It's no mistake the text came at three AM is it? Nate claims that this means Pennsylvania is no longer a swing state. Hmm, not so sure. Anyway here's the GOP hitting back, courtesy of Marc. Nice shot, I guess. I fucking hate this game. Who really knows what's going to happen? I have this deep-seated suspicion that the things we think decide elections--ads, gaffes, rallies, counter-punches--aren't as important as we make them. I mean they are important, but often I suspect that they're just distracting us from much deeper, uncontrollable--and in some ways unknowable--questions. How's the war going? How will the economy be doing in November? What do the voter reg numbers look like? How many of those are likely to turn out?
I distrust a lot of the coverage I'm seeing of this campaign. I can't tell you why, only that it feels wrong, only that it it feels surface. Wasn't the Democratic primary decided on two simple factors--1.) Obama's team understood the rules, the Clinton's didn't 2.) Obama opposed the war, Hillary didn't 3.) Hillary ran for the Senate from New York, not Illinois. I'm not shorting the theater of it all. Of course you need actors to play their part, but I'm so sick of reading about performance. What's going on at the local level with this thing? What's happening--right now--in the voting precints of Ohio and North Carolina? Stop telling me how much money Obama is pouring into those states--I want to know what that money does, how is it being put to work. Less top-down coverage, more bottom up.
Anyway. That's my rant for today. Let's talk Joementum. I do think that there isn't a single VP candidate who McCain can select that wants to see Biden in a debate. Not one.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
As you say, most of the minutia is probably irrelevant to who wins in the end. But, since you and your fellow pundits and bloggers amount to critics, you have to pretend the "performance" counts or else you have no purpose.
The Democratic primary was decided on five simple factors (three sir!)
Stop telling me how much money Obama is pouring into those states--I want to know what that money does, how is it being put to work. Less top-down coverage, more bottom up.
Exactly right, I think. But way too much work and too little glitz for most Washington DC based national political reporters. Despite all his horrible elements, Broderella actually does some of this stuff unlike most of his compatriots.
Gotta admit I'm a bit giddy at the thought of someone like Romney trying handle Biden. Debates aside, big foreign policy plus and I imagine the unions will be very happy with the choice.
Agreed. Obama's campaign really gets what's going on, it seems to me. They're playing the appearance game too, but they're strategy is more substantial and that's why people, and pundits (and yes sometimes those two things are not the same) freak out. They don't know what's going on on the ground like the campaign does. So get out and talk to people. My sense, hardly original, from talking to people is it's the economy. Down here in Baltimore people are starting to sound down right revolutionary. The game those in power are playing just ain't fooling or intimidating people anymore.
Don't underestimate how much Obama moved (emotionally) rank and file citizens. It was amazing "on the ground". Equally interesting was the ease with which race could be played, so expect to see tons of that coming up.
In Montgomery County Penna., where Hillary just inched by, McCain signs are starting to pop up, especially in Irish-Italian Catholic zones. Obama must win here decisively to counteract all non Pittsburgh-Philadelphia. Biden may help some. I sure hope so.
Obama is putting street money to use in Philadelphia which is how the Dems bring out the vote. It's sad but I think Obama was genuinely shocked that urban Philadelphia did not come out in higher numbers because the Dem machine couldn't-didn't hand out wads of cash to poll watchers & other campaign volunteers etc.
There's a revolutionary concept: bottom-up reporting.
You put your finger on what bothers me about the mass media and punditry, Ta-N. It's top-down. And therefore often just out of touch and inaccurate. I rant about pundits being stupid, but that doesn't actually explain anything.
A note from the ground up:
I grew up in Southwest Florida. I spoke to my sister recently (she lives there), and got a specific picture of what the mood is. It is very depressed. She says something like 1 in 4 people are unemployed right now (real estate drives a big chunk of the economy there, and that bubble has popped). Restaurants -- and I mean of the corporate chain variety, like Bennigan's -- that have been in a location for 10 years are closing, is the trickle-down effect of the real estate bubble popping.
Also, although it's a conservative area, there is some resistance to the notion of offshore drilling around there, because it would ruin some of the beaches in the area. Which is not just personal environmental concerns (i.e. Not In My Backyard), but economic concerns: the other big engine of the Florida economy is tourism. If the beaches get damaged/there's bad press about offshore drilling, that threatens that.
I hope the Obama camp is smart about localizing their appeals in various areas. I see them doing it with some of the attack ads on McCain.
"I do think that there isn't a single VP candidate who McCain can select that wants to see Biden in a debate. Not one."
I don't think Bobby Jindal would be fazed by the prospect of debating Biden.
FWIW, this does take PA away from McCain. Biden is often referred to as PA's third senator. Also he is middle class Catholic, GG rich baptist (lol should've stayed Episcopalian, John) and GG rich Mormon. That shit won't play in Pensiltucky and Obama already has the Philly burbs.
there are already meetings being held in Santa Fe discussing Barack's policies, I am about to become a "mama for obama", and do my volunteer on Wednesday nights and get free child care at the campagin office.......the obama campaign is truly grassroots here......i get calls from people I KNOW.......
I don't think Bobby Jindal would be fazed by the prospect of debating Biden.
Jindal will just perform an exorcism if things get out of hand.
Jindal's out, no?
When I do my reporting, I really try to stay away from "spokespeople," in terms of quotes. I know what they're going to say before they even speak. I don't begrudge candidates who have them, I just kinda hate that reporters carry their water. Anyway, I'm working some things myself at the moment, and I'll have too keep these criticisms in mind--even if political reporting isn't my specialty. I'm much more of a socio-cultural guy.
Every analyst I see on TV says Obama has an excellent ground game whereas McCain's is nonexistent in comparison. The Obama continues to register voters in SC even though they know they will not win the state. He is big on down ticket races. He has employees/volunteers/offices in almost every state. So money does help with organization. If he wins, that will be a big part of it. His GOTV here in the primaries was remarkable. (I volunteered). The entire area was covered.
"Jindal's out, no?"
I haven't heard that McCain ruled him out, though his name hasn't been raised as much recently as Romney's.
I'd guess Jindal's out on the experience front. If Obama dropped dead, Joe stepping in seems to be hitting a universal comfort zone. Not so for Jindal and McCain, and it's a rare case where the veep picks might make a difference.
On Romney, back around June there were rumors that the big money people in the R party wanted Romney and were holding their checks until he was picked. Being much much smarter than the Clinton-or-else people, they were not so foolish as to have anyone on the record making threats. Still, it's worth thinking about as we circle back toward the boring choice of Romney. (I voted for Romney in 2002, back when he was indistinguishable from the Massachusetts democrat he ran against.) Bland, wavery, and pisses off evangelicals--I don't see the pluses here. Being a successful businessman doesn't obviously translate into solid economic policies, especially with the layoffs in Bain's wake.
Agreed about the superficiality and "wrongness" of the vast majority of the coverage. One other important factor I'd add to your primary list is how the Obama campaign out-organized the others -- and this is something that's likely to continue in the general election, where the Republicans are now trying to catch up after falling waaaaay behind. Voter registration plays a huge part in this as well; and the combination of new voters and (likely) increased voter turnout means that polls are even worse predictors than they usually are. But instead of discussion of this, we get endless horse-race analysis of the fluctuations in the polls. Nate of course is an honorable exception to this, and it's great to see him get more attention, but still ... sigh ...
It might be fun to watch McCain and great-grandson touring the nation, but Jindal would convince no-one, my friends!
I was just on the phone with my sister who called to ask my opinion.
I think Biden was a lot of people's second choice and that's probably a good thing. And one of the things best about him from my point of view is that the Clinton dead-enders can't say that "Hillary is more experienced than his pick, so it's a total SITF (Slap in the Face)."
Biden can hold his own and come up with memorable one-liners that will captivate the press.
As far as the mood of the country, it's bad news in places like Michigan. The economy will rear its head again in a lot of ways once fall sets in.
Jindal is 36 years old, ten years younger than Obama. He served a couple of terms in the House of Representatives and has been governor of Louisiana just long enough to have someone fetch him a cup of coffee. Oh and he’s not white. Not only is he not white, he’s of South-Asian ancestry. And people think Obama is exotic!
I know some of the uber-conservatives love him because he’s so incredibly to the right on social issues but come on. Forget about the debate over whether or not Obama is ready for the job. Jindal is barely eligible for the job!
Plus, I’ve heard him talk. He’s no “W” but Biden could still take him to school a little.
I have this deep-seated suspicion that the things we think decide elections--ads, gaffes, rallies, counter-punches--aren't as important as we make them.
You ever take a political science class? Because the first thing you learn is that the whole profession believes elections are almost entirely determined by non-campaign factors (the economy mostly), and that only in really close elections, like Bush-Gore, does the campaign decide anything.
I am not convinced that Pennsylvania is now a likely state for Obama. We just have to wait and see. We especially need to see who McCain picks, as the campaign doesn't occur in a vacuum.
I think McCain should pick Christie Todd Whitman if he really wants to scare Obama. He's been floating pro-choice veeps, and I was assuming he meant Tom Ridge. But Whitman would bring along all the white women who were hoping for Clinton or another woman, and she's know in eastern Pennsylvania since she is from Jersey. Will the right go for this? Maybe not. But she could make New Jersey competitive and made Pennsylvania really competitive. For every white man in Scranton who votes for Obama because of Biden, there's probably a white woman in the Philly burbs who'd been excited about a woman on the ticket for the Dems and has implicit racial bias. Whitman gives them permission to vote for McCain.
The biggest negatives on Whitman is that picture of her frisking a black guy while grinning on a highway patrol stop. But, sadly, the picture might even help her with some disaffected working class whites, and if anyone criticizes her, she can say, "Well, I'm not the one that called Obama 'clean' and 'articulate.'"
"Jindal is 36 years old, ten years younger than Obama."
True, but their years in government service are about the same.
"He served a couple of terms in the House of Representatives and has been governor of Louisiana just long enough to have someone fetch him a cup of coffee."
