Well, that title got your attention. And it's true. Weirdness is the word for what's going on with McCain and Obama looking at vice presidential possibilities.
McCain is allegedly interviewing Mitt Romney, Charlie Crist, and Bobby Jindal this long weekend. "We're just going to go hiking and boating, and sit around the campfire and eat beans and talk man talk and do ballsy stuff," McCain was not quoted as saying when asked directly if he was interviewing potential vice presidential candidates.
Romney, a native of Michigan, a former governor of Massachusetts, and a current Mormon, has the business and economic experience that McCain admittedly lacks. He's actually not a bad political choice. He would bring Utah into the Republican column, and probably Idaho (where Mormons dominate the southern desert). The only problem is that Utah and Idaho are so completely committed to voting Republican that were no one to show up on election day they would still vote for McCain. Thus, it isn't necessary to put Romney on the ticket unless he could also bring Michigan to the dark side. I mean, the Red side. Barring something extremely weird, I don't see Massachusetts voting Red even with Romney on the ticket.
Crist is the governor of Florida, and would do wonders to secure that all the Chads in the state would vote Republican. His presence on the ticket would just about sew up Florida as a Red state again and, if the Democrats were to go with Bill Nelson, would likely negate Bill Nelson's influence on the election. If it appears that McCain will go with Crist, the Democrats need to look elsewhere for their VP candidate. (Ohio might be a good choice.) With Crist and Nelson we encounter a strategic choice for McCain: announce his VP candidate before the Democratic convention, and give the Democrats a chance to choose or bypass Nelson? or hold off to see whom the Democrats select for the VP position and then counter their choice?
Jindal is the first-term governor of Louisiana, a state that is likely to vote Republican after so many African Americans and Caribbean Americans have been disenfranchised as a result of not rebuilding their homes after Katrina. Jindal was a two term congressman and, at age 36, is still the nation's youngest current governor, just barely eligible (35 is the eligibility age) to ascend to the presidency should it be necessary.
Jindal is a weird choice to interview. On the one hand, he is the first elected Indian-American governor in our country's history, and he's very popular in Louisiana. But he's very young, very inexperienced, and very unnecessary on the ticket. He wouldn't solidify either Louisiana or the rest of the south for the Republican ticket any more than it already is--and it already is.
More importantly from a political point of view, Jindal's youthful presence on the Republican ticket would emphasize how old McCain is and looks (and looking even older standing next to Jindal) at a time when McCain seems to have been finally overcoming the age concern.
Maybe McCain will interview some others as well, and is including long shots in order to show those individuals how highly he thinks of them even when he doesn't choose them to be his running mate. I am genuinely suprised that Tim Pawlenty's name has not re-surfaced in recent news stories. Pawlenty, governor of Minnesota, is qualified, and could be a serious means of moving MN from Blue state to Red state in November. Besides, the Republican convention is in Minnesota: how better to reward the state than to choose a favorite son to be the vice presedential candidate.
On the Democratic side, Obama seems also to be churning out names for the press, even though he does not yet have quite enough delegates to secure the nomination. By talking VP choices, however, he turns attention away from Hillary's campaigning, and creates the impression of a fait accompli.
Some of the names that Obama's advisors have leaked are just not realistic. As I've said in earlier posts (#7, 8, and 9), Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas) and Jennifer Granholm (Michigan) would be excellent candidates, but having a minority and a woman on the ticket is pushing the envelope a bit too far for voters who are already having trouble with the possibility of Obama heading the ticket. And even to bring up Janet Napolitano, governor of Arizona, has to be a ploy to show her how important she is to the Democratic party. She would add nothing to the ticket, since Arizona is as committed to voting Republican as are Louisiana, Utah, and Idaho.
I still like Ted Strickland or Sherrod Brown from Ohio, Bill Nelson from Florida (but with the warning about Charlie Crist as possible VP behind McCain), and Jim Webb from Virginia. Bill Ritter, newly elected governor of Colorado (taking office in 2006), and Ken Salazar, senator from Colorado, are two favorite-son possibilities with the party having its convention this summer in Denver. Salazar, by the bye, is in the middle of his first term, and is one of three Hispanic memers of the senate.
