Two events today which are basically so over-the-top they make my head spin:
1. Representative Eric Cantor apparently has forgotten all of the U.S. history he learned in high school and college. Today he endorsed a constitutional amendment that would allow a vote of 2/3 of the state legislatures to veto Federal legislation. This, along with repeal of the 17th Amendment (having U.S. Senators elected by popular vote rather than by the vote of the state legislatures) are awful procedural ideas. The first would basically create chaos in the Federal system and significantly undermine the effectiveness and authority of Congress. The second is undemocratic and would return the U.S. Senate to the bad old days when Senators were creatures of their state's corrupt state legislatures. (By the way, my sense is that state legislatures today are only marginally improved over those bad old days. They are still filled with corrupt, venal and often stupid people, easily corruptible and underpaid. How many people even know who their state legislators are?)
These "back to the states" concepts seem to be getting a lot more attention these days. They seem to be a poorly-thought out (to put it mildly) response to a perceived problem. Republicans don't like that the Democrats had a majority in Congress and, therefore, passed legislation favored by Democrats and opposed by REpublicans. So, the response of Cantor and friends is not the obvious "just work to elect more Republicans", but rather, let's change how we elect Senators and who gets to make laws". In other words, since Republicans didn't win a majority, let's change how its all done. Absolutely, breathtakingly stupid.
2. Representative Steve King of Iowa has done all of us the valuable service of finally letting down the guard and exposing the racism that underlies some of the contemporary dissatisfaction on the right. In opposing a bill to fund the settlement of a discrimination lawsuit brought by black farmers against the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, King says:
"Figure this out, Madame Speaker: We have a very, very urban Senator, Barack Obama, who has decided he's going to run for president, and what does he do? He introduces legislation to create a whole new Pigford claim."
"Urban", of course, in context means "black". King clearly doesn't mean "city dweller". He has basically accused Obama of supporting this settlement because he's black. King also claims that the settlement is "slavery reparations", although it has absolutely nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with discriminatory treatment of black farmers in the post World War II period.
I like to think that I am reasonably sceptical of claims of racism. I discount allegations that the "tea party" is really about racism. I certainly think that there is an element of racism there, mixed in with and probably unseparable from a generalised fear on the part of tea partiers that the country and the culture is changing and leaving them behind. A part of that is symbolized, at least, by the election as President of a black man with a foreign-sounding name and a background very different from the typical tea partier. Yeah, there's a bit of racims there, but I don't think that's what the movement is really about.
King's statement, however, is different. I have no hesitation labelling it as "racist". He could hardly be more explicit. Now, all I really know about King is that he's a right-wing crazy. I know nothing about his background or what he might be like to socialize with. Accordingly, I don't have a clue as to what his feelings about African-Americans are or whether he could fairly be termed a racist. What I do know is that his comments today are racist. In the nearly two years of the Obama Administration, there has absolutely been nothing to evidence any intention by the President to adopt policies which favor black citizens because the President is black. For King to assert, obviously without evidence, that this is what is motivating the President, is despicable.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Renters of the World, Unite!
Per ThinkProgress by way of Jonathan Chait, Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips said on the Tea Party Nation hosted radio program:
"The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners."
It's hard to know how to respond to this sort of thinking other than to simply laugh. At the risk of taking this seriously, though, a couple of points are worth mentioning:
1. I assume that Phillips is referring to real property, e.g., land, houses, condos, buildings, etc. But plenty of people don't own their own residence but do own substantial amounts of stocks, mutual funds, Treasury bonds, etc. (Ownership of a New York City cooperative apartment presents its own complication.) Would that be sufficient to satisfy Phillips that these people have a "vested stake" in the community? Back in my college days (early 1970's), I had a Political Science 101 professor who told us that there would be no revolution in this country because so many of the citizens here were invested in stocks and, therefore, had a vested interest in the stability of the system.
2. How much property ownership would be enough to satisfy Phillips? Will it matter how much your mortgage is?
3. I think Phillips has this backward. Poor people, who generally don't own real property, are much more vested in the community that wealthy people are. Poor people can't really go anywhere else; they can't pick up and move to Paris or South America, or even Canada. They are stuck here as citizens and residents, for better or worse. On the other hand, a very wealthy person with homes in the U.S., the Bahamas and the South of France can relocate outside the U.S. at any time. Arguably, those people are less vested in this country because of their ability to reside elsewhere. Perhaps we should flip Phillips' approach and deny voting rights to the super-wealthy.
