These days it seems like just about the only thing that Barack Obama and John McCain agree on is an unequivocal support for Israel. While they are diametrically opposed on seemingly every critical issue, they almost find themselves competing to see who can offer more fulsome support for Israel, and by extension, the foreign policy of that country.
Numerous public statements from each bear out this assertion. Essentially all of McCain's disdain for the Iranian regime comes from their rhetoric towards Israel. He also offered the infamous "bomb bomb bomb" Iran quote a few years back when asked what he wanted to do to that country, particularly if they made an aggression gesture towards Israel.
For his part, Barack Obama was nearly stumbling over himself at the AIPAC convention last week to offer an unequivocal endorsement of Isreal's policies vis a vis Iran, and the Palestinians.
Just a mere month ago, McCain lambasted his electoral opponent for what he perceived as his "naivety" on the Iranian threat when he said:
"It is a serious error on the part of Senator Obama, that shows naivety and inexperience and lack of judgment, to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country who says that Israel is a stinking corpse."
The most interesting part of the quote is that McCain cites Iranian's policy on Israel as a justification for a continuation of the United States policy with respect to the Islamic Republic. Judging by this quote, John McCain seems to believe that United States policy in this matter is predicated on how Iran deals with another country.
A logical extension of McCain's quote would also lead the reader to believe that his loyalty to Israel is tantamount, or even paramount to his loyalty to America. As a politician whose duty is to presumably serve the interests of the citizens of the United States, it's odd, and highly questionable for John McCain to instead place the interests of this country at the behest of another, as he is clearly doing in this instance. For a candidate who stakes his candidacy on his dexterity and expertise in foreign affairs, it is as best shortsighted, and at worst a dereliction of duty for John McCain to delay the advancement of the United States strategic interests towards Iran because of Iran's policy towards another country.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surprisingly, McCain has received no flack for the aforementioned decision to inextricably intertwine the interests of the United States with that of Israel from any current office holders. As indicated above, Obama's similar stance certainly provides McCain with apt political cover to neglect US strategic interests, but that is not the real reason that he escapes unscathed.
Rather, the political climate has shifted to the point where anything but unapologetic support for Israeli policies is nearly political suicide. If any candidate, or elected official, irrespective of party, offers a critique of Israeli decision makers, they are immediately discredited by the mainstream press and other politicians. Some detractors, like Jimmy Carter, have been labeled anti-Semitic by the far right zealotry who steadfastly supports Israel. Politicians first and foremost strive to be re-elected, and in order to due so in the present milieu, they must suppress critiques of Israel, no matter how salient they may be to present or future US policy in the region.
The climate as such has thus rendered any sort of serious discussion on the actual impact of the United States' unabated support for Israel impossible. Because of this pervading sentiment, policy flexibility and adaptability has been severely limited, lest our policy makers want to incur the wrath of those on both the Christian right, and the pro-Israel right.
1. Unfettered support for Israeli policy has made a simmering Middle East into a powder keg, and thus increased the blowback towards the United States as a whole. A perfect example of this phenomenon would be 9/11. Of course, Washington endorsing Tel Aviv did by no means directly cause the terrorist attacks. But, this support was arguably the foremost bone of contention Al-Qaeda has with the United States, one they can easily use to recruit and radicalize Muslim men and women in the region.
2. Support for Israel without any sort of conditions has endangered the stability of regimes friendly to American policies in the region. Allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt find themselves under intense fire from their citizens when they appear to look powerless on the Arab/Israeli conflict. By associating themselves with the United States, a nation who has little issue with supporting Israel, these Arab nations put themselves in danger from Islamist insurgencies and other potential radical groups who feed off the otherwise moderate citizens who feel passionately about Palestinian statehood. However loathsome Egypt and Saudi Arabia may be on human rights and freedom of speech, they are invaluable supporters in the war on terror. If they were to be shamed by their citizens after looking impotent towards helping the Palestinians, dire consequences could materialize for our interests.
3. The no questions asked support for Israel has emboldened and assisted Iran. It's no secret that the mullah's running Iran are not particularly popular amongst their own people. The control and dissemination of information, and they ability to mold public opinion is essential for the clergy to maintain power.
Luckily for the Iranian leadership, there is no easier way to distract the populace than to bring up how the "Zionists and Americans" are crusading against Muslims throughout the world. No other argument, as facetious and factually wrong as this may be, has a similar mollifying effect for the Iranian regime. The Bush Administration's decision to offer unilateral support to Israeli doctrine has thus provided the Iranian leadership, namely Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with plenty of rhetorical fire to steer their citizenry away from any concerted effort at reform.
As a result, disastrous decisions have been made that have jeopardized critical US interests in the region. Among the miscues:
Given the 3 examples listed above, one would think that carrying a myopic and restricted policy into a region as volatile as the Middle East would be implausible. Public opinion and pressure would not permit for such a contretemps between United States interests and their policies in the region.
Yet, sadly, because the climate is such that any sort of policy that attempt to disengage United States' policies from Israel's is summarily dismissed as "anti-Semitic", or would "help the terrorists", failures abound. As I mentioned in the first paragraph, this phenomenon spans the ideological spectrum, from the far right to the Democrats in Congress. None of these entities are brave enough to buck the prevailing orthodoxy, and as a result, American interests are threatened and will continue to be so.
Frankly, one should expect a greater degree of intellectual pliancy from the man who will be the 44th President of the United States. That said, I would not turn to John McCain for any sort of resiliency or malleability with respect for the Middle East. Like the rest of his party, every issue is as clear as the Biblical battle between "good" and "evil". The Israeli's are good, and of course, the Palestinians and their Muslim allies are patently, and wholly bad. Hell, the only thing that gets John McCain more excited than the imminent destruction of Iran, and the subsequent rise of Israel to the apotheosis of the Middle East, is to talk about how "we are winning" in Iraq.
So that leaves the onerous task to Barack Obama. Throughout the primary season, Obama has shown himself a formidable and adaptable politician. Despite that pedigree, he has thus far been unwilling to serve as a bulwark against the irrationality of the present Israel policy.
However, he has shown a innate capacity to learn quickly. After all, only 4 years ago he was a novice in the Illinois legislature. Let's hope he utilizes those same instincts to address the deficiencies in the U.S. policy towards Israel.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Lessons from Presidential Primary: Part 2
Sincere apologies for the week long delay between parts 1 and 2. Deciphering Cindy McCain's tax returns and her husband's confusing medical records took longer than originally envisioned.
Back to the lessons...
1. "Lunch Pail" voters may not vote what's best for their "Lunch Pail": After Super Tuesday, Barack Obama had problems specifically with what is known as the "lunch pail" voters, the working class. He was trounced by these cadre in West Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky. Now that their preferred candidate in the primary season, Hillary Clinton, has withdrawn from the race, a large number of this group has insinuated that they will defect to John McCain's side.
To some extent, this is not a particularly surprising development. Rural America is not known as a hotbed of tolerance, and there is historical precedence for these voters to abandon the Democrats (John Kerry to Lil Bush by more than 20 points amongst this demographic in 2004).
What we found from the revelation, that the working class voters may abandon Obama, is that the Thomas Frank thesis is still alive and well; that is, the working class voters continually ally themselves with candidates who offer stolid opposition to their economic well being. John McCain is no different from his Republican predecessors. His vision for the economy does not provide permanent relief from suffocating energy prices (gas tax holiday is the epitome of gimmick politics that his counterparts on the Evangelical right specialize in), it does not provide health care to the millions of the uninsured, and he does not alleviate the chronic wage stagnation and income disparities that have plagued this country since 1980.
Nevertheless, these voters may be shifting to McCain's campaign. There is still obviously months before the election, but their gravitational shift after Clinton's withdrawal at the conclusion of the primaries may foreshadow difficulties for Obama in the Fall.
Then again, I could be grossly misstating the policy preferences of the working class. Maybe they are just enamored with McCain's breathtaking proposal to institute no new taxes on "Internet ventures"
2. Starting your Campaign a month after everyone else is a bad idea:
Ahh, the fate of the formerly teflon Rudolph Giuliani. America's favorite cross dresser decided to eschew all common knowledge about the early primary season, and not compete in the Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina contests. Simply put, this was a fool's errand of the highest magnitude.
Rudy's followers may argue that the relatively conservative electorate in that state would not have taken to Rudy's message. This can be proven illogical on two fronts: First, New Hampshire and Michigan are hardly the bastion of Tony Perkins, James Dobson and the far religious right conservatism. Secondly, "winning" in those early bell-weather states does not necessarily mean the person who receives literally the most votes. In 1992, Bill Clinton finished 2nd in New Hampshire, but by deft manipulation of the media (we all remember the Comeback Kid, don't we?), Clinton emerged from New Hampshire with the perception that he had exceeded expectation and thus truly won the state. Going forward, Clinton was buoyed by that perception much more than who actual won the state.
The same axiom can be applied to this year, in the instance of Hillary Clinton. Hillary, in what came as a shock to her camp, did not prevail in Iowa. However, the gravitas of that loss forced to alter her campaign, and what emerged from that was her most success election persona; that of a fighter who refuses to back down ever.
Rudolph Giuliani was the consensus GOP front runner for the majority of 2007. Undoubtedly, his message did not play as well to conservatives in Des Moines as it would in New York City or Miami, but by abdicating the race pre-emptively, he created the perception of a frail, flawed candidate. By the time he made his last stand in Florida, the ship had sailed and all of that inimitable momentum had gone to John McCain.
3. Hell Hath no Fury like a Clinton supporter scorned?: Washington D.C. on May 31st was a frightening place. Hoards of hyped up Clinton supporter scoured the streets of our National's Capital for anyone carrying a copy of Sports Illustrated, or featuring a pronounced bulge in their trousers. As Sam Stein vividly illustrated on The Huffington Post, he could not safely eat a Reuben without being ensconced and then attacked by fervent Clinton backers.
All hyperbole aside, the vitriol espoused by Hillary's army at the Rules Committee meeting vividly showed us just how much support she had, and by extension, how much of a dent she had put in the proverbial glass ceiling. It can firmly be stated that a lesson from 2008 is that a woman is no longer to be tossed aside as a light weight, non-contender in a Presidential election.
What the fury of her supporters portends for the future of Sen. Obama's campaign is of more interest to this entry. As Salon.com pointed out, every election features some backlash against the winner, from supporters of the loser, even if they hail from the same party. Will the anger linger?
Not if these women have any sort of capacity for rational thought, it won't. Forgetting that Clinton and Obama's positions on major issues are essentially indistinguishable, but what exactly do women who support Clinton have to gravitate to about McCain's campaign? His record on abortion rights is similar to Sam Brownback and all the other right wing demagogues. His health care plan doesn't even cover himself, much less millions of sick children. On a personal level, he deserted his first wife after she was rendered less beautiful following a horrific car accident in 1973.
Obviously, I did not cover all issues that could be of primacy to the female voter, but the litany I just laid out would make it awful in congruent for a disgruntled Clinton supporter to defect to McCain's side.
4. Once the Media confers a "label" on a candidate, it refuses to take it away, even if there is substantial evidence to the contrary: If you read most of the major papers in this country, here is the perception you would have on each of the 2 major candidates:
John McCain- A maverick who never once kowtowed to the orthodoxy of his party. He is unflappable, independent and infallible. His personal story is rife with heroism and notably absent of controversy or moral turpitude.