Colorado has nine electoral votes, four more than Bill Richardson could bring from New Mexico, only one less than Minnesota's ten. Salazar or Ritter might be a way to counteract the potential loss of Minnesota were Pawlenty to be McCain's running mate, and might have the added advantage of putting some other Rocky Mountain states in play. Jim Webb might bring Virginia's thirteen electoral votes to the Blue side. Florida (27 electoral votes) and Ohio (20 electoral votes) are still the large states very much up for grabs, though I expect Michigan (17 electoral votes) and Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes) to be major battlegrounds as well.
Enough to think about for the time being. Have a wonderful long weekend, good people, and remember: when you retire, every day is a wonderful long weekend.
--triton--
Friday, May 23, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
#22 The Race and November: A Diatribe
Yes, I meant the first part of that title to be ambiguous, because the issue of Race is becoming increasingly unhappy in this election. In post #18 I talked about Race and Age in the election. I haven't heard much more about Obama's age recently, but his race has been hitting the press.
And yes I know that it was McCain's age at issue. I was trying to lighten the mood, but I don't feel very happy about how the issue of race is becoming increasingly divisive. Today's NYTimes has a front page article whose headline is "Obama Heads to Florida, Jews There Have Their Doubts."
Oh my. There's SO MUCH bad stuff implicit in that headline. The article points out that Jews in Florida (many of them, retired folk) are afraid of Obama's attitude toward Israel, and plan instead to vote for McCain. Well, I can understand that. I'm pro-Israel, and I'm concerned that there are still countries in this world that want Israel to cease to exist. Obama hasn't had much opportunity to talk about Israel in this campaign, and he's had even less opportunity to talk about anything in Florida, since he and Hillary basically weren't allowed to go down there to campaign. Now he is in Florida to try to assure folk that he supports Israel. But one honest eighty year old, who is quietly thinking of voting for Obama but isn't telling anyone (her cover is blown by being named in the story), says about her friends, "They'll pick on the minister thing, they'll pick on the wife, but the major issue is color."
Shades of Pennsylvania exit polls.
I wish I could meet some of these people and shake them. I don't mean physically shake them; I don't do violence at all well, not in person, not on TV, not in the movies. I mean shake them emotionally and intellectually, if they can be moved at all intellectually. I don't know if my emotionally shaking them would be intended to shake some nonsense out of their heads or some sense into their heads. But I would say to them, it's time to move on, people, to get past the 1950s and move at least into the 1960s if not the 21st century.
I find it ironic that Jews may actually be concerned about the color of a candidate's skin. Historically, (a) Jews have been the group most put upon by other groups, and (b) more recently historically, Jews have been in the forefront of civil rights movements in support of African Americans. And in support of other races here and in other countries. Why now be afraid of a black man possibly becoming president? Why now, when it's becoming a genuine possibility?
And I've possibly answered my own question. After the Civil War and even in the 20th century, blacks were generally not seen as a threat to be in powerful positions. Now, Barack Obama has shown that, like whites, blacks can be high achievers, can aspire to becoming, perhaps even be elected, President. That has just GOT to be frightening to a whole bunch of people. Not just the white trash we normally think of as being prejudiced, but possibly to a whole bunch of other folk who haven't yet gotten over what was instilled in them in their mothers' laps, on their fathers' knees.
Let me reiterate. Get over it. "It's a new world out there, Goldie," one of my favorite lines to help deal with change; and this forthcoming new world has got to be better than the one that dubya and his cronies are leaving for the new guy (of either gender) who'll be moving into the White House in January.
The NYTimes, by the way, does a fine job of asking the questions about Obama that may be the superficial cover for deeper concerns, and of dispelling the rumors, the myths, and the out and out falsehoods about the presumptive Democratic nominee. But will it be enough? Will it enable people to face their possible prejudices and overcome those prejudices?
I could say, All bets are off in this election: that polls will be of questionable value at best, impenetrable at worst, depending on how revealing or reticent people are in telling the truth about whom they will be voting for. And as we move closer to election time (now just a little more than five months away), we may have to keep reminding ourselves that our projections, and media projections, even the two major political parties' projections, may be merely smoke in the wind.
Do you remember Doug Wilder, the nation's first elected black governor? "Let's not kid ourselves again, the issue of race will not disappear; but I don't think it will predominate,'' the former Virginia governor said in an interview at his office in Richmond, where he is now mayor. At the same time, he said, even if Obama is the nominee and heads into the fall with an apparent lead, the election "will be closer than any polls will suggest.''
Indeed, in 1989, Wilder won the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Virginia. Polls taken just before election day had him ahead of his Republican opponent by as much as 10 percentage points. He won by less than half a percentage point.
--triton--
Next time: VP choices heating up
And yes I know that it was McCain's age at issue. I was trying to lighten the mood, but I don't feel very happy about how the issue of race is becoming increasingly divisive. Today's NYTimes has a front page article whose headline is "Obama Heads to Florida, Jews There Have Their Doubts."
Oh my. There's SO MUCH bad stuff implicit in that headline. The article points out that Jews in Florida (many of them, retired folk) are afraid of Obama's attitude toward Israel, and plan instead to vote for McCain. Well, I can understand that. I'm pro-Israel, and I'm concerned that there are still countries in this world that want Israel to cease to exist. Obama hasn't had much opportunity to talk about Israel in this campaign, and he's had even less opportunity to talk about anything in Florida, since he and Hillary basically weren't allowed to go down there to campaign. Now he is in Florida to try to assure folk that he supports Israel. But one honest eighty year old, who is quietly thinking of voting for Obama but isn't telling anyone (her cover is blown by being named in the story), says about her friends, "They'll pick on the minister thing, they'll pick on the wife, but the major issue is color."
Shades of Pennsylvania exit polls.
I wish I could meet some of these people and shake them. I don't mean physically shake them; I don't do violence at all well, not in person, not on TV, not in the movies. I mean shake them emotionally and intellectually, if they can be moved at all intellectually. I don't know if my emotionally shaking them would be intended to shake some nonsense out of their heads or some sense into their heads. But I would say to them, it's time to move on, people, to get past the 1950s and move at least into the 1960s if not the 21st century.
I find it ironic that Jews may actually be concerned about the color of a candidate's skin. Historically, (a) Jews have been the group most put upon by other groups, and (b) more recently historically, Jews have been in the forefront of civil rights movements in support of African Americans. And in support of other races here and in other countries. Why now be afraid of a black man possibly becoming president? Why now, when it's becoming a genuine possibility?
And I've possibly answered my own question. After the Civil War and even in the 20th century, blacks were generally not seen as a threat to be in powerful positions. Now, Barack Obama has shown that, like whites, blacks can be high achievers, can aspire to becoming, perhaps even be elected, President. That has just GOT to be frightening to a whole bunch of people. Not just the white trash we normally think of as being prejudiced, but possibly to a whole bunch of other folk who haven't yet gotten over what was instilled in them in their mothers' laps, on their fathers' knees.
Let me reiterate. Get over it. "It's a new world out there, Goldie," one of my favorite lines to help deal with change; and this forthcoming new world has got to be better than the one that dubya and his cronies are leaving for the new guy (of either gender) who'll be moving into the White House in January.
The NYTimes, by the way, does a fine job of asking the questions about Obama that may be the superficial cover for deeper concerns, and of dispelling the rumors, the myths, and the out and out falsehoods about the presumptive Democratic nominee. But will it be enough? Will it enable people to face their possible prejudices and overcome those prejudices?
I could say, All bets are off in this election: that polls will be of questionable value at best, impenetrable at worst, depending on how revealing or reticent people are in telling the truth about whom they will be voting for. And as we move closer to election time (now just a little more than five months away), we may have to keep reminding ourselves that our projections, and media projections, even the two major political parties' projections, may be merely smoke in the wind.
Do you remember Doug Wilder, the nation's first elected black governor? "Let's not kid ourselves again, the issue of race will not disappear; but I don't think it will predominate,'' the former Virginia governor said in an interview at his office in Richmond, where he is now mayor. At the same time, he said, even if Obama is the nominee and heads into the fall with an apparent lead, the election "will be closer than any polls will suggest.''
Indeed, in 1989, Wilder won the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Virginia. Polls taken just before election day had him ahead of his Republican opponent by as much as 10 percentage points. He won by less than half a percentage point.
--triton--
Next time: VP choices heating up
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
#21 A Gut Campaign (3); and another great blogsite
First let me direct you a related blogsite that I'm really enjoying. It's posted by a colleague of my older daughter in NYC, and its author has experience with presidential politics. Here's the link: http://www.nickragone.com/. Nick is the author of three books, and I'm currently engrossed with his most recent one, "President's Most Wanted" (Potomac Press, 2008). It’s a truly fun and informative read. Visit his site to see his insights and perspectives on the upcoming election.
