Flash! Edwards Dropping Out
And there goes the Democrats’ best chance to win in the fall. I hope he’ll unite with Obama or Hillary in exchange for the nod as vice president, since that would mean all the difference. Amazingly, the Republicans appear once again to have benefited from liberal numbskullery. The trouble is, this economy can’t take any more Republican supply-side bullshit.
COLUMN: INDEPENDENTS GO HOME
Open Primaries Are Killing Democracy
Check out this political mystery: Liberals, a.k.a. the Democratic base, are angry. They’re so angry that they tried to unseat senior senator and former vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman in 2006, who had become synonymous with bipartisanship. Bipartisanship, hell. They’re in the mood for payback.
So why is Barack Obama, a bipartisan accommodationist who promises to appoint Republicans to his cabinet and praises Ronald Reagan, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination? Why is Hillary Clinton, militant centrist of the DLC, running a close second?
Mystery #2: Liberal primary voters are obsessed with choosing a nominee who can win the general election in November. And yet, according to a hypothetical head-to-head match-up, neither Obama nor Clinton qualifies. The most electable Democrat, found the most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. match-up poll, is John Edwards.
“Edwards is the only Democrat who beats all four Republicans, and McCain is the only Republican who beats any of the three Democrats [in November 2008],” says Keating Holland, CNN’s polling director. But Edwards hasn’t won a single primary.
What’s going on? Why are angry, electability-oriented Democrats voting for the two candidates least likely to win–candidates who want to sing Kumbaya with the Republicans?
As we discussed last week, the media has frozen out Edwards because their corporate owners are scared of him. But there’s a second reason that the Democratic primaries have “gotten terribly off track,” in the words of The New York Times‘ Paul Krugman.
A lot of non-Democrats are voting in Democratic primaries.
Twenty-three states now have so-called “open primaries.” Registered independents are allowed to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary. “What’s everybody talking about now? Independents,” Morris Fiorina, a professor of political science at Stanford says. Huge numbers of Democratic primary voters aren’t Democrats at all: 20 percent in the Iowa caucuses, 44 percent in New Hampshire, 23 percent in South Carolina.
As you might expect, candidates whose appeal crosses party lines have benefited from these open primaries. “Obama is winning independents, McCain is winning independents,” says Professor Fiorina.
Political scientists differ over the moderating effect of open primaries, but history paints a clear picture. There hasn’t been a left-wing Democratic nominee since George McGovern in 1972, or an overtly right-wing Republican one since Barry Goldwater in 1964. (Though they governed differently, Reagan and Bush II campaigned as uniters, not dividinators.) Both parties see open primaries as part of a “big tent” strategy–people who vote for party X in the primaries are said to be likelier to vote for Party X’s nominee in the fall. Open primaries are also supposed to winnow out “extreme” candidates (see McGovern and Goldwater, above) while selecting for those with broad appeal to the overall electorate. But the advantages of open primaries–which have yet to be statistically proven–come at a steep price.
As Larry Gerston writes in the San Jose Mercury-News, “people who identify as Democrats or Republicans operate with different opinions than independents. Partisans tend to have stronger opinions on leading issues, are more aware of current events, have well-developed political value sets and tend to be more involved politically on an ongoing basis. For most independents, politics is much more a spectator sport. These folks are more amused than committed, tend to know less about the leading issues and candidates, and commonly operate with a less defined set of political values.”
Independents complain that “closed primaries”–Democratic primaries are only open to Democrats, Republican primaries to Republicans–deny them a voice. In truth, registered independents choose not to vote in primaries. There is no practical reason to register as an independent. If you want to switch from one party’s primaries to the other’s, all you have to do is fill out a form. And, in the general election, you can vote for any party regardless of party affiliation.
The potential for mischief, on the other hand, is enormous in open primaries: conservatives voting for the worst Democrat, liberals for the worst Republican. Even “honest” independents queer the process by reducing the chances of a hardcore liberal or conservative winning their party’s nomination. This year, they’re boosting Obama and McCain, neither of whom have generated much enthusiasm from their party’s bases. (If these two men face off in November 2008, McCain will enjoy an edge since the GOP tends to better coalesce behind its nominees. Republican party loyalists will also find McCain’s right-wing voting record to their liking. Obama, on the other hand, repeatedly voted to fund the Iraq War.)
Polarization is good for democracy. Voters may claim not to like mudslinging campaign battles, but they turn out in greater numbers when the parties nominate candidates whose views are significantly different. In 2000, Gore and Bush were seen as so ideologically indistinct that many liberals cast protest votes for Ralph Nader. (Little did we know!) Turnout was 51.3 percent. It went up to 55.3 percent in 2004, high water mark of the red-blue divide.
Moderate nominees, er, moderate the enthusiasm of the liberals and conservatives who make up the two major parties’ bases. When your party’s standardbearer doesn’t promise much, there isn’t a lot to win. Nor is there much to lose if the enemy party’s nominee seems relatively reasonable. The Democratic and Republican parties, already so similar on issues like trade, immigration and abortion, become more broadly indistinguishable. Elections offer fewer, less relevant options. Citizens tune out. Over time, some will start to yearn for another, less free but more effective form of government.
Open primaries, wrote Gerston, are “akin to casual sports fans having a voice in the selection of college playoff schedules or newly arrived residents of a town affecting the decision of a long-disputed, festering public policy issue.” If we want to get rid of the two-party system, great. Until then, let Democrats pick the Democratic nominee and Republicans choose the Republican nominee. If independents want to play too, let them fill out a form.
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
Open Primaries Are Killing Democracy
Check out this political mystery: Liberals, a.k.a. the Democratic base, are angry. They’re so angry that they tried to unseat senior senator and former vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman in 2006, who had become synonymous with bipartisanship. Bipartisanship, hell. They’re in the mood for payback.