Barack Obama- According to an editorial in the New York Times, Obama is considered an apostate by most Muslims, and will therefore engender more hate for our troops in the Middle East than Israel and George W. Bush combined. Also, Obama quite possibly doesn't "love American" enough, and would be absolutely giddy if Iran destroyed Tel Aviv.
CANDIDATE REALITY:
John McCain, despite his maverick image, as I mentioned in part 1 of this piece, is with his party hook, line and sinker on nearly every single issue. The only way he becomes distanced from the GOP, and thereby deservedly receives the Maverick imprimatur is if the election comes down to a referendum on Campaign Finance Reform. McCain has also committed the dreaded "flip flopping" twice now, once when he switched to supporting the warrant less wire tapping program, and also when he suggested troops could leave Iraq in 2013 after deriding Mitt Romney as someone who "surrendered" when he suggested a timetable for redeployment.
More over, McCain is not the paragon of virtue that Fox News would like him to be. He indisputably served meritoriously in the military. Since then, however, he has committed adultery and been involved in the Keating 5 scandal.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, has never been embroiled in infidelity (I could personally care less, but this is a rhetorical argument that the right uses against the left all the time, so why not give them a taste of it)), more over, he has unequivocally stated his support for Israel and its right to exist. Obama has also been a Christian ever since he was of age to make decisions on his own, and therefore any lingering accusations or insinuations that he is a Muslim is pure sophistry.
Yet, despite these facts, McCain is still portrayed as a maverick whose judgment on matters of morality, national security can not be legitimately criticized. More over, the media interpretation allows McCain to possess air of being incorruptible, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. In the same vein, Barack Obama has stated ad nauseum his beliefs in the Christian doctrine, and yet the Times allows op-ed pieces that allege he will be hated in the Middle East because of his "former life" as Muslim to be published in May.
This bastion of journalism, our supposed paper of record, and its cohorts in the media originally latched on to the archetypes of McCain as a tireless maverick, and as Obama as the potentially un-patriotic neophyte whose origins are murky, and potentially harmful. In order to save face, a widespread deviation from that initial perception is impossible, no matter how incontrovertible the evidence is to the contrary.
If their is one thing that the Bush 43 years taught us, it is that admitting your wrong is impermissible, no matter how that decision causes one to abdicate from duty, reason and accountability.
Let's hope the media can stop serving as a copy cat for that doctrine.
Back to the lessons...
1. "Lunch Pail" voters may not vote what's best for their "Lunch Pail": After Super Tuesday, Barack Obama had problems specifically with what is known as the "lunch pail" voters, the working class. He was trounced by these cadre in West Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky. Now that their preferred candidate in the primary season, Hillary Clinton, has withdrawn from the race, a large number of this group has insinuated that they will defect to John McCain's side.
To some extent, this is not a particularly surprising development. Rural America is not known as a hotbed of tolerance, and there is historical precedence for these voters to abandon the Democrats (John Kerry to Lil Bush by more than 20 points amongst this demographic in 2004).
What we found from the revelation, that the working class voters may abandon Obama, is that the Thomas Frank thesis is still alive and well; that is, the working class voters continually ally themselves with candidates who offer stolid opposition to their economic well being. John McCain is no different from his Republican predecessors. His vision for the economy does not provide permanent relief from suffocating energy prices (gas tax holiday is the epitome of gimmick politics that his counterparts on the Evangelical right specialize in), it does not provide health care to the millions of the uninsured, and he does not alleviate the chronic wage stagnation and income disparities that have plagued this country since 1980.
Nevertheless, these voters may be shifting to McCain's campaign. There is still obviously months before the election, but their gravitational shift after Clinton's withdrawal at the conclusion of the primaries may foreshadow difficulties for Obama in the Fall.
Then again, I could be grossly misstating the policy preferences of the working class. Maybe they are just enamored with McCain's breathtaking proposal to institute no new taxes on "Internet ventures"
2. Starting your Campaign a month after everyone else is a bad idea:
Ahh, the fate of the formerly teflon Rudolph Giuliani. America's favorite cross dresser decided to eschew all common knowledge about the early primary season, and not compete in the Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina contests. Simply put, this was a fool's errand of the highest magnitude.
Rudy's followers may argue that the relatively conservative electorate in that state would not have taken to Rudy's message. This can be proven illogical on two fronts: First, New Hampshire and Michigan are hardly the bastion of Tony Perkins, James Dobson and the far religious right conservatism. Secondly, "winning" in those early bell-weather states does not necessarily mean the person who receives literally the most votes. In 1992, Bill Clinton finished 2nd in New Hampshire, but by deft manipulation of the media (we all remember the Comeback Kid, don't we?), Clinton emerged from New Hampshire with the perception that he had exceeded expectation and thus truly won the state. Going forward, Clinton was buoyed by that perception much more than who actual won the state.
The same axiom can be applied to this year, in the instance of Hillary Clinton. Hillary, in what came as a shock to her camp, did not prevail in Iowa. However, the gravitas of that loss forced to alter her campaign, and what emerged from that was her most success election persona; that of a fighter who refuses to back down ever.
Rudolph Giuliani was the consensus GOP front runner for the majority of 2007. Undoubtedly, his message did not play as well to conservatives in Des Moines as it would in New York City or Miami, but by abdicating the race pre-emptively, he created the perception of a frail, flawed candidate. By the time he made his last stand in Florida, the ship had sailed and all of that inimitable momentum had gone to John McCain.
3. Hell Hath no Fury like a Clinton supporter scorned?: Washington D.C. on May 31st was a frightening place. Hoards of hyped up Clinton supporter scoured the streets of our National's Capital for anyone carrying a copy of Sports Illustrated, or featuring a pronounced bulge in their trousers. As Sam Stein vividly illustrated on The Huffington Post, he could not safely eat a Reuben without being ensconced and then attacked by fervent Clinton backers.
All hyperbole aside, the vitriol espoused by Hillary's army at the Rules Committee meeting vividly showed us just how much support she had, and by extension, how much of a dent she had put in the proverbial glass ceiling. It can firmly be stated that a lesson from 2008 is that a woman is no longer to be tossed aside as a light weight, non-contender in a Presidential election.
What the fury of her supporters portends for the future of Sen. Obama's campaign is of more interest to this entry. As Salon.com pointed out, every election features some backlash against the winner, from supporters of the loser, even if they hail from the same party. Will the anger linger?
Not if these women have any sort of capacity for rational thought, it won't. Forgetting that Clinton and Obama's positions on major issues are essentially indistinguishable, but what exactly do women who support Clinton have to gravitate to about McCain's campaign? His record on abortion rights is similar to Sam Brownback and all the other right wing demagogues. His health care plan doesn't even cover himself, much less millions of sick children. On a personal level, he deserted his first wife after she was rendered less beautiful following a horrific car accident in 1973.
Obviously, I did not cover all issues that could be of primacy to the female voter, but the litany I just laid out would make it awful in congruent for a disgruntled Clinton supporter to defect to McCain's side.
4. Once the Media confers a "label" on a candidate, it refuses to take it away, even if there is substantial evidence to the contrary: If you read most of the major papers in this country, here is the perception you would have on each of the 2 major candidates:
John McCain- A maverick who never once kowtowed to the orthodoxy of his party. He is unflappable, independent and infallible. His personal story is rife with heroism and notably absent of controversy or moral turpitude.
Barack Obama- According to an editorial in the New York Times, Obama is considered an apostate by most Muslims, and will therefore engender more hate for our troops in the Middle East than Israel and George W. Bush combined. Also, Obama quite possibly doesn't "love American" enough, and would be absolutely giddy if Iran destroyed Tel Aviv.
CANDIDATE REALITY:
John McCain, despite his maverick image, as I mentioned in part 1 of this piece, is with his party hook, line and sinker on nearly every single issue. The only way he becomes distanced from the GOP, and thereby deservedly receives the Maverick imprimatur is if the election comes down to a referendum on Campaign Finance Reform. McCain has also committed the dreaded "flip flopping" twice now, once when he switched to supporting the warrant less wire tapping program, and also when he suggested troops could leave Iraq in 2013 after deriding Mitt Romney as someone who "surrendered" when he suggested a timetable for redeployment.
More over, McCain is not the paragon of virtue that Fox News would like him to be. He indisputably served meritoriously in the military. Since then, however, he has committed adultery and been involved in the Keating 5 scandal.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, has never been embroiled in infidelity (I could personally care less, but this is a rhetorical argument that the right uses against the left all the time, so why not give them a taste of it)), more over, he has unequivocally stated his support for Israel and its right to exist. Obama has also been a Christian ever since he was of age to make decisions on his own, and therefore any lingering accusations or insinuations that he is a Muslim is pure sophistry.
Yet, despite these facts, McCain is still portrayed as a maverick whose judgment on matters of morality, national security can not be legitimately criticized. More over, the media interpretation allows McCain to possess air of being incorruptible, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. In the same vein, Barack Obama has stated ad nauseum his beliefs in the Christian doctrine, and yet the Times allows op-ed pieces that allege he will be hated in the Middle East because of his "former life" as Muslim to be published in May.
This bastion of journalism, our supposed paper of record, and its cohorts in the media originally latched on to the archetypes of McCain as a tireless maverick, and as Obama as the potentially un-patriotic neophyte whose origins are murky, and potentially harmful. In order to save face, a widespread deviation from that initial perception is impossible, no matter how incontrovertible the evidence is to the contrary.
If their is one thing that the Bush 43 years taught us, it is that admitting your wrong is impermissible, no matter how that decision causes one to abdicate from duty, reason and accountability.
Let's hope the media can stop serving as a copy cat for that doctrine.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Lessons Learned from the 2008 Presidential Primary Part 1...
With Barack Obama officially crossing the 2,118 delegate threshold tonight (June 3rd), the Democratic presidential primary is for all intensive purposes over. Sure, Hillary Clinton could fight on to the convention in Denver in August, but a shrewed operator like HRC knows that the ship has sailed, and fighting on will only seem divisive, pathetic and will tarnish her legacy greatly.
On the other side of the aisle, the Republican primary has been over since John McCain trounced Rudy Giuliani in Florida, and subsequently crushed Mike Huckabee on Super Tuesday.
Needless to say, this primary has been historic, and now that it has concluded, it's a perfect time to look back on the lessons imparted by it.
1. If one discounts his views on Iraq, Iran, Israel, the War on Terror, Social Security Reform, Tax Cuts, Economic Stimulus, Reproductive Rights, the GI Bill, and Gay Marriage, Sen. McCain sure looks like a maverick when compared to his Republican counterparts.
2. The mainstream media does not apply the same standards of tough reporting on the GOP as they do on the Democrats: Judging by the widespread coverage, Jeremiah Wright apparently triggered World War III because of his involvement with Sen. Obama. On the other hand, the story of John McCain's cantankerous pastor John Hagee, who suggested that Hitler was sent to Earth as a means of redirecting Israel to Zion, escapes relatively unscathed.
The same principle applied during the shameless questioning of Obama over his "ties" with William Ayers. McCain's dalliances, and admitted unethical activity in the Keating Five Scandal elicited not a peep from the very same media members.
3. ABC News is a shameless organization, and should not be allowed to devolve and embarrass our political discourse again: The debate they hosted, in which, rather farcically, excerpts from the Constitution introduced segments on each issue, was arguably the nadir of the entire primary season. George Stephanaopoulous and Charlie Gibson spent more than half the debate bloviating about flag pins, Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, to the point that even the normally unflappable Barack Obama expressed his exasperation at their asinine questions. They deserved the brutal beating they took from both the media, and the assembled crowd that evening.