All the polls say that the economy is the major issue. If we've learned anything from James Carville in 1992, we will know that "It's the Economy, stupid!" People will vote their pocketbooks, and right now a lot of voters are hurting economically. Of the other two E's, Education and the Environment, the environment will be a significant issue in the campaign that is beginning. (did you notice that smooth segue from Nick's blogsite back to my previous post's discussion, or are you still jarred from the shock of that shift?).
The environment relates to the bush administration’s foreign policy, which for many reasons has been disastrous (dubya’s initial and long opposition to the Kyoto Treaty, for example, did not win friends abroad).
dubya now claims to acknowledge that there is such a thing as global warming, though his statements don’t have the ring of authentic belief that it exists. No matter. When the melting glaciers flood Crawford TX, he’ll become a believer. My younger daughter and her family need to get out of Los Angeles before that happens.
Another major topic of environmental concern in the upcoming campaign will definitely be economy-related: drilling for oil, and drilling, digging, and raping nature for other natural resources (natural gas, oil sands, coal) to reduce our dependence on foreign suppliers and to make us “energy independent.” With gas prices hitting new highs almost on a daily basis, we know the economic distress being visited upon most of us, and the trickle-down effect of these price increases.
Thus, environmental concerns are very closely related to economic concerns, and BO and JMcC will go mano a mano on this relationship. An interesting sidenote: despite the rumors about BO’s Islamic background, it may be difficult to continue to portray the Middle East suppliers as the bad guys, when we realize that Canada is our largest supplier of oil. Here, environmental concerns are very closely related to foreign policy concerns. I hope dubya doesn't realize Canada's so important to our oil needs: I don't want him to get any ideas about invading north.
The other issue, Education, should be significant in the campaign because it is so vital to our future as a nation, but it will probably not be as major an issue as it deserves to be. Education has never seemed as sexy as the economy or the environment.
Nonetheless, the country is hurting from the bush administration's approach to education. "No child left behind" hasn't worked well. It has put pressure on the students to pass certain tests, and thus it has put pressure on the teachers to teach to the tests. That's not education; that's not teaching youth how to learn and how to prepare for a "lifetime of learning." That's just teaching young people how to prepare for exams. By the way, learning how to prepare for exams is not a bad thing. But it should not be the sine qua non of our educational system.
I taught formally (i.e., in a classroom) for forty years, including my Ohio State TA experience. I’ve learned from correspondence from former students how important it was to them to be excited about the topics being taught and about the experience of learning. Bear in mind that these students had become excited about Victorian literature -- that's Carlyle and Ruskin and Mill, oh my. Or, if you prefer poetry to nonfiction prose, that’s Tennyson, Browning, and Clough, oh my.
The bush administration has failed to address, even to begin to address, the long-term, underlying diseases infecting our public education system. One problem is lack of respect for the profession, as manifested in lack of resources provided to school districts and low salaries paid to school teachers. I have long ranted about the millions of dollars paid to individual actors and athletes, while school teachers -- especially in states like Idaho -- often have to take part-time additional jobs just to provide basic decencies (food, shelter anyone?) for their families. I'm not exaggerating.
The concern is deeper than can be addressed by showing more respect and throwing more money at the problems. My experiences as a graduate student at a state university with one of the best teacher education programs in the nation, and as a faculty member and administrator at a state university with not one of the best teacher education programs in the nation, have helped me understand that the current method of teaching teachers is a major part of the problem. We have an entrenched teacher-education system in this country, in which good people brought up in a bad system then pass on the weaknesses to their professional progeny.
Right now, changing our approach to teaching (in part through changing our approach to teacher education) is an important undercurrent in the election, as our presidential candidates struggle with the various problems our country faces. The decline in the quality of public education has contributed to the Religious Right’s increasing emphasis on home-schooling and to the bush administration’s desire to privatize public education (favoring credits and vouchers for families to send their children elsewhere than public schools). Not surprisingly, we have had a related decline in the percentage of students still in public schools. Unless the new administration seriously addresses public education, the decline in quality and the decline is number of students in public education will continue.
This discussion may not surface significantly during the campaign, but it will surface during the next president’s administration. We need to elect a president who is knowledgeable about, or is smart enough to become knowledgeable about, public education’s needs.