So why is Barack Obama, a bipartisan accommodationist who promises to appoint Republicans to his cabinet and praises Ronald Reagan, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination? Why is Hillary Clinton, militant centrist of the DLC, running a close second?
Mystery #2: Liberal primary voters are obsessed with choosing a nominee who can win the general election in November. And yet, according to a hypothetical head-to-head match-up, neither Obama nor Clinton qualifies. The most electable Democrat, found the most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. match-up poll, is John Edwards.
“Edwards is the only Democrat who beats all four Republicans, and McCain is the only Republican who beats any of the three Democrats [in November 2008],” says Keating Holland, CNN’s polling director. But Edwards hasn’t won a single primary.
What’s going on? Why are angry, electability-oriented Democrats voting for the two candidates least likely to win–candidates who want to sing Kumbaya with the Republicans?
As we discussed last week, the media has frozen out Edwards because their corporate owners are scared of him. But there’s a second reason that the Democratic primaries have “gotten terribly off track,” in the words of The New York Times’ Paul Krugman.
A lot of non-Democrats are voting in Democratic primaries.
Twenty-three states now have so-called “open primaries.” Registered independents are allowed to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary. “What’s everybody talking about now? Independents,” Morris Fiorina, a professor of political science at Stanford says. Huge numbers of Democratic primary voters aren’t Democrats at all: 20 percent in the Iowa caucuses, 44 percent in New Hampshire, 23 percent in South Carolina.
As you might expect, candidates whose appeal crosses party lines have benefited from these open primaries. “Obama is winning independents, McCain is winning independents,” says Professor Fiorina.
Political scientists differ over the moderating effect of open primaries, but history paints a clear picture. There hasn’t been a left-wing Democratic nominee since George McGovern in 1972, or an overtly right-wing Republican one since Barry Goldwater in 1964. (Though they governed differently, Reagan and Bush II campaigned as uniters, not dividinators.) Both parties see open primaries as part of a “big tent” strategy–people who vote for party X in the primaries are said to be likelier to vote for Party X’s nominee in the fall. Open primaries are also supposed to winnow out “extreme” candidates (see McGovern and Goldwater, above) while selecting for those with broad appeal to the overall electorate. But the advantages of open primaries–which have yet to be statistically proven–come at a steep price.
As Larry Gerston writes in the San Jose Mercury-News, “people who identify as Democrats or Republicans operate with different opinions than independents. Partisans tend to have stronger opinions on leading issues, are more aware of current events, have well-developed political value sets and tend to be more involved politically on an ongoing basis. For most independents, politics is much more a spectator sport. These folks are more amused than committed, tend to know less about the leading issues and candidates, and commonly operate with a less defined set of political values.”
Independents complain that “closed primaries”–Democratic primaries are only open to Democrats, Republican primaries to Republicans–deny them a voice. In truth, registered independents choose not to vote in primaries. There is no practical reason to register as an independent. If you want to switch from one party’s primaries to the other’s, all you have to do is fill out a form. And, in the general election, you can vote for any party regardless of party affiliation.
The potential for mischief, on the other hand, is enormous in open primaries: conservatives voting for the worst Democrat, liberals for the worst Republican. Even “honest” independents queer the process by reducing the chances of a hardcore liberal or conservative winning their party’s nomination. This year, they’re boosting Obama and McCain, neither of whom have generated much enthusiasm from their party’s bases. (If these two men face off in November 2008, McCain will enjoy an edge since the GOP tends to better coalesce behind its nominees. Republican party loyalists will also find McCain’s right-wing voting record to their liking. Obama, on the other hand, repeatedly voted to fund the Iraq War.)
Polarization is good for democracy. Voters may claim not to like mudslinging campaign battles, but they turn out in greater numbers when the parties nominate candidates whose views are significantly different. In 2000, Gore and Bush were seen as so ideologically indistinct that many liberals cast protest votes for Ralph Nader. (Little did we know!) Turnout was 51.3 percent. It went up to 55.3 percent in 2004, high water mark of the red-blue divide.
Moderate nominees, er, moderate the enthusiasm of the liberals and conservatives who make up the two major parties’ bases. When your party’s standardbearer doesn’t promise much, there isn’t a lot to win. Nor is there much to lose if the enemy party’s nominee seems relatively reasonable. The Democratic and Republican parties, already so similar on issues like trade, immigration and abortion, become more broadly indistinguishable. Elections offer fewer, less relevant options. Citizens tune out. Over time, some will start to yearn for another, less free but more effective form of government.
Open primaries, wrote Gerston, are “akin to casual sports fans having a voice in the selection of college playoff schedules or newly arrived residents of a town affecting the decision of a long-disputed, festering public policy issue.” If we want to get rid of the two-party system, great. Until then, let Democrats pick the Democratic nominee and Republicans choose the Republican nominee. If independents want to play too, let them fill out a form.
(Ted Rall is the author of the book “Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?,” an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America’s next big foreign policy challenge.)
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
COLUMN: WHO’S AFRAID OF JOHN EDWARDS?
Media Freezes Out a Threat to Corporate Owners
In 2004 Democrats were determined to pick the presidential nominee who had the best chance of defeating George W. Bush in the general election. That man was the feisty former governor of Vermont, Howard Dean. One could easily imagine him mercilessly flaying Bush in debates before trouncing Yale’s least favorite son in November. Primary voters, mistakenly betting that blandness and moderation would be a better sell, chose John Kerry instead.
The party of Hubert Humphrey and Michael Dukakis seems poised to make the same mistake again, whether with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Polls show that two-thirds of Americans think the country is ready for a female or black president. But I’m a glass-third-full guy. When a third of the electorate tells you “we’re” not ready for a woman or an African-American commander-in-chief, they really mean that they won’t vote for one. John Edwards is more likely to beat Romney or McCain than either of his history-making rivals, just by showing up with pale skin and a Y chromosome.