The saddest part: Neither accepted any culpability for the farce they propagated which perfectly exemplified the pitiful job the mainstream media has done in dealing with issues that actually matter to voters.
4. Earth to Bill Clinton: It's not 1992, you are no longer the young, charismatic torchbearer of the Democratic Party. In fact, judging by the last 6 months, you have become something of a political liability. From laughably insinuating that Barack Obama's campaign played "the race card" on him, to foolishly declaring that Hillary Clinton must win Texas or drop out weeks before that actual primary, Bill's imprimatur on his wife's campaign will be remembered as largely a hindrance upon her success.
5. What the media decries as campaign-threatening verbal gaffes have little to no resonance to the electorate: Case in point was Mike Huckabee's decision to claim to not air a controversial aid, only to subsequently air the aid one time during the same press conference announcing the decision not to run it. For a solid two weeks, Huckabee's motives were derided and mocked, and a post-mortem swiftly declared for his then fledgling campaign.
Just days later, Huckabee handily took Iowa, despite all of the prognostications from Chris Matthews and his ilk that he was dead in the water.
The media's casuistry in declaring Huckabee dead before even any votes had been cast was a microcosm of their behavior throughout the primary season.
6. John McCain is a serial flip flopper: In December, McCain told the Boston Globe that existing laws trumped executive power, no matter how dire the given circumstances. Earlier this week, he totally reversed course, and thereby refuted the points he made emphatically just six months ago when he told an AIPAC convention that Presidential prerogative trumps all other considerations. Going from a wholesale refutation of the Bush Imperial Presidency doctrine to a fulsome endorsement in less time than it takes Britney Spears to go from multi-platinum artist to sipping Lithium out of a tube in a recovery center is quite an accomplishment in contradiction and hypocrisy. Sen. McCain out to be proud.
7. Money is a prerequisite for a Presidential bid, but having the most doesn't guarantee victory: Remember Mitt Romney? He was the dapper, aw-shucks uber-technocrat who entered the race with very little on his resume, but a formidable war chest. Where is he now? Probably enjoying Behind the Music: The Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
Despite having the aforementioned treasure trove of funds, Romney could never dissuade the Republican voters from their initial skepticism about his conservative credentials (he did actively court gay voters as governor of Massachusetts) and his Mormonism. As a result, he could infuse his campaign with ungodly amounts of cash, and the ballot box would remain barren. He was forced to drop out after winning only a few primaries, including his home state Utah.
8. John McCain is not very good at admitting he is fallible: Examples abound, I'm not even sure which was the most damning, so why not start with the most recent: Just last week, McCain alleged that the "surge" in Iraq was working, so much so that troops had returned to the pre-surge levels. Even with the most generous mathematical gerrymandering, this claim is entirely false. When confronted with his mishap, McCain, as geriatrics are want to do, angrily denied he had made any faux pas in the first place. In the You Tube age, it takes some stones to refute a contention captured on video, but McCain must have been on a lot of his courage juice that particular day (his is Metamucil, not alcohol)
Earlier on in the campaign, McCain had oddly also insinuated that the Iranian regime was assisting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Apparently, for all his experience in foreign affairs, McCain is unaware that Iran is a Shiite country, and Al-Qaeda is Sunni, and more importantly, that these two groups have been involved in an internecine feud for the better part of 1300 years.
Back tomorrow with 8 more thoughts....
On the other side of the aisle, the Republican primary has been over since John McCain trounced Rudy Giuliani in Florida, and subsequently crushed Mike Huckabee on Super Tuesday.
Needless to say, this primary has been historic, and now that it has concluded, it's a perfect time to look back on the lessons imparted by it.
1. If one discounts his views on Iraq, Iran, Israel, the War on Terror, Social Security Reform, Tax Cuts, Economic Stimulus, Reproductive Rights, the GI Bill, and Gay Marriage, Sen. McCain sure looks like a maverick when compared to his Republican counterparts.
2. The mainstream media does not apply the same standards of tough reporting on the GOP as they do on the Democrats: Judging by the widespread coverage, Jeremiah Wright apparently triggered World War III because of his involvement with Sen. Obama. On the other hand, the story of John McCain's cantankerous pastor John Hagee, who suggested that Hitler was sent to Earth as a means of redirecting Israel to Zion, escapes relatively unscathed.
The same principle applied during the shameless questioning of Obama over his "ties" with William Ayers. McCain's dalliances, and admitted unethical activity in the Keating Five Scandal elicited not a peep from the very same media members.
3. ABC News is a shameless organization, and should not be allowed to devolve and embarrass our political discourse again: The debate they hosted, in which, rather farcically, excerpts from the Constitution introduced segments on each issue, was arguably the nadir of the entire primary season. George Stephanaopoulous and Charlie Gibson spent more than half the debate bloviating about flag pins, Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, to the point that even the normally unflappable Barack Obama expressed his exasperation at their asinine questions. They deserved the brutal beating they took from both the media, and the assembled crowd that evening.
The saddest part: Neither accepted any culpability for the farce they propagated which perfectly exemplified the pitiful job the mainstream media has done in dealing with issues that actually matter to voters.
4. Earth to Bill Clinton: It's not 1992, you are no longer the young, charismatic torchbearer of the Democratic Party. In fact, judging by the last 6 months, you have become something of a political liability. From laughably insinuating that Barack Obama's campaign played "the race card" on him, to foolishly declaring that Hillary Clinton must win Texas or drop out weeks before that actual primary, Bill's imprimatur on his wife's campaign will be remembered as largely a hindrance upon her success.
5. What the media decries as campaign-threatening verbal gaffes have little to no resonance to the electorate: Case in point was Mike Huckabee's decision to claim to not air a controversial aid, only to subsequently air the aid one time during the same press conference announcing the decision not to run it. For a solid two weeks, Huckabee's motives were derided and mocked, and a post-mortem swiftly declared for his then fledgling campaign.
Just days later, Huckabee handily took Iowa, despite all of the prognostications from Chris Matthews and his ilk that he was dead in the water.
The media's casuistry in declaring Huckabee dead before even any votes had been cast was a microcosm of their behavior throughout the primary season.
6. John McCain is a serial flip flopper: In December, McCain told the Boston Globe that existing laws trumped executive power, no matter how dire the given circumstances. Earlier this week, he totally reversed course, and thereby refuted the points he made emphatically just six months ago when he told an AIPAC convention that Presidential prerogative trumps all other considerations. Going from a wholesale refutation of the Bush Imperial Presidency doctrine to a fulsome endorsement in less time than it takes Britney Spears to go from multi-platinum artist to sipping Lithium out of a tube in a recovery center is quite an accomplishment in contradiction and hypocrisy. Sen. McCain out to be proud.
7. Money is a prerequisite for a Presidential bid, but having the most doesn't guarantee victory: Remember Mitt Romney? He was the dapper, aw-shucks uber-technocrat who entered the race with very little on his resume, but a formidable war chest. Where is he now? Probably enjoying Behind the Music: The Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
Despite having the aforementioned treasure trove of funds, Romney could never dissuade the Republican voters from their initial skepticism about his conservative credentials (he did actively court gay voters as governor of Massachusetts) and his Mormonism. As a result, he could infuse his campaign with ungodly amounts of cash, and the ballot box would remain barren. He was forced to drop out after winning only a few primaries, including his home state Utah.
8. John McCain is not very good at admitting he is fallible: Examples abound, I'm not even sure which was the most damning, so why not start with the most recent: Just last week, McCain alleged that the "surge" in Iraq was working, so much so that troops had returned to the pre-surge levels. Even with the most generous mathematical gerrymandering, this claim is entirely false. When confronted with his mishap, McCain, as geriatrics are want to do, angrily denied he had made any faux pas in the first place. In the You Tube age, it takes some stones to refute a contention captured on video, but McCain must have been on a lot of his courage juice that particular day (his is Metamucil, not alcohol)
Earlier on in the campaign, McCain had oddly also insinuated that the Iranian regime was assisting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Apparently, for all his experience in foreign affairs, McCain is unaware that Iran is a Shiite country, and Al-Qaeda is Sunni, and more importantly, that these two groups have been involved in an internecine feud for the better part of 1300 years.
Back tomorrow with 8 more thoughts....
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
The Real Reasons Behind John McCain's Unwavering Support of the Iraq Wat
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)'s campaign for the Presidency has thus far been staked entirely on his support for the war in Iraq. Rarely has a mainstream candidate for the Leader of the Free World been so intimately wedded to one singular policy like McCain is with the situation in Iraq. In no uncertain terms, McCain's bid is inextricably linked to the conflict, and his fate hinges on whether or not he can convince the electorate that, in his own words, a "reasonable chance" for success still exists.
Rhetorically, McCain espouses a grandiose, often hyperbolic view of Iraq, and the consequences for the United States and our allies were we to "surrender" the country to "Al-Qaeda and other extremists". In no uncertain terms, the fate of Western civilization is predicated upon "victory" (what that entails remains nebulous) in Iraq. In fact, judging by McCain's speeches, one would think a surreal, almost Wilsonian idealism pervades the Senator's thought processes.
However, the idealism he espouses in regard to the future of Iraq, and the cataclysmic implications were the United States to abandon a pursuit of democracy there, are in stark contrast to his political maneuvering throughout the 2008 campaign. Every one of his decisions, from switching his position to favor the Bush tax cuts, to actively courting "agents of intolerance" like John Hagee and Rod Parsley, resound with the philosophy of realpolitik. In making a concerted effort to pander to the Republican base, in stark contrast to his 2000 campaign, McCain has embraced a form of political realism that even Henry Kissinger would appreciate.
Given this, it's especially puzzling that McCain adopts an idealistic stance when discussing in Iraq. In fact, the puzzle can only be solved if you wade through McCain's guise of altruism to find his real reasons for supporting the Iraq War. And those, as they will be explained below, align perfectly with the realpolitik he has advocated throughout his campaign.
The 5 Real Reasons John McCain Supports the Iraq War:
1. Republicans Have No Other Issues: According to Gallup and Rasmussen Reports polling data, voters favor the Democrats on all the domestic issues that matter, from the economy to health care reform. More over, the legacy of the 2006 Congressional Elections, which were largely a referendum on widespread Republican corruption and casuistry, bare not helpful to McCain's campaign. After all, having a litany of lobbyists run your campaign is not exactly the way to ensure voters that you are upholding the "Maverick" image.
This chasm in credibility and electoral legitimacy between the parties is especially acute after the disastrous stewardship of the Bush administration the last 8 years.
Because of this, McCain has no choice but to rely on what is generally a Republican strength: national security. Even though their lead has been substantially diminished the since the Iraq invasion 5 years ago, McCain knows that he will be obliterated by Obama on any domestic issue, and thus must do all he can to keep the race singularly focused on the war, even if that particular issue draws the ire of voters.
2. McCain's "Vietnam Syndrome": As decorous as Senator McCain's service in Vietnam was, most citizens forget that because he was imprisoned in the Hanoi Hilton for 5 years, McCain was largely oblivious to the disillusionment of the unformed military over the civilian leadership in undertaking the war.
