Happy 200th Abe!

Happy 200th Birthday to hizzoner Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln is not only an honorary Jew, more specifically he's an honorary rabbi (being a tzaddik and one of the chasidei umot olam qualifies you for smicha)

So Happy Birthday Hanasi Hagaon Rav Avraham ben Rav Teomim.*

(Name notes: Abraham = Avraham, that's pretty simple. His father was Thomas Lincoln, and according to the Wiki, Thomas is a Greek form of the Aramaic word for twin which is often transliterated 'Teomim' - which is also a well-known Rabbinic name (e.g. the Pri Megadim was Yosef ben Meir Teomim.)

(Pic is self-made, Abe's head pasted on another great Abe: Rav Kook).

Women Veeps

Background: Back on Jan 9th, I was giving my ideas for Obama's possible VP, and said that he may have enough political capital to select a woman instead of a wrinkly white male. Since then, 3 months, I now think it would make even more sense to choose a woman; because the horse-race has gone on so long, and Hillary's supporters - many of them as stupid and deranged as W's pod-people - have gotten so cognitive dissonanty that they may stay home in November if Obama gets the nomination in a fashion that doesn't give proper obeisance to the altar of Her Highness Hillary I.

Hillary's support comes from four distinct groups:

1. Women over 30
   
2. Anyone over 50 (each year older increases the ardor for Hillary based on the hatred of a president being younger)
   
3. Low information voters who go on name recognition alone (and who vaguely remember that Clinton=Good President)
   
4. Racists (who also presume that they're actually voting for a third term of Bill)

Group 2, the old people, will split depending on how loyal they are to the party; many old people only feel comfortable with other old people. And McCain is the AARP poster child (especially now that Charlton Heston [Rabbeinu] has died). Group 3 will vote for whichever Democrat is on the ticket, unless the negative campaigning from Hillary, and soon the GOP, will convince them to enter into category 4 (e.g. that Obama is a coke-selling Muslim who hates America).

This leaves us with group 1, the women. Many women - and I've talked to a bunch - are voting for her out of the same, laudable, blind-loyalty that I expect yellow dog Democrats to have. The same loyalty that drives people to vote for whomever the Jew on the ticket is, even when the guy's a scumbag (exhibit a: Spitzer). These crazy women will be hopping mad if Hillary is 'forced' to concede the election. Because, as I've heard and read many times, it's just like the male phallus-oppressors to demand women to take second place to a man.

Setting aside the fact that Hillary has as much to do with honest feminism as Betty Crocker, when you have someone like Chris Dodd asking her to drop out - a guy who ran against her, who has more experience in public office than her, yet who already dropped out - then it's not about man/woman. But the Valkyries won't see that logic. Just as bullet-headed W supporters think that he'll be vindicated by history (much as James Buchanan and Warren Harding have), so type-1 Hillary supporters consider every slight to be one of gender.

And, yes, I do claim that there are those who are against Obama because they are racists. My claim is not the same thing as the Hillary claim. Why? Because I'm applying it to only a segment of his opposition, not the totality. And because I am not an idiot.

Anyway, the Valkyries can be mollified if Obama chooses a viable female VP. No mouth-breathing non-entities from useless states (paging Representative Ferraro). Obama would need a competent purple/red state Senator/Governor; preferably one who can run in '16. And since women live way longer than men, I think he can skew older than I suspect he could with male candidates.

OK, enough background. Now to the original post, back from Jan 9:

The Analysis:
For my list of current and former office holders, I'm using this Rutgers site, and any relevant Wiki sites (there's nothing comprehensive... maybe I'll make it). Also, I went through a list of women a few weeks ago, which I will reproduce as well. Following is their name, state, year first elected into office, and age.

Governors

1. Christine Gregoire (Washington, 2004, 61)
   
2. Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas, 2002, 60)
   
3. Janet Napolitano (Arizona, 2002, 51)
   
4. Ruth Ann Minner (Delaware, 2001, 73)
   
5. Jennifer Granholm (Michigan, 2002, 49)

Former Governors

1. Kathleen Blanco (Lousiana, 2004-2007, 66)
   
2. Jeanne Shaheen (New Hamp, 1997-2003, 61)

Senators

1. Barbara Boxer of California
   
2. Dianne Feinstein (California)
   
3. Amy Klobuchar Minnesota
   
4. Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas 1998, 48)
   
5. Claire McCaskill Missouri
   
6. Barbara Mikulski Maryland
   
7. Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House

Quick Analysis -

• Sebelius - in House from 86-94, Chair of Democratic Governors Association. Moderate but pro-choice, anti-death penalty.
  
