We've discovered a quota? It feels so fair that it must be balanced.
FoxNews.com on November 6, 2006 at 1020am PST:
Crackers: 21 (including Claire McCaskill-- I love you Claire!)
Michael Steele: 1
Saddam: 1
Madonna's new adoptive son, David: 1
“Today we witnessed a landmark event in the history of Iraq: Saddam Hussein was convicted and sentenced to death by the Iraqi High Tribunal. Saddam Hussein’s trial is a milestone in the Iraqi people’s efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law.”
Here's hoping this is Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday night:
“Today we witnessed a landmark event in the history of the United States: the Republican Party was soundly defeated. The Democratic victory in retaking the Congress is a milestone in the United States' people’s efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law.”
Forget about it, indeed. If this is the best either side has to offer then we're all screwed.
If you haven't noticed yet, a smudge of self-defeating pessimism has crept into the heart of blogger kingpin Markos Zuniga , just 4 days from the general election. While I can sympathize with his weariness, it seems misplaced.
I remember the final days before the Iowa caucuses in 2004, when everyone said that Howard Dean was bumbling his way to victory. As a worker for the John Edwards' campaign I was certain Edwards would end up surpassing Kerry and possibly even Dean, despite the constant stream of nay-sayers reporting the opposite throughout the state. My optimism was naive, yes, but in elections you simply have to allow your wildest dream a little oxygen. Of course, Edwards almost ended up the victor (and no doubt his showing in Iowa secured him the VP spot on the Democratic ticket), but he came up short and without a doubt this was broadly disappointing.
But specifically, for me, coming so close to winning was a thrill. It was obvious that my candidate was surging and changing people's minds about what kind of leader they wanted. I can recall the wide-eyed optimism of the caucus-goers that wandered over to Edwards' corner in the gymnasium where we workers were gathered to persuade. Many were asking me questions about John, expressing doubt about his inexperience but wanting loftier goals than what Kerry or Dean or even Gephardt were offering. When all of the Edwards folks streamed into a tiny elementary school classroom for the official count, it was a sight, like any gathering of the faithful. I am certain those individuals went on to support the eventual "Kerry-Edwards" ticket, and I am sure that like me, they still want a bigger victory.
Victory is the goal, but victory can come in many forms. You've got to dash fully across that finish line to see what form the victory will take. Markos has decided that Harold Ford, Jr. is a lost cause. Perhaps in poll-world he is. But to be so close to achieving something remarkable and then deciding to concede the moment makes no sense. Giving up before the final lap is the greatest naiveté of all.
After the resounding rejection of Arnold's expensive and silly "Legislate-by-Proposition" election, the Governor essentially tossed out his previous script and wrote a new one with a page from the idealized world of "The West Wing." Sure, Arnold's no Democrat and no genius, but his turnaround has been, by all objective standards, amazing. Even though I laugh every time I see a bumper sticker that says, "Schwarzenegger: Protecting the California Dream," (from what, those baddies in 'Kindergarten Cop'?) it is hard to deny Arnold has moderated most of his colors, and fast. Whether that transformation is admirable or opportunistic is another story.
Watching the hard-fought campaigns in contested races across the country makes me a tad envious. I'd love to be able to vote for someone like Claire McCaskill or Jon Tester, or even for any of the Democrats running for office in Iowa, so long as I knew I was supporting a strong progressive against those reactionary candidates fielded by the Far Right. It is a true shame in a state as large and intellectually diverse as California, the Governor's race has been dead in the water. Hopefully next round, there will be a Democrat running that inspires rather than simply exists.