But even aside from electability, Edwards ought to be the Democratic frontrunner. His populist campaign, bashing corporations and free trade deals that have led to a decline in wages, seems perfectly timed for an economy everyone admits is in a recession. (In truth, the current downturn began with the 2000-1 dot-com crash, but whatever.) His platform offers more red meat for the party’s liberal base than Clinton or Obama: total withdrawal from Iraq in nine months, Euro-style healthcare, full financial aid for students admitted to public colleges and universities.
A while back I argued for electing Hillary to show girls that the glass ceiling had been smashed, that they could achieve anything. Then she repeated the biggest mistake of her undistinguished political career, voting for a resolution that supported Bush’s campaign to start a war with Iran. It brought back memories of Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi and Benazir Bhutto, oppressive rulers who set their nations back. Clinton’s gender doesn’t guarantee the forward-looking leadership we need after eight years of–it’s a bumpersticker cliché, but it happens to be true–our Worst President Ever.
I never warmed to Barack Obama. Like Clinton, his legislative record is dismal–he repeatedly voted to send billion after billion of war dollars to Iraq. His high-flying rhetoric has the dubious distinction of inspiring us to…to…what? His soaring oratory, purchased on the cheap from 26-year-old speechwriters, signifies nothing. Sure, America needs a black president. But it doesn’t need one who thinks, as Obama does, that the only thing wrong with our war in Iraq is that we’re not wasting lives and taxdollars in Afghanistan instead.
If electing a woman or a black person is more important than what that candidate has done or what they believe, Democrats should draft Condi Rice.
John Edwards isn’t just the most electable Democrat–he’s the best choice. But the media is starving him of the oxygen campaigns require in order to thrive: coverage. Shortly after placing second in Iowa, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that John Edwards received a puny seven percent of national media coverage. Clinton and Obama got between four and five times more; their poll numbers were nowhere close to that much higher than Edwards’.
“The media goes to this very engaging story about a legitimate woman candidate and a legitimate candidate with an African-American heritage, and that drives up their fund-raising numbers,” Elizabeth Edwards told Time. “Then the media folks say, ‘See, that proves we were right to focus on these two candidates’…It’s enough to make you tear your hair out.”
But there’s more to the Edwards story (and non-stories) than reporters dazzled by Clinton and Obama–contenders who, though they don’t seem likely to make political history, add a bit of demographic flavor. There is no precedent in memory of the news media freezing out a major presidential candidate to this extent.
The New York Times‘ own public editor conceded that his paper had shortchanged Edwards. “In Iowa…John Edwards is close behind Clinton in the most recent Des Moines Register poll,” Clark Hoyt wrote on November 18, “yet The Times has given him comparatively scant coverage. Clinton and Obama have been profiled twice each on the front page since Labor Day, but Edwards not at all this year. Throughout the paper, The Times has published 47 articles about Clinton since Labor Day, only 18 about Edwards.”
“I don’t track our coverage by quantity,” campaign editor Richard Stevenson responded. “In a qualitative sense, we’ve covered him pretty thoroughly, and there is more to come.”
There wasn’t.
Some point to early missteps–the $400 haircut, the big mansion, even his decision to keep running despite his wife’s cancer–as causes of Edwards’ electoral misfortune. But the truth is obvious. Major media outlets–which are owned by big corporations–hate Edwards.
“Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination,” editorialized The Des Moines Register. “But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the positive, optimistic campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.” What scares the editorial board of the Register is that Edwards doesn’t plan to “work with the business community” at all, but to empower government to re-regulate big business.
“What’s really behind the media animus toward Edwards,” Jeff Cohen wrote for AlterNet, “is his ‘all-out courting of the liberal left-wing base’ (ABC News) or his ‘looking for some steam from the left’ (CNN).”
When the media gets tough, read the overseas press. Kevin Drawbaugh, a reporter for Reuters, knows what’s up. “Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients,” he writes for the British wire service, “and the answer is almost always the same–Democrat John Edwards.”
Drawbaugh quotes Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at the Stanford Group think tank: “My sense is that Obama would govern as a reasonably pragmatic Democrat…I think Hillary is approachable. She knows where a lot of her funding has come from, to be blunt.” Edwards, on the other hand, is “an anti-business populist” and “a trade protectionist” who “would be viewed as a threat to business,” he said.
Edwards scares me, too. He’s the first candidate I’ve ever admired. God help me, I actually believe that he’d rein in the corporations whose boundless greed is bleeding the country dry. If a man with integrity and guts became president, what would I do for a living?
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
Media Freezes Out a Threat to Corporate Owners
In 2004 Democrats were determined to pick the presidential nominee who had the best chance of defeating George W. Bush in the general election. That man was the feisty former governor of Vermont, Howard Dean. One could easily imagine him mercilessly flaying Bush in debates before trouncing Yale’s least favorite son in November. Primary voters, mistakenly betting that blandness and moderation would be a better sell, chose John Kerry instead.
The party of Hubert Humphrey and Michael Dukakis seems poised to make the same mistake again, whether with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Polls show that two-thirds of Americans think the country is ready for a female or black president. But I’m a glass-third-full guy. When a third of the electorate tells you “we’re” not ready for a woman or an African-American commander-in-chief, they really mean that they won’t vote for one. John Edwards is more likely to beat Romney or McCain than either of his history-making rivals, just by showing up with pale skin and a Y chromosome.
But even aside from electability, Edwards ought to be the Democratic frontrunner. His populist campaign, bashing corporations and free trade deals that have led to a decline in wages, seems perfectly timed for an economy everyone admits is in a recession. (In truth, the current downturn began with the 2000-1 dot-com crash, but whatever.) His platform offers more red meat for the party’s liberal base than Clinton or Obama: total withdrawal from Iraq in nine months, Euro-style healthcare, full financial aid for students admitted to public colleges and universities.