4. The poor are also much more dependent upon government entitlement programs (Medicaid, Social Security, etc.) than are the wealthy, and in this sense they are much more invested in the country.
By the way, I heard Mark Levin raise this same issue about 18 months or 2 years ago, shortly after Obama's election, so I don't think Phillips is simply an outlier on this point. I wonder what Sarah Palin thinks of this?
"The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners."
It's hard to know how to respond to this sort of thinking other than to simply laugh. At the risk of taking this seriously, though, a couple of points are worth mentioning:
1. I assume that Phillips is referring to real property, e.g., land, houses, condos, buildings, etc. But plenty of people don't own their own residence but do own substantial amounts of stocks, mutual funds, Treasury bonds, etc. (Ownership of a New York City cooperative apartment presents its own complication.) Would that be sufficient to satisfy Phillips that these people have a "vested stake" in the community? Back in my college days (early 1970's), I had a Political Science 101 professor who told us that there would be no revolution in this country because so many of the citizens here were invested in stocks and, therefore, had a vested interest in the stability of the system.
2. How much property ownership would be enough to satisfy Phillips? Will it matter how much your mortgage is?
3. I think Phillips has this backward. Poor people, who generally don't own real property, are much more vested in the community that wealthy people are. Poor people can't really go anywhere else; they can't pick up and move to Paris or South America, or even Canada. They are stuck here as citizens and residents, for better or worse. On the other hand, a very wealthy person with homes in the U.S., the Bahamas and the South of France can relocate outside the U.S. at any time. Arguably, those people are less vested in this country because of their ability to reside elsewhere. Perhaps we should flip Phillips' approach and deny voting rights to the super-wealthy.
4. The poor are also much more dependent upon government entitlement programs (Medicaid, Social Security, etc.) than are the wealthy, and in this sense they are much more invested in the country.
By the way, I heard Mark Levin raise this same issue about 18 months or 2 years ago, shortly after Obama's election, so I don't think Phillips is simply an outlier on this point. I wonder what Sarah Palin thinks of this?
Monday, November 29, 2010
Immigration Debate Question
Steve King, Congressman from Iowa, who is one of the more extreme of the Republican know-nothings in Congres, is apparently about to become the Chairman of the House subcommittee responsible for immigration legislation. As such, he will undoubtedly play a significant role in driving more Hispanic voters into the arms of the Democratic Party.
I have read in a number of places that one of the "reforms" that King and his allies want to achieve is either a constitutional amendment or a re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment to deny birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants who have children here. Sounds Simon Legreeish.
But, although I am generally sympathetic to efforts to genuinely reform our immigration laws and systems in order to better regulate the flow of immigrants and to provide a pathway to citizenship, I really don't get why the birthright citizenship issue is so heatedly disdained by the left. It seems to me that, although this policy might once have made sense for the U.S., perhaps it no longer does. What national interest or value is served by automatically conferring citizenship on a child simply because he or she happens to be born here? Doesn't this incentivize illegal immigration, something I think we could all agree we should be trying to discourage? I don't think any other Western nation (or, for that matter, any nation) has a similar policy.
If anyone reads this, I would be happy to be instructed in why the reversal of this policy is unfair, immoral or bad policy.
I have read in a number of places that one of the "reforms" that King and his allies want to achieve is either a constitutional amendment or a re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment to deny birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants who have children here. Sounds Simon Legreeish.
But, although I am generally sympathetic to efforts to genuinely reform our immigration laws and systems in order to better regulate the flow of immigrants and to provide a pathway to citizenship, I really don't get why the birthright citizenship issue is so heatedly disdained by the left. It seems to me that, although this policy might once have made sense for the U.S., perhaps it no longer does. What national interest or value is served by automatically conferring citizenship on a child simply because he or she happens to be born here? Doesn't this incentivize illegal immigration, something I think we could all agree we should be trying to discourage? I don't think any other Western nation (or, for that matter, any nation) has a similar policy.
If anyone reads this, I would be happy to be instructed in why the reversal of this policy is unfair, immoral or bad policy.
Road Rules Part I
As I get older (I'm now 58), I get more cantankerous about certain things. Bad behavior on the roads and in public transportation just makes me crazy now. Where to start?
How about the proper etiquette for driving in the left lane on a highway? My road rule is: If you're not driving in the left lane faster than the traffic in the lane to your immediate right, then you don't belong in the left lane.