He's done more than that. From his Wikipedia bio:
Jindal appears to have more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined. He's also a Rhodes Scholar, btw.
Asher: "You ever take a political science class? Because the first thing you learn is that the whole profession believes elections are almost entirely determined by non-campaign factors (the economy mostly), and that only in really close elections, like Bush-Gore, does the campaign decide anything."
Going back to TNC's original intuition, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I'd rather we pick the leader of the free world (or the city councilman) on the basis of real-world factors rather than on the basis of debate performance or yard sign dominance.
The campaign spectacle does one important thing, though: It proves the candidate's ability to run a complex enterprise over the course of many months, which may serve as a proxy for the candidate's executive ability. The Clinton campaign's implosion is a case in point of why that matters.
Pawlenty has the wit, poise, and message to at least deflect Biden's attack. His message, "let's make the party work for the working class", is just what the Republican party needs, esp after demonstrating that supply side, trickle down, and as Kuttner would say, laissez faire economics dont work. McCain-Pawlenty is the converse of Obama-Biden. Plus evangelicals like him more than they like McCain.
DaveinHackensack is right that Jindal has legitimate experience, but he'd still be a terrible VP choice because perception would still be that he's way too young and inexperienced.
Because of his age, there's an above average chance that McCain's VP will have to take over as President, so he needs a VP who people perceive to be ready from Day 1. With Jindal as his VP, McCain would lose the ability to claim that Obama is too young and inexperienced.
Again, I'm not debating whether he's actually ready, I'm just saying that a lot of people will just hear that he's 37 and has less than a year of experience as governor and conclude that he's not ready.
Plus, certain ignorant racist voters may just stay at home instead of choosing between Barack and Piyush.
Political coverage is a lot like sports reporting; it's bullshit for bullshit's sake; the talk is the entertainment.
Unlike sports, of course, the outcome of this stuff can result in lots of death and misery, and as a result the pretension level is way higher. But new media, old media, it's all just infotainment.
Also, on your point about ground up reporting, I wonder how many more stories could have been written about what's going on on the ground if all the resources allotted to guessing Obama's VP pick were alotted elswhere.
That needs to change as well. Doesn't it? One thing that I have started to think about Obama's change message is:
Let's say Obama get's to Washington and he is able to diminish the effect of special interest money in Washington.
Are'nt we still left with the problem of the electorate not getting all the information it needs to be effective in the electoral process because the fourth estate is wholly owned by corporate interest?
tip on debating Joe Biden
Make Sure the electric wheelchair guy ain't Black Power
"DaveinHackensack is right that Jindal has legitimate experience, but he'd still be a terrible VP choice because perception would still be that he's way too young and inexperienced."
Neither Biden nor any of his surrogates would be able to attack Jindal's experience without exposing Obama to the same charge, and bringing up clips of Biden himself claiming, in the early debates, that Obama was too inexperienced to be president.
Re: How will the economy be doing in November?
Voters are known to react not to the economy on election day but to the economy six or more months previous. Hence George HW Bush was hobbled by the "economy, stupid" even though his recession had long since ended. This is because changes that experts divine in the economy don't show up in personal life for a long while, mainly due to the lag in the job market.
Re: Will the right go for this? Maybe not.
The Right has been winding up a well-rehearsed hissy-fit over Tom Ridge. They will go bananas over any pro-Choice pick, especially one with a full set of RINO credentials.
"Jindal appears to have more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined. He's also a Rhodes Scholar, btw."
And also a lunatic who believes in the existence of actual physical demons that can possess people and be exorcised through prayer and ritual. Sounds like he'd be huge for the republican base. And Pawelenty witty? On what planet?
THANK GOD, IT WON'T BE HILLARY!!
The Republicans would have had a field day with Hillary given the tons of baggage she carried. Among her many faults was her inability to tell the truth.
Biden is a much better choice than Hillary. He'll be a valuable asset to Obama in the White House. Biden is smart, blunt, charismatic, and witty.
Go Obama/Biden!!!!!
Jindal is four years younger than I am, and I think that would be a hard sell having someone that young, no matter what his experience.
I was pretty sure Obama would pick a guy, Hillary was out of the question and picking another woman would have pissed off the Clintonistas. I heard someone on NPR yesterday that sort of discounted it being Biden, so I was a little surprised. Biden's mouth can be a drawback, but he is smooth, a great talker, and has a presence about him. He also pisses off the lefty blogosphere so he can't be all bad.
The problem with Jindal is that it works the other way as well. Claiming Obama lacks experience is one of the only half-substantive arguments McCain has left. Dems wouldn't have any need to attack because neutralizing the GOP inexperience criticism is advantage enough. It doesn't matter how much experience Jindal actually has, McCain will look absolutely ridiculous calling Obama too inexperienced if he's running with a guy that looks like he can't buy a beer without showing ID.
Yeah, basically.
I've seen Pawlenty do it a number times. I'm not saying I agree with his policies, but he knows how to soften up a crowd with his humor. And its not the mean-spirited humor exhibited by McCain. As people get to know McCain they'll see that deep down he's ...lemme...see..what would roy edroso say ....a douchebag. He's a smug, arrogant, overcompensating, bully. He screams Napolean complex. He reminds me of every short guy I've known who, knowing his friends will jump in, picks a fight with the largest guy in the room, to prove he's tough. He needs a Pawlenty to smooth out his image. Much like, Bush had to represent his conservatism as compassionate.
Jindal was never a serious contender, just a name conservatives like to throw around. He'd undercut the theme of McCain's campaign :"don't vote for the inexperienced brown guy".
A pro-choice woman on the GOP ticket probably would swing over a sizable number of Hillary voters, but I've got to think it's a nonstarter with the base of the party, who've never been particularly convinced that McCain was one of them. He's going to go with Romney or Pawlenty, I think.
Guys,
These are great comments. Civility paired with insight. This is what a dinner party--or brunch--at the Atlantic should sound like. Or rather, it's what I'd imagined it would sound like. I'm all the way in NYC. I can't call it.
"He'd undercut the theme of McCain's campaign :"don't vote for the inexperienced brown guy"."
McCain has never made Obama's race an issue in this campaign, and he happens to have an adopted daughter who is darker-skinned than Obama. This lazy slur that Republican = racist ought to be put to rest. It's an accusation that reflects worse on the accuser than the accused. It's also not consistent with reality: Bush has appointed more minorities to cabinet positions than any previous president, and the GOP nominated black Senate candidates in Ohio and Maryland last cycle. The most popular Republican talk show host in the country, Rush Limbaugh, has an African American as his right hand man, and Limbaugh has spoken highly of Jindal as a potential VP candidate as well. Even Obama seems to have dropped his attempts to subtly insinuate that Republicans are racist against him after McCain called him on it.
This lazy slur that Republican = racist ought to be put to rest.
I work with, am friends with, am related to republicans and I know damn well that while there may be some perfect, color-blind, market-believing, limited government person floating around out there in theoritical land your average republican will tell you within three conversations how they feel about blacks. It's a matter of figuring out if you are part of the tribe or not. It's that damn important to American right-wing politics.
Time to throw my great-aunt under the bus Obama style:
Old pentacostal woman from Arkansas, voted democratic her entire life until Wallace got shut down by Johnson. Voted Republican ever since and as for Obama? "Well, he's a mooooslim, and he might be a secret agent for them and I'm not voting for a moooslim. Furthermore, he's a nigger, and I'm not voting for one of them either."
DaveinHackensack writes: "McCain has never made Obama's race an issue in this campaign, and he happens to have an adopted daughter who is darker-skinned than Obama. This lazy slur that Republican = racist ought to be put to rest."
I'll put it to rest when Republicans stop making excuses for noose-collecting Klansmen like George Allen and stop pretending Jesse Helms wasn't a race-baiting bigot and stop denying that the "Southern strategy" used by the party for the past 4 decades involved the use of racist tactics. Oh, and when they stop linking to Steve Sailer as though he were anything but a professional bigot.
Fair enough?
"Bush has appointed more minorities to cabinet positions than any previous president"
That may be true, but his administration overall has a much lower percentage of minority hires than Clinton's did. And I won't go in to the pathology of the Dumbya/Powell relationship, but I'd be willing to bet that these days Powell wishes he had never set eyes on the creature.
DaveinHackensack writes:
"McCain has never made Obama's race an issue in this campaign..."
Please stop the nonsense.
"How's the war going? How will the economy be doing in November?"
You see this sort of stuff all the time... it's sidebared in the Times, Post, etc. But it's seemingly always anecdotal, laden with "on the other hand"s and "too be sure"s, and frequently seems to be little more than a single reporters observations/hunches/ruminations fleshed out with a couple of quotes from the usual suspects. There aren't a lot of objective ways to measure those sort of things.
The more interesting topic... reporters uncovering ground truth in the precincts of swing states... is almost non-existent as far as I can tell.
The last time I saw it done well was the Kansas City Star, which in the 04 cycle spent a lot of time profiling one precinct with a history of supporting the winning candidate... good work, even though the precinct went for Kerry by five votes.
In my perfect world newspapers and tv stations would take every reporter covering the White House or the conventions and send them out to do this sort of on the ground coverage. Leave an AP guy and a pool camera crew in DC and Denver. Then send your reporters out to do some real reporting
Dream over... I've got to get ready for work tomorrow. Our crack political reporter is in Denver and I'll have to start coordinating the coverage from there...
Keating 5, Keating 5, Keating 5.
Did I mention the Keating 5?
It is weird how apparently voters vote on how the economy was around May and June, not in November, which partly explains why Bush I lost re-election.
"Bush has appointed more minorities to cabinet positions than any previous president"
Nixon appointed Kissinger, who was Jewish, to high-ranking positions as well. Nixon also hired a guy to be his "Jew counter" at the State Department to uncover which State Department bureaucrats, who were assumed to be Jewish, were against his policies (Slate later documented that this same guy was in charge of finding investors in the Washington Nationals). Limbaugh's racism has been well-catalogued. After all, saying "some of my best friends are black" is the hallmark of a clueless racist. McCain blames Bush and Rove, after all, with insinuating that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was his illegitimate daughter with a black woman.