A while back I argued for electing Hillary to show girls that the glass ceiling had been smashed, that they could achieve anything. Then she repeated the biggest mistake of her undistinguished political career, voting for a resolution that supported Bush’s campaign to start a war with Iran. It brought back memories of Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi and Benazir Bhutto, oppressive rulers who set their nations back. Clinton’s gender doesn’t guarantee the forward-looking leadership we need after eight years of–it’s a bumpersticker cliché, but it happens to be true–our Worst President Ever.
I never warmed to Barack Obama. Like Clinton, his legislative record is dismal–he repeatedly voted to send billion after billion of war dollars to Iraq. His high-flying rhetoric has the dubious distinction of inspiring us to…to…what? His soaring oratory, purchased on the cheap from 26-year-old speechwriters, signifies nothing. Sure, America needs a black president. But it doesn’t need one who thinks, as Obama does, that the only thing wrong with our war in Iraq is that we’re not wasting lives and taxdollars in Afghanistan instead.
If electing a woman or a black person is more important than what that candidate has done or what they believe, Democrats should draft Condi Rice.
John Edwards isn’t just the most electable Democrat–he’s the best choice. But the media is starving him of the oxygen campaigns require in order to thrive: coverage. Shortly after placing second in Iowa, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that John Edwards received a puny seven percent of national media coverage. Clinton and Obama got between four and five times more; their poll numbers were nowhere close to that much higher than Edwards’.
“The media goes to this very engaging story about a legitimate woman candidate and a legitimate candidate with an African-American heritage, and that drives up their fund-raising numbers,” Elizabeth Edwards told Time. “Then the media folks say, ‘See, that proves we were right to focus on these two candidates’…It’s enough to make you tear your hair out.”
But there’s more to the Edwards story (and non-stories) than reporters dazzled by Clinton and Obama–contenders who, though they don’t seem likely to make political history, add a bit of demographic flavor. There is no precedent in memory of the news media freezing out a major presidential candidate to this extent.
The New York Times’ own public editor conceded that his paper had shortchanged Edwards. “In Iowa…John Edwards is close behind Clinton in the most recent Des Moines Register poll,” Clark Hoyt wrote on November 18, “yet The Times has given him comparatively scant coverage. Clinton and Obama have been profiled twice each on the front page since Labor Day, but Edwards not at all this year. Throughout the paper, The Times has published 47 articles about Clinton since Labor Day, only 18 about Edwards.”
“I don’t track our coverage by quantity,” campaign editor Richard Stevenson responded. “In a qualitative sense, we’ve covered him pretty thoroughly, and there is more to come.”
There wasn’t.
Some point to early missteps–the $400 haircut, the big mansion, even his decision to keep running despite his wife’s cancer–as causes of Edwards’ electoral misfortune. But the truth is obvious. Major media outlets–which are owned by big corporations–hate Edwards.
“Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination,” editorialized The Des Moines Register. “But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the positive, optimistic campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.” What scares the editorial board of the Register is that Edwards doesn’t plan to “work with the business community” at all, but to empower government to re-regulate big business.
“What’s really behind the media animus toward Edwards,” Jeff Cohen wrote for AlterNet, “is his ‘all-out courting of the liberal left-wing base’ (ABC News) or his ‘looking for some steam from the left’ (CNN).”
When the media gets tough, read the overseas press. Kevin Drawbaugh, a reporter for Reuters, knows what’s up. “Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients,” he writes for the British wire service, “and the answer is almost always the same–Democrat John Edwards.”
Drawbaugh quotes Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at the Stanford Group think tank: “My sense is that Obama would govern as a reasonably pragmatic Democrat…I think Hillary is approachable. She knows where a lot of her funding has come from, to be blunt.” Edwards, on the other hand, is “an anti-business populist” and “a trade protectionist” who “would be viewed as a threat to business,” he said.
Edwards scares me, too. He’s the first candidate I’ve ever admired. God help me, I actually believe that he’d rein in the corporations whose boundless greed is bleeding the country dry. If a man with integrity and guts became president, what would I do for a living?
(Ted Rall is the author of the book “Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?,” an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America’s next big foreign policy challenge.)
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
PRESS RELEASE – January 16, 2008
CARTOONISTS DECLARE JIHAD ON COMEDY CENTRAL SCABS
Syndicated political cartoonists Ted Rall and Matt Bors will issue cartoons ridiculing two figures generally revered by liberals for their political humor: Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” and Stephen Colbert of “The Colbert Report.”
Despite not making a deal with the striking Writers Guild of America, Stewart and Colbert have returned to their shows–without writers–in a move that has generated little to no criticism from the liberal press.
Rall and Bors, who write and draw all their own material and are not members of the Writers Guild, have decided to team up and deliver a one-two punch, with each of them taking on one of the Comedy Central hosts in cartoons issued by their respective syndicates on the night of Thursday, January 17. The cartoons will also be available at their websites www.tedrall.com and www.mattbors.com
“One naturally hesitates before unleashing the fearsome power of Rall and Bors,” said Bors and Rall, “but the stakes are too high, the issues too important, the hypocrisy too hypocritical for us to just put down our pens and tune in to their union-busting, albeit highly amusing, programs.”
Rall’s cartoon imagines rough and tumble union members from 1938 traveling through a wormhole to encounter Jon Stewart, whom they identify as a “scab.” The comic ends with Stewart being carried away on a stretcher after being violently beaten. “Stewart’s wry, vaguely left-of-center wit fails to register with the visitors from a more straightforward time,” Rall writes in the comic.
“Progressives shouldn’t let these scabs off the hook, no matter how hilarious they are,” said Rall. “The War on Snarkism starts now!”
