McCain, Palin, and Lying

As has been reported in pretty much every single blog, McCain and Palin have been consistently lying about pretty much everything. Very little exaggeration in that assertion, I'm sad to say.

Many left-wing blogs (see here for an example from the mysteriously named 'Digby' which everyone quotes but nobody has yet given an identity to) have wondered why the Mainstream Media (e.g. the Times) just doesn't have a big ol' headline that says "These Two People Just Don't Tell the Truth!"

I'm sympathetic to these concerns. Especially since the maps on 538 show that, if the polls accurately showed the votes, and if the vote were taken today, McCain would win. This is scary beyond belief.

But here's one word that I've thought of to calm myself down: Romney.

You remember him? He was a very succesful moderate Republican, a governor, a jillionaire, and a very good looking man out of "Politician/Magnate" central casting. He was the GOP front runner for a while. But somehow the word got out - without the mainstream media actually saying it in clear words - that he just didn't tell the truth. And that he switched positions to whatever looked best for him.

He was a political unknown to everyone out of the Northeast and it took a few weeks/months of close scrutiny for the stories to make their way around the news stations and blogs. But the stories did get around; and now he's one of the most disliked politicians out there.

Will that happen to Palin and McCain? I think it will. Mainly because they are doing worse things, in more places, in plain daylight. The press will play down a lot of the bad stories (I'll get to why soon), but I believe that just like Romney, McCain/Palin's fibbing will catch up with them.

The big caveat is: is there enough time before the election?

Romney and the GWOT

The body of a letter I sent to TPM:

Reading the transcript of Romney's concession, I see that he's making the global war on terror the number one issue of his support for John McCain and his opposition of Barack and Hillary.

So, does that mean that Romney's kids are free to join the military? Their earlier excuse was that they were busy getting Mittens elected. Now, they have loads of free time and they need to stop the terr'rsts...

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-23.

Are the Clintons Hurting the Party?

The body of a letter I sent to the TPM over the recent debate about the behavior of Bill & Hillary Clinton:

Sorry I'm late to the party over the comments of AK, RA, and whether or not the Clinton attacks are hurting the Democratic party. I agree with AK that the Clintons are hurting the party. Moreover, my republican relatives are now gloating over how Democrats are waking up to what they hated about the Clintons in the 90s (or so they say). Back in the 90s, I defended the Clintons because they were fighting for Democrats. Now, Bill and Hill are savaging Obama (Muslim smears, drug smears, bald-faced lying about his record) and that hurts a rising superstar.

One thing that needs to be emphasized, especially in response to RA's contention that the GOP will fight dirty so the Democrats will have to fight dirty. Besides the blatant immorality, it's not really true. The reason why McCain is popular even among Democrats is because he seems to have a smidgen of truth-telling and honor. Yeah, it may be false, but that's how he comes across. So does Obama. However Romney and Hillary appear to be pandering liars - and that's why they have very high negatives.

Another reason why Obama vs. Hillary is different from Obama vs. GOP - there is no greater uphill battle for any Democrat than to go against Bill Clinton. The only president in recent years who comes close to the ardor the rank and file Democrat feels towards a president would be to JFK (and, of course, to FDR). Obama has to fight against a very popular figure to the people who form the base support! The fact that Obama is doing so well - and he is, when you look at the increasing rising poll numbers, the close elections in states that Hillary was carrying by two-digits only weeks before - is testament to how strong a candidate Obama is. If he can keep winning against these insane odds, than he can beat a GOPer.

And let's look at the converse. Obama can't attack the Clintons because Democrats love 'em. But Republicans hate Bill and Hill. The attacks against Hillary in the general election won't be under-the-radar swift-boating... it will be over the top, full throated attacks 24-7 for months and months. It will be the impeachment battle level rancor and slime without the protection of the Presidency.

The idea that Hillary is better suited to fight against the GOP is false. Especially, as we see, she falls apart into quick-response madness, self-inflicted wounds, and unforced errors against Obama. She'll get destroyed destroyed destroyed when against McCain and/or Romney. Ugh.

Backpost finished 2009-12-18.

McCain about Romney

From the Times:

"Never get into a wrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it."

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-17.

Counter-Predictions for TPM

This is the body of a letter I sent to the TPM regarding their predictions for the Iowa/New Hampshire and beyond: "How We See it":

In general, I believe that your prediction of the potential nominees is on the mark. Two caveats, one for each prediction:

1. Democrats - I don't think you can rule out Obama even if Hillary gets #1 in Iowa and New Hampshire for two reasons:

(a) Obama has a lot of money- that gives him the ability to fight loud for a long time (unlike Edwards in '04 who kept running after it was clear that Kerry had clinched it, but it was largely a futile gesture).

(b) Hillary's negatives are pretty high. I think that Kerry was able to lock up the nom in '04 because most Democrats accepted the expertise of the early primary voters, assuming that since all the non-screaming candidates (e.g. Kerry, Edwards, Clark) were all major unknowns that they felt "if the early voters accepted one of them then, OK, let's just take that one." I heard this from my parents who accepted at face value Kerry's front-running status (and the false-positive crossover appeal of his military record) even though I, as a political junkie, felt that he was the kiss of death.