• Napolitano - named one of the 5 best governors; US Atty for AZ under Clinton, former chair of Gov. Assoc.
  
• Gregoire - Atty Gen. of Wash from 1993-2005
  
• Blanco - In disgrace after Katrina mismanagement.
  
• Granholm - not a U.S. citizen (she's Canadaian)
  
• Minner - too old (73)
  
• Shaheen - pal of Hillary, will run for Senator of NH (which is more important for the party)

Now back to 4-7-08
I have a soft-spot for Blanche Lincoln. She's young, so she can run in '16, she Southern, and she has the great last name. If Obama really wants to channel the Abraham Lincoln vibe, what better way than to actually have one on the ticket. Yeah, Blanche has (after 1/9/08) endorsed Hillary, but whoop-de-doo. However, to get the older group, I think Napolitano or Sebelius. Napolitano is term limited so she'd be a good shot - and she can maybe embarrass the GOP by taking McCain's home state into the Democrats. Sebelius is also term limited and has a more strategic region/state (even if the Democrats can't win KS, we can maybe get a lot of the Midwest with two of them on the ticket).

Because of the regionalism - and her experience in the House as well as governor - I think Sebelius is the best pick for Obama.

Finished 4/7/08 11:48 PM, began January 9th, 2008. Honest.

Obama Veep, part 2

To fill out more of the analysis from before, I suggested these names: Chris Dodd, Evan Bayh, Chuck Robb, Bill Bradley, Lincoln Chafee.

Two more issues. 1. It depends if Obama needs to tack left or jog right. If left, then he will choose (the likes of) Dodd or Bradley. If right then Bayh, Robb, Chafee, Breaux, etc. And if he wants the best ticket of all, he should choose Dale Bumpers. Who could resist "Obama-Bumpers '08!"

2. If Obama gets enough political capital, then he may not need to choose a white-male, he could choose a white-female. I wrote notes for that idea before the NH primary results, and it was based on a Obama victory (i.e. his capital being high). Now I want him to do it just to stick it to Hillary. Grrr.

I'll find a list of possible women soon.

Obama's Veepstakes

Note, see part 1 for the other dudes.

Here we go. Obama is going to need someone who will balance his shortcomings, so he'll need a white male with a lot of DC government experience. Which means old white senators only. Which rules out Edwards. Hillary is also out (wrong gender, no actual experience, and she will melt when exposed to water or sunlight). However Dodd or Biden would fit the bill.

I think Biden is a poor choice because he's a dingbat. With a loose tongue. He'll become a quick liability (but he could carry Delaware! Wooo!). Dodd would be a smart choice - old-school white-as-hell long-time-Senator. The biggest liability would be that Dodd's state (mine) has a Republican governor and if he wins then that will hurt the delicate Senate ratio. One solution would be for Dodd to make his allegiance early, say he's resigning from the Senate, and then allow for Democrat to run in CT in '08.

Outside of the current candidates (and Dodd's the only one viable), the next question is: does Obama care if the VP is someone who had already endorsed Hillary? Almost all of the old guard has done so already. Will those dudes mind (I think not, because they probably signed up with her because they feared what would be her iron grip on their gonads that would come with her Inevitable Victory... they cheered on the insect overlords and may not have their hearts into it; and Obama seems to have the talent of turning enemies into friends, so maybe they'll go along with that).

So, if Obama can accept people who have endorsed Hillary, then Bayh would be a good guy. Maybe Vilsack, if Hillary hasn't already eaten his heart with fava beans and a nice chianti. Bob Kerrey was always in the back of my mind as a tough customer (Medal of Honor Navy SEAL), but his recent Obama smear tarred him as (1) a schmuck, (2) unfriendly to Obama, and (3) a fruit-loop.

Casting a wider net, I had thought someone like Sam Nunn would be good. But Nunn has established that he wants to be in the weirdo Bloomburgian third-party (the Everyone Else is Partisan But Not Us Because We're Otherwise Out of A Job Party) and only as the Presidential slot. So up his.

Someone suggested Bob Graham - former Governor and Senator from Florida. That sounds ideal - swing state, old time white guy - except that he was born in 1936 (72 years old?!) and that's just too old.

But swing state former Senators is a good start. What about Chuck Robb? Even though I'd have liked to see, on purely poetic grounds, a Dodd-Robb ticket, Robb is a former governor and Senator from Virginia who lost to George Allen in 2000. He'd be a great choice.