Bors’ comic deals with Colbert in a parody of his popular segment “The Wørd.” This time the word is “Scab” with Colbert remarking, “Writers may be able to hang out all day on their air conditioned sidewalks, but I have a mouth to feed, folks!” while the screen informs us of his ego’s lunch break demands. It’s something you could almost imagine Colbert saying, with Bors turning the faux-right wing persona back on the host.
“They have no integrity, no morals, and no guts,” Bors huffed. “They’re funny, sure, but not ha-ha funny. Not after this.”
Ted Rall’s cartoons are distributed by Universal Press Syndicate, while Matt Bors’ work is distributed through United Feature Syndicate. They each draw three cartoons a week.
Neither Rall nor Bors will be available for appearances on either of the shows while the strike remains in effect. “We’d rather fight in Bush’s wars than cross a picket line,” they said in unison.
Barack Obama, Empty Suit
Barack Obama’s supporters compare him to John Kennedy, another great orator whose youth and short political resume opened him to complaints that he didn’t have enough experience to be president. But there’s no comparison. JFK served two terms in the House and won two terms in the Senate before asking us not to ask what he could do for us. If Obama wins, he will only have had four years in Congress, next to Kennedy’s fourteen. (Hillary Clinton, running as a grizzled veteran, would have eight.)
Ted Kennedy is a better analogy. At the start of his 1980 Democratic primary challenge to incumbent President Jimmy Carter, Kennedy was riding high in the polls. But when Roger Mudd of CBS News asked him why he wanted to be president, he fumbled. “Kennedy’s problem,” Paul Waldman wrote in The American Prospect in July 2007, “was not that he didn’t have a good reason to run–he had plenty of them.” His problem was the way he thought about that run. He thought about issues, he thought about the weaknesses of the president he was trying to supplant, he thought about the programs he wanted to institute. What he didn’t construct was a story that explained his candidacy to voters and offered a narrative structure for journalists to use when reporting on him.”
Successful presidential contenders, Waldman argues persuasively, answer Mudd’s classic question with a three-part story. First, the candidate “describes the state of the country and its government, clearly defining what is wrong.” Next comes “the place the candidate wants to take us, the better day being promised.” Then he tells us why he’s the person who can get us there.
Waldman is having a good week. Barack Obama, he predicted a full six months ago, had the best three-part campaign narrative of the major contenders. America’s biggest problem, Obama says, is “partisan bickering,” which he traces to the lingering ideological rifts of the 1960s protest era. His biracial heritage gives white voters a chance to prove they’re not racist. As a Gen Xer, he says he’s the guy to move us past the Boomers’ battles.
Of course, Obama’s three-part story ignores important issues that affect real people–jobs, college tuition costs, taxes, healthcare, Iraq. I’m 44, and I’ve never met anyone who thinks there’s “partisanship in Washington.” (Most voters complain that their party isn’t forceful enough.) It’s a lame sales pitch, though it may work.
What Obama has not done is answer the question: Why does he want to be president? The answer–that it would be a cool addition to his resume–is too unappealing to say out loud.
The night of the New Hampshire primary Obama declared (four times!): “There is something happening in America!” What’s happening? “Change,” he said, “is what’s happening in America.” Change to what? Obama didn’t say.
“Yes, we can,” Obama said (11 times). “Yes, we can, to justice and equality. Yes, we can, to opportunity and prosperity. Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can repair this world. Yes, we can.” Great. How?
He cannot say.
All the candidates, except for John Edwards, want to be president because they want to be president. Winning the presidency is their goal. Like Robert Redford at the end of “The Candidate,” they have no idea what they’ll do if they get the gig.
In his memoirs Nixon chief of staff H.R. Haldeman described moving into the White House after the grueling 1968 campaign. Nearly a year passed, grinding thousands of Americans and Vietnamese to death and dismemberment, as the incoming administration learned to use the phones and master the inner workings of the federal bureaucracy. Defeating Hubert Humphrey hadn’t left enough time to develop a coherent domestic or foreign policy. Setting an agenda was done on the fly, as Nixon’s officials responded to events.
Among presidents in the modern political era, only FDR and LBJ entered the Oval Office knowing what they wanted to do. (George W. Bush–or rather Dick Cheney–knew what he/they wanted to do but didn’t deign to tell us.) It’s no accident that they were two of the most effective leaders of the 20th century, or that their legislative agendas remain cherished legacies of American progress.
If I received a call tonight informing me that I needed to come to Washington because I had somehow been selected president, I would be ready to work tomorrow morning at 9 o’clock. I already know who I’d choose as my secretaries of state, defense and other cabinet appointees. Guantánamo would be shut down. The Department of Homeland Security would be abolished. We’d pull out of NAFTA and the WTO. Torture would be banned; habeas corpus restored. I have tax reform ready to go (soak corporations and the rich, companies that outsource U.S. jobs and use offshore tax shelters would be barred from selling goods to U.S. consumers), a detailed education policy (federal control would replace local control and funding of public schools, colleges and universities would be nationalized and made free) and a plan for healthcare (fully socialized). My foreign policy would go into effect at once: immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, an address to the United Nations apologizing for the wars and the torture and offering reparations, normalizing diplomatic relations with Iran, North Korea and Cuba, and cutting off aid to oppressive dictatorships.
I’m just a writer and cartoonist, but I know exactly what I’d do if I became president. Why doesn’t Barack Obama?
We ought to expect nothing less from the men and women–all professional politicians–who seek the most important office in the country, and on earth.
(Ted Rall is the author of the book “Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?,” an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America’s next big foreign policy challenge.)
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
COLUMN: The Politics of Dopes
Barack Obama, Empty Suit
Barack Obama’s supporters compare him to John Kennedy, another great orator whose youth and short political resume opened him to complaints that he didn’t have enough experience to be president. But there’s no comparison. JFK served two terms in the House and won two terms in the Senate before asking us not to ask what he could do for us. If Obama wins, he will only have had four years in Congress, next to Kennedy’s fourteen. (Hillary Clinton, running as a grizzled veteran, would have eight.)