The beauty of Jindal is that even though he believes in demons, like the majority of Americans do, he is Indian American and a huge chunk of the Republican base is racist. I love the idea of that group having to choose between two macacas!
That same group also hates Mormons so Romney would also be awesome. The smart move would be a Catholic anti-choice woman. Many in this group of haters despise working women too but they'd have to suck it up!
So yeah, it will probably be white man X.
always liked biden and always wondered why he never got more play on the national stage.
t-nc is right about the fact that there isn't a single republican who will want to sit across the table from biden for their debate.
he will DESTROY any of the guys who are currently under consideration.
think about what mccain, a guy who is definitely not a class a debater, was able to do to romney in the republican debates. he made mittens look like the kid in class who'd been caught with the test's answers written in ink on his palm.
he embarrassed and dominated romney.
so consider what a guy like biden will do to mitt.
one thing about joe: he is not shy and he is not hesitant to jump on a guy with both feet. he'll expose romney as the flip-flopping fraud he is.
pawlenty against biden?
geez! that would be like watching michael jordan, in his prime, playing one on one against a high school guard out of the movie "hoosiers". a slaughter.
biden was a great pick. as a hillary fan, he wasn't my first, but he does extremely well what obama most needs done: he'll attack the republican ticket, with zest and relish and with the kind of smarts that only the real bright guys can muster.
he is, in fact, what mccain is supposed to be: an experienced senator who can hold his own with anyone on just about any issue. in fact, with biden on board, the dems have two "presidential" quality candidates their ticket.
go joe!!!
Re: His message, "let's make the party work for the working class", is just what the Republican party needs
Maybe, but vice presidents never run with their own message. They are required to play second fiddle to the presidential candidate. Moreover and despite the advice of people like Ross Douthat the GOP shows no evidence of even wanting to pretend to work for working class, and McCain's proposals so far (like his awful health insurance proposal) would be a disaster for the middle class on down.
Re: Are'nt we still left with the problem of the electorate not getting all the information it needs to be effective in the electoral process because the fourth estate is wholly owned by corporate interest?
The electorate gets the information it wants because that's how the system works. The media's output is the output that gains audience share thereby increasing its advertizing revenues. If people were clamoring for in-depth analysis and complex investigations that's what they would get. Instead the public wants superficiality, personal (preferrably sexual) scandal, and clever sound bites. And that's what we get. Those of us who do want more have the Internet now, so the media has even less an incetive to do more than it does.
Re: McCain has never made Obama's race an issue in this campaign
Of course McCain hasn't-- the guy has some honor to him. But that hasn't stopped a lot of shadowy emailers from circulating chain emails that play on Obama's race and foreign-sounding name. Hence the "he's a closet Muslim!" whisper that won't seem to go away. There are some viciously nasty people on the Right who will stop at nothing to seize and retain power. I don't believe McCain (or Bush) would ever go along with deliberately employing these types, but nothing stops them from freelancing.
Re: The beauty of Jindal is that even though he believes in demons, like the majority of Americans do
My church teaches that demons are indeed real, and it retains an official rite of exorcism dating back to late Roman times. However it also bans lay people from even attempting an exorcism, and would strongly discourage them from being part of one in any way. If I showed up at church claiming to have exorcized a demon I'd be considered either a liar or a looney-tune, and if I persisted in the claim the priest would probably has some very stern words for me. Jindal's exorcism claims are well out of even the religious mainstream, approaching snake-handling territory, IMO, whether one believes in demons or not. Though if he volunteers to cleanse the White House of demonic influences after the current gang departs we might want to take him up on it.
Just stopping by to say that Moe, Larry & Jesus are three of my all time favorite gods.
Also, Joe was just Biden his time these past few decades, patiently waiting for his place in the spotlight.
Obama/Biden 2008
Joe was Biden his time, get it? :) Am I not the first one to make that dumb joke, and without attribution no less? I hope I haven't destroyed my chances of getting the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination.
Ed Marshall,
"I work with, am friends with, am related to republicans and I know damn well that while there may be some perfect, color-blind, market-believing, limited government person floating around out there in theoritical land your average republican will tell you within three conversations how they feel about blacks."
"Time to throw my great-aunt under the bus Obama style"
This is the same sort of extrapolation that racists do, isn't it? E.g., "I know a group of blacks that are X, therefore, all blacks are X." There are tens of millions of registered Republicans. Maybe you ought to have more of an open mind about those of us you don't know.
Moe Larry & Jesus writes,
"I'll put it to rest when Republicans stop making excuses for noose-collecting Klansmen like George Allen and stop pretending Jesse Helms wasn't a race-baiting bigot and stop denying that the "Southern strategy" used by the party for the past 4 decades involved the use of racist tactics."