As the New York Times Magazine astutely pointed out this week, McCain's experience in Vietnam, or lack thereof, tends to make his judgement on Iraq highly idealistic. At the very least, McCain has thus far been rendered impervious to just how deep the cleavage public impact can forge in a civilian/military alliance. Unlike his fellow Senators Chuck Hagel and John Warner, who were placed in the midst of the maelstrom as the situation in Vietnam severely deteriorated, and thus had their perception of the war irrevocably altered, McCain cannot fully comprehend the futility of interfering in foreign wars without a sufficient motive, a situation that occurred in Vietnam which is now replicating itself in Iraq. Hegel and Warner saw first hand the utter arrogance, divisiveness and incompetence with which Robert McNamara ran the Vietnam War, McCain simply read about it in a few history texts.
More over, also as the NYT magazine details, McCain is a member of a vocal minority who believe that the Vietnam war could have been won had public opinion not turned on the conflict after the Tet Offensive. As a result, McCain tends to employ a foreign policy strategy that eschews the perception of the public and the media, or if he doesn't ignore their thoughts, he instead takes an adversarial approach designed to demonize "liberal" media voices, no matter how spot on that perception might be.
In two different ways, the specter of Vietnam greatly guides his thinking on Iraq, much more so than anything he might say about altruism in his speeches.
3. Amongst McCain's Resume and "Expertise", Defense/National Security is all He can fall back on: Descended from 3 generations of Naval Admirals, renowned as a hero (and rightfully so) for his ability to withstand 5 years of brutal torture, a man who refused to leave the deplorable conditions of North Vietnam until his fellow soldiers were released: Needless to say, John McCain has an impressive background in terms of military affairs.
However, that pedigree is about all he has to hang his hat on in this Presidential race. Well, let me not be too critical here: After all, if the contest between McCain and Obama turns into who has the most credibility on campaign finance reform (/sarcasm)
Even a cursory examination of his positions on issues aside from military affairs reveals how vulnerable he will be should Senator Obama make them the centerpiece of his campaign. McCain is admittedly a neophyte about the economy, a position unlikely to benefit him in the midst of a torrid recession. Thus far, his only solution to curtail the recession is to extent the Bush tax cuts, a policy which helped to instigate the struggles of working class people that thus spurned the downturn in the first place. Just weeks ago, his proposed health care plan was widely discredited when Elizabeth Edwards would even cover his own medical needs.
As a result, McCain realizes that he would be trounced by either Senator Obama or Clinton on a myriad of issues, namely. In addition, unfortunately for McCain, Presidential elections rarely crystallize around a single hot-button issue, as he will attempt to do by having national security concerns monopolize the headlines.
Recent history offers McCain some repose though. In 2004, Republicans largely ran on their readiness and willingness to pursue the War on Terror more effectively than their counterparts in the Democratic party. However, attempting to replicate that success in this election will be difficult, as the economic climate has deteriorated significantly in the last 4 years.
4. We need Iraq's Oil, But Admitting that Is Impossible: No other subject in American political life has been as consistently shrouded in misleading and deceptive rhetoric as the motives behind our energy policy. The phenomenon of pleading "the spread of democracy" and the ideals of liberation and freedom for disenfranchised Muslims as a means to obfuscate the real motives behind our Middle East policy didn't start with John McCain, but he sure as hell isn't deviating from the script.
With the price of gas skyrocketing, Iraq's oil reserves, which are believed to be the 2nd largest on Earth behind Saudia Arabia, are critical to United States' strategic interests in the Middle East. Control of Iraq's black gold serves McCain as he attempts to tamp down domestic unrest over $4.00 gallons of gas. More over, as the United States further cedes control of energy pricing to OPEC, and specifically, McCain's sworn enemy Iran, controlling Iraqi oil allows for at least some bulwark against price controls and stagnant production that OPEC has thus far employed as a means to keep oil prices astronomically high.
Unfortunately for McCain, the real motives behind energy policy can never be publicly espoused. As part of a Republican myth that all American foreign intervention is motivated solely by meritorious pursuits, the true motives behind invading Iraq will be suppressed or denied. That said, the facts break through the fluffy rhetoric and as a result, one can understand why McCain would not want to cede control of Iraqi oil to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, and his grinning bosom buddies in the Iranian government.
5. A Focus on Iraq Keeps the Republican Base on His Side: Iraq is one of the few issues that garner John McCain enthusiastic support from the Republican base. If he is to prevail in November, turning out the base is a sine qua non, no matter how well McCain polls with independents. In order to turn out said base, McCain must keep them focused on Iraq because they consider him an apostate on other issues like gay marriage and campaign finance reform. More over, if the election boils down to a question of who can steward the economy more deftly, the base will likely desert McCain. Though he is now an avowed supporter of the Bush Tax Cuts, he wasn't back in 2000, and fiscal conservatives have a long memory, and will likely fail to turn out if they doubt he's genuine about continuing the Bush economic legacy.
If either fiscal or social conservatives abandon him, as they likely would if they were thinking about McCain's maverick stances on Reproductive Rights or Tax Policy, swing states will turn to the Democratic column, and McCain will lose the election. As a result, McCain must bank on conservatives remembering his steadfast support for a continuation of President Bush's Iraq policy, no matter how odious that may be to a large portion of voters.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of this quintet of reasons, McCain now must endorse the "surge" and the overarching Bush doctrine in Iraq. In a perverse paradox, to have a chance to win, McCain must increase the fervor for which he advocates the policy irrespective of how unpopular it becomes with the public.
What's important to understand is that in the end, John McCain fights for the continuation of the current Iraq policy, not because he believes that it will save Iraqi lives, but rather because it will preserve his political life.
Rhetorically, McCain espouses a grandiose, often hyperbolic view of Iraq, and the consequences for the United States and our allies were we to "surrender" the country to "Al-Qaeda and other extremists". In no uncertain terms, the fate of Western civilization is predicated upon "victory" (what that entails remains nebulous) in Iraq. In fact, judging by McCain's speeches, one would think a surreal, almost Wilsonian idealism pervades the Senator's thought processes.
However, the idealism he espouses in regard to the future of Iraq, and the cataclysmic implications were the United States to abandon a pursuit of democracy there, are in stark contrast to his political maneuvering throughout the 2008 campaign. Every one of his decisions, from switching his position to favor the Bush tax cuts, to actively courting "agents of intolerance" like John Hagee and Rod Parsley, resound with the philosophy of realpolitik. In making a concerted effort to pander to the Republican base, in stark contrast to his 2000 campaign, McCain has embraced a form of political realism that even Henry Kissinger would appreciate.
Given this, it's especially puzzling that McCain adopts an idealistic stance when discussing in Iraq. In fact, the puzzle can only be solved if you wade through McCain's guise of altruism to find his real reasons for supporting the Iraq War. And those, as they will be explained below, align perfectly with the realpolitik he has advocated throughout his campaign.
The 5 Real Reasons John McCain Supports the Iraq War:
1. Republicans Have No Other Issues: According to Gallup and Rasmussen Reports polling data, voters favor the Democrats on all the domestic issues that matter, from the economy to health care reform. More over, the legacy of the 2006 Congressional Elections, which were largely a referendum on widespread Republican corruption and casuistry, bare not helpful to McCain's campaign. After all, having a litany of lobbyists run your campaign is not exactly the way to ensure voters that you are upholding the "Maverick" image.
This chasm in credibility and electoral legitimacy between the parties is especially acute after the disastrous stewardship of the Bush administration the last 8 years.
Because of this, McCain has no choice but to rely on what is generally a Republican strength: national security. Even though their lead has been substantially diminished the since the Iraq invasion 5 years ago, McCain knows that he will be obliterated by Obama on any domestic issue, and thus must do all he can to keep the race singularly focused on the war, even if that particular issue draws the ire of voters.
2. McCain's "Vietnam Syndrome": As decorous as Senator McCain's service in Vietnam was, most citizens forget that because he was imprisoned in the Hanoi Hilton for 5 years, McCain was largely oblivious to the disillusionment of the unformed military over the civilian leadership in undertaking the war.
As the New York Times Magazine astutely pointed out this week, McCain's experience in Vietnam, or lack thereof, tends to make his judgement on Iraq highly idealistic. At the very least, McCain has thus far been rendered impervious to just how deep the cleavage public impact can forge in a civilian/military alliance. Unlike his fellow Senators Chuck Hagel and John Warner, who were placed in the midst of the maelstrom as the situation in Vietnam severely deteriorated, and thus had their perception of the war irrevocably altered, McCain cannot fully comprehend the futility of interfering in foreign wars without a sufficient motive, a situation that occurred in Vietnam which is now replicating itself in Iraq. Hegel and Warner saw first hand the utter arrogance, divisiveness and incompetence with which Robert McNamara ran the Vietnam War, McCain simply read about it in a few history texts.
More over, also as the NYT magazine details, McCain is a member of a vocal minority who believe that the Vietnam war could have been won had public opinion not turned on the conflict after the Tet Offensive. As a result, McCain tends to employ a foreign policy strategy that eschews the perception of the public and the media, or if he doesn't ignore their thoughts, he instead takes an adversarial approach designed to demonize "liberal" media voices, no matter how spot on that perception might be.
In two different ways, the specter of Vietnam greatly guides his thinking on Iraq, much more so than anything he might say about altruism in his speeches.
3. Amongst McCain's Resume and "Expertise", Defense/National Security is all He can fall back on: Descended from 3 generations of Naval Admirals, renowned as a hero (and rightfully so) for his ability to withstand 5 years of brutal torture, a man who refused to leave the deplorable conditions of North Vietnam until his fellow soldiers were released: Needless to say, John McCain has an impressive background in terms of military affairs.
However, that pedigree is about all he has to hang his hat on in this Presidential race. Well, let me not be too critical here: After all, if the contest between McCain and Obama turns into who has the most credibility on campaign finance reform (/sarcasm)
Even a cursory examination of his positions on issues aside from military affairs reveals how vulnerable he will be should Senator Obama make them the centerpiece of his campaign. McCain is admittedly a neophyte about the economy, a position unlikely to benefit him in the midst of a torrid recession. Thus far, his only solution to curtail the recession is to extent the Bush tax cuts, a policy which helped to instigate the struggles of working class people that thus spurned the downturn in the first place. Just weeks ago, his proposed health care plan was widely discredited when Elizabeth Edwards would even cover his own medical needs.
As a result, McCain realizes that he would be trounced by either Senator Obama or Clinton on a myriad of issues, namely. In addition, unfortunately for McCain, Presidential elections rarely crystallize around a single hot-button issue, as he will attempt to do by having national security concerns monopolize the headlines.
Recent history offers McCain some repose though. In 2004, Republicans largely ran on their readiness and willingness to pursue the War on Terror more effectively than their counterparts in the Democratic party. However, attempting to replicate that success in this election will be difficult, as the economic climate has deteriorated significantly in the last 4 years.
4. We need Iraq's Oil, But Admitting that Is Impossible: No other subject in American political life has been as consistently shrouded in misleading and deceptive rhetoric as the motives behind our energy policy. The phenomenon of pleading "the spread of democracy" and the ideals of liberation and freedom for disenfranchised Muslims as a means to obfuscate the real motives behind our Middle East policy didn't start with John McCain, but he sure as hell isn't deviating from the script.
With the price of gas skyrocketing, Iraq's oil reserves, which are believed to be the 2nd largest on Earth behind Saudia Arabia, are critical to United States' strategic interests in the Middle East. Control of Iraq's black gold serves McCain as he attempts to tamp down domestic unrest over $4.00 gallons of gas. More over, as the United States further cedes control of energy pricing to OPEC, and specifically, McCain's sworn enemy Iran, controlling Iraqi oil allows for at least some bulwark against price controls and stagnant production that OPEC has thus far employed as a means to keep oil prices astronomically high.
