Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
This column was born out of my frustration with the seeming inability of many Democrats to perform well in the Sunday morning interview shows on television. It's often been said that Democrats have an inherent "herding cats" problem, so I set out to do my tiny part to help.
Anyone who thinks that the treatment Barack Obama has gotten from the media during this campaign is remotely the same as the treatment John McCain has received just has not been paying much attention. Because this pro-McCain prejudice has been both pervasive and unremarked-upon throughout almost the entire news media during the entire campaign season. McCain has even joked that the media is "his base" of support. It was a funny line, but there is an enormous truth at its core: the media has been hard on Obama but unbelievably light on John McCain. And this has to stop. Now. Because the election might just hinge on the media's portrayal of the two, so now is the time to point out the uneven nature of the press coverage to date on the two candidates. In time for the mainstream media to correct itself before the general election season really heats up.
The most striking thing about the 2008 campaign so far has been the mainstream media pundits being so wrong, so many times. Over and over again, all the talking heads and denizens of the Sunday political talk shows have largely agreed on things which were almost immediately proven false by events on the ground. Here (in very rough chronological order) are just a few of the nuggets of "conventional wisdom" served up as gospel truth by the chattering classes -- which all turned out to be laughable (full disclosure: I uttered a few of these myself, I admit) Feel free to add your own, if I've missed anything obvious.
Tomorrow, the Democratic primary race will finally be over. Or, I should say, the primaries themselves will be over. At long last, everyone will have voted, unless (Democratic) life is discovered on Mars in the next few days.
USA Today (of all places) has a great page on their site where you can play "call the election." It comes complete with electoral maps back to 1960, for reference (warning: Democrats shouldn't click on 1984 or 1972 unless they're sitting down, preferably with a strong drink handy). It starts you off with what they consider "safe" states already marked (their definition: safe states voted the same way in the last four presidential elections), but you can click "all undecided" to start with a clean slate, if you prefer. The good news: their "safe state" starting point starts at 248 Democratic, 135 Republican.
I personally am of the opinion that more free speech is better than less. Which is why I like the concept of 527s, and why I support their right to speak. It's also interested to see who else is against 527s -- both political parties. Because before 527s were around, these "advocacy ads" came from the party machine, and were coordinated with the candidates. Meaning centralized control over the message. But I don't consider that a good thing at all -- I like the concept of free citizens being able to have their own voices heard in the political debate. Sure, it's messier (with a lot of mud being flung), but true freedom is always a little messy.
Rollins is not very upbeat about Republicans in general, George Bush, Republicans' chances in 2008, or indeed the whole future of the Republican Party. He says the party "has kind of lost its way." He bemoans the fact that young people are flocking to the Democratic Party as a "death knell for the long term." George Bush has to realize "he's no longer on the ballot." As for the Bush administration, "the quicker this page is turned by many Americans, including a lot of Republicans, the better." He later returns to this point, and makes it even more forcefully: "This administration is pretty tired right now and I think even the most die-hard Republicans are ready to move on."
Because Republicans are scared right now. Their party loyalty, which has shown virtually no cracks at all during Bush's entire term in office, is about to shatter into a million little pieces. Democrats need to pick up those pieces, and build some good legislation with them. Right now.
And so all eyes in the American political world turn to West Virginia -- a state none of the pundits and pontificators know (or care) much about. They certainly never expected to be in a hotel room in Wheeling or Charleston in the middle of May this year. Because the conventional wisdom set in stone -- before anybody actually cast a primary vote -- was that "Super Duper Tsunami Tuesday" (as it was called back then, mercifully shortened now to just "Super Tuesday") was going to be the whole Magilla. On the not-as-super-Wednesday that followed, we would have a Democratic nominee, and could then focus on beating Rudy Giuliani in November.
I sincerely hope the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) printed out the roll call of this vote, because it will be so easy to use against these 178 Republican House members back in their home district come re-election time. It's pretty hard to explain to your constituents why you're on the record as being against Mother's Day.