Getting Middled
by matt at 6:00 am on February 12th, 2007 in 2008 Presidential, Obama Uber AllesI awoke Saturday morning $20 richer than I was on Friday night, but all I wanted to be was $20 poorer. You see, a few days after the November elections, the woman who works the front desk in my office - a sharp young socially-conscious black woman - felt strongly enough that Barack Obama would not run for President that she risked more than an hour of her wages in a bet with me on the proposition. I hate the idea of having to walk in there on Tuesday and take her money, but I come from gambler stock and am genetically mandated to respect the sanctity of a bet. And I’d much rather be opening my wallet than watching Obama spout empty platitudes and tout his reflexive bipartisanship while damaging the brand of the very party under whose banner he is running.
I know all too well the history of Presidential campaigns with regard to the attitudes and demeanor of the candidates. The first cycle I have any memory of is Jimmy Carter vs. Ronald Reagan in 1980. Through experience and later education, I know that Carter - while not the strongest leader - was frank and straightforward with Americans about the problems facing the country and the kind of sacrifice needed to turn them back. Reagan exploited both Carter’s honesty and the public’s desire for happy talk. Consider the actual outcome versus the road not taken as it relates to our current situation:
-or-
Happy talk and sunny optimism created disasters on so many fronts that it’s impossible to quantify. Two decades later, Republicans used the same tactic on Al Gore and then Howard Dean, painting them as angry and their own candidate George W. Bush as “hopeful.” Obama it seems has learned that lesson too well. In fact, in the two-and-a-half years since he walked onto the national stage by way of his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Obama has done nothing so much as talk about hope, faith, and yes, optimism. And while of course none of these words stands for anything objectionable, neither are they characteristics that have been shown to make an effective President.
Were this my only criticism of Obama, I could be convinced to keep my mind open to the idea of him as Democratic nominee despite the fact that it furthers the unfortunate precedent of marginalizing candidates who don’t value nebulous intangibles over strong leadership and substantial plans for governing. But my frustration with Obama branding himself as the Hope, Faith, Optimism, and Pixie Stardust for Everyone candidate pales in comparison with the irritation I feel when his stump speeches (or interview responses) turn to phrases like “post-partisan politics” or “a different kind of politics.”
I’ve written at length about the special treatment granted those who use religion as a shield against logic.
The fact that religion has no monopoly on morality and no shortage of sin has not prevented the media from issuing a standing directive to treat politicians and other public figures who cloak themselves in the vernacular of faith as more credible than those who wish to maintain the separation of church and state.
This point is on display daily on cable news, and anyone doubting this need only look back a matter of days for its grandest example yet, the dustup between John Edwards‘ campaign bloggers and William Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
“John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots. He has no choice but to fire them immediately.”
Yet Donohue, a man who dares run an organization with “civil rights” in its name, has a long history of hateful, vulgar trash-talk himself:
“The gay community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done.”
But because Donohue represents a religious organization, his hatespeech is rewarded with television appearances while the targets of his ire either lose their jobs or come close to it. It’s certainly disgusting and high time for it to stop, but at the end of the day, I’m convinced that the majority of Americans, even those who call themselves religious, aren’t persuaded by the caustic rhetoric and McCarthyite tactics Donohue employs. They almost certainly don’t see religion as some kind of trump card, the ace up one side’s sleeve that allows them to win an otherwise even argument.
I’m much less confident that the vast majority of Americans who don’t closely follow politics will be able to spot the false premise - almost universal in the media - that bipartisanship is the same kind of trump as religion is. Debate between two politicians can always be judged by which one more enthusiastically espouses finding the middle ground. To everyday working Americans, compromise is essential. You can’t have a marriage, a family, a friendship, or work in an office without it. So it’s not surprising that the political equivalent of compromise - bipartisanship - carries the same positive connotations. But bipartisanship doesn’t happen in a vacuum, though you wouldn’t know it from media reporting on politics.
“Bipartisanship is another name for date rape,” conservative standard bearer Grover Norquist told the Denver Post. Speaking of Congressional Democrats, Norquist told the Washington Post: “Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they’ve been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don’t go around peeing on the furniture and such.” Norquist of course is a corporate lobbyist, and represents other corporate lobbyists as they seek to influence public policy as it’s made in Congress.