--triton--
Saturday, May 10, 2008
#20 A Gut Campaign (2): Three E's and an HRC
Let me say a few things right now, up front, about Hillary Rodham Clinton. She has run about the worst possible campaign she could run, which means she's had bad advisors and bad advice. Her husband's occasional fits of temper, and her own fits of pique, haven't helped. She sounds shrill and petulant and whiney, and her campaign has taken exactly the wrong approach to Barack Obama. In fact, her strategy has just plain stunk. For the most recent example, her support of a gas-tax-holiday enabled BO to escape the negative publicity of his former minister's absurd remarks. Instead of forcing Obama to talk about his minister--or about ANYthing that might reflect negatively on himself--HRC enabled BO to explain why he opposes a gas-tax-holiday. That debate between the two Democratic finalists pushed BO's minister onto back pages in the news reports, and actually strengthened BO's position in the nomination marathon--in part because it de-emphasized the Rev. Wrong's remarks, and in part because BO had logic on his side.
I'm just surprised that neither candidate is yet attacking dubya and McCain for talking positively about how the up-to-$600 tax rebate/refund/whatever the heck it is will help jumpstart the economy. I personally am planning on using that $600 to open a factory or two, and hire a thousand unemployed folk. Or I'll use it to pay for the increases in gas and food prices. Let's see: which one?
I hope you noticed that brilliant segue back to the promised topic at hand, the Three E's. I'll deal today with the first of the three alphabetically, the Economy. It's a mess. Well, not for the super-rich, but for normal folk like us. Gas and food prices haven't crept up; they've leapt up. Oil price increases have made their way all the way up (down?) the food chain, literally and figuratively. Shipping everything costs more, and that increase is passed on in the form of higher prices to us. Those higher prices lead to a spike in inflation, which becomes a self-expanding problem: consumers, aware that tomorrow the price for what they need will be higher, buy today, thus increasing the demand for whatever it is, or increasing the motivation for producers and retailers to create the feeling of shortages (rice, anyone?), which in turn forces the price yet higher. We get an inflationary spiral, which hits almost every sector of the economy--currently, with the exception of housing, which apparently is in a DEflationary spiral. That's the ol' Stagflation of the 80s, that cost Jimmah Cartah a second term.
I bought a dozen eggs today, on a big sale, for $1.25; six months ago, on sale they were a little more than half that price. Milk at our local low-price supermarket is up 30% in about the same time frame. And fresh fruits and veggies have made similar moves. Bread prices have risen as well, subject to the commodity insanities affecting precious metals and what is becoming increasingly precious grains. I'm not talking about crap food here, people; I'm talking about the staples of healthy, well-balanced meals.
Benjamin Disraeli had it right more than a century and a half ago in England, when he gave his novel "Sybil" the subtitle, "The Two Nations." That's what we have increasingly become in the good ol' US of A. As Disraeli explains in the novel, the two nations are "The Rich and the Poor." The bush administration has succeeded in making the ultra rich even richer, and the rest of American society less well off, in some cases starvingly poorly off.
Whoever gets the Democratic nomination needs to emphasize how poorly the economy is doing for the overwhelming majority of our citizens. Why not wear a flag on your lapel? Better, wear a cornstalk instead, or a grain of wheat, or a picture of an empty carton of milk. Flags don't put food in the tummies of the poor. There is no more important Gut Issue than feeding our fellow and sister humans, and especially those who can't take care of themselves. This should be a prime topic of the campaign.
Next time: The other two E's, Education and the Environment.
I'm just surprised that neither candidate is yet attacking dubya and McCain for talking positively about how the up-to-$600 tax rebate/refund/whatever the heck it is will help jumpstart the economy. I personally am planning on using that $600 to open a factory or two, and hire a thousand unemployed folk. Or I'll use it to pay for the increases in gas and food prices. Let's see: which one?
I hope you noticed that brilliant segue back to the promised topic at hand, the Three E's. I'll deal today with the first of the three alphabetically, the Economy. It's a mess. Well, not for the super-rich, but for normal folk like us. Gas and food prices haven't crept up; they've leapt up. Oil price increases have made their way all the way up (down?) the food chain, literally and figuratively. Shipping everything costs more, and that increase is passed on in the form of higher prices to us. Those higher prices lead to a spike in inflation, which becomes a self-expanding problem: consumers, aware that tomorrow the price for what they need will be higher, buy today, thus increasing the demand for whatever it is, or increasing the motivation for producers and retailers to create the feeling of shortages (rice, anyone?), which in turn forces the price yet higher. We get an inflationary spiral, which hits almost every sector of the economy--currently, with the exception of housing, which apparently is in a DEflationary spiral. That's the ol' Stagflation of the 80s, that cost Jimmah Cartah a second term.