George Allen was an idiot who deserved to lose, but the Democrat who won had his own issues with race. Jesse Helms is dead, and Ken Mehlman, former head of the RNC, apologized for the "Southern Strategy". The GOP at least for the last 8 years has strenuously tried to reach out to blacks.
Nquest links to blog which mentions a McCain video which showed Obama on the dollar bill as prima facie evidence that the McCain campaign is using Obama's race as an issue. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
Reality Man writes,
"Nixon appointed Kissinger, who was Jewish..."
Not that Nixon has anything to do with my previous comment about Bush and today's GOP, but Nixon also launched the airlift that rescued Israel in the Yom Kippur War (although Kissinger prevented Israel from winning a more decisive victory against the Egyptians).
Jay writes,
"The beauty of Jindal is that even though he believes in demons, like the majority of Americans do, he is Indian American and a huge chunk of the Republican base is racist."
Again, the accusation of racism with no evidence. The GOP nomination was Colin Powell's for the taking in '96, and other black Republicans, (e.g., J.C. Watts) have been popular with the GOP base.
Daveinhackensack, I think the point is do you honestly believe that a Republican could win the presidency (McCain or otherwise) without the staunch support of racists? Seriously?
If your answer is yes, I think you are very naive. Answer honestly and show your work.
Did I mention the Keating 5?
Say the Keating 5, and most people will think you're talking about a lounge act playing at the Sheraton. Say "the Savings and Loan Scandal", and even if they don't remember the details, they'll remember that it was bad. Although maybe the Sheraton's lounge act is too.
DaveinHackensack writes: "George Allen was an idiot who deserved to lose, but the Democrat who won had his own issues with race. Jesse Helms is dead, and Ken Mehlman, former head of the RNC, apologized for the "Southern Strategy". The GOP at least for the last 8 years has strenuously tried to reach out to blacks."
We saw some pretty goddamned impressive "reach out" in the aftermath of Katrina, chuckles.
As for the rest of your nonsense, your comment about Jim Webb is a baseless lie, which is why you didn't spell it out. Jesse Helms just died recently, and every prominent member of your party eulogized him as a great man. Mehlman apologized for the Southern Strategy but it's still being used - just ask Harold Ford.
Meanwhile Mary Matalin - as deep inside of the GOP as any unelected person can be - has just published a volume of rancid, rabid garbage which includes a heaping helping of casual racism. Think she's been kicked off of Dumbya's Xmas card as a result? Of course she hasn't.
DaveinHackensack also wrote: ". The GOP nomination was Colin Powell's for the taking in '96"
Ah, the myth of Colin Powell's "electability" among Republicans returns!
He's pro-choice and pro-affirmative action. He couldn't get through the GOP primaries. If you think he'd pass muster with the fundies in Iowa, South Carolina, Georgia, etc. I'd like to know what you're drinking.
It reminds me of how every right-winger I knew just LOVED Alan Keyes. But somehow when he was running for president they didn't love him enough to vote for him. Granted, he's crazier than a dozen rats trapped in a burlap bag, but they still LOVED him.
"We saw some pretty goddamned impressive "reach out" in the aftermath of Katrina, chuckles."
We certainly did: there huge were outpourings of support and assistance from all of the country, including predominantly Republican areas such as Houston. Were there mistakes and inadequacies in the initial response to the disaster? Sure, at the local, state and federal levels. Were they due to racism? I highly doubt it. I have heard no credible evidence that Nagin, Blanco, or Bush is a racist. I would venture too that a significant percentage (if not a majority) of the National Guardsmen and Coast Guardsmen who risked their lives to save New Orleans residents in the aftermath of the storm were Republicans.
Moe Larry & Jesus,
Regarding Jim Webb and whether or not he is a racist: I can't look into the man's heart, so I have no idea. The accusation has been made about him though, and I would venture that if he were still a Republican you'd be calling him a racist just like you're calling George Allen one.
GoCart Mozart,
The question remains whether a Democrat can win without the support of the racists in his party. I seem to recall this was raised as an issue during the primaries.
Getting back to Bobby Jindal, I haven't heard any Republican say that his ethnicity was an issue. The only ones I hear bringing it up are Democrats.
"Not that Nixon has anything to do with my previous comment about Bush and today's GOP, but Nixon also launched the airlift that rescued Israel in the Yom Kippur War (although Kissinger prevented Israel from winning a more decisive victory against the Egyptians)."
I was doing this to point out that just because you have prominent advisors of a particular ethnic/cultural group doesn't mean you can't be a bigot against such people in general. Nixon's history of anti-Semitism is well-documented. Helping out Israel because you think that is good for US foreign policy during the Cold War (making sure we had the most powerful country in the Middle East on our side) doesn't erase that anti-Semitism.
George Allen was also a viable presidential nominee before he lost to Webb. The biggest reason that Republicans were unhappy with their choices in this primary race was that the top two choices, Allen and Santorum, couldn't realistically run because they had both lost recent Senate races. According to people I know from Southern Virginia, they only cared about Macacagate once it became national news because it was embarrassing for Virginia. Before that, when his racism had been obvious for years, no one (at least not Southern Virginian white Republicans) cared. He also only lost to Webb by 0.1% of the vote, which isn't exactly a declaration of rejecting Allen.