Ted Kennedy is a better analogy. At the start of his 1980 Democratic primary challenge to incumbent President Jimmy Carter, Kennedy was riding high in the polls. But when Roger Mudd of CBS News asked him why he wanted to be president, he fumbled. “Kennedy’s problem,” Paul Waldman wrote in The American Prospect in July 2007, “was not that he didn’t have a good reason to run–he had plenty of them.” His problem was the way he thought about that run. He thought about issues, he thought about the weaknesses of the president he was trying to supplant, he thought about the programs he wanted to institute. What he didn’t construct was a story that explained his candidacy to voters and offered a narrative structure for journalists to use when reporting on him.”
Successful presidential contenders, Waldman argues persuasively, answer Mudd’s classic question with a three-part story. First, the candidate “describes the state of the country and its government, clearly defining what is wrong.” Next comes “the place the candidate wants to take us, the better day being promised.” Then he tells us why he’s the person who can get us there.
Waldman is having a good week. Barack Obama, he predicted a full six months ago, had the best three-part campaign narrative of the major contenders. America’s biggest problem, Obama says, is “partisan bickering,” which he traces to the lingering ideological rifts of the 1960s protest era. His biracial heritage gives white voters a chance to prove they’re not racist. As a Gen Xer, he says he’s the guy to move us past the Boomers’ battles.
Of course, Obama’s three-part story ignores important issues that affect real people–jobs, college tuition costs, taxes, healthcare, Iraq. I’m 44, and I’ve never met anyone who thinks there’s “partisanship in Washington.” (Most voters complain that their party isn’t forceful enough.) It’s a lame sales pitch, though it may work.
What Obama has not done is answer the question: Why does he want to be president? The answer–that it would be a cool addition to his resume–is too unappealing to say out loud.
The night of the New Hampshire primary Obama declared (four times!): “There is something happening in America!” What’s happening? “Change,” he said, “is what’s happening in America.” Change to what? Obama didn’t say.
“Yes, we can,” Obama said (11 times). “Yes, we can, to justice and equality. Yes, we can, to opportunity and prosperity. Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can repair this world. Yes, we can.” Great. How?
He cannot say.
All the candidates, except for John Edwards, want to be president because they want to be president. Winning the presidency is their goal. Like Robert Redford at the end of “The Candidate,” they have no idea what they’ll do if they get the gig.
In his memoirs Nixon chief of staff H.R. Haldeman described moving into the White House after the grueling 1968 campaign. Nearly a year passed, grinding thousands of Americans and Vietnamese to death and dismemberment, as the incoming administration learned to use the phones and master the inner workings of the federal bureaucracy. Defeating Hubert Humphrey hadn’t left enough time to develop a coherent domestic or foreign policy. Setting an agenda was done on the fly, as Nixon’s officials responded to events.
Among presidents in the modern political era, only FDR and LBJ entered the Oval Office knowing what they wanted to do. (George W. Bush–or rather Dick Cheney–knew what he/they wanted to do but didn’t deign to tell us.) It’s no accident that they were two of the most effective leaders of the 20th century, or that their legislative agendas remain cherished legacies of American progress.
If I received a call tonight informing me that I needed to come to Washington because I had somehow been selected president, I would be ready to work tomorrow morning at 9 o’clock. I already know who I’d choose as my secretaries of state, defense and other cabinet appointees. Guantánamo would be shut down. The Department of Homeland Security would be abolished. We’d pull out of NAFTA and the WTO. Torture would be banned; habeas corpus restored. I have tax reform ready to go (soak corporations and the rich, companies that outsource U.S. jobs and use offshore tax shelters would be barred from selling goods to U.S. consumers), a detailed education policy (federal control would replace local control and funding of public schools, colleges and universities would be nationalized and made free) and a plan for healthcare (fully socialized). My foreign policy would go into effect at once: immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, an address to the United Nations apologizing for the wars and the torture and offering reparations, normalizing diplomatic relations with Iran, North Korea and Cuba, and cutting off aid to oppressive dictatorships.
I’m just a writer and cartoonist, but I know exactly what I’d do if I became president. Why doesn’t Barack Obama?
We ought to expect nothing less from the men and women–all professional politicians–who seek the most important office in the country, and on earth.
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
An “Idiot” Responds
Outraged Huckabee supporter Chad Haynie sent the following missive yesterday. I respond after each relevant section, and would—as always—appreciate your thoughts.
As a long time supporter of Mike Huckabee, who is not an “evangelical” I take serious offense to your over all assertion that supporters of Mike Huckabee are idiots. Even though you have already in a sense called me a idiot, I will try to stay to your “email guidelines” in my breakdown and response to your article.
First of all in your opening sentence you say Gov. Huckabee is not qualified for public office. What qualifications do you suggest a candidate have?
I suggested, in this week’s column, that clarity of thought is a major qualification. In particular, someone who does not believe in evolution is not qualified to hold public office—not because it really matters that we’re descended from apes, but because anyone who doesn’t understand that is too stupid to hold power over other citizens.
Huckabee was a Republican Governor in a Democratic state for over 10 years and he was also a Lieutenant Governor for over 3 years before his term as Governor.
No other candidate in either party, running for President has such an extensive resume running a government.
I refer to the above. Though it is surprising that Huckabee managed to govern Arkansas without accidentally burning it down, his resume doesn’t refute my assertion that he is either an idiot, or pretending to be an idiot, and either way should not be president.
And how exactly is Huckabee a “crazy Christian” as you put it? Is it that you consider all Christians who believe in the Bible, the basic principles of Christianity? It is not really clear in your article if you believe Christians in general are crazy or just Christians who have specific beliefs that differ from your own. I would appreciate you clarifying that, if you do not mind.