I don't think there'll be a front-runner repeat of 04 with Hillary because we KNOW that woman very very well. Even if she wins the first three contests (IA, NH, SC), I assume that all that will do is force Edwards to leave the race. Edwards is so far splitting the anti-Hillary vote, and if he drops he'll leave a loud Obama to provide a valid alternative contrast to Hillary. And when the field clears between these two well-funded choices, I think that Obama will get much more popular.

I think a model for Hillary vs. Obama could be 1984's Mondale vs. Hart -- if Mondale had more money, was more hated, and actually had no governing experience and if Hart was smarter, had more substance, and a lot more money. I was only 12 at that election, but in looking at the data I'm impressed at how many states Hart managed to win.

2. Republicans - Huckabee is not going to be easy to eliminate.

To consolidate a blog post I wrote on this, I think that Romney's support is very soft. He is the default candidate because all the other candidates are sick jokes and because Mitt's got looks, money, and clean living. But he's also a laughable phony. What scares me about Huckabee is that even though he has very little money and little staff, he is a very impressive Evangelical poster child and that gives him a built-in power base. Four words: "Passion of the Christ" - that movie made money because of the massive outpouring of Evangelicals who were probably not compelled by Madison Avenue but because thousands of them heard about it in church every Sunday. I think this power-base and free communication network can explain Huck's explosive rise in Iowa and South Carolina and also how he's tied with Giuliani nationally. Add real money and a real staff to Huckabee and I think he'll be a Goldwater on Christ.

While Huck has a dark side (a temper, the gifts in office, his compulsion to cover up and lie) and a dumb side (much of his policy ideas), I would posit that the scandals won't bother Evangelicals. Why? Three more words: "George Dubya Bush." How many scandals did Dubya accrue? His dark side is darker than Huck and his dumb side deeper. But the Evangelicals gave him a pass because (a) he was Born Again, and (b) every time he committed a sin against The Lord or against The Human Race, he'd just accept Jesus again and he'd be as right as rain. And if the Evangelicals accepted that with the Bush, then they'll be even more generous with Huckabee. Because while Bush is reborn, Huck is a freakin' preacher!

For example, Huck's biggest scandal (so far) is freeing Dumond, yet I believe the Evangelicals will just look at it as an act of Christian charity and move on. Seriously. And I don't think the Evangelicals will care that he's got liberal-ish views about spending government money to help the poor because that also fits into the preacher paradigm.

The only way I think Huck is knocked out is if somehow the fervid support he'll get from the Evangelical base is statistically too small to offset the GOP's anti-Evangelical voters. Given the stripping away of almost every group from the GOP over this scorched earth years of Bush-Cheney, I don't think there's enough anti-Evangelicals to stop Huck.

2009 Update: Hey, these predictions held up pretty well. Yay me.

Backpost finished 2009-12-14.

GOP: It now looks like Romney

While there may be no real GOP front-runner, it's becoming more of Romney's game now. Giuliani, while a strong candidate because of his 9-11 halo, has some insane skeletons in his closet. The most recent is Shag-Gate (TPM has done great work on this) wherein Rudy spent millions of my tax money to have the police walk his then mistress' dog. While this is run-of-the-mill New York City graft, that doesn't play well outside the cynical world of Nu-yawk. The scandals (and there are now quite a lot) plus his disastrous personal life (which echo each other) plus his liberal policies on abortion, guns, immigrants and Da Gays, may be enough to sink Giuliani for good.

And on Tuesday Romney got a crucial endorsement by National Review. That endorsement, plus his successful speech the other night defending his right to be a religious whackjob, has established him as the candidate of the GOP establishment. Combine that with his money, and with his movie-star looks and persona, and I think he's the guy. Unless he makes some spectacular gaffe, his money and acceptance by the GOP machine politics should get him the nomination.

While I don't discount Huckabee's success in Iowa is impressive, Huck doesn't have the money, the support of local GOP machine politicians, the policy-knowledge, or the staff to make it much farther. Being a media darling is great, being a populist is great, but it's hard to defeat the candidate of The Money and The Machine (note, this is why I still haven't ruled out Hillary... but, like above, her current wounds are all self-inflicted and gaffes can kill anybody).

If it is Romney, then I am worried about who his Veep pick would be. TNR has said a few times now that the rest of the candidtaes hate him and won't work with him. Will that matter if he offers them the VP slot?

I believe Romney will choose a rock-ribbed conservative as his running mate; I believe it will be Rick Santorum. By doing that, even when Romney flops over to the center-left in general election (which he is guaranteed to do), he can thus pander his true centist bona-fides while winking at the cultural conservatives with Santorum.

Just Not That One

Mormons have some pretty freaky religious ideas. It's possible that theology involves - and I'm not making this up - space aliens and that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, or that each person has the chance to be a god. These beliefs make Mormonism to be both freaky and idolatrous. Yet, because I am a Democrat, I don't care. I don't care if the president - or any elected official - is of one religion or no religion. Note, since Romney is a Republican and since Bush-Rove ensured that the GOP is dominated by the Christian Right, religion has become a litmus test for the GOP.