We should also remember in this very decade, Trent Lott was Senate majority leader and praising a die-hard racist in public.
As for Jindal and exorcism, I thought that the Vatican no longer saw demonic possession as a real act of the devil but instead a sign of mental illness (like paranoid schizophrenia), but still performed exorcisms because in theory going along with the victim's delusions will help cure them. Does anyone know if this is accurate?
DaveinHackensack writes: "Regarding Jim Webb and whether or not he is a racist: I can't look into the man's heart, so I have no idea. The accusation has been made about him though, and I would venture that if he were still a Republican you'd be calling him a racist just like you're calling George Allen one."
There's plenty of actual evidence for Macaca Allen's racism, Davey, and since you still won't specify what exactly you're talking about with regards to Webb I think we both know you're just blowing smoke here.
I call George Allen a racist because of evidence, not some "accusation." That Allen was stupid enough to commit his racism to tape is just a fortunate thing for the country.
I did notice that the Republican crowd thought he was hilarious, though.
Let's also recall David Duke and his popularity with the Republicans of Louisiana. Deny that one, too.
I've seen Pawlenty up close a fair amount and I think he'd have trouble against Biden. Pawlenty's got a soft touch and is quite clever, but he doesn't do passionate well like Biden. He seems a little more like a really effective salesman or talk show host. He can seem glib. And Biden would literally blow Pawlenty away on foreign policy.
On the MSM and even conservative blogs, Pawlenty's stock seems to be dropping precipitously.
Helping out Israel because you think that is good for US foreign policy during the Cold War (making sure we had the most powerful country in the Middle East on our side) doesn't erase that anti-Semitism
That wasn't the formulation at all. It was "does NATO gear beat Warsaw pact gear". The answer at the time was not encouraging prior U.S. intervention. That's why Nixon scrambled to deliver whatever was wanted. NATO jets were being decimated by Soviet anti-aircraft batteries and this was pre-Merkeva, Nato tanks were getting tore up by Soviet wire-guided anti-tank infantry.
DaveinHackensack, says
"The question remains whether a Democrat can win without the support of the racists in his party. I seem to recall this was raised as an issue during the primaries."
The answer is a resounding yes. Or did you mean that Obama supporters were the racist?
Re: and Santorum, couldn't realistically run because they had both lost recent Senate races.
Santorum could not have run a successful race: he was way too far to the right. Like Huckabee he would have attracted some of the religious extremists, but the GOP establishment would not have backed him.
GoCart Mozart,
"The answer is a resounding yes."
My question referred to the general election, which of course hasn't happened yet, so we don't have an answer (that's why I wrote "the question remains"). Recall that some Democratic commenters suggested that many working class white Democrats voted for Hillary because they didn't want to vote for a black candidate. If that was true then the question remains whether they will vote for Obama in the general.
Moe,
Allegations of racism were made against both Webb and Allen. Since you keep asking what I am referring to with Webb, here it is, from The Washington Post:
Is that allegation true? I don't know. But as I said before, I bet it would be enough evidence for you to call Webb a racist if he were still a Republican, since you seem to assume all Republicans are racists. That assumption is itself a form of bigotry, and since there is no point in arguing with bigots, this will be my last post in this thread.
It's too bad that too many commenters here couldn't see past Jindal's ethnicity to substantively discuss the man's political accomplishments and potential.
To be honest, I was holding out hope for Wes Clark as VP. He brings the same nat'l security cred without the racist-foot-in-mouth syndrome. But Joe Biden? To quote McCain, "that's not change we can believe in."
Obama won simply because he amassed so many delegates before the Reverend Wright "God Damn America" story surfaced.
Hillary outpolled Obama after the revelations about Wright, Ayers, and Rezko came out.
"Santorum could not have run a successful race: he was way too far to the right. Like Huckabee he would have attracted some of the religious extremists, but the GOP establishment would not have backed him.
Posted by JonF | August 25, 2008 6:40 AM"
I'm not really sure. Santorum was pro-business enough to get official approval and he had already gotten that approval by becoming something like the second or third most powerful GOP senator. A lot of the problem with Huckabee vis-a-vis the establishment was on aesthetics and cultural touchstones. Huckabee used populist rhetoric (while lacking populist policies) while also being stereotypically poor Southern (like eating squirrel). Santorum is well-dressed and his enunciation sounds more like the prep school tongue of many of the GOP establishment. Being Catholic and from Pennsylvania also helps place Santorum in a different place culturally than Huckabee. Huckabee's language frightened the educated GOP establishment while his manner embarrassed them. These are people who, after all, don't like to be associated with their own base and tend to prefer Harvard-educated Alan Keyes to politicians popular among the GOP base in general.
Also, Ed Marshall, thanks for the correction.
It's too bad that too many commenters here couldn't see past Jindal's ethnicity to substantively discuss the man's political accomplishments and potential.