I think it was clear enough, but I’ll restate my belief that Huckabee is a crazy Christian because he thinks the earth is 6000 years old. Many—nay, most—Christians don’t believe the mythology of Genesis to be literally true. Thank God!
I was in Iowa last week sir and I can assure you that it was not hate from crazy Christians that beat Mitt Romney and all his money. It was a true hope in this country. An optimism from voters for an optimistic candidate.
Uh-huh. And if Romney were a Baptist, where would Huckabee be?
My second large question to you: Have you ever met Mike Huckabee? After reading your article it seems like you have no idea who Mike Huckabee or what he really believes in. You say he believes in many things that he does not and are incorrect in many of your obvious assumptions of his beliefs.
You say Huckabee could be a radical Islamist terrorist, the same people who murder thousands each year.
You say he “denied separation of church and state”. Yet, in reality, Huckabee ran a secular government for over 10 years. There is no evidence what so ever that he tried to incorporate Christianity as an official religion in Arkansas or establish religion into government as you imply.
This last point is not true. He believes that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools, as if they were two sides of an issue. There’s actually one side, and there is no issue—evolution is a fact. Feigning evenhandedness by “allowing” evolution to be taught alongside the patent lie of creationism is a clever ruse to mainstream a lie.
You try to paint him out to be a nut job, quoting him from when he was talking at a Baptist convention. How dare someone say “…government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives.” at a CHRISTIAN convention.
The fact that he was pandering to Baptists at a Baptist convention is hardly an excuse. It’s just an unsurprising detail. I was taking him to task for the pandering, after all. His statement, though within the bounds of free speech, is anathema to those of us who believe that America is best served by preserving the constitutional separation of church and state. Huckabee is running for public office, a secular office, of a secular state. He should not advocate Christianity or state that government doesn’t have answers. If it doesn’t, why is he running for president?
Do you have a personal vendetta against Huckabee or Christianity?
No.
Everything you state in your article trying to paint Huckabee out wacko, are basic fundamentals of Christianity, not some far out radical belief as you try to imply.
There is nothing “extreme” about the beliefs, they are basic beliefs of Christianity.
Not true. His beliefs are extreme, radical and ridiculous. Anyone who shares them ought to be mocked.
Traditional, yes, but they are not “extreme”.
Homosexuality is sinful in Christianity, again this is not a single radical belief of Huckabee, but a simple belief in Christianity. I am originally from Atlanta and have a handful of gay and lesbian friends. My best friend in high school, a Christian, came out of the closet in his senior year. He acknowledge that being gay was a sin. Mike Huckabee does not try to persecute homosexuals, he simply stated his belief that it is a sin. Having sex out of wedlock is a sin as well, just as a number of things are sins. He didn’t say that homosexuals will burn in hell or they should be arrested. He said it was a sin.
Calling someone’s behavior sinful is the first chapter in a story we’ve read before, one that ends with ovens and gas chambers. Homosexuality is not sinful, not according to mainstream Christianity and not according to common sense. Sin is only committed when someone is harmed as a result. Sin is only committed when free will is involved. Sexual orientation isn’t a choice. Sexual behavior is a personal matter.
I don’t know where you were in 1992, but in the south HIV/AIDS was still a very mysterious disease and the majority of people in the south, especially pastors who spend very little time researching diseases, knew much about HIV or AIDS. He has said since that he did not know much about AIDS at the time of the comment and has stated on numerous occasions in this race that he does not believe HIV and AIDS patients should be isolated.
Absurd! It was well known by the mid-1980s that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact. The South does not have different science than the rest of the country.
Question: Have you been too Guantánamo Bay? Gov. Huckabee has on a number of occasions and for you, who I highly doubt has ever been to Guantánamo, to make statements such as you did just goes to show you are being spoon fed the liberal democrat talking points.
As has been well established, visitors to Gitmo are not allowed to meet with the prisoners at all, much less meet with them in private, where they might share their concerns free of fear of their guards. Huckabee saw the usual dog-and-pony show. What happens there is well known, and horrifying to anyone with the slightest modicum of morality.
Darwinism is not a fact as you imply, it is scientific theory. Huckabee has never claimed scientific elements of evolution did not occur and he has said that on national television.
Huckabee has stated in more than one debate on national television that he does not believe every word of the Bible in a “literal sense” and has specifically said that stories such as Jonah being eaten by a whale did not happen in a literal sense and for you to say that he believes just the opposite is journalism at an all time low. For you to write as you know someones thoughts, when that person has stated publicly that they believe something else is pathetic.
Oh? Where? He has repeatedly said that he believes every word of the Bible.
And by the way, there are tens of millions of Americans who do not believe in Darwinism, including many scientist.
All of whom are idiots. (And there are no scientists.)
Again, I remind you, Darwinism is not fact, it is a scientific theory.
“If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I’ll accept that,” Huckabee said. For once you actually represent him correctly. He does not want to impose his beliefs on anyone else. He doesn’t want to replace Biology textbooks with the Bible. He simply has his beliefs and has no problems with those who differ. Clearly not a stance you are too familiar with.
“I’m not sure what in the world [my view of evolution] has to do with being president of the United States,” Huckabee says.
You use that quote and then still do not give a reason of how it is relevant to being President of the United States.
Sure I do. Check out the last paragraph of my column.
If he was running for your local board of education, wanting to take evolution out of textbooks then I could see it as a viable question, but it has nothing at all to do with someone running for President.
In your article you say “Those who deny scientific fact will be wrong (or lie) about anything. Misrepresenting hard and fast truth is unacceptable.”
What scientific fact has Huckabee denied? The only thing he denies is Darwinism, which is far from being scientific fact. It is simply a theory. You have every right to believe in that theory, but just because you think it happened does not mean it is fact, nor does it give you the right to go around and persecute those who do not believe the same thing you do.