Unfortunately for McCain, the real motives behind energy policy can never be publicly espoused. As part of a Republican myth that all American foreign intervention is motivated solely by meritorious pursuits, the true motives behind invading Iraq will be suppressed or denied. That said, the facts break through the fluffy rhetoric and as a result, one can understand why McCain would not want to cede control of Iraqi oil to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, and his grinning bosom buddies in the Iranian government.
5. A Focus on Iraq Keeps the Republican Base on His Side: Iraq is one of the few issues that garner John McCain enthusiastic support from the Republican base. If he is to prevail in November, turning out the base is a sine qua non, no matter how well McCain polls with independents. In order to turn out said base, McCain must keep them focused on Iraq because they consider him an apostate on other issues like gay marriage and campaign finance reform. More over, if the election boils down to a question of who can steward the economy more deftly, the base will likely desert McCain. Though he is now an avowed supporter of the Bush Tax Cuts, he wasn't back in 2000, and fiscal conservatives have a long memory, and will likely fail to turn out if they doubt he's genuine about continuing the Bush economic legacy.
If either fiscal or social conservatives abandon him, as they likely would if they were thinking about McCain's maverick stances on Reproductive Rights or Tax Policy, swing states will turn to the Democratic column, and McCain will lose the election. As a result, McCain must bank on conservatives remembering his steadfast support for a continuation of President Bush's Iraq policy, no matter how odious that may be to a large portion of voters.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of this quintet of reasons, McCain now must endorse the "surge" and the overarching Bush doctrine in Iraq. In a perverse paradox, to have a chance to win, McCain must increase the fervor for which he advocates the policy irrespective of how unpopular it becomes with the public.
What's important to understand is that in the end, John McCain fights for the continuation of the current Iraq policy, not because he believes that it will save Iraqi lives, but rather because it will preserve his political life.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Hillary Clintons's RFK Gaffe: Deplorable, or Just yet Another Media "Controversy"?
Outrage. Disappointment. Righteous Indignation. Those three words epitomize the disposition of the collective media for the balance of last week. The reaction was so fierce that the average political observer would have thought that the Presidential candidate who won the popular vote was then denied the Presidency. Or, if American troops serving abroad were woefully neglected post combat in the largest military hospital in the country.
Wait, back to reality. That is a terrible analogy.
Instead, all of those aforementioned emotions aptly describe the media outcry in response to Hillary Clinton's comments last week when she defended staying in the Presidential Race until June because an unpredictable event could occur e.g. when RFK was assassinated in Los Angeles during the 1968 Democractic Primary.
The media responded swiftly, and with a collective force reserved especially for these crises that have little to do with substantive issues. Even the normally restrained New York Times derided Clinton's comment as "nauseous", and dismissed her mea culpa as a "tedious, non-apology apology" Many organizations went further, and exploited the timing of the comments to demand Clinton exit the race summarily.
Yet, despite all of the furor, Clinton's remarks, while insensitive, will hardly endanger the health of Barack Obama, as many of her critics will allege. It's almost farcical to believe that a would-be assassin of the junior Senator from Illinois would be somehow catalyzed by an off-hand, yet historically inaccurate remark by Senator Clinton. The situation is tantamount to if Tip O'Neill would have been blamed for John Hinckley's attempt on the life of Ronald Reagan in 1981. To think that would be absurd. Thus, Senator Clinton deserves a similar benefit of the doubt.
In actuality, the intensity and collectivity of the outcry tells you more about the priorities of our mainstream media than it ever would about the tact (or lack there of) on Hillary Clinton's part. Yet again, the media mobilizes against a politician over a remark that, at best, can be considered tangential, and more likely, a non-sequitur, when it comes to dealing with the litany of problems confronting the American experiment in 2008.
Yet again, substantive issues (and there are plenty of them) are shelved in favor of a more "sensational", yet entirely petty story. For perspective, let's review some of the "controversies" that have dominated the political landscape the last few months:
1. Barack Obama's Bowling Adventure: Who cares if Stephen Hawking could probably out bowl Obama? The way this story was repeated ad naseum for weeks on end, a foreign observer might legitimately believe that a candidate's ability on the lanes trumps their experience on foreign policy or legislative proposals. A downright pathetic display by the media as a whole.
2. Hillary Clinton's Voice: Fine, her voice is quite shrill. Yes, hearing her speak is akin to what it must be like when Fran Drescher orgasms. However, what can this possibility have to do with anything remotely salient to the election?
3. Barack Obama's Flag Pin: Judging by the "outrage" about this issue, a bare lapel makes you a terrorist. Easily the most pointless and manufactured story of the political season.
4. Guilt by Association: So Barack Obama serves on a board with William Ayers. Somehow the media, albeit led on this issue by the right wing skulduggery of Drudge and his minions, has translated that loose affiliation as some sort of entente with designs on domestic terrorism. This patently illogical guilt by association method is disingenuous and serves merely to distract. No other component of the media discourse has thus far disgraced its members as much as this tactic.
The similarity between each of these non-issues has been its' collective purpose to distract the electorate from the pressing issues at hand. Instead of debating how to fix Social Security before it becomes insolvent in 2019, or how to extract our forces from the calamity in Iraq without thereby igniting a civil war, the predominant political debate, as driven by the mainstream media entities, focuses on the personality flaws of the candidates, or trifling matters like those listed above.
The reasoning behind this journalistic dereliction of duty is not happenstance, or mere incompetence. In fact, the media has instead made a concerted effort to distract the public from the pressing issues, irrespective of the fact that polling data emphatically indicates that voters want discussion of health care, Iraq and the recession. They have done so because they have been so demonstrably wrong when dealing with issues of substance in the last 8 years, that to maintain the last shred of credibility, they shy away from tackling salient issues.
This phenomenon is yet another devastating aftershock of the fallout from the war in Iraq. Throughout the run up to the invasion in early 2003, the media kow-towed to both Administration interests, and to the pervasive spectre of being deemed "un-patriotic".
Unsurprisingly, now that the Iraq war has proven to be an unabated debacle, the NY Times, Washington Post and other foremost media entities are eager to throw their culpability for assisting the invasion under the rug. As a result, their propensity to confront the litany of serious issues that their readers inevitable deal with quotidian is minimal, at best. In many ways, the pendulum has swung completely for these media outlets. After initially being brazen and fulsome in their endorsement of the invasion in 2003 despite sizable evidence that spoke to absence of WMD's, 5 years later their excessive cautiousness and sensationalism not foments inaction, or worse, misinformation within the citizenry they should be working to enlighten.
Essentially, the propensity for ignorance and diversion takes a page right out of the Bush 43 playbook. Throughout the last 8 years, the Bush Administration has consistently employed a strategy of disinformation and diversion to abut news that did not fit their agenda. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has documented at length the Administration's manipulation of the Terror Alert System to contravene political news that does not conform to their agenda. Just last week, in the midst of the uproar over President Bush likening Barack Obama's willing to negotiate, or at least meet, with Iran to Neville Chamberlain's "appeasement", the White House foisted some baseless charges upon NBC News for "selective editing" of Mr. Bush's interview with Richard Engel.
Adopting the tried and true tactics of George Bush and his cohort is about as far as possible from what the country needs, given his heinous track record.
In essence, the fear of being disastrously wrong yet again has thus precluded the country from being able to rely on their media outlets to speak truth to power, no matter how difficult the times may be for the Average Joe.
The lesson to be learned is that the reader/viewer now finds himself with the responsibility to wade through the morass of petty stories to distill the candidates down to their issue positions, not their wardrobe or the disposition of their favorite clergy. After all, in the end, voting based on your feelings concerning Hillary's pantsuits or Michelle Obama will merely lead to a replication of the last 8 years in the form of a John McCain presidency.
However, if there are those out there who refuse to acknowledge these facts, and persist in voting for a candidate based on valence issues, or petty personality-based attacks, I do have a wonderful set of flag pins I'd love to sell you.
Back later this week, that is, unless the Apocalypse arrives early as a result of Israel deciding to resume negotiations with Syria.
Wait, back to reality. That is a terrible analogy.
Instead, all of those aforementioned emotions aptly describe the media outcry in response to Hillary Clinton's comments last week when she defended staying in the Presidential Race until June because an unpredictable event could occur e.g. when RFK was assassinated in Los Angeles during the 1968 Democractic Primary.
The media responded swiftly, and with a collective force reserved especially for these crises that have little to do with substantive issues. Even the normally restrained New York Times derided Clinton's comment as "nauseous", and dismissed her mea culpa as a "tedious, non-apology apology" Many organizations went further, and exploited the timing of the comments to demand Clinton exit the race summarily.
Yet, despite all of the furor, Clinton's remarks, while insensitive, will hardly endanger the health of Barack Obama, as many of her critics will allege. It's almost farcical to believe that a would-be assassin of the junior Senator from Illinois would be somehow catalyzed by an off-hand, yet historically inaccurate remark by Senator Clinton. The situation is tantamount to if Tip O'Neill would have been blamed for John Hinckley's attempt on the life of Ronald Reagan in 1981. To think that would be absurd. Thus, Senator Clinton deserves a similar benefit of the doubt.
In actuality, the intensity and collectivity of the outcry tells you more about the priorities of our mainstream media than it ever would about the tact (or lack there of) on Hillary Clinton's part. Yet again, the media mobilizes against a politician over a remark that, at best, can be considered tangential, and more likely, a non-sequitur, when it comes to dealing with the litany of problems confronting the American experiment in 2008.
Yet again, substantive issues (and there are plenty of them) are shelved in favor of a more "sensational", yet entirely petty story. For perspective, let's review some of the "controversies" that have dominated the political landscape the last few months:
1. Barack Obama's Bowling Adventure: Who cares if Stephen Hawking could probably out bowl Obama? The way this story was repeated ad naseum for weeks on end, a foreign observer might legitimately believe that a candidate's ability on the lanes trumps their experience on foreign policy or legislative proposals. A downright pathetic display by the media as a whole.
2. Hillary Clinton's Voice: Fine, her voice is quite shrill. Yes, hearing her speak is akin to what it must be like when Fran Drescher orgasms. However, what can this possibility have to do with anything remotely salient to the election?
3. Barack Obama's Flag Pin: Judging by the "outrage" about this issue, a bare lapel makes you a terrorist. Easily the most pointless and manufactured story of the political season.
4. Guilt by Association: So Barack Obama serves on a board with William Ayers. Somehow the media, albeit led on this issue by the right wing skulduggery of Drudge and his minions, has translated that loose affiliation as some sort of entente with designs on domestic terrorism. This patently illogical guilt by association method is disingenuous and serves merely to distract. No other component of the media discourse has thus far disgraced its members as much as this tactic.
The similarity between each of these non-issues has been its' collective purpose to distract the electorate from the pressing issues at hand. Instead of debating how to fix Social Security before it becomes insolvent in 2019, or how to extract our forces from the calamity in Iraq without thereby igniting a civil war, the predominant political debate, as driven by the mainstream media entities, focuses on the personality flaws of the candidates, or trifling matters like those listed above.
The reasoning behind this journalistic dereliction of duty is not happenstance, or mere incompetence. In fact, the media has instead made a concerted effort to distract the public from the pressing issues, irrespective of the fact that polling data emphatically indicates that voters want discussion of health care, Iraq and the recession. They have done so because they have been so demonstrably wrong when dealing with issues of substance in the last 8 years, that to maintain the last shred of credibility, they shy away from tackling salient issues.