Norquist isn’t kidding. The people who pay his ample salary and fill the campaign funds of Republicans (and a few Democrats) in Congress aren’t looking for the middle ground, nor would they accept anything approaching it. As leaders of publicly traded corporations, their sole mission is to create as much value for their shareholders as possible. And there’s nothing wrong with that in the capitalist system that reigns in this country. But the other half of that equation is regulation, oversight, and the law…the province of government. There is simply no compromising between those who want to shrink the government down to where they can drown it in the bathtub and those who want better schools, healthcare, and worker’s rights. Obama is doing exactly what Bush calls “negotiating with myself.” He’s looking at the landscape for the median between the sides. The problem is that once he has his center, lobbyists like Norquist will force a new median - much closer to the right than Obama’s center. And as long Norquist and his ilk draw breath, bipartisanship is dead. Learn to deal.
Yet Obama constantly repeats the word bipartisan as if the magical solution to the problems we face is somehow averaging the positions between the two sides. Funny, in his three years on the national scene, I’ve never heard him say a word about how this is supposed to work. Are we talking about splitting the difference on every issue, or is each side supposed to sacrifice half of their principles in order to get their way the other half? How do you come to a bipartisan resolution on abortion if the one we have now (don’t want one? don’t get one) isn’t enough? What is the halfway point between the Darwinian market-worshipers and those who want the basic services the state has been providing since the New Deal? And why would the answer to any of these questions automatically be a better policy than the respective lines in the sand drawn by either side? There is nothing inherently good about reflexive centrism any more than there is about reflexive partisanship, left or right. I’d love to see a campaign that pits a Democrat pushing Democratic ideas against a Republican pushing Republican ideas because I agree with former President Clinton that “Our way works better.” If Obama doesn’t think that’s the case, he shouldn’t be running as a Democrat. If he wants to “transcend partisan politics” he shouldn’t be running as a Democrat.
I’ll collect on my bet, but the money is going directly to someone who has already decided that it’s more important to fight for what’s right than to be everybody’s buddy.
sac wrote:
Did you see the 60 Minutes love-fest with Obama? He came off exceedingly well and he actually spoke about some specifics. Also, his candor regarding his past is refreshing and he answered the race questions so perfectly I couldn’t believe it.
Still not backing him, but there seems to be more to him than “keep hope alive” sermonizing.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 7:20 am ¶
matt wrote:
didn’t see it, but tv is clearly his medium so it’s not surprising. what specifics? how specific did he get? there was only a small part of his speech on saturday that was anything other than feel-good fluff.
and the alternative was?
you don’t know it yet, but you will end up an obama supporter.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 7:44 am ¶
Stanford Miles wrote:
Matt:
You continue parroting the same, tired old lies. Stop lying. Obama’s position on the issues has been made time and time again in speeches and in his voting record. Take the time to look at these websites for more information:
www.votesmart.org.
www.ontheissues.com
Furthermore, Obama has been very clear on the Iraq War. Unlike Edwards, who only talks about ending the Iraq War, Obama last week–LAST WEEK–introduced the Iraq War de-escalation act of 2007. Obama’s plan calls for a complete troop withdrawal by March of 2008.
But it is not just Obama’s foreign policy experience that makes him such a great democrat, it is his work to protect some of our most cherished rights. The day after Obama introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act, he introduced an anti-voter suppression bill designed to end the ballot irregularties and frauds which were so rampant in the elections of 2000 and 2004.
Bottomline: The writing is on the wall. Obama is very clear on the issues. His actions and his words make his position very clear.
Bottomline: Edwards is just another spout of empty rhetoric. All words; no action.
I would also say that you are the one being vague. On which issues specifically has Obama not been clear about? I challenge you to name some.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 7:45 am ¶
matt wrote:
you don’t get to come here and accuse me of lying unless you can prove the charge. period.
i’ve made my case. can you actually make a counter case without baseless accusations and fluff?
Also, I gave Obama full credit for his anti-voter suