Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
It's been a busy week for Democrats, with a lot to cover. There has been good news and bad, but on a whole I'd have to judge the week a success for Democrats in general. Led by what the Washington Post reports as a "rare uprising" of House Democrats. But before I get to that, I'd like to offer one observation from the campaign trail.
This column is dedicated to the idea that Democrats can learn to use talking points as effectively as Republicans often do. This idea annoys many who feel that Democrats using talking points is degrading, and stoops to Republican tactics; a position I don't agree with, but still respect. But sometimes even I have to take Democrats to task for not backing up such talking points with action, or at the very least a plan of action.
Either Karl Rove has joined the Clinton campaign as their advisor, or somebody over there has learned a lot from his standard campaign playbook. Because they're successfully using Rove's signature (and quite bizarrely effective) political tactic: attack your opponent not on his weak points, but on your weak points. This throws your opponent on defense, when he should be strongly playing offense.
OK, here we go with Part 2 of my annual McLaughlin Awards. Last week's column covered the first half of these awards.
Unfortunately (as of this writing) the transcript for last week's McLaughlin Group is not yet available on their website, so you'll have to check it later to compare how I did with the actual McLaughlin Group themselves.
[Warning: these all have absolutely no basis in reality, and are all merely the product of an overactive imagination. I am not a psychic nor do I pretend to be one. So there.]
Leno, Letterman, O'Brien and the rest of the late-night comics and hosts have all gone "dark" ever since the writers' strike began, leaving us with nothing but endless reruns to watch during the wee hours. If this goes on for the next two months, what effect will this have on politics during the crucial presidential primary season?
I have to admit, I didn't come up with this idea myself. I heard it as an offhand comment on one of the news shows (PBS' News Hour, I think) -- that if the strike went on, the candidates will all get a "free pass" on any amusing foibles during the campaign because the late night shows were on hiatus. The person who said this wasn't serious, or at best only half-serious, but it got me to thinking. What if this does have a major effect on politics? What effect would it have, and would it be a good thing or a bad thing?
What if (insert crescendo music here for effect -- dom Dom DOM!!) it already has had an effect?
The first column I wrote this year on the presidential campaign (5/23/07) took a decidedly unconventional view of the primary season: What if all the pundits are wrong and we DON'T crown a winner on February 5th? Is it possible, in other words, that no winner will be anointed and the campaign will continue -- perhaps all the way to an open party convention?
Jump forward six months, and the pundits are finally beginning to wonder about such a possibility. Chris Cillizza, political blogger for the Washington Post, has just written an article which explores this question in detail, for both parties -- if there is no one clear winner on February 5th, then what could the delegate map look like? It's a great read if you're into wonky "what if" speculation, and the best breakdown I've seen yet of how it all could play out.
But it still adds up to not just slinging a little mud, but rather truckloads and truckloads of mud oozing into America's living rooms through ubiquitous television ads all campaign season long. You're going to have to be pretty quick on the remote control, or else wear hip-waders while watching television during campaign season, because it is going to get mighty deep mighty fast.
Think about it. On the one hand, you've got a candidate Republicans are convinced has a "666" mark somewhere on her body (normally that would be considered "hyperbole," but not in this case -- I bet you could find plenty of folks willing to swear on camera that Hillary's the anti-Christ). Then on the other hand, you've got a guy who is so easy to throw mud at, it's not even funny.
A few months ago, the chattering classes were all a-tizzy over the prospect of a Michael Bloomberg third-party bid for the White House. Nothing much came of it, but we all had fun pontificating about the possibility (yours truly included -- 7/11/07). Since it was such an enjoyable exercise, I'd like to be the first to roll out another third-party scenario to provide fodder for the punditocracy (in case this turns out to be a slow news week).
After taking several recent announcements into consideration, I have gazed into my crystal ball and foreseen Ron Paul as the nominee of the Libertarian Party for 2008. Paul will be supported by droves of "family values" voters and will actually gain a respectable percentage of the popular vote. The Democratic nominee then waltzes into the White House, spikes the ball, and does an end-zone dance in the Oval Office.
Most of this week's talking points deal with the children's health bill which President Bush vetoed last week. This is good offense when it comes to politics (we're in football season now, so it's time to put away the baseball metaphors for the year and dust off the football metaphors). There are big Big BIG budget battles brewing in the next few weeks, and (for once) Democrats did the right thing tactically and strategically -- lead with your best shot. The SCHIP bill polls at over 70% of the public in favor, Bush has staked out an almost irrational position on it, and House Democrats are within 10-15 votes of being able to overturn Bush's veto in the House. While Democrats already have a 67-vote veto-stomping majority in the Senate, the House will vote to overturn first.