If Obama wants all of the above issues (white, senator etc) and also more moderate support, then maybe people from the Democratic Leadership Council, or the New Democrat Coalition, or my beloved Blue Dogs. True, there's almost complete overlap in the three groups, but that's fine for this.

The DLC (which brought us Bill Cliton, Al Gore, and Joe Lieberman - all winners in their elections), had Vilsack, Bayh, Nunn, and Robb (above) as leaders. Another DLC and NDC leader is John Breaux - a popular former Senator from Louisiana. I like Robb better.

Before I decide on Robb (and then send that suggestion to the bloggers I read), I'll check this handy list of currently alive former Democratic senators, which is divided up by state and gives the ages, how nice. I will see who is under 70:

• Whoa, Dale Bumpers is still alive! OK, not him, but kol ha-kavod to his doctors.
  
• There's Max Cleland (D-GA), but I met him in person and I wasn't so impressed. And he had only one term, not so good for the 'DC experience'
  
• Wyche Fowler (D-GA) - Rep. for 10 years, Senator for 1 term, then Clinton's ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Eh.
  
• Carol Moseley Braun (D-IL). Just kidding.
  
• Bill Bradley (D-NJ) - Now that's interesting. Born in '43. Hmm
  
• David Boren (D-OK) - Oklahoma, another Governor-Senator deal. I just don't believe a Democrat can win over a deep-red state no matter who the running mate is. The best VP picks, I believe, will be popular swing state guys.
  
• Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) - yeah, I know I said Democrats, but Chafee was pretty liberal, has recently changed his party affiliation to Independent, and that could really help a bipartisan push. And if Obama really wants to channel the Abraham Lincoln vibe, what a better way to remind people?
  
• Tom Daschle (D-SD) - see Braun above.
  
• Al Gore (D-TN) - ahem. Too bad. Did ya know, he's not even 60 yet?!

And that's it. Well, from my list above, the best choices would be:

1. Chris Dodd (current Senator, CT)
   
2. Evan Bayh (current Senator, IN)
   
3. Chuck Robb (former Senator, VA)
   
4. Bill Bradley (former Senator, NJ)
   
5. Lincoln Chafee (former Senator, RI)

That's it for now. I will send my list to appropriate time-wasters.

Scott Horton Agrees with Me About Republicans

If you recall, back in February, I remarked that it's unfair to put Lincoln and George W. in the same political party. So Scott Horton took no time in his new blog ("Of Republicans and Banana-Republicans") to say I am correct.

[Disclaimer: he doesn't know me, I don't know him and as far as I know he doesn't read my blog... yet]:

I can’t suppress the question: how did it come to this? It’s hard to see even a trace of the party of Fremont and Lincoln in the party of Bush and Rove. Indeed, the values that Bush and Rove espouse and the constituencies to which they pander seem very much just what’s in the crosshairs for the Republicans of 1856 and 1860; a check of the electoral map in 2004 and 2006 shows the Republican constituencies of yore are, with very few exceptions, safely in the Democratic column, while Bush builds off a base starting with the old Confederacy.

So far, I'm Still with Edwards

2008 is still a ways away; but the field is filling up quick and the two top Democrats - Hillary & Obama - are getting money and donors and attention, so it's time to restart the '08 topic I blurbed about a few months ago. While I find Obama intriguing (and Hillary disgusting), I'm still putting my oomph behind John Edwards. Right now, I think an Edwards-Obama ticket would be very powerful. It'd match Southeast & Midwest, a moderate hawk & a social liberal, and two attractive (physically and emotionally) men who create a lot of voter excitement.

Then, after 8 years of Edwards we can plausibly have 8 years of Obama (by then people will be used to his name).

On the GOP side, I'm frightened of a Giuliani-McCain (or vice versa) ticket because they both have appeal to Independents. But McCain looks like death warmed over (and will be 72 in November '08) and Giuliani is massive S.O.B. - which is an asset for the NYC mayor's seat, but doesn't play well anywhere else.

While there's a funny symmetry to have a Giuliani-Clinton race - when's the last time the major party candidates came from the same state, probably Lincoln-Douglas - I am praying that Hillary will implode before the year is through. And Giuliani is a ticking bomb of an even higher degree (and remember he ducked out of their first fight in 2000 blaming is naughty prostate... like having cancer could keep you from the Senate; just ask Tim Johnson]

In any case, I will comment more about this issue as time permits. I do like that Krugman gave some support to Edward's bona-fides here (praising his health plan).