But, because I'm an equal-opportunity cynic, I must point out that while Democrats don't have a religious litmus test, we seem to have tests based on ethnicity. A black candidate - or a woman, or Latino - achieves a special protected status. Just as George W. Bush is venerated by the GOP because he's a born-again-Christian, Hillary Clinton and Jesse Jackson are accepted as Democratic standard bearers because of what they look like, and only because of what they look like.

I'm not proud of these litmus tests, on either side, but (as I said in the earlier post), I prefer the "Minority Cred" litmus test over "Soldier of Christ" litmus test.

But, as it's still early in the primary season, I'm glad I still have a choice. And both parties can play this game: it's called "Just Not That One." It goes like this: "I find nothing wrong with nominating/electing a [fill in the blank], but just not that one."

Examples: I have no problem with electing a woman president, just not that one (Hillary). I have no problem with elected a Mormon, just not that one (Romney).

The good thing about this game is that when we actually find a decent candidate who exemplifies the glorified group, then the support can be extra hearty. This, I believe, will be the strong wind in Obama's sails.

I now believe that a lot of Americans, at least 60%, would be happy to have a Black president. Happy. Even more happy with a Black president than a woman president, but there's that too. I think the majority of Americans - after being inured to strong prejudice over the past decades through the positive exposure to black Sports and Entertainment stars.

And now that we have a candidate who's not only talented, but extremely way-very-to-the-top talented, I think that people are ready to vote for a black president. For years, even liberals, could say "I have nothing wrong with a black president, just not that one (Jesse Jackson or, heaven help us, Al Sharpton). Even a run-of-the-mill hack politician wouldn't be able to rise over the 'not that one' hump. A black or woman candidate of the below average ability of Gore or Kerry, wouldn't get the votes.

And this brings us back to Hillary. Hillary is as talented as Gore or Kerry. But that's not enough to rise above 'not that one.' I don't need to vote for her just because she's a woman because, like Kerry, she sucks. I'll happily vote for a woman president... just not that one.

Smart Aleck Bunk

I read something right now by Steve Benen on TPM criticizing something Mitt Romney said. Now, before the current campaign, I had moderate respect for Romney - he seemed like a good New England Moderate Republican. Yet now he has all the trappings of Political Skank (i.e. someone willing to do anything to get elected). Nearly all politicians are skanks - it's part of the job and it's important to remember that - yet some are subtle about it. Romney is a joke.

So I don't mind attacks on The Mitt... as long as they make sense. However he was criticized by Benen for something that I myself have been tarred with as well. So in defending myself, I will defend Romney.

Romney said:

"This is about Shi'a and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate. They also probably want to bring down the United States of America."

Benen's response:

"...but Romney's take didn't make a lot of sense. Romney was articulating a national security strategy that conflates groups, sects, and agendas that have nothing to do with one another..."

The same charge was leveled against me when an op-ed of mine was published which equated Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Queda. My claim was that they were alike in their desire to kill me - no matter if I was in Israel, in Saudi Arabia or in America. A whiny colleague of mine - whose claim to Middle East expertise is a PhD from Harvard in an unrelated field and (for God knows what reason) a stint as a researcher on the 9/11 commission - claimed that my link of Al Qaeda and Hamas shows that I know nothing about terrorism or the Middle East or, equally likely, high-temperature French cooking.

I believe Benen and Mr. Whiny are using the same argument against the logic shared by Mr. Romney and me. Ya see, Benen-Whiny know for a fact that Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and Hamas are different organizations. They even have different letterheads on the suicide-bomb notes (I assume). It's worse, Whiny would say, because Hezbollah is Iranian, and thus Shia, while Al Qaeda is Wahabist, and thus Sunni. And the Sunnis and Shiites are totally different! They hate each other (exhibit A: Bahgdad)! And Sunnis will actually join up with America to fight Al Qaeda *and* Shiites (see Exhibit A). So, Mr. Whiny concludes, these organizations are different and anyone who equates them knows nothing about terrorism, the Middle East, and French cooking.

My rejoinder (and Romney can join me on this if he wants) is that Benen and Whiny don't know crepe about logic. Ya see, my claim is that all three groups are alike because they all want to kill Jews, Americans, and then everyone else who disagrees with them. Who cares if they hate each other? Who cares if they have different beliefs? I'm not researching a term paper, I'm determining who's the greatest threat to my life!

An analogy from the 1940s. Nazis and Stalinists are completely different from each other. I'm sure that if in 1945 I said that the two groups were the same, the Benens and Whinys would bring up their same criticism: the two ideologies are wholly different from each other. And Stalin was even allied with us against Adolph! My response is the same: yes, they have different ideologies but they have the same goal. In that decade it was genocide and world domination. Sure, they're different, and when one became more of a threat than the other, we allied with them (Stalin vs. Adolph in 1942-45, ex-Nazis vs. Stalin in 1945-1990).

Benen and Whiny's specious criticism masks a deep un-seriousness about the issue at hand. It doesn't matter if these groups are different if the SUBJECT is "who is our enemy."