such facts as a) stem cell research is going on, just without federal funding in some areas; b) recent breakthroughs could make embryonic stem cells, the kind being fought over, irrelevant; and c) the man Sen. Clinton seeks to face in the fall, John McCain, favors broadened stem cell research.
    Another example: Last week, the leftists of the Berkeley, Calif., city council dissed the U.S. Marines. Eager warriors on the right (such as our own Rep. Joe Wilson and Sen. Jim DeMint) practically fell over themselves rushing to denounce the Berkeley council. The Marines are a great bogeyman for the loonies in Berkeley; Berkeley is a rare, juicy steak to the right. Call me paranoid, but sometimes I suspect the two sides of working out these stunts between them ahead of time. Everybody comes out on top, except the Marines — and somehow I think the guys who took Iwo Jima will overcome this as well.
    There is indeed a stark divide in this country, but it’s not between the Angry Left and the Angry Right. They just prop each other up. Collectively, they are both the Other Side to me, striving to distract us from realizing the central truth that we’re all in this together.
    On the one hand are the Clinton Democrats and the Republicans who sincerely would rather see Sen. Clinton elected than Sen. McCain. They depend upon each other. They deserve each other.
    The rest of us believe we deserve, for once, a presidential election between candidates who care more about solutions than whether left or right “wins.”
    This is not about affirming some “mushy middle.” You can hardly find two positions farther apart that the McCain and Obama views on Iraq. They have very different ideas on how to fight America’s enemies abroad. But at least neither of them sees the main “enemy” as being their fellow Americans who happen to disagree.

Voting by YouTube

1 Reply

Readers may have noticed that I take an interest in which of my videos seem to be most popular — more of an interest than readers themselves take, judging by the few comments on my Top Five Videos posts. Fine. But maybe you’ll find this interesting.

It just occurred to me to compare videos posted at roughly the same time featuring competing presidential candidates. The results are interesting — OK, they’re interesting to me. But I’m going to share them anyway. If you’d like to look at the raw data to draw your own conclusions, my videos are listed chronologically, with the most recent first, at this link. For the most popular, with the most-watched first, click here. But here’s what I’ve noticed glancing over them just now:

  • The cleanest comparison you’re likely to find of this sort among the Democrats who were still in the race at the time of our primary is in these three videos I posted the same day (MLK Day). They feature Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama speaking at King Day at the Dome. All are of poor quality, but of roughly equally poor quality. The Obama one is probably worst, because I was the farthest away when he was speaking. But what interested me was that the Obama video was watched 390 times, the Clinton video 150 times, and the Edwards clip 16 times. That’s a bigger margin than the actual vote. I wonder how the demographics break down? No way to tell.
  • Before you start feeling bad for Hillary, though, remember that my "Hillary’s Heckler" video is still my most- watched ever, at 17,019 views. You have to wonder, though — are people watching it because they like Hillary, or because they like to see her heckled? Difficult to tell. I will say that if you try reading the comments, it won’t make you feel better about the electorate.
  • The only presidential candidates to make it into my all-time Top Ten are Hillary, Stephen Colbert, Jeri Thompson (you might object that she wasn’t technically a candidate, but that would be ungallant of you, and besides, neither was Colbert), and Joe Biden. Ol’ Joe got there in spite of the wretched quality — it was from my phone. Oh, I forgot — John Taylor Bowles. You may have forgotten Mr. Bowles. He’s the Nazi party candidate. Make what you will of the fact that all three of the clips I put up from the Nazi rally at the State House a few months back are in my Top Five, which means having more than 10,000 views each.
  • Fred Thompson (that’s Jeri’s husband) may be out of it technically, but here’s an interesting fact. I attended a Thompson event and a Huckabee event on the same night, shooting video at both. I posted them at the same time. The Thompson video was of markedly poorer quality, because of the angle and distance (I was right up against the platform at the Huckabee deal). As I reported at the time, and as you can see on the videos, the energy level was much higher at the Huckabee event — a phenomenon borne out in the voting on primary day. But that has nothing to do with page views — the Thompson video has 1,396 views, giving it Top Twenty status. The Huckabee clip was only watched 172 times. Go figure.

That’s all for now.

Club for Growth to McCain: Do our bidding

36 Replies

Finally, I have a moment to blog, and so I will now share with you the WSJ opinion piece that three people have pointed out to me today.

The Club for Growth, shocked that neither of the two remaining Republican candidates is the sort who will do their bidding, completely misses the point that, contrary to its own mythology, it is badly out of step with the Republican electorate. That means its last refuge is gone, just as it was prepared to take over the world. Nasty things, reversals.

