British elections are coming up on May 6, and California's primary election is on June 8. Normally there isn't much cross-contamination between British and American politics, in large part due to the fact that the major parties here and there don't exactly correlate. Britain's Conservatives, for example, are to the left of most U.S. Republicans and even some conservative Democrats on issues such as the environment; the British Labour Party would be considered solidly left-wing by American standards. They're a member of the Socialist International organization; can you imagine U.S. voters electing a party affiliated with a group called Socialist International? Just their name encompasses two of the ideologies Americans tend to hate most!
Oddly enough, however, there is a California-British connection this year. According to the San Francisco Chronicle's Carla Marinucci, Meg Whitman was part of an elite group of business leaders enlisted to "advise" the U.K. Labour government on issues of globalization and trade a few years back. Fascinating.
Or not - realistically, in an increasingly globalized economy, American businesspeople advising the British government, whatever party happens to be in power, doesn't seem that out of the ordinary. But you can bet it will find its way into the Republican primary. Anyone care to take bets on how many more days it will be before Steve Poizner is linking Whitman to "a European political party affiliated with (cue ominous music) international socialists!"?? Let's see, it's Friday now... I wouldn't at all be surprised if StevePo's got those ads on the air by Wednesday. Let the betting begin!
Friday, April 23, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
There’s a very revealing moment in Bob Woodward’s excellent book The Choice, about President Clinton’s 1996 reelection race, in which Clinton mentions to his press secretary, Mike McCurry, that he privately hopes Bob Dole will win the Republican presidential nomination that year. McCurry is confused; sure, Dole is the most sane and rational candidate, but that also gives him the greatest chance of beating Clinton in the general election. Therefore, shouldn’t Clinton favor a kooky right-wing nut like Pat Buchanan, or a monumentally unqualified hack like Steve Forbes? “Dole’s the only one that’s got any capability to do the job,” Clinton (allegedly) said. “Something could happen to me. We could have a major crisis that goes bad on us… and they (the voters) might throw me out on my rear end.”
It was very thoughtful and insightful of Clinton to feel this way, and in hindsight he was correct. Although he fell well short of defeating Clinton, Dole would not have actually been a terrible president; he certainly would have been superior to most of his GOP opponents, or to George W. Bush, for that matter. (Since that election Bob Dole has done Viagra commercials and his craziest opponent, Pat Buchanan, has come out against U.S. participation in World War II; if you had to choose, who would you rather have had in the White House?)
I worry that we’re in a similar situation today, leading up to the 2012 election. The current Republican frontrunner, so declared by the mainstream media and a handful of unreliable preprimary polls, is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. There’s little question that Romney is a conservative, but by the standards of today’s Hannity-Limbaugh-Palin-led GOP, he just might not be conservative enough.
What he is, however, is somewhat qualified to be president – at least by the standards of his likely opponents. He’s a smart businessman, a bit of an intellectual (a rare and risky thing to be in the age of Glenn Beck and Tea Parties), and has demonstrated a degree of independent thinking unheard of in a party that is increasingly demanding strict adherence to right-wing ideological principles. I won’t even get into the comprehensive health care reform he championed and enacted in Massachusetts, and how that’s going to play out in the presidential race; but it’s unquestionably one of the most important and influential pieces of legislation signed by a Republican governor so far this decade.
Romney being a decent human being and a strong candidate (albeit one I still would not support, I must add), I am concerned that Obama and the Democratic Party leadership are going to do everything they can in advance of the Republican primaries to sabotage his chances of winning the nomination, in the hopes that a wingnut like Sarah Palin, Haley Barbour or (God help us all) Ron Paul runs away with it and then goes down in flames in the general election. Obviously, this would be a great strategy if it were guaranteed to work, but it isn’t. What Clinton apparently said in 1996 - "I want to have some confidence in the person I turn the keys over to" - applies doubly today. If Obama were to unfortunately lose in 2012, I would want, as an American, to have some confidence that whomever defeated him wasn't going to wreck the country, Bush-style.
Jonathan Chait has discussed this multiple times on his blog – the possibility that the economy might go into free-fall, or that Obama might get caught up in some personal scandal that, like Clinton, has no bearing on the job he does as president but could cost him votes nonetheless. If either of those things – or any other unforeseen circumstances – occurs, then we, as a country, could potentially be stuck with President Palin or President Paul. Is anybody prepared to take that risk? Are there any center-left Democrats out there like me who seriously disagree that Romney would be an exponentially better president than most of the kooks currently leading his party??
No, the best thing for our country would be for Romney to win the Republican nomination, probably put a token conservative (though hopefully someone more qualified to actually serve than Sarah Palin) on the ticket, and face off in a spirited (but hopefully unsuccessful) race against President Obama. At least that means the voters will have a choice between two candidates who actually know what they’re talking about.
It was very thoughtful and insightful of Clinton to feel this way, and in hindsight he was correct. Although he fell well short of defeating Clinton, Dole would not have actually been a terrible president; he certainly would have been superior to most of his GOP opponents, or to George W. Bush, for that matter. (Since that election Bob Dole has done Viagra commercials and his craziest opponent, Pat Buchanan, has come out against U.S. participation in World War II; if you had to choose, who would you rather have had in the White House?)
I worry that we’re in a similar situation today, leading up to the 2012 election. The current Republican frontrunner, so declared by the mainstream media and a handful of unreliable preprimary polls, is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. There’s little question that Romney is a conservative, but by the standards of today’s Hannity-Limbaugh-Palin-led GOP, he just might not be conservative enough.
What he is, however, is somewhat qualified to be president – at least by the standards of his likely opponents. He’s a smart businessman, a bit of an intellectual (a rare and risky thing to be in the age of Glenn Beck and Tea Parties), and has demonstrated a degree of independent thinking unheard of in a party that is increasingly demanding strict adherence to right-wing ideological principles. I won’t even get into the comprehensive health care reform he championed and enacted in Massachusetts, and how that’s going to play out in the presidential race; but it’s unquestionably one of the most important and influential pieces of legislation signed by a Republican governor so far this decade.
Romney being a decent human being and a strong candidate (albeit one I still would not support, I must add), I am concerned that Obama and the Democratic Party leadership are going to do everything they can in advance of the Republican primaries to sabotage his chances of winning the nomination, in the hopes that a wingnut like Sarah Palin, Haley Barbour or (God help us all) Ron Paul runs away with it and then goes down in flames in the general election. Obviously, this would be a great strategy if it were guaranteed to work, but it isn’t. What Clinton apparently said in 1996 - "I want to have some confidence in the person I turn the keys over to" - applies doubly today. If Obama were to unfortunately lose in 2012, I would want, as an American, to have some confidence that whomever defeated him wasn't going to wreck the country, Bush-style.
Jonathan Chait has discussed this multiple times on his blog – the possibility that the economy might go into free-fall, or that Obama might get caught up in some personal scandal that, like Clinton, has no bearing on the job he does as president but could cost him votes nonetheless. If either of those things – or any other unforeseen circumstances – occurs, then we, as a country, could potentially be stuck with President Palin or President Paul. Is anybody prepared to take that risk? Are there any center-left Democrats out there like me who seriously disagree that Romney would be an exponentially better president than most of the kooks currently leading his party??
No, the best thing for our country would be for Romney to win the Republican nomination, probably put a token conservative (though hopefully someone more qualified to actually serve than Sarah Palin) on the ticket, and face off in a spirited (but hopefully unsuccessful) race against President Obama. At least that means the voters will have a choice between two candidates who actually know what they’re talking about.
In what I’m hoping the State political press will start calling “Three-way-debate-gate,” or maybe “Menage-a-Meg,” GOP gubernatorial frontrunner Meg Whitman has declined, or at least not yet said whether she’ll accept, Democratic candidate Jerry Brown’s invitation for a three-person debate between herself, Brown, and Whitman’s Republican primary opponent Steve Poizner. (Not surprisingly, Poizner has accepted – after all, what’s he got to lose? He’s 49 points down in the polls.)
The general reaction is that Brown’s invitation, offered during this past weekend’s state Democratic convention, was a smart tactical move. For one thing, challenging your opponent(s) to a debate always puts them on the defensive, and establishes you as an aggressive, confident candidate. However, no one really thinks it hurts your opponent if they either refuse to debate, squabble over the proposed rules for the debate, or delay their RSVP indefinitely. Voters just aren’t paying that much attention.
In fact, the thing that would hurt Whitman the most right now would be to accept Brown’s invitation, and debate both of her opponents. For one thing, she’s not as good a public speaker as either of them. I’ve seen Steve Poizner speak in person several times, and he’s a good, if not great, debater. At his worst moments, he comes across as that nerdy kid who got made fun of a lot in high school and developed a bit of a temper for it. At his best moments, whether you agree with him or not (and I generally don't), he displays a real knowledge of public policy and government, the kind more politicians wish they had.
As for Brown, few public figures, in California or elsewhere, are as entertaining or enjoyable to listen to. He peppers his speech with references to his past and to his record in government, makes oddball references to obscure European philosophers, and although he hasn’t offered many specific proposals yet, he rarely speaks in the kind of broad generalities Whitman is prone to using. He’s been criticized as something of an eccentric speaker, but absolutely no one would call him boring, or suggest that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Whitman, on the other hand, sort of comes across in speeches as the stereotypical CEO who’s been surrounded by “yes-men” and had everything handed to her for most of her career. It’s not that she’s arrogant or condescending; quite the opposite. In order to sound condescending, you have to at least sound like you know what you’re talking about, and in your humble correspondent’s opinion, Whitman just doesn’t. (Plus, her tendency to begin every single sentence with the phrase "So, what I've said is..." drives me up the wall.) Putting her in a debate with two knowledgeable, entertaining, and (in Brown’s case) likeable opponents would only cost her.