I bought a dozen eggs today, on a big sale, for $1.25; six months ago, on sale they were a little more than half that price. Milk at our local low-price supermarket is up 30% in about the same time frame. And fresh fruits and veggies have made similar moves. Bread prices have risen as well, subject to the commodity insanities affecting precious metals and what is becoming increasingly precious grains. I'm not talking about crap food here, people; I'm talking about the staples of healthy, well-balanced meals.
Benjamin Disraeli had it right more than a century and a half ago in England, when he gave his novel "Sybil" the subtitle, "The Two Nations." That's what we have increasingly become in the good ol' US of A. As Disraeli explains in the novel, the two nations are "The Rich and the Poor." The bush administration has succeeded in making the ultra rich even richer, and the rest of American society less well off, in some cases starvingly poorly off.
Whoever gets the Democratic nomination needs to emphasize how poorly the economy is doing for the overwhelming majority of our citizens. Why not wear a flag on your lapel? Better, wear a cornstalk instead, or a grain of wheat, or a picture of an empty carton of milk. Flags don't put food in the tummies of the poor. There is no more important Gut Issue than feeding our fellow and sister humans, and especially those who can't take care of themselves. This should be a prime topic of the campaign.
Next time: The other two E's, Education and the Environment.
Monday, May 5, 2008
#19 A Gut Campaign (1)
I saw Howard Dean on the rerun of last Thursday's Daily Show with Jon Stewart. He could barely get a word in edgewise as JS skewered the Democratic party for incredibly finding a way to lose the presidential election this coming November. However, as my calculations in post #17 indicate, right now the Democrats are likely ahead of the Republicans in electoral votes if the election were to be held right now. I count it 240 D, 237 R, and 61 T(ossup).
Of course, it's a long long time from May to November (yes, the song says December, but the composer wasn't following this election), and anything can happen.
But "anything" had better not happen. Some specific thing is needed, a Democratic victory, to avoid four more years of dubya's failed policies at home and abroad, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. And so I'm suggesting that whoever wins the Democratic nomination for president needs to take two vitally important actions: pick the right Vice Presidential candidate, and run a campaign based on the issues that most affect American citizens, the gut issues which normally do convince voters whom to vote for.
I've written several times about VP candidates, and think Sherrod Brown, Ted Strickland (both from Ohio), Bill Nelson (Florida), and James Webb (Virginia) to be the best choices politically. Webb is my personal favorite but, based on the realities of the electoral college, the least politically useful choice of the four. Based on 2000 and 2004 electoral college results, Ohio or Florida can single-statedly swing the election to the Democrats; Virginia doesn't have enough electoral votes to do so on its own. On the other hand, Webb is an Annapolis graduate and served as a Marine in Vietnam. That background might balance out to some extent John McCain's military credentials.
The gut issues on which I believe the Democratic candidate must campaign are the three E's and an I: the Economy, Education, the Environment, and Iraq.
I don't have much to say about Iraq that hasn't already been said. However, the candidate cannot, MUST NOT, refer to Iraq in any way as a waste; MUST NOT in any way imply that the men and women who died there died in vain. That kind of phrasing will be viewed as an insult to those service-men and -women, and to their families and friends. Over 4,000 Americans have died there, and their memories must be honored far more than the Bush administration had apparently valued their commitment. Remember that their Humvees were not adequately armored, their body suits were not adequately armored, and their weapons were not as reliable as they needed. When Donald Rumsfeld was questioned about sending troops into battle without adequate materiel, he replied, You have to fight the war with the army you have.
Further, the Democratic nominee may not want to state the following viewpoint as bluntly as I'm going to state it, but--if dubya's daughters had been the first two servicewomen to be sent to Iraq, he might not have been so quick to begin a war without a plan to complete it. More universally, if the person who starts a war had to send his children to the front lines first, we'd likely have fewer wars.
Next time: A Gut Campaign (2)
Of course, it's a long long time from May to November (yes, the song says December, but the composer wasn't following this election), and anything can happen.
But "anything" had better not happen. Some specific thing is needed, a Democratic victory, to avoid four more years of dubya's failed policies at home and abroad, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. And so I'm suggesting that whoever wins the Democratic nomination for president needs to take two vitally important actions: pick the right Vice Presidential candidate, and run a campaign based on the issues that most affect American citizens, the gut issues which normally do convince voters whom to vote for.