Therefor the Club’s advice to the man who is getting nominated without it is that he simply must do its bidding in the matter of choosing a running mate. To wit, as set out by Club President Pat Toomey:

    While congratulations are still premature, with Mitt
Romney dropping out of the race yesterday it is now very likely that
the Republican Party will nominate Sen. John McCain for president. If
that happens, the GOP will, for the first time since 1976, select a
candidate at odds with a large portion of its conservative members to
be the standard bearer. At the same time, the party is more estranged
from independent swing voters than it has been for decades.
    This will pose a twin challenge for Mr. McCain. To
meet it, he will have to become the champion of the brand of economic
conservatism that has won national elections for Republicans since 1980…

To which I say, how come? He got past the hurdle that theoretically requires your favor without you. Your views don’t amount to diddly among the independents he has to win now. Sure, the really emotional types who are ticked over the existence of Mexican In Our Midst might stay home and give it to Hillary out of pique. But those fellas have nothing to lose. You are men of business. You may be crazy (politically speaking), but you’re not stupid. Are you?

Anyway, here’s where it really gets wild. Here is also where we find out why the economic libertarian extremists from Wall Street and other foreign parts have devoted so much of their ready cash to South Carolina politics. Obviously, this is the basket that holds 40 percent of their eggs. They have five veep suggestions to make, and two of them are South Carolinians: Mark Sanford and Jim DeMint.

Really. John McCain just wrapped up the nomination his way, with the support of such truly conservative South Carolinians as Bobby Harrell and Henry McMaster, and the Club says he should pick either the state’s most prominent advocate of Mitt Romney, who just proved his lack of appeal; or the guy who is such a nonteam-player, such an anti-team player, that he couldn’t be bothered to back anybody for president. A guy who is so obviously for nobody can expect nobody to be grateful enough to him to ask him to come along for the ride. Why would a candidate think he’d be helped by a guy who couldn’t be bothered to pick up an oar when it counted? Principled disagreement, a la DeMint, a ticket-balancing nominee might go for. But a guy who’s for no one but himself? Fuggedaboudit.

But why go for either of them when there’s an actually attractive candidate out there with vote-getting ability? Enter Mike Huckabee. But that doesn’t suit Mr. Toomey:

    Moving forward, Mr. Huckabee on the ticket would be a disaster. The former governor has a record of raising taxes and increasing spending. Picking him would only make it more likely that conservatives will sit on their hands come November.

What could these fellas have against ol’ Huck? Could it be that he goes all over the country calling them the "Club for Greed"? Could it be that folks who don’t vote for McCain keep voting for the guy who calls them the — let’s say it again — "Club for Greed" (there’s video on this link)?, who says theirs is "a sleazy way to do politics"?

"Fortunately," breathes Mr. Toomey with relief, "there is no shortage of true-blue fiscal conservatives in the GOP" — meaning "guys like us," for the Club is one of those outfits out there that defines "conservative" as "guys who are true-blue to us."

But obviously, "conservatives" by this definition are indeed quite scarce. Out of 49 states, they can only come up with three. The other two they dig up from a state in which McCain and Huckabee won 63 percent of the Republican vote, and the only guy that either of the two guys they dug up supported got 15 percent.

Oh, heck yeah — that’s a BIG help. Thanks but no thanks, Club for Gree-, I mean "Growth."

McCain speaks to some “conservatives”

37 Replies

John McCain, having sewn up the nomination, went today to soothe the feelings of these people who call themselves "conservatives." He spoke to CPAC (I had to look it up, since I do my best not to let data about interest groups crowd the portions of my brain I prefer to use composing haiku, or thinking up Top Five lists). Here’s a release containing his entire speech, and here’s an excerpt:

I am proud to be a conservative, and I make that claim because I share with you that most basic of conservative principles: that liberty is a right conferred by our Creator, not by governments, and that the proper object of justice and the rule of law in our country is not to aggregate power to the state but to protect the liberty and property of its citizens. And like you, I understand, as Edmund Burke observed, that "whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither . . . is safe."

While I have long worked to help grow a public majority of support for Republican candidates and principles, I have also always believed, like you, in the wisdom of Ronald Reagan, who warned in an address to this conference in 1975, that "a political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers."

I attended my first CPAC conference as the invited guest of Ronald Reagan, not long after I had returned from overseas, when I heard him deliver his "shining city upon a hill" speech. I was still a naval officer then, but his words inspired and helped form my own political views, just as Ronald Reagan’s defense of America’s cause in Vietnam and his evident concern for American prisoners of war in that conflict inspired and were a great comfort to those of us who, in my friend Jerry Denton’s words, had the honor of serving "our country under difficult circumstances." I am proud, very proud, to have come to public office as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. And if a few of my positions have raised your concern that I have forgotten my political heritage, I want to assure you that I have not, and I am as proud of that association today as I was then. My record in public office taken as a whole is the record of a mainstream conservative. I believe today, as I believed twenty-five years ago, in small government; fiscal discipline; low taxes; a strong defense, judges who enforce, and not make, our laws; the social values that are the true source of our strength; and, generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I have defended my entire career as God-given to the born and unborn….

I didn’t read past that because the topic bores me. Once people start genuflecting to Ronald Reagan, I look for the exits. But some of you might find it illuminating, so here.