This phenomenon is yet another devastating aftershock of the fallout from the war in Iraq. Throughout the run up to the invasion in early 2003, the media kow-towed to both Administration interests, and to the pervasive spectre of being deemed "un-patriotic".
Unsurprisingly, now that the Iraq war has proven to be an unabated debacle, the NY Times, Washington Post and other foremost media entities are eager to throw their culpability for assisting the invasion under the rug. As a result, their propensity to confront the litany of serious issues that their readers inevitable deal with quotidian is minimal, at best. In many ways, the pendulum has swung completely for these media outlets. After initially being brazen and fulsome in their endorsement of the invasion in 2003 despite sizable evidence that spoke to absence of WMD's, 5 years later their excessive cautiousness and sensationalism not foments inaction, or worse, misinformation within the citizenry they should be working to enlighten.
Essentially, the propensity for ignorance and diversion takes a page right out of the Bush 43 playbook. Throughout the last 8 years, the Bush Administration has consistently employed a strategy of disinformation and diversion to abut news that did not fit their agenda. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has documented at length the Administration's manipulation of the Terror Alert System to contravene political news that does not conform to their agenda. Just last week, in the midst of the uproar over President Bush likening Barack Obama's willing to negotiate, or at least meet, with Iran to Neville Chamberlain's "appeasement", the White House foisted some baseless charges upon NBC News for "selective editing" of Mr. Bush's interview with Richard Engel.
Adopting the tried and true tactics of George Bush and his cohort is about as far as possible from what the country needs, given his heinous track record.
In essence, the fear of being disastrously wrong yet again has thus precluded the country from being able to rely on their media outlets to speak truth to power, no matter how difficult the times may be for the Average Joe.
The lesson to be learned is that the reader/viewer now finds himself with the responsibility to wade through the morass of petty stories to distill the candidates down to their issue positions, not their wardrobe or the disposition of their favorite clergy. After all, in the end, voting based on your feelings concerning Hillary's pantsuits or Michelle Obama will merely lead to a replication of the last 8 years in the form of a John McCain presidency.
However, if there are those out there who refuse to acknowledge these facts, and persist in voting for a candidate based on valence issues, or petty personality-based attacks, I do have a wonderful set of flag pins I'd love to sell you.
Back later this week, that is, unless the Apocalypse arrives early as a result of Israel deciding to resume negotiations with Syria.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Is Hillary Clinton really "Dick Cheney in a Pantsuit"?
According to conservative author and uber-blogger Andrew Sullivan, she is. He offered that characterization on "Real Time with Bill Maher", in the midst of a heated discussion on her hawkish views on Iran between Sullivan and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander (and Clinton election advisor) Wesley Clark. Basically, Sullivan's contention is that Clinton's ardent support for a pair of resolutions, one authorizing the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds force as a terrorist organization, and the other, a potentially more damaging one for Clinton, authorizing President Bush to take the necessary steps to explore potential conflict in Iran.
Extrapolating from these votes, Sullivan thus deemed her, as the title would indicate, "Dick Cheney in a pantsuit" Normally, I would attribute this phrase to typical right-wing demagoguery (for more information on use of this tactic, see biographies of McConnell, Mitch or DeLay, Thomas R., on Wikipedia), but Sullivan is not a typical conservative, and therefore his views are more credible. For one, Sullivan is openly gay and HIV positive. You don't find many conservatives of that ilk, at least outside of a mega-church. In addition, Sullivan has inveighed against the 21st century Republican party on a number of issues (namely, the Iraq war), to the degree that he voted for John Kerry in 2004. Needless to say, Sullivan distinguishes himself from the seemingly innumerable hacks that currently predominate in the Republican party. So, when he offers such a pointed, unusual critique of the Democratic front-runner for president, Mrs. Clinton, further analysis is warranted.
Let's parse out the differences, or potential similarities between Tricky Dick and Hillary, in hopes of either rebuking or validating Sullivan's ostentatious remark:
Foreign Policy/War on Terror: Since this was the subject of discussion when Sullivan made the initial assertion, why not start here? In many ways, their views on National Security are where Darth Vader and Hillary Clinton are most similar. The Washington Post characterizes Clinton's views on intervention in foreign lands as "hawkish" Obviously, the same can be said for Mr. Cheney. Also, Clinton voted for the now ignominious resolution thereby allowing George W. Bush to invade Iraq, a position that would make even a curmudgeon like Cheney salivate. More over, she has been Cheney-esque in her refusal to apologize, or admit even a shred of regret for this decision.
In addition, Clinton and Cheney nearly mirror each other on their views on Iran. In remarks to the Washington Institute on October 21st, 2007, amidst a litany of other allegations and invective, Cheney declared that a nuclear Iran will not be permissible. Clinton, likewise, asserted that "no option is off the table" if Iran continues their efforts to refine nuclear energy. She is also publicly stated that Iran with any sort of nuclear capabilities is unacceptable. Furthermore, both politicians, though of different parties, share the same suspicious, paranoid and hyperbolic views towards Iran, a country with the GDP the size of Sweden.
Finally, vis a vis the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, they both express an unwavering support for Israel. Clinton, in a shockingly myopic remark, has in the past evinced support for a total border fence separating the two peoples, not because of the Palestinians, but rather "because of the terrorists" Clinton has apparently learned that building a wall in places like East Germany was largely unsuccessful, and that both sides of the debate have expressed disdain for said wall. As for Cheney, because of his administration's sedentary position with respect to the peace process, little is known of his views with respect to this dilemma. However, Cheney once supposedly told the Israeli Defense Minister at the time that "Yassir Arafat" deserves to be hanged. Class as always from Cyborg Cheney.
Verdict: Hard to tell the two apart, save Cheney's indefensible and idiotic penchant for asserting a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 four years after its' definitive rejection by sane people. Otherwise, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Cheney have much common ground on foreign policy, and particularly, the Middle East. This fact has to send chills up the spine of those Democratic voters who will soon realize that their runaway leader for the Presidency most resembles a monomaniacal zealot like Cheney on the crucial foreign policy issues of the day. Sullivan's comparison rings true wholly in this instance.
Immigration: As evidenced by her Romney-esque indecisiveness during the Democratic debate on Tuesday night when asked about Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to issue driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, Clinton position on immigration remains largely nebulous. In the span of 12 hours this week, she endorsed Spitzer's proposal, then disowned it mere minutes later, and then ultimately, supported it with an announcement the next morning. Clinton has generally supported the Democratic Party platform when voting on other immigration-related legislation. She supported the defunct comprehensive immigration reform earlier this year, and she voted against a bill that she characterized as "attempting to deport 11 million people" in 2006. On Halloween 2006, she voted for the "Secure Fences Act", which would authorize funding for 700 miles of border fencing along the Southern border of the country. She differed from the 19 dissenting votes, all of which were Democrats. By in large, Clinton can be categorized as a "centrist" on immigration, as she supports a path to citizenship while simultaneously endorsing bills that declare English as the National Language, and the aforementioned Border Fence act.
Cheney's views on immigration are somewhat tough to glean, at least since his tenure as Vice President. Presumably, he supports the compromise legislation advocated by the President earlier on the year. While in the House, Cheney did co-sponsor three bills, all of which fell under the Conservative mantle at the time. Interestingly enough, when Clinton was waffling about the Spitzer plan during the debate on Tuesday, she offered the tautological "We have got to turn the page on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Ironically, their views are more in accordance with hers than she would like to acknowledge to Democratic primary voters.
Verdict: Hard to tell, though one has to think that Cheney would receive a D- conservative immigration PAC like Hillary did. That said, their respective positions are more in congruence than one might think. One notable difference between the two is that Cheney has an avowed interest in using immigrants in lieu of animals on hunting trips. (Kidding.....I think.)
Health Care: The social issues, starting with Health Care, is where Clinton distinguishes herself from the Veep. Cheney, according on OntheIssues.org, basically endorses the standard GOP platform on health care. He favors the absence of government intrusion into health care, where as Clinton came forth with an ambitious, comprehensive health care plan that relies on $110 billion dollars in funding annually. The source of the funding would be the federal treasury, a fact which Cheney would like find odious. In fact, the VP believes that "government funding of health care is as anachronistic as surgery without anaesthesia", according to the 2000 GOP party platform. More over, in 2002, Clinton joined a bi-partisan group in opposing the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, an idea heavily valued on the domestic agenda of the first term of the Bush Administration.
Verdict: Judging from their speeches and voting records, these two politic ans could not be further apart on the ideological spectrum when it comes to health care. Sullivan's claim looks foolish, given the evidence.
Social Issues: Further analysis illustrates some unexpected congruence between Clinton and Cheney on social issues. Aside from abortion, which Clinton claims she finds personally abhorrent, but does not believe it should be illegal (a quintessential example of the Clintonian inclination to have it both ways on an issue, say her critics) while Cheney has steadfastly opposed it quotidian since his days in the House.
Otherwise, their legislative profiles are quite similiar; much to the chagrin of Democratic primary voters, though to be chagrined, they would have to wade through the morass of anti-Bush/Cheney rhetoric from Clinton to exhume it. How are they alike? Both support stem cell research. Clinton supported Bush's signature education bill, No Child Left Behind. In a Kafka-esque switch, Clinton, the Democrat does not support gay marriage, while Cheney, the conservative, has offered his tacit approval of gay relationships, going so far as to say that if a state, like Massachusetts, legalized gay marriage, he wouldn't find fault with that. Finally, both support the death penalty.
Verdict: Aside the pro-choice/pro-life question, if I laid out their positions, and it wasn't labeled, could you distinguish between the two? I know I'd have a difficult time. After initially dismissing Sullivan's comparison as run-of-the-mill conservative slander, I am starting to get a sinking feeling that he is prophetic in his assessment of Senator Clinton.
FINAL VERDICT: Tough to say definitively either way. As I look to assess the validity of Sullivan's remark, some facts support it (position on Iran, No Child Left Behind), while others directly contradict it (Abortion rights, gun control). Ultimately, if you are a voter, it depends on which issues concern you the most to determine if Sullivan is right in deeming Hillary a clone of Cheney. If terrorism is your main concern, then voting for Hillary will largely leave the face of American foreign policy changed, albeit the face will be a little prettier and less reminiscent of a movie villain. On the other hand, if you work for NARAL, Hillary ascending to the presidency would be a moment of nirvana.
If anything, the striking, and heretofore unknown harmony between Hilliary and Cheney is a microcosm of how little difference there really is between the 21st century incarnations of the Republicans and Democrats. Often times, those who refrain from voting cite their perception of having no real "choice" between the two as a reason for failing to patronize the ballot box. Given this set of facts, they may be on to something. Unfortunately, the symbiosis between the GOP and the left is unlikely to be challenged anytime in the near future, given the inherent constraints of our representative democracy. In the electoral college system, minor parties are pushed to the side, and even if they have any captivating ideas, more often than not, those ideas are just co-opted by one of the two parties. The similarities between the Democratic front-runner for President and the Vice-President, who is viewed as a war-criminal by many on the left, is a stark illustration of this principle.