{2009 Update: Pic from Edwards' endorsement of Obama in 2008; my how things change.}

Lincoln & The Republican Party

I've been catching up on my Lincoln reading and considering that today we're somehow we're supposed to be celebrating his birthday (or Washington's, or all Presidents', or Mattresses), it seems appropriate to deal with a recent controversy about the man.

In my Rosh Hashanah sermon this year I mentioned how three men seem to be so great, so inclusive, that every possible adherent group wants to claim the man as their spiritual ancestor: Abraham the Patriarch, Maimonides, and Lincoln.

For Abraham's legacy, see any of the bazillion major and minor religions that use the Bible. For Maimonides, see how his pronouncements are used by Modern Orthodox, Reform, Charedi, and Chasidic groups.

Lincoln is our American Abraham. [Side note for a true story; up until when I was in kindergarten, I thought Abraham the Patriarch and Abe the President were the same person; they were talked about in the same manner, and how many people are called Abraham anyway? Name another one in American history and I'll give you a coke]

Anyway. Last week, Congressman Don Young (R-AK) while voting for the "surge" quoted what he thought were words from Lincoln:

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."

It should be obvious to anyone who knows Abe that he could never have said such drivel. He fought a war to preserve the rights of the Constitution and was constantly pardoning people from the death penalty - how could he call for people to die just for expressing their constitutionally protected beliefs?

Thankfully, it was quickly shown that Abe never said it. The quote was invented by some right-wing stooge. The full story of the quote can be seen here from Editor & Publisher:

But Lincoln never said that. The conservative author who touched off the misquotation frenzy, J. Michael Waller, concedes that the words are his, not Lincoln's. Waller says he never meant to put quote marks around them, and blames an editor [at the magazine Insight] for the mistake and the failure to correct it. We also note other serious historical errors in the Waller article containing the bogus quote.

It takes a special kind of idiot to think that the greatest president who ever lived, possibly the greatest American (besides my Mom) who ever lived, would be able to say filth invented by a right-wing crank.

It gets better when you see what Lincoln actually did say. I love this (h/t Sullivan):

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, Â? 'I see no probability of the British invading us;' but he will say to you, 'Be silent: I see it, if you don't.'

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood," - Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to William H. Herndon, Feb. 15, 1848.

(Herndon, Lincoln's law partner, had written him arguing that the president as commander-in-chief possessed the right to initiate a war against Mexico without specific Congressional authorization.)"

To clarify Lincoln - while in Congress - criticized the sitting President's rationale for the Mexican War. Which means that the Lincoln of the Republican-stooges would call for the hanging of the real Lincoln.

Lincoln is not a Modern Republican

But here's the bigger point: why do we keep associating Lincoln with the Republican party? Sure, I know, he was the first of that party to be president, but by that logic we should say that James Buchanan is indicative of the Democratic party. The parties of 1860 have no resemblance to what they are now. The 1860 Democrats were about racism and entrenched power - the very same stuff represented by the Republicans of today (and except for the amazing Teddy Roosevelt, pretty much every Republican from 1868 on).

I want to call for a moratorium on labeling Republicans "the Party of Lincoln" and that all references to Lincoln being a founder of the current party to be considered irony.

Lincoln fought and died for freedom, dignity, and equality. He was a bleeding-heart liberal, a supporter of the common laborer against the wealthy, a staunch opponent of the anti-immigrant Know-Nothing party, a supporter of civil rights, an opponentnt the death-penalty, and unaffiliated with any religious denomination. He is a liberal and just as James Buchanan would be a 2007 Republican, Lincoln would be 2007 Democrat.

Am I Back?

I hope I'm back. Don't tell everyone, just in case this bursts early.

But I miss the writing.

The reason why this went on a year hiatus is 'cuz:

1. blogger.com was causing me much agita and
   
2. people were reading the Blog and nagging me in two ways:


1. asking why I had time to write a blog when I hadn't responded to their self-absorbed desires, or
   
2. how could I say such things when my public persona is a carefully produced shell that combines equal parts Chofetz Chaim and Abraham Lincoln - and neither of them would say such nasty things about nice people.

Anyway, if you out there get the urge to ask either of those questions, I request that, like the Chofetz Chaim, you reign in your yappers.

As it is, blogging for The Styx is the reverse of the most common model. People often blog to create a voice for their otherwise anonymity. As a public (type) figure, I have both a name and a literal pulpit, so I use blogging as an opportunity to be faceless and muted.

When you live in a fishbowl, there's an advantage to being able to shout into a void.