This is some pretty trolly trolling. Yep, the problem with the Obama-supporting crowd must be that they can't see past Jindal's ethnicity.
As I read the reactions to your suggestion of Jindal, here is what I am seeing in the blog:
1. It's a bad pick because it takes the "experience" slam away from McCain. (I happen to agree - I think this would wind up to be a disaster for McCain on this level.)
2. It's not really likely, so not much worth discussing (also agree)
3. Several shots at Jindal actively believing in demons and exorcism, which really does seem to me to fall into the "nuttery" department. (I don't know anything about his beliefs on this front, but I think if they are oustpoken/strange enough, the fact that the church has some grey area here won't help him much. Not everyone believes everything in church doctrine equally.)
4. Picking someone so young is poor optics, regardless of actual experience. (Also true, but not as big a concern).
5. Skepticism that the Republican base will be sanguine about accepting a minority VP. (Hey, I think the commenters went 5 for 5, if the exorcism thing really is something that Jindal actively believes).
These are pretty substantive responses. Even the last of the responses, the one that you claim means that people "can't see past race," would be a genuine political consideration. Denying that is like willful naivete; doing so in service of calling Obama supporters racist is straight up histrionic trolling. If you think that race is no more a problem with the Old Old Party than the Democrats, I think you are in the wrong ballpark. If you think race is no problem for either group, I think you are playing the wrong sport.
[And: your list of blacks supported by republicans is pretty short: a military man that never actually got elected to anything, one of the two black representatives that have been elected to congress in the past 15 years, and Rush Limbaugh's seat-warmer, also an unelected position. You could really pad that list out by adding THE other black person elected to congress as a republican in the last 15 year. Heck, you could even make a complete list of black republican congressman since WW2 by adding one additional person to the previous 4. That's a pretty short list. You can't even field a baseball team from this list.]
FYI Ohio:
The democratic party in Cleveland has been taking major hits over the past 2 months
1. Twin federal investigations of county Auditor Tim Russo and county commissioner Jimmy Dimora.
2. The city mourned the death of 2 highly respected democratic leaders over the past 2 weeks:
Fannie Lewis -- 28 year veteran of the Cleveland City Council and representative of Ward 7 which included Hough, an area that burned during riots in the 1960s and worked towards redevelopment under her watch.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones -- a tenacious congresswoman for the 11th district (Cleveland) and a prominent member of the Democratic National Committee whose death leaves the Ohio delegation with a vacant seat at the 2008 DNC convention.
I worry that these losses weaken confidence in the strength of the Democratic party in Ohio, a swing state, at a crucial time before the national presidential election.
DaveinHackensack replies: "Allegations of racism were made against both Webb and Allen. Since you keep asking what I am referring to with Webb, here it is, from The Washington Post:
Webb's comments to the Times-Dispatch prompted Allen campaign officials to direct a reporter to Dan Cragg, a former acquaintance of Webb's, who said Webb used the word while describing his own behavior during his freshman year at the University of Southern California in the early 1960s. Webb later transferred to the U.S. Naval Academy.
Cragg, 67, who lives in Fairfax County, said on Wednesday that Webb described taking drives through the black neighborhood of Watts, where he and members of his ROTC unit used racial epithets and pointed fake guns at blacks to scare them.
"They would hop into their cars, and would go down to Watts with these buddies of his," Cragg said Webb told him. "They would take the rifles down there. They would call then [epithets], point the rifles at them, pull the triggers and then drive off laughing. One night, some guys caught them and beat . . . them. And that was the end of that."
Is that allegation true? I don't know. But as I said before, I bet it would be enough evidence for you to call Webb a racist if he were still a Republican, since you seem to assume all Republicans are racists. That assumption is itself a form of bigotry, and since there is no point in arguing with bigots, this will be my last post in this thread. "
Wow. Just wow. We have Macaca Allen on tape playing a Klansman, and he has a noose in his office, and multiple other stories have surfaced about him suggesting he's a racist - and you compare that to ONE unsupported story about some crap that supposedly happened over 40 years ago?
Amazing.
And where or when did I ever say all Republicans were racists? I never said or even implied any such thing. It would be stupid.
Between this and the nonsense about "commenters here being unable to see past Jindal's ethnicity" I suggest that you're not capable of honest argument.
"It's too bad that too many commenters here couldn't see past Jindal's ethnicity to substantively discuss the man's political accomplishments and potential."
Like Jindal, I'm Indian-American and don't really see any anti-Indian racism in this thread.
I'd not underestimate the national Republican party's efforts to tone down the "race card" and split African-Americans out of the democratic coalition -- most interesting about the 2006 election was their loud complaints about the Maryland Senatorial race being called by the media before the Baltimore vote came in.
Also interesting, though more problematic, was the national party's effort to shut down the "call me Harold" add in Tennessee.
That said, Republican 'message discipline' seems to erode somewhat when the ol boys get together.
This is not to say that the Democrats aren't plagued by a whole slew of racial and ethnic baggage: Liberal whites seem to have been the last to realize that working-class society was integrating around them.