But, given today's political climate, how can one really blame Hillary for her drift towards the center? The reason the Democrats took back the Senate in last year's mid-terms was because of a trio of centrist Democrats: Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill and Jim Webb. All three hail from generally conservative states (a few of which Hillary would need to capture in a general election), and therefore, given the milieu in which they exist, their only hope towards winning would to adopt certain conservative positions, like anti-gun control laws, in order to get elected. As one of my sagely college professors remarked: "We live in a country where the electorate is middle minded, middle aged and middle income" Hold your horses Moveon.org, It's hardly meritorious for castigating Hillary for taking the most electable position. Otherwise, one of two foreboding developments will occur:
1. Rudolph Giuliani will get elected president. As Joe Biden astutely pointed out "With Rudy, every sentence from him is noun, verb 9/11" Trust me liberal voters, Rudy Giuliani is more likely to cross-dress at his inauguration (Imagine John Roberts trying to maintain his solemn, T-1000 like facial expression if Rudy shows up dressed like Bette Midler) than to extricate us from Iraq.
2. Super Mormon Mitt Romney will buy the presidency. Romney isn't capable of running a birthday party at Chuckie Cheese, much less an executive branch with an expansive view of his power.
Those possibilities are scary. The only thing worse: 4 more years of Dick Cheney running the imperial presidency.
Extrapolating from these votes, Sullivan thus deemed her, as the title would indicate, "Dick Cheney in a pantsuit" Normally, I would attribute this phrase to typical right-wing demagoguery (for more information on use of this tactic, see biographies of McConnell, Mitch or DeLay, Thomas R., on Wikipedia), but Sullivan is not a typical conservative, and therefore his views are more credible. For one, Sullivan is openly gay and HIV positive. You don't find many conservatives of that ilk, at least outside of a mega-church. In addition, Sullivan has inveighed against the 21st century Republican party on a number of issues (namely, the Iraq war), to the degree that he voted for John Kerry in 2004. Needless to say, Sullivan distinguishes himself from the seemingly innumerable hacks that currently predominate in the Republican party. So, when he offers such a pointed, unusual critique of the Democratic front-runner for president, Mrs. Clinton, further analysis is warranted.
Let's parse out the differences, or potential similarities between Tricky Dick and Hillary, in hopes of either rebuking or validating Sullivan's ostentatious remark:
Foreign Policy/War on Terror: Since this was the subject of discussion when Sullivan made the initial assertion, why not start here? In many ways, their views on National Security are where Darth Vader and Hillary Clinton are most similar. The Washington Post characterizes Clinton's views on intervention in foreign lands as "hawkish" Obviously, the same can be said for Mr. Cheney. Also, Clinton voted for the now ignominious resolution thereby allowing George W. Bush to invade Iraq, a position that would make even a curmudgeon like Cheney salivate. More over, she has been Cheney-esque in her refusal to apologize, or admit even a shred of regret for this decision.
In addition, Clinton and Cheney nearly mirror each other on their views on Iran. In remarks to the Washington Institute on October 21st, 2007, amidst a litany of other allegations and invective, Cheney declared that a nuclear Iran will not be permissible. Clinton, likewise, asserted that "no option is off the table" if Iran continues their efforts to refine nuclear energy. She is also publicly stated that Iran with any sort of nuclear capabilities is unacceptable. Furthermore, both politicians, though of different parties, share the same suspicious, paranoid and hyperbolic views towards Iran, a country with the GDP the size of Sweden.
Finally, vis a vis the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, they both express an unwavering support for Israel. Clinton, in a shockingly myopic remark, has in the past evinced support for a total border fence separating the two peoples, not because of the Palestinians, but rather "because of the terrorists" Clinton has apparently learned that building a wall in places like East Germany was largely unsuccessful, and that both sides of the debate have expressed disdain for said wall. As for Cheney, because of his administration's sedentary position with respect to the peace process, little is known of his views with respect to this dilemma. However, Cheney once supposedly told the Israeli Defense Minister at the time that "Yassir Arafat" deserves to be hanged. Class as always from Cyborg Cheney.
Verdict: Hard to tell the two apart, save Cheney's indefensible and idiotic penchant for asserting a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 four years after its' definitive rejection by sane people. Otherwise, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Cheney have much common ground on foreign policy, and particularly, the Middle East. This fact has to send chills up the spine of those Democratic voters who will soon realize that their runaway leader for the Presidency most resembles a monomaniacal zealot like Cheney on the crucial foreign policy issues of the day. Sullivan's comparison rings true wholly in this instance.
Immigration: As evidenced by her Romney-esque indecisiveness during the Democratic debate on Tuesday night when asked about Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to issue driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, Clinton position on immigration remains largely nebulous. In the span of 12 hours this week, she endorsed Spitzer's proposal, then disowned it mere minutes later, and then ultimately, supported it with an announcement the next morning. Clinton has generally supported the Democratic Party platform when voting on other immigration-related legislation. She supported the defunct comprehensive immigration reform earlier this year, and she voted against a bill that she characterized as "attempting to deport 11 million people" in 2006. On Halloween 2006, she voted for the "Secure Fences Act", which would authorize funding for 700 miles of border fencing along the Southern border of the country. She differed from the 19 dissenting votes, all of which were Democrats. By in large, Clinton can be categorized as a "centrist" on immigration, as she supports a path to citizenship while simultaneously endorsing bills that declare English as the National Language, and the aforementioned Border Fence act.
Cheney's views on immigration are somewhat tough to glean, at least since his tenure as Vice President. Presumably, he supports the compromise legislation advocated by the President earlier on the year. While in the House, Cheney did co-sponsor three bills, all of which fell under the Conservative mantle at the time. Interestingly enough, when Clinton was waffling about the Spitzer plan during the debate on Tuesday, she offered the tautological "We have got to turn the page on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Ironically, their views are more in accordance with hers than she would like to acknowledge to Democratic primary voters.
Verdict: Hard to tell, though one has to think that Cheney would receive a D- conservative immigration PAC like Hillary did. That said, their respective positions are more in congruence than one might think. One notable difference between the two is that Cheney has an avowed interest in using immigrants in lieu of animals on hunting trips. (Kidding.....I think.)
Health Care: The social issues, starting with Health Care, is where Clinton distinguishes herself from the Veep. Cheney, according on OntheIssues.org, basically endorses the standard GOP platform on health care. He favors the absence of government intrusion into health care, where as Clinton came forth with an ambitious, comprehensive health care plan that relies on $110 billion dollars in funding annually. The source of the funding would be the federal treasury, a fact which Cheney would like find odious. In fact, the VP believes that "government funding of health care is as anachronistic as surgery without anaesthesia", according to the 2000 GOP party platform. More over, in 2002, Clinton joined a bi-partisan group in opposing the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, an idea heavily valued on the domestic agenda of the first term of the Bush Administration.
Verdict: Judging from their speeches and voting records, these two politic ans could not be further apart on the ideological spectrum when it comes to health care. Sullivan's claim looks foolish, given the evidence.
Social Issues: Further analysis illustrates some unexpected congruence between Clinton and Cheney on social issues. Aside from abortion, which Clinton claims she finds personally abhorrent, but does not believe it should be illegal (a quintessential example of the Clintonian inclination to have it both ways on an issue, say her critics) while Cheney has steadfastly opposed it quotidian since his days in the House.
Otherwise, their legislative profiles are quite similiar; much to the chagrin of Democratic primary voters, though to be chagrined, they would have to wade through the morass of anti-Bush/Cheney rhetoric from Clinton to exhume it. How are they alike? Both support stem cell research. Clinton supported Bush's signature education bill, No Child Left Behind. In a Kafka-esque switch, Clinton, the Democrat does not support gay marriage, while Cheney, the conservative, has offered his tacit approval of gay relationships, going so far as to say that if a state, like Massachusetts, legalized gay marriage, he wouldn't find fault with that. Finally, both support the death penalty.
Verdict: Aside the pro-choice/pro-life question, if I laid out their positions, and it wasn't labeled, could you distinguish between the two? I know I'd have a difficult time. After initially dismissing Sullivan's comparison as run-of-the-mill conservative slander, I am starting to get a sinking feeling that he is prophetic in his assessment of Senator Clinton.
FINAL VERDICT: Tough to say definitively either way. As I look to assess the validity of Sullivan's remark, some facts support it (position on Iran, No Child Left Behind), while others directly contradict it (Abortion rights, gun control). Ultimately, if you are a voter, it depends on which issues concern you the most to determine if Sullivan is right in deeming Hillary a clone of Cheney. If terrorism is your main concern, then voting for Hillary will largely leave the face of American foreign policy changed, albeit the face will be a little prettier and less reminiscent of a movie villain. On the other hand, if you work for NARAL, Hillary ascending to the presidency would be a moment of nirvana.
If anything, the striking, and heretofore unknown harmony between Hilliary and Cheney is a microcosm of how little difference there really is between the 21st century incarnations of the Republicans and Democrats. Often times, those who refrain from voting cite their perception of having no real "choice" between the two as a reason for failing to patronize the ballot box. Given this set of facts, they may be on to something. Unfortunately, the symbiosis between the GOP and the left is unlikely to be challenged anytime in the near future, given the inherent constraints of our representative democracy. In the electoral college system, minor parties are pushed to the side, and even if they have any captivating ideas, more often than not, those ideas are just co-opted by one of the two parties. The similarities between the Democratic front-runner for President and the Vice-President, who is viewed as a war-criminal by many on the left, is a stark illustration of this principle.
But, given today's political climate, how can one really blame Hillary for her drift towards the center? The reason the Democrats took back the Senate in last year's mid-terms was because of a trio of centrist Democrats: Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill and Jim Webb. All three hail from generally conservative states (a few of which Hillary would need to capture in a general election), and therefore, given the milieu in which they exist, their only hope towards winning would to adopt certain conservative positions, like anti-gun control laws, in order to get elected. As one of my sagely college professors remarked: "We live in a country where the electorate is middle minded, middle aged and middle income" Hold your horses Moveon.org, It's hardly meritorious for castigating Hillary for taking the most electable position. Otherwise, one of two foreboding developments will occur:
1. Rudolph Giuliani will get elected president. As Joe Biden astutely pointed out "With Rudy, every sentence from him is noun, verb 9/11" Trust me liberal voters, Rudy Giuliani is more likely to cross-dress at his inauguration (Imagine John Roberts trying to maintain his solemn, T-1000 like facial expression if Rudy shows up dressed like Bette Midler) than to extricate us from Iraq.
2. Super Mormon Mitt Romney will buy the presidency. Romney isn't capable of running a birthday party at Chuckie Cheese, much less an executive branch with an expansive view of his power.
Those possibilities are scary. The only thing worse: 4 more years of Dick Cheney running the imperial presidency.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Yet another Victory for Judicial "Activism"
Ever since its' ascendancy into political prominence in the 1980's, the Christian Right has placed foremost emphasis on selecting judges that conform to their ideological litmus test. James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Pat Robertson and the rest of the evangelical ilk have stressed the need for Republicans that appoint judges who are "strict constructionists" who "interpret, not create the law" and most importantly, judges who do not "legislate from the bench."
Basically, as these innocuous terms attempt to obfuscate, Robinson and his cadre have tried to mete out any prospective nominee who is not fiercely pro-life, anti-gay marriage and pro-corporate welfare. The ideal judge, in their minds, would not only possess all of the aforementioned positions on social issues, but also would defer to state legislatures, voters and the executive branch on matters of creating law. In their warped perception, only judges who give near carte blanche to state legislatures in the creation, and implementation of laws, are permissible. Thus arises the murky Christian right buzz phrases like , "interpret the law, not create social policy with law" and most memorably, "do not legislate from the bench".