Today's New York Times contains a insight-less op-ed written by Brian Mann, who it appears is a reporter for North Country Public Radio and has written a book about conservative rural voters which I guess makes him an expert on these things. Mann's piece is interesting for the mere fact that it is so uninteresting and provides no original analysis except to hint that old Karl Rove's 2006 trick-up-his-sleeve is an easily manipulated group of "heartland" voters that will head to the polls and crown their GOP standard bearers as kings for two more years. The problem is that Mr. Mann doesn't seem to want to invest any time into discussing why these traditionally conservative voters are actually starting to turn their backs on the GOP—perhaps it is because in times like these, cultural wedge issues that simply do not impact the day-to-day governance of America seem less worrisome but issues like prolonged war, healthcare and wage levels seem intensely important—and thus Mann would rather pass along historical rhetoric (he has the gall to call all-white, rural conservatives "often-overlooked" and a "minority" group) and regurgitate demonstrably false themes.
For example, Mann notes that, "a growing number of Democrats have awakened to the fact that small town voters matter." Does this make any empirical sense? Does anyone truly believe that Democrats have been ignoring small towns throughout the past several decades of national and local elections? No way. (And if you want to talk about ignoring people, let's have the GOP justify the way George W. Bush ignores real Americans who can't get tickets to his love-me-or-leave-me public events.) This "Democrats don't recognize you folks" line of argument is a giant myth that conservatives love to throw around in order to make rural voters feel victimized by the left and more sympathetic to their Far Right suitors. Sadly, it sometimes works. But the truth is that Democrats haven't ignored rural voters at all. John Kerry's pick of John Edwards as his running mate in 2004 was a significant step in the rural direction for Democrats—Edwards nearly won the Iowa caucuses with his plain language and genuine empathy that struck a deep chord with conservative, rural Iowans.
National and local democratic candidates have been trying to speak directly to rural America about common sense issues for years. The problem is that those issues don't get much play in elections anymore. We can hope that 2006 is changing that reality, but the GOP has tried extremely hard to change the subject. Democrats have simply been inept at employing an effective way to blunt cultural wedge issues and start illuminating their own solutions to issues that government can do something about.
One way to do this would be to stop providing such thick oxygen to these wedge issues in too-clever-by-half ways (i.e., Kerry's Mary Cheney debate moment or even Kerry’s recent “get stuck in Iraq” routine) and start asking the GOP to confront the consequences of their faith-fueled desires. Any Democrat could easily stand up to a Republican and ask:
What happens when we amend the constitution to prevent gay marriage? Homosexual Americans will still exist, and will need legal protections to visit one another in the hospital or will one another property. You cannot legislate people away. They are Americans. This isn't the answer, it creates more problems, and makes homosexuals vulnerable. What happens when we ban all abortions in America? Unwanted pregnancies will still exist, and these women will need legal protections to ensure their safety and health. You cannot legislate people away. They are Americans. This isn't the answer, it creates more problems, and makes women everywhere more vulnerable. What happens when no embryonic stem cell research is allowed in this country? Individuals with diseases and insufferable injuries will still exist, and these individuals deserve the pursuit of a cure to what ails them. You cannot legislate people away. They are Americans. This isn't the answer, creates more burdens, and makes the ill even more vulnerable.
At some point in time, once the plumes of the Bush administration’s fear and untruths dry up into minor drops of deceit, then the Democrats might be able to speak to our better instincts in such a way. Until then, they must shift the debate as much as possible and fight to get words of reason in edgewise. Democrats like Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Jon Tester in Montana, Amy Kobluchar in Minnesota, and even Harold Ford in Tennessee are doing what Democrats have always done when it comes to approaching voters in America’s small towns. They are speaking about real solutions to real problems that will bring all Americans to a higher ground. In 2006, their messages are breaking through, not because they have never been made before, as Mr. Mann claims, but because all voters are finally beginning to see the Republican party and it’s war President for what they are—diviners of a smokescreen of cultural and physical fears fully intended to hide cronyism, hypocrisy and failure.
i have to give props to don imus this morning for standing up to ricky sanitorium's dellusional screaming about kerry's remarks. imus wasn't kind to kerry-- even before kerry called in to give his 2 cents on the matter and apologize-- but at least imus has the presence of mind to play fair.