I've written several times about VP candidates, and think Sherrod Brown, Ted Strickland (both from Ohio), Bill Nelson (Florida), and James Webb (Virginia) to be the best choices politically. Webb is my personal favorite but, based on the realities of the electoral college, the least politically useful choice of the four. Based on 2000 and 2004 electoral college results, Ohio or Florida can single-statedly swing the election to the Democrats; Virginia doesn't have enough electoral votes to do so on its own. On the other hand, Webb is an Annapolis graduate and served as a Marine in Vietnam. That background might balance out to some extent John McCain's military credentials.
The gut issues on which I believe the Democratic candidate must campaign are the three E's and an I: the Economy, Education, the Environment, and Iraq.
I don't have much to say about Iraq that hasn't already been said. However, the candidate cannot, MUST NOT, refer to Iraq in any way as a waste; MUST NOT in any way imply that the men and women who died there died in vain. That kind of phrasing will be viewed as an insult to those service-men and -women, and to their families and friends. Over 4,000 Americans have died there, and their memories must be honored far more than the Bush administration had apparently valued their commitment. Remember that their Humvees were not adequately armored, their body suits were not adequately armored, and their weapons were not as reliable as they needed. When Donald Rumsfeld was questioned about sending troops into battle without adequate materiel, he replied, You have to fight the war with the army you have.
Further, the Democratic nominee may not want to state the following viewpoint as bluntly as I'm going to state it, but--if dubya's daughters had been the first two servicewomen to be sent to Iraq, he might not have been so quick to begin a war without a plan to complete it. More universally, if the person who starts a war had to send his children to the front lines first, we'd likely have fewer wars.
Next time: A Gut Campaign (2)
Sunday, May 4, 2008
#18 Race and Age in November
Well, I knew it would happen. I just didn't know when, or how soon. But race and age are becoming explicit issues, rather than remaining quietly subliminal. In an ideal world, race certainly wouldn't matter, and age might not matter (health is more important than years), but the real world was bound to intrude eventually. It's just happening sooner rather than later.
RACE:
Based on what they were quoted as saying in exit polls for the Pennsylvania primary, some voters indicated that they are "not ready for an African-American president." Honestly, while I recognized that attitude would be held by a small number of pitiful voters, I wasn't expecting it to surface this early or to be expressed this blatantly. But there it is. If Obama gets the Democratic nomination, polls approaching election time may not be even nearly accurate, especially if voters become reticent about expressing their prejudices. We could be looking at even more inaccurate polling in 2008 than we saw in 2004 (Ohio) and 2000 (Florida).
I also have concerns about intimidation of African American voters in some states, either directly by threats or indirectly by sending them to the wrong voting stations or giving them incorrect instructions, both of which practices have occurred in the not-distant past, and not only in the south. Local officials will have to be particularly on guard against either practice, to insure that all who wish to vote get a legitimate opportunity to vote.
AGE:
An AP article today (Sunday) discussed what we already knew: that if he is elected, John McCain will be the oldest president inaugurated for a first term. Reagan was older when he began his second term. But McCain, at 72 (which he will turn in late August), actually seems older than Reagan did at either inauguration, 1981 or 1985. The article discussed the strategies that both parties could employ to emphasize or downplay his age.
Barack Obama will be 47 in early August, nearly a quarter of a century younger than John McCain, but Obama must be careful not to attack McCain's age directly: the Democrats had best not use any of the type of humor that was directed against Robert Dole twelve years ago --"Question: Which underwear does Bob Dole prefer, boxers or briefs? Answer: Depends." Instead, the Obama campaign will have to be more subtle, by emphasizing the Democrat's 21st century perspective rather than McCain's 20th century perspective. Referring to McCain's 19th century perspective would be nearly as insulting and vote-losing as the more direct underwear joke. It may need to be left to the Jon Stewarts, Jay Lenos, David Lettermans, and Conan O'Briens to refer more directly to McCain's age.
John McCain will have to deflect the age issue by humor and by his vice presidential selection. Reagan did both successfully, bringing up age in one of the 1984 debates against Walter Mondale: "I will not make age an issue in this campaign," Reagan said, setting up his audience; "I will not refer to my opponent's youth and inexperience." Everyone got the joke, and Reagan successfully removed age as an issue. Four years earlier, he had selected George H W Bush as his VP running mate; Bush was thirteen years younger, an age difference that reassured much of the American voting public.