I tend to drive fairly fast on the Interstates--between 75-80 when conditions allow. I tend to stay in the left lane, but will get out of the way when a car doing 85-90 comes up behind me. I think that's too fast, but it's not my concern, and I'll move out of the way.
But too often, I find myself behind a driver who is moving at 60, 65, 70 and won't move over. I don't know what the thinking is--maybe he or she thinks that they are going as fast as anyone should go, and fuck anyone who wants to go faster. Maybe they never learned to look in the rearview mirror and are oblivious to traffic piling up behind them. Whatever.
How about the proper etiquette for driving in the left lane on a highway? My road rule is: If you're not driving in the left lane faster than the traffic in the lane to your immediate right, then you don't belong in the left lane.
I tend to drive fairly fast on the Interstates--between 75-80 when conditions allow. I tend to stay in the left lane, but will get out of the way when a car doing 85-90 comes up behind me. I think that's too fast, but it's not my concern, and I'll move out of the way.
But too often, I find myself behind a driver who is moving at 60, 65, 70 and won't move over. I don't know what the thinking is--maybe he or she thinks that they are going as fast as anyone should go, and fuck anyone who wants to go faster. Maybe they never learned to look in the rearview mirror and are oblivious to traffic piling up behind them. Whatever.
New Start
Is there anything lamer than Susan Collins publicly begging for an endorsement of the Treaty by the former Presidents Bush? Of course, the elder is no expert (although he had the smarts to hire and rely on experts in foreign policy), and the younger wouldn't have a clue about the merits of the Treaty. So what is Collins saying? Certainly not that she is awaiting the expert judgment of the Bushes. I read this as her saying: I'm a moral coward and afraid to vote contrary to the highly partisan agenda insisted on by McConnell and Kyl. If the two living Republican ex-Presidents both tell me it's ok to vote for the treaty, maybe I will.
This is just pathetic, although probably no more pathetic than her colleagues who know that this Treaty should be approved but are afraid to speak out.
On a related front, I just read Jennifer Rubin's Commentary blog. She says that Senator Kit Bond claims that the verification procedures in the Treaty are insufficient. Her conclusion:
"But what of the argument that without New START, we won’t have a verification system in place? Go get a better treaty, Republicans would respond. That’s no easy order, especially for an administration that contorts itself to avoid stressing its new relationship with the Russians. In sum, Obama negotiated a not-very-good treaty and now can’t get it through the Senate. Sort of a mess, isn’t it? Welcome to the Obama foreign policy brain trust."
In other words, Obama should have negotiated better terms, so let's vote this down and go back to seek a better deal. Classic Monday morning quarterbacking: There is no way to determine if a better deal could have been secured, and it's all too easy to make this assertion. Even if it is true that the terms could have been better, that's not necessarily a reason to reject the treaty, particularly since, if defeated, it's extremely unlikely that Russia can be engaged to improve the deal in the near future.
I have absolutely no expertise in this area and, therefore, as with any technical subject, must rely on the judgment of experts. The little that I have read that contains any specific criticism of the Treaty appears to be effectively countered by others with some expertise. Rubin cites Bond asserting two problems---the lack of restriction on Russia's multi-warhead missiles and the weakness of the verification procedures. I believe I've seen the former issue taken apart by experts at the time that Mitt Romney raised it, and I suspect that the latter objection is also flawed.
The objections that I have seen to the Treaty appear, at least to me, to be nothing more than complaints that the Treaty isn't totally one-sided in our favor. These seem to be excuses, rather than reasons, for opposing the Treaty. With the weight of the traditional foreign policy establishment and the military leadership supporting the approval of the Treaty, it's simply astonishing that the Republicans in Congress would make an issue of this. This is yet further evidence that the Congressional Republicans have adopted a deliberate strategy of opposing anything Obama is for, for the sole purpose of denying him any "victories". Since I can't see this Treaty as a campaign issue one way or the other, it's hard to explain the approach here, except to say that this fits into an overall strategy of saying "no" to everything, and trying to make the Federal Government on Obama's watch as disfunctional as possible. Words can't even describe how awful these people are.
This is just pathetic, although probably no more pathetic than her colleagues who know that this Treaty should be approved but are afraid to speak out.
On a related front, I just read Jennifer Rubin's Commentary blog. She says that Senator Kit Bond claims that the verification procedures in the Treaty are insufficient. Her conclusion:
"But what of the argument that without New START, we won’t have a verification system in place? Go get a better treaty, Republicans would respond. That’s no easy order, especially for an administration that contorts itself to avoid stressing its new relationship with the Russians. In sum, Obama negotiated a not-very-good treaty and now can’t get it through the Senate. Sort of a mess, isn’t it? Welcome to the Obama foreign policy brain trust."