Then there’s the fact that a three-way debate would almost certainly turn into a gang-up on Whitman. Sure, Brown would speak generally about not repeating the failed Republican policies of the Bush-Schwarzenegger years, but he’d concentrate most of his fire on Whitman specifically. Similarly, Poizner would no doubt trade barbs with Brown, on the extreme off-chance that he wins the June primary and has to face Brown in the general election, but it’s a sure bet he’d spend nearly all of his time attacking Whitman. Why would you want to subject yourself to this if you were Meg?
Whitman is the “rising star” of California politics right now, and both Brown and Poizner are just dying to get in some hits. You can bet they’d both go after her (non)voting record; Brown would attack her for proposing a repeal of the capital gains tax, which the Sacramento Bee helpfully reported would benefit Whitman herself, considerably; Poizner would attack her from the right on immigration.
If Whitman has any sense of self-preservation about her, what she’ll do is politely decline Brown’s invitation, noting that it’s both inappropriate and unprecedented for a multiparty debate in advance of the primaries, and invite Poizner to one or two more debates before their June 8 contest. Meanwhile, she should commit in advance to a series of debates with Brown after the primary election. No one really cares how she does against Poizner anymore; he’s all but out of the game at this point. But facing Brown – or facing Brown and Poizner together – could really hurt her, and with poll numbers as high as hers, there’s nowhere for Meg to go but down.
The general reaction is that Brown’s invitation, offered during this past weekend’s state Democratic convention, was a smart tactical move. For one thing, challenging your opponent(s) to a debate always puts them on the defensive, and establishes you as an aggressive, confident candidate. However, no one really thinks it hurts your opponent if they either refuse to debate, squabble over the proposed rules for the debate, or delay their RSVP indefinitely. Voters just aren’t paying that much attention.
In fact, the thing that would hurt Whitman the most right now would be to accept Brown’s invitation, and debate both of her opponents. For one thing, she’s not as good a public speaker as either of them. I’ve seen Steve Poizner speak in person several times, and he’s a good, if not great, debater. At his worst moments, he comes across as that nerdy kid who got made fun of a lot in high school and developed a bit of a temper for it. At his best moments, whether you agree with him or not (and I generally don't), he displays a real knowledge of public policy and government, the kind more politicians wish they had.
As for Brown, few public figures, in California or elsewhere, are as entertaining or enjoyable to listen to. He peppers his speech with references to his past and to his record in government, makes oddball references to obscure European philosophers, and although he hasn’t offered many specific proposals yet, he rarely speaks in the kind of broad generalities Whitman is prone to using. He’s been criticized as something of an eccentric speaker, but absolutely no one would call him boring, or suggest that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Whitman, on the other hand, sort of comes across in speeches as the stereotypical CEO who’s been surrounded by “yes-men” and had everything handed to her for most of her career. It’s not that she’s arrogant or condescending; quite the opposite. In order to sound condescending, you have to at least sound like you know what you’re talking about, and in your humble correspondent’s opinion, Whitman just doesn’t. (Plus, her tendency to begin every single sentence with the phrase "So, what I've said is..." drives me up the wall.) Putting her in a debate with two knowledgeable, entertaining, and (in Brown’s case) likeable opponents would only cost her.
Then there’s the fact that a three-way debate would almost certainly turn into a gang-up on Whitman. Sure, Brown would speak generally about not repeating the failed Republican policies of the Bush-Schwarzenegger years, but he’d concentrate most of his fire on Whitman specifically. Similarly, Poizner would no doubt trade barbs with Brown, on the extreme off-chance that he wins the June primary and has to face Brown in the general election, but it’s a sure bet he’d spend nearly all of his time attacking Whitman. Why would you want to subject yourself to this if you were Meg?
Whitman is the “rising star” of California politics right now, and both Brown and Poizner are just dying to get in some hits. You can bet they’d both go after her (non)voting record; Brown would attack her for proposing a repeal of the capital gains tax, which the Sacramento Bee helpfully reported would benefit Whitman herself, considerably; Poizner would attack her from the right on immigration.
If Whitman has any sense of self-preservation about her, what she’ll do is politely decline Brown’s invitation, noting that it’s both inappropriate and unprecedented for a multiparty debate in advance of the primaries, and invite Poizner to one or two more debates before their June 8 contest. Meanwhile, she should commit in advance to a series of debates with Brown after the primary election. No one really cares how she does against Poizner anymore; he’s all but out of the game at this point. But facing Brown – or facing Brown and Poizner together – could really hurt her, and with poll numbers as high as hers, there’s nowhere for Meg to go but down.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Today’s Tea Party protest at the State Capitol was a pretty mild affair compared to previous ones I’ve seen – there were very few signs advocating, for example, violent revolution against the federal government, or suggesting that Barack Obama was not born in the United States (a view held by a disproportionately large percentage of Tea Partiers), or comparing high-ranking Democrats to Adolf Hitler. Accusing the President and Congress of Marxism, socialism and communism are all still acceptable, of course, but it's good to see the Tea Partiers accept that Nazism might be a stretch.
On the contrary, there were dozens of people walking around with voter-registration and initiative signature petitions, and most of the speakers were exhorting their listeners to get out there and vote, as opposed to, say, urging them to "take up arms" in their battle against everything Obama. I don’t know how many of the TPers trying to overturn California’s landmark climate emissions law knew that they were shilling for powerful Texas oil companies in the process, but kudos to them for at least getting involved. It’s more than you can say for most Americans.
Indeed, there seem to be signs that the Tea Party is becoming less and less insane by the day. Earlier this week, organizers of today’s protest in Pleasanton disinvited Orly Taitz from speaking at their event.
Taitz, for those of you who don’t know, is the nutcase who heads up the Birther movement alleging that Barack Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, shouts instead of talking, and is running for California secretary of state. Hey, Orly – when the folks who dress up like Ben Franklin, have no idea that Medicare is a government-run program, and carry around signs portraying Nancy Pelosi as Pinocchio are calling you a weirdo… wow.
Adding insult (read “sanity”) to injury (read “craziness”), two high-profile Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate – Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore – have disavowed Taitz’s theories completely, each one boldly asserting Barack Obama’s legitimacy to be president.
Fiorina, via a spokesperson, had the cojones to own up to her belief that “President Obama is absolutely eligible for the presidency and is a natural-born United States citizen.”
And DeVore, the self-proclaimed “Tea Party candidate” in this race, “strongly disapproves of Orly Taitz and the crazy theories she continues to advance.”
This is strong stuff, considering that the Obama-was-born-here view only holds sway with about four in ten Republicans, and a similar number of Tea Partiers.
Maybe the biggest news in this story is that this is actually considered news in today’s America – that a group of conservatives, including two candidates for office, have accepted that the President of the United States was actually born here and that this isn’t all just some clever Kenyan/Russian/Chinese/Iranian/Venezuelan hoax.
Not that this has caught on with all GOP politicos – in the same article linked to above, neither the vice chair of the California Republican Party nor a prominent State Assembly candidate from the East Bay (and current mayor of San Ramon) would say where they believe Obama was born.
Here’s my question, though – do they really believe that crap about us landing on the moon?
On the contrary, there were dozens of people walking around with voter-registration and initiative signature petitions, and most of the speakers were exhorting their listeners to get out there and vote, as opposed to, say, urging them to "take up arms" in their battle against everything Obama. I don’t know how many of the TPers trying to overturn California’s landmark climate emissions law knew that they were shilling for powerful Texas oil companies in the process, but kudos to them for at least getting involved. It’s more than you can say for most Americans.
Indeed, there seem to be signs that the Tea Party is becoming less and less insane by the day. Earlier this week, organizers of today’s protest in Pleasanton disinvited Orly Taitz from speaking at their event.
Taitz, for those of you who don’t know, is the nutcase who heads up the Birther movement alleging that Barack Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, shouts instead of talking, and is running for California secretary of state. Hey, Orly – when the folks who dress up like Ben Franklin, have no idea that Medicare is a government-run program, and carry around signs portraying Nancy Pelosi as Pinocchio are calling you a weirdo… wow.
Adding insult (read “sanity”) to injury (read “craziness”), two high-profile Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate – Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore – have disavowed Taitz’s theories completely, each one boldly asserting Barack Obama’s legitimacy to be president.
Fiorina, via a spokesperson, had the cojones to own up to her belief that “President Obama is absolutely eligible for the presidency and is a natural-born United States citizen.”
And DeVore, the self-proclaimed “Tea Party candidate” in this race, “strongly disapproves of Orly Taitz and the crazy theories she continues to advance.”
This is strong stuff, considering that the Obama-was-born-here view only holds sway with about four in ten Republicans, and a similar number of Tea Partiers.
Maybe the biggest news in this story is that this is actually considered news in today’s America – that a group of conservatives, including two candidates for office, have accepted that the President of the United States was actually born here and that this isn’t all just some clever Kenyan/Russian/Chinese/Iranian/Venezuelan hoax.
Not that this has caught on with all GOP politicos – in the same article linked to above, neither the vice chair of the California Republican Party nor a prominent State Assembly candidate from the East Bay (and current mayor of San Ramon) would say where they believe Obama was born.
Here’s my question, though – do they really believe that crap about us landing on the moon?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)