Obama and Clinton don't have this kind of problem to contend with, though Obama may have the opposite concern: Hillary has targeted him for his "inexperience" (youthfulness?) in national politics. He has pretty convincingly turned it against her, and he and his handlers may be able to do the same if McCain's operatives attack his lack of national experience.
NOVEMBER:
I don't see any reason yet to change any of the designations I included for each state in post #17. I still see the Democrats--whether Hillary or Barack--as ahead for 240 electoral votes, and McCain ahead for 237, with 61 votes still viewed as tossups. And I still see the major tossup states to be Florida (currently leaning Republican), Pennsylvania (currently leaning Democratic), Minnesota, and Ohio. I also still believe that the Republicans would do well to nominate Gov Pawlenty of MN, and the Democrats would do really well to nominate Nelson (FL), or even better Brown or Strickland (both OH) as their VP candidates. Pennsylvania must go Democratic, but without using the VP position to get it--unless the Democrats can arrange to win Ohio without Brown or Strickland on the ticket. Then Gov Rendell might work as the VP candidate.
RACE:
Based on what they were quoted as saying in exit polls for the Pennsylvania primary, some voters indicated that they are "not ready for an African-American president." Honestly, while I recognized that attitude would be held by a small number of pitiful voters, I wasn't expecting it to surface this early or to be expressed this blatantly. But there it is. If Obama gets the Democratic nomination, polls approaching election time may not be even nearly accurate, especially if voters become reticent about expressing their prejudices. We could be looking at even more inaccurate polling in 2008 than we saw in 2004 (Ohio) and 2000 (Florida).
I also have concerns about intimidation of African American voters in some states, either directly by threats or indirectly by sending them to the wrong voting stations or giving them incorrect instructions, both of which practices have occurred in the not-distant past, and not only in the south. Local officials will have to be particularly on guard against either practice, to insure that all who wish to vote get a legitimate opportunity to vote.
AGE:
An AP article today (Sunday) discussed what we already knew: that if he is elected, John McCain will be the oldest president inaugurated for a first term. Reagan was older when he began his second term. But McCain, at 72 (which he will turn in late August), actually seems older than Reagan did at either inauguration, 1981 or 1985. The article discussed the strategies that both parties could employ to emphasize or downplay his age.
Barack Obama will be 47 in early August, nearly a quarter of a century younger than John McCain, but Obama must be careful not to attack McCain's age directly: the Democrats had best not use any of the type of humor that was directed against Robert Dole twelve years ago --"Question: Which underwear does Bob Dole prefer, boxers or briefs? Answer: Depends." Instead, the Obama campaign will have to be more subtle, by emphasizing the Democrat's 21st century perspective rather than McCain's 20th century perspective. Referring to McCain's 19th century perspective would be nearly as insulting and vote-losing as the more direct underwear joke. It may need to be left to the Jon Stewarts, Jay Lenos, David Lettermans, and Conan O'Briens to refer more directly to McCain's age.
John McCain will have to deflect the age issue by humor and by his vice presidential selection. Reagan did both successfully, bringing up age in one of the 1984 debates against Walter Mondale: "I will not make age an issue in this campaign," Reagan said, setting up his audience; "I will not refer to my opponent's youth and inexperience." Everyone got the joke, and Reagan successfully removed age as an issue. Four years earlier, he had selected George H W Bush as his VP running mate; Bush was thirteen years younger, an age difference that reassured much of the American voting public.
Obama and Clinton don't have this kind of problem to contend with, though Obama may have the opposite concern: Hillary has targeted him for his "inexperience" (youthfulness?) in national politics. He has pretty convincingly turned it against her, and he and his handlers may be able to do the same if McCain's operatives attack his lack of national experience.
NOVEMBER:
I don't see any reason yet to change any of the designations I included for each state in post #17. I still see the Democrats--whether Hillary or Barack--as ahead for 240 electoral votes, and McCain ahead for 237, with 61 votes still viewed as tossups. And I still see the major tossup states to be Florida (currently leaning Republican), Pennsylvania (currently leaning Democratic), Minnesota, and Ohio. I also still believe that the Republicans would do well to nominate Gov Pawlenty of MN, and the Democrats would do really well to nominate Nelson (FL), or even better Brown or Strickland (both OH) as their VP candidates. Pennsylvania must go Democratic, but without using the VP position to get it--unless the Democrats can arrange to win Ohio without Brown or Strickland on the ticket. Then Gov Rendell might work as the VP candidate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)