In other words, Obama should have negotiated better terms, so let's vote this down and go back to seek a better deal. Classic Monday morning quarterbacking: There is no way to determine if a better deal could have been secured, and it's all too easy to make this assertion. Even if it is true that the terms could have been better, that's not necessarily a reason to reject the treaty, particularly since, if defeated, it's extremely unlikely that Russia can be engaged to improve the deal in the near future.
I have absolutely no expertise in this area and, therefore, as with any technical subject, must rely on the judgment of experts. The little that I have read that contains any specific criticism of the Treaty appears to be effectively countered by others with some expertise. Rubin cites Bond asserting two problems---the lack of restriction on Russia's multi-warhead missiles and the weakness of the verification procedures. I believe I've seen the former issue taken apart by experts at the time that Mitt Romney raised it, and I suspect that the latter objection is also flawed.
The objections that I have seen to the Treaty appear, at least to me, to be nothing more than complaints that the Treaty isn't totally one-sided in our favor. These seem to be excuses, rather than reasons, for opposing the Treaty. With the weight of the traditional foreign policy establishment and the military leadership supporting the approval of the Treaty, it's simply astonishing that the Republicans in Congress would make an issue of this. This is yet further evidence that the Congressional Republicans have adopted a deliberate strategy of opposing anything Obama is for, for the sole purpose of denying him any "victories". Since I can't see this Treaty as a campaign issue one way or the other, it's hard to explain the approach here, except to say that this fits into an overall strategy of saying "no" to everything, and trying to make the Federal Government on Obama's watch as disfunctional as possible. Words can't even describe how awful these people are.
McCain Mutiny
Many reports on political blogs today on what John McCain said of DADT on CNN yesterday:
"The fact is, this was a political promise made by an inexperienced President or candidate for Presidency of the United States."
That McCain's comment would refer to Obama as an "inexperienced candidate for Presidency" says a whole lot more about McCain than about Obama. Clearly, McCain still views Obama through the prism of the now 2-year old Presidential campaign. Just as clearly, McCain has not gotten over the fact that he was beaten by a candidate with relatively little national political experience.
It's not just being a "sore loser", as a number of commentators have said. McCain has, both before and after the election, acted as though the Presidency was something he was entitled to--presumably by virtue of his long service as a prisoner of war and in Congress. He has clearly been deeply resentful of Obama on a personal level.
His flip-flopping on the DADT issue is shameless and shameful. It's almost as though his opposition to repeal is motivated by Obama's support of it: Whatever he's for, I'm agin. And, of course, his branding of the effort to repeal DADT as "political" is absurd (and not the first time that McCain's pot has called the kettle black). As Steve Benen writes, this was part of a policy agenda, and, in any event, repeal had been a key element of the Democratic agenda before Obama came on the scene.
Numerous bloggers have complained for the last two years that McCain appears on the Sunday morning political talk shows far more than is appropriate, given his status as the losing candidate. I've long assumed that this is only because most of his Republican colleagues refuse to go on these shows unless they are running for re-election, and McCain is always willing to appear,and therefore he becomes the default Republican invitee. Regardless, his expertise is non-existent and his political positions are so devoid of personal credibilitiy, so changeable over the years, and so obviously motivated at least in large part by his personal issues, that it's really time for Meet The Press, etc. to put him to the back of the line.
"The fact is, this was a political promise made by an inexperienced President or candidate for Presidency of the United States."
That McCain's comment would refer to Obama as an "inexperienced candidate for Presidency" says a whole lot more about McCain than about Obama. Clearly, McCain still views Obama through the prism of the now 2-year old Presidential campaign. Just as clearly, McCain has not gotten over the fact that he was beaten by a candidate with relatively little national political experience.
It's not just being a "sore loser", as a number of commentators have said. McCain has, both before and after the election, acted as though the Presidency was something he was entitled to--presumably by virtue of his long service as a prisoner of war and in Congress. He has clearly been deeply resentful of Obama on a personal level.
His flip-flopping on the DADT issue is shameless and shameful. It's almost as though his opposition to repeal is motivated by Obama's support of it: Whatever he's for, I'm agin. And, of course, his branding of the effort to repeal DADT as "political" is absurd (and not the first time that McCain's pot has called the kettle black). As Steve Benen writes, this was part of a policy agenda, and, in any event, repeal had been a key element of the Democratic agenda before Obama came on the scene.