By in large, this movement to alter the requisite criterion for electing federal judges, most importantly, the Supreme Court, has been largely successful in diffusing out all judges save the arch-conservatives. As James Toobin laments in his insightful new novel "The Nine", when Robert Bork was foisted upon the Senate for confirmation, his confirmation hinged on whether not he was "pro Roe v. Wade" enough. Fast forward 20 years, and a judge like Roberts or Alito's confirmation is contingent on being "anti-Roe v. Wade" enough. In essence, a total paradigm shift on the issue of abortion has occurred in a mere two decades.
Ignoring the inherent hypocrisy of the conservatives preferred method for judicial selections (Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, deities to the far-right, are annually the leaders in overturning new laws, and eschewing past precedents, as reported last month by the Times), the systematic neutering and devaluing of the judicial branch of government has noticeably negative affects.
For one, the fundamental role of the judiciary, to combat unfair or unproductive legislation at the hands of renegade state legislatures, is rendered obsolete if the bench is dominated by the "strict constructionists" More over, fundamental minority rights, which the court assiduously endeavored to protect in landmark cases like Johnson v. Texas, or Brown v. Board of Education, are stunted greatly when judges defer to state legislatures or the "Framers" in interpreting the Constitution. In refusing to intervene in cases, provided the majority voted for a given law in such cases, irrespective of the merits of the law itself, judges commit an apostasy of justice, and help to create the "tyranny of the majority" that John Stuart Mill warned of two centuries ago.
These two negative consequences merged together to rear their negative head in the case of Genarlow Wilson, an African-American teenager in Georgia. Wilson, the prototypical All-American boy (except his race.....let's not operate under the false assumption that this country is color blind, particularly in the south) in the sense that he led his football team to the state championship, and he also succeeded in school to the point that he was recruited by Ivy League schools.
And then, given that background, it's only natural Genarlow would be incarcerated before he could even legally vote, right?! Only in America, folks. And what crime did this bright young man commit to earn a trip to the big house? One of the most indefensible, disgusting acts known to modern man: receiving consensual oral sex from a girl two years his junior (he was 17, she was 15 at the time) I know, he should be lynched, right?! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO? An all-star athlete the recipient of physical pleasure? That never happened back in my day son! The Apocalypse truly is upon us, if miscreants like Genarlow can rome free amongst us god-fearing citizens.
All sarcasm aside, believe it or not, Wilson served two years in prison for this totally innocuous, quite enjoyable act. I could understand if he had given the girl oral sex, but he was on the receiving end. (After all, if I become president, any woman who's nether regions smells like the drive thru window at Long John Silver's will be immediately dispatched to a "re-education camp", as the Chinese so aptly deem it)
Finally, after years of court hearings and a protracted battle over Genarlow's fate, in a bit of much needed judicial "activism", he was freed on the grounds that his 10 year prison sentence was cruel and unusual punishment by the Georgia Supreme Court today. Without this intervention, Genarlow, with his appeals basically exhausted, would be thus forced to rot in prison while his immense talents go to waste. In this case, and in many others that preceded it, the judicial branch has served the vital function of exonerating persecuting minorities from the oppressive nature of some powerful Americans.
In essence, The most important principle of judicial activism, is its implicit acknowledgement to protect those who are unfavored in our society, if need be, through vitiation of unjust legislation, even if the majority of people are in favor of said law. Cover your ears arm-chair patriots: We Americans do not exactly radiate nor possess a demonstrable amount of political interest and knowledge.
Before the "This is Ouuuuuuuuuuuuuur Country" crowd drowns me out with caterwauls and questions my patriotism, chew on this: In a recent NPR poll of young women between the ages of 10-17, those selected answered, by a margin of 5 to 1, that they would rather be Britney Spears' personal assistant than a CEO of a major corporation, or a U.S. Senator.
True, some are very passionate about public policy and the minutiae of the government, but that politically efficacious group does not nearly constitute a majority. Given that, why should we allow those same individuals to make critical decisions concerning the welfare of our society?
I'm not calling for a fascist regime, in which only those citizens who bear a striking resemblance to either Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie would have the right to vote. Rather, I'm advocating a political structure where there really are checks and balances, and in addition, one branch of government (the judiciary) is not the victim of subterfuge from an injurious, uninformed electorate. Is that so much to ask? After all, IBM wouldn't hire someone to work at their plant if they didn't possess the requisite skills to make the best decisions while on the job. Why can't we apply the same axiom to voting, and more broadly, political participation as a whole?
The Christian Right has catalyzed the public with it's message on the judiciary by basing their rhetoric on populist grounds. Essentially, they appeal to the selfish nature in all of us (myself certainly included) by saying "Why do these 9 robed dinosaurs get to decide that it's legal to kill a baby? They aren't elected, they are immune to the will of the people!. Leave it up to the state legislatures, those officials are accountable to us ( this is a prominent fallacy amongst many citizens)"
Sadly, manipulating the public with this sort of incendiary rhetoric has been a largely successful enterprise for the conservatives. What results are travesty's of justice, both to the Constitution, which mandates an independent judiciary, also to a normal person. Case in point: Genarlow Wilson.
In closing on a lighter note, courtesy of dumblaws.com, listed below is some recent state laws ratified by the "omniscient" state legislatures. Trust me, more of this is what will occur if you install judges who refuse to intervene against the legislative and executive branches.
Alabama- Incestuous Marriages are Legal
Georgia-All sex toys are banned
Mississippi- If one is a parent to two illegitimate children, you go to jail for one month.
And the list goes on and on. Thankfully, we still have the judiciary.
Basically, as these innocuous terms attempt to obfuscate, Robinson and his cadre have tried to mete out any prospective nominee who is not fiercely pro-life, anti-gay marriage and pro-corporate welfare. The ideal judge, in their minds, would not only possess all of the aforementioned positions on social issues, but also would defer to state legislatures, voters and the executive branch on matters of creating law. In their warped perception, only judges who give near carte blanche to state legislatures in the creation, and implementation of laws, are permissible. Thus arises the murky Christian right buzz phrases like , "interpret the law, not create social policy with law" and most memorably, "do not legislate from the bench".
By in large, this movement to alter the requisite criterion for electing federal judges, most importantly, the Supreme Court, has been largely successful in diffusing out all judges save the arch-conservatives. As James Toobin laments in his insightful new novel "The Nine", when Robert Bork was foisted upon the Senate for confirmation, his confirmation hinged on whether not he was "pro Roe v. Wade" enough. Fast forward 20 years, and a judge like Roberts or Alito's confirmation is contingent on being "anti-Roe v. Wade" enough. In essence, a total paradigm shift on the issue of abortion has occurred in a mere two decades.
Ignoring the inherent hypocrisy of the conservatives preferred method for judicial selections (Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, deities to the far-right, are annually the leaders in overturning new laws, and eschewing past precedents, as reported last month by the Times), the systematic neutering and devaluing of the judicial branch of government has noticeably negative affects.
For one, the fundamental role of the judiciary, to combat unfair or unproductive legislation at the hands of renegade state legislatures, is rendered obsolete if the bench is dominated by the "strict constructionists" More over, fundamental minority rights, which the court assiduously endeavored to protect in landmark cases like Johnson v. Texas, or Brown v. Board of Education, are stunted greatly when judges defer to state legislatures or the "Framers" in interpreting the Constitution. In refusing to intervene in cases, provided the majority voted for a given law in such cases, irrespective of the merits of the law itself, judges commit an apostasy of justice, and help to create the "tyranny of the majority" that John Stuart Mill warned of two centuries ago.
These two negative consequences merged together to rear their negative head in the case of Genarlow Wilson, an African-American teenager in Georgia. Wilson, the prototypical All-American boy (except his race.....let's not operate under the false assumption that this country is color blind, particularly in the south) in the sense that he led his football team to the state championship, and he also succeeded in school to the point that he was recruited by Ivy League schools.
And then, given that background, it's only natural Genarlow would be incarcerated before he could even legally vote, right?! Only in America, folks. And what crime did this bright young man commit to earn a trip to the big house? One of the most indefensible, disgusting acts known to modern man: receiving consensual oral sex from a girl two years his junior (he was 17, she was 15 at the time) I know, he should be lynched, right?! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO? An all-star athlete the recipient of physical pleasure? That never happened back in my day son! The Apocalypse truly is upon us, if miscreants like Genarlow can rome free amongst us god-fearing citizens.
All sarcasm aside, believe it or not, Wilson served two years in prison for this totally innocuous, quite enjoyable act. I could understand if he had given the girl oral sex, but he was on the receiving end. (After all, if I become president, any woman who's nether regions smells like the drive thru window at Long John Silver's will be immediately dispatched to a "re-education camp", as the Chinese so aptly deem it)
Finally, after years of court hearings and a protracted battle over Genarlow's fate, in a bit of much needed judicial "activism", he was freed on the grounds that his 10 year prison sentence was cruel and unusual punishment by the Georgia Supreme Court today. Without this intervention, Genarlow, with his appeals basically exhausted, would be thus forced to rot in prison while his immense talents go to waste. In this case, and in many others that preceded it, the judicial branch has served the vital function of exonerating persecuting minorities from the oppressive nature of some powerful Americans.
In essence, The most important principle of judicial activism, is its implicit acknowledgement to protect those who are unfavored in our society, if need be, through vitiation of unjust legislation, even if the majority of people are in favor of said law. Cover your ears arm-chair patriots: We Americans do not exactly radiate nor possess a demonstrable amount of political interest and knowledge.
Before the "This is Ouuuuuuuuuuuuuur Country" crowd drowns me out with caterwauls and questions my patriotism, chew on this: In a recent NPR poll of young women between the ages of 10-17, those selected answered, by a margin of 5 to 1, that they would rather be Britney Spears' personal assistant than a CEO of a major corporation, or a U.S. Senator.
True, some are very passionate about public policy and the minutiae of the government, but that politically efficacious group does not nearly constitute a majority. Given that, why should we allow those same individuals to make critical decisions concerning the welfare of our society?
I'm not calling for a fascist regime, in which only those citizens who bear a striking resemblance to either Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie would have the right to vote. Rather, I'm advocating a political structure where there really are checks and balances, and in addition, one branch of government (the judiciary) is not the victim of subterfuge from an injurious, uninformed electorate. Is that so much to ask? After all, IBM wouldn't hire someone to work at their plant if they didn't possess the requisite skills to make the best decisions while on the job. Why can't we apply the same axiom to voting, and more broadly, political participation as a whole?
The Christian Right has catalyzed the public with it's message on the judiciary by basing their rhetoric on populist grounds. Essentially, they appeal to the selfish nature in all of us (myself certainly included) by saying "Why do these 9 robed dinosaurs get to decide that it's legal to kill a baby? They aren't elected, they are immune to the will of the people!. Leave it up to the state legislatures, those officials are accountable to us ( this is a prominent fallacy amongst many citizens)"
Sadly, manipulating the public with this sort of incendiary rhetoric has been a largely successful enterprise for the conservatives. What results are travesty's of justice, both to the Constitution, which mandates an independent judiciary, also to a normal person. Case in point: Genarlow Wilson.
In closing on a lighter note, courtesy of dumblaws.com, listed below is some recent state laws ratified by the "omniscient" state legislatures. Trust me, more of this is what will occur if you install judges who refuse to intervene against the legislative and executive branches.
Alabama- Incestuous Marriages are Legal
Georgia-All sex toys are banned
Mississippi- If one is a parent to two illegitimate children, you go to jail for one month.
And the list goes on and on. Thankfully, we still have the judiciary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)