The only thing being misrepresented here is Mike Huckabee. You do nothing but misrepresent him and it is obvious you did very little research before you wrote this article, solely taking democratic talking point lies about Huckabee and sowing them into one huge misrepresentation of a honest and decent man. A man who did nothing to you.
Unlike you, Huckabee does not persecute others for their beliefs differing from his own. He doesn’t write nasty and dishonest columns about those who differ from him.
He is a honest, decent human being who quite obviously has much more dignity than yourself.
Huckabee has never tried to force any beliefs on anyone. He ran a secular Government for over a decade never coming close to establishing religion into the Arkansas government. Just because he doesn’t hide his faith like some politicians, he is somehow crazy? I just don’t get that.
I would much rather have someone who is totally honest rather than someone who believes someone, but hides those beliefs. Do you prefer politicians that are pathological liars and hide their real beliefs?
If anything we should be thanking Mike Huckabee for being honest, when almost every other politician today lies through their teeth to get elected. Huckabee clearly states his opinions and beliefs, so people like yourself will know where he really stands.
Is that a bad thing?
I would greatly appreciate a response, since after all, you did call me an idiot.
I’ll give you that: Huckabee certainly isn’t hiding his moronitude.
COLUMN: IDIOTS (HEART) HUCKABEE
The Media’s Dangerous Tolerance of Anti-Intellectualism
Mike Huckabee isn’t qualified for public office. He may not be smart enough to hold a job. Yet he could become our next president.
Huckabee’s upset victory in the Iowa caucuses is cited as evidence that American democracy still works. “At a Friday night event,” right-wing columnist William Kristol opined in the New York Times, “[Huckabee] played bass with a local rock band, Mama Kicks. One secular New Hampshire Republican’s reaction: ‘Gee, he’s not some kind of crazy Christian.”
Huckabee is an affable, funny, ordinary Joe on a shoestring budget who trounced a slick multimillionaire. But he’s also a crazy Christian. And he won because crazy Christians motivated by anti-Mormon bigotry voted for him.
In the Republican Party, hate trumps cash.
If Huckabee were Muslim, he’d be a radical Islamist. Denying separation of church and state, he said at a Baptist convention in 1998 that he got into politics because he “knew government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives.”
A Muslim Huckabee would agree with the Taliban’s requirement that women wear burqas. Also in 1998, he signed a newspaper ad in USA Today supporting “biblical principles of marriage and family life,” including one that said that a “wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”
The ex-preacher/ex-governor is entitled to his extreme religious beliefs. His inability to reason logically is what makes his political ascendancy frightening.
“I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk,” said Huckabee in 1992. (When asked about his remark in December 2007, he reaffirmed it: “Well I believe it would be–just like lying is sinful and stealing is sinful.”) Whether gays sin by having sex or by merely existing, I know not and do not care. What I know for certain is the difference between the unusual and the unnatural.
Insofar as the majority of people are straight, heterosexuality is the norm of sexual orientation. Yet it hardly follows that gays, estimated to account for between two and five percent of the U.S. population, are aberrant. It may be (and probably is) that it’s normal for two to five percent of people to be gay. Only two percent of Americans have red hair, but redheads aren’t unnatural. The vast majority of the world’s biomass is composed of krill and insects, but humans aren’t abnormal.
During his 1992 run for Senate, Huckabee called for HIV/AIDS patients to be forcibly isolated from the general population. “If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus,” he argued, “we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague. It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population…” Even though it was common knowledge at the time, Huckabee apparently didn’t know that HIV/AIDS cannot be spread by casual contact (like “a genuine plague”).
Similarly, Huckabee has said that “extraordinary means [are] being taken to make sure these detainees [at Guantánamo] are being given really every consideration.” Again, he’s entitled to his outlandish views–in this case, supporting the kidnapping, torture, force-feeding and long-term imprisonment of children as young as 13 without charging them with a crime or allowing them to be represented by a lawyer. But when he describes this inhumane treatment as giving detainees “really every consideration,” he’s either dumb or lying.
Nearly 150 years after Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, the scientific debate over natural selection is as settled as the medieval controversy over heliocentrism. Evolution is a fact. But Mike Huckabee denies this fact.
As a radical Christian fundamentalist, Huckabee believes that every word of the Bible is literal truth–that Jonah actually hung out in the belly of a whale for 72 hours, that Samson really pushed down a stone building with brute force. He thinks God made the earth in six days, that the universe is 6000 years old. Never mind carbon-dating. “I do not necessarily buy into the traditional Darwinian theory, personally,” he said on his show on–get this!–the Arkansas Educational Television Network.
“If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I’ll accept that,” Huckabee said recently. “I believe there was a creative process.”
So Huckabee is an idiot. Or is he pandering to idiots?
A 2005 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that 53 percent of Americans believe that “God created humans in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it.” Reported The Chicago Tribune: “The results closely paralleled those in polls taken over the last 20 years, in which nearly half of all Americans consistently agreed that ‘God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.'” In light of Tocqueville’s warning that democracy requires well-educated and well-informed citizens in order to function, it’s alarming that many of these people vote.
There’s no denying Huckabee’s folksy appeal. He sounds moderate, even populist, on issues like immigration, trade and the environment. But those sugar coatings conceal the bitter pill of anti-intellectualism, a toxin that has turned the American presidency into an entropic argument against evolution–from Washington and Jefferson, to Hoover and FDR, then to the Ford and the Bushes and finally…Huckabee?
“I’m not sure what in the world [my view of evolution] has to do with being president of the United States,” Huckabee says.
Those who deny scientific fact will be wrong (or lie) about anything. Misrepresenting hard and fast truth is unacceptable. Whether Huckabee is feigning idiocy to appeal to religious zealots or is honestly mentally deficient, journalists have a duty not to treat him like a serious candidate.
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