Numerous bloggers have complained for the last two years that McCain appears on the Sunday morning political talk shows far more than is appropriate, given his status as the losing candidate. I've long assumed that this is only because most of his Republican colleagues refuse to go on these shows unless they are running for re-election, and McCain is always willing to appear,and therefore he becomes the default Republican invitee. Regardless, his expertise is non-existent and his political positions are so devoid of personal credibilitiy, so changeable over the years, and so obviously motivated at least in large part by his personal issues, that it's really time for Meet The Press, etc. to put him to the back of the line.
Tax Cuts
I have to say, although I have been a total fan and supporter of Obama thus far, I don't get the thinking on the issue of the extension of the tax cuts.
The Democrats hold the cards on this one. Unless a bill is passed by both the House and Senate and signed by Obama, the Bush tax cuts will automatically expire. Obama has the ability to say to the Republicans (politely and diplomatically, of course): Pass my preferred bill or there will be no bill, and if the tax cuts expire because you Republicans refuse to vote for a partial extension, then you will be blamed for the tax increase that will result for 95% of the taxpayers.
Republicans and their trusted sidekick, Fox News will, of course, blame the Democrats. But surely, some organization on the left can do an ad campaign accurately stating that you, the viewer, will have your taxes go up because the Republicans refused to vote for an extension of the tax cuts for nearly everyone. It's a relatively simple message which will strike home.
If it were up to me, I'd move the dividing line up from $250,000 per year to $500,000 per year, so that everyone above that line would have an increase in the marginal rates. Schumer's proposal today to move the line up to $1,000,000 has the virtue of making a better bumper sticker, but I suspect will result in substantially lower tax revenues.
This is one time that the Democrats don't need to worry about a filibuster or about losing a handful of centrist Democrats. As I said, the Administration holds all of the cards here. This position can be sold easily to the public and will shore up support on the left for Obama. To me, it seems like the clearest winner of a position that he can have.
The Democrats hold the cards on this one. Unless a bill is passed by both the House and Senate and signed by Obama, the Bush tax cuts will automatically expire. Obama has the ability to say to the Republicans (politely and diplomatically, of course): Pass my preferred bill or there will be no bill, and if the tax cuts expire because you Republicans refuse to vote for a partial extension, then you will be blamed for the tax increase that will result for 95% of the taxpayers.
Republicans and their trusted sidekick, Fox News will, of course, blame the Democrats. But surely, some organization on the left can do an ad campaign accurately stating that you, the viewer, will have your taxes go up because the Republicans refused to vote for an extension of the tax cuts for nearly everyone. It's a relatively simple message which will strike home.
If it were up to me, I'd move the dividing line up from $250,000 per year to $500,000 per year, so that everyone above that line would have an increase in the marginal rates. Schumer's proposal today to move the line up to $1,000,000 has the virtue of making a better bumper sticker, but I suspect will result in substantially lower tax revenues.
This is one time that the Democrats don't need to worry about a filibuster or about losing a handful of centrist Democrats. As I said, the Administration holds all of the cards here. This position can be sold easily to the public and will shore up support on the left for Obama. To me, it seems like the clearest winner of a position that he can have.
Palin World
In Larry King's interview with the senior Bushes, Barbara B. made a snide comment about hoping that Sarah Palin stays in Alaska. Palin, who can't seem to resist the temptation to respond to every criticism and negative comment, no matter how minor the comment or obscure the commenter, said the following on Laura Ingraham's radio show:
"I don't think the majority of Americans want to put up with the blue-bloods -- and I want to say it with all due respect because I love the Bushes -- the blue-bloods who want to pick and choose their winners instead of allowing competition."
Aside from the incredibly obvious hypocricy of the statement (She loves the Bushes--really? Even though she calls them "blue-bloods" and accuses them of anti-democratic intentions.), this seems particularly stupid to me.
First, she turns Barbara's comment into a bigger story than it was. This just draws more attention to criticism of Palin from within the Republican Party. Palin's unwillingness to hold her fire has elevated just about every criticism of her and has diminished her own standing. Getting embroiled in a public dispute with her grandchild's father--a teenager!--is hardly Presidential. Criticising Michelle Obama's efforts to publicize the problem of obesity in children is utterly pointless: she is taking on a popular First Lady (who is not directly in the front line of politics) and a serious (and non-controversial) health issue.
Second, she risks elevating this into a real feud with the Bushes. George was polite and diplomatic in his response to a question about Palin; perhaps the next time, he'll be less polite. While disliked by the Palin base of the Republican Party, George and Barbara still have the respect of a meaningful portion of the middle; as a former President, Bush the elder is generally viewed favorably by many. Attacking the ex-President and his wife won't win Palin respect outside her current base.
Third, the obvious class warfare aspect of this attack isn't likely to go down well with anyone other than her base. In recent years, George the elder's image has been much more of genial old guy, and even to some extent "regular" guy, than privileged blue blood.
Finally, does it bother anyone (other than me) that Palin's response to an expression of distaste for her as a potential candidate is to accuse the Bushes of wanting to impose their own candidate? Does she really believe that anyone who opposes her is somehow an autocrat?
I honestly have no idea what Palin's chances of winning the Republican nomination for President in 2012 are. She certainly is not doing what knowledgeable observers say is traditionally necessary for a successful candidate: learning issues, building a campaign organization with experienced operatives, reaching out to key activists in the different primary states, developing a fund-raising operation and establishing relationships with the big contributors, etc. If the traditional path to the nomination continues to be the reality, she should crash and burn early on. However, no one really knows if the conventional wisdom is still correct; a lot has changed in the Republican Party, and Palin's approach might well be the winning one in 2012.
What is clear is that Palin has to date shown no interest in attempting to reach out beyond her base and, instead, antagonizes nearly everyone else. This will be a disaster for her in the general election. At some point between now and then, perhaps professional advisors will succeed in turning her around so that she starts making appeals to the mainstream, but it's not clear to me that she is, by character, capable of doing this in an effective way. To do so, she would really need to change her personality, cease to play the victim, move away from the divisiveness of her public statements and persona, and develop some substance. I don't think it will happen.
"I don't think the majority of Americans want to put up with the blue-bloods -- and I want to say it with all due respect because I love the Bushes -- the blue-bloods who want to pick and choose their winners instead of allowing competition."
Aside from the incredibly obvious hypocricy of the statement (She loves the Bushes--really? Even though she calls them "blue-bloods" and accuses them of anti-democratic intentions.), this seems particularly stupid to me.
First, she turns Barbara's comment into a bigger story than it was. This just draws more attention to criticism of Palin from within the Republican Party. Palin's unwillingness to hold her fire has elevated just about every criticism of her and has diminished her own standing. Getting embroiled in a public dispute with her grandchild's father--a teenager!--is hardly Presidential. Criticising Michelle Obama's efforts to publicize the problem of obesity in children is utterly pointless: she is taking on a popular First Lady (who is not directly in the front line of politics) and a serious (and non-controversial) health issue.
Second, she risks elevating this into a real feud with the Bushes. George was polite and diplomatic in his response to a question about Palin; perhaps the next time, he'll be less polite. While disliked by the Palin base of the Republican Party, George and Barbara still have the respect of a meaningful portion of the middle; as a former President, Bush the elder is generally viewed favorably by many. Attacking the ex-President and his wife won't win Palin respect outside her current base.
Third, the obvious class warfare aspect of this attack isn't likely to go down well with anyone other than her base. In recent years, George the elder's image has been much more of genial old guy, and even to some extent "regular" guy, than privileged blue blood.
Finally, does it bother anyone (other than me) that Palin's response to an expression of distaste for her as a potential candidate is to accuse the Bushes of wanting to impose their own candidate? Does she really believe that anyone who opposes her is somehow an autocrat?
I honestly have no idea what Palin's chances of winning the Republican nomination for President in 2012 are. She certainly is not doing what knowledgeable observers say is traditionally necessary for a successful candidate: learning issues, building a campaign organization with experienced operatives, reaching out to key activists in the different primary states, developing a fund-raising operation and establishing relationships with the big contributors, etc. If the traditional path to the nomination continues to be the reality, she should crash and burn early on. However, no one really knows if the conventional wisdom is still correct; a lot has changed in the Republican Party, and Palin's approach might well be the winning one in 2012.
What is clear is that Palin has to date shown no interest in attempting to reach out beyond her base and, instead, antagonizes nearly everyone else. This will be a disaster for her in the general election. At some point between now and then, perhaps professional advisors will succeed in turning her around so that she starts making appeals to the mainstream, but it's not clear to me that she is, by character, capable of doing this in an effective way. To do so, she would really need to change her personality, cease to play the victim, move away from the divisiveness of her public statements and persona, and develop some substance. I don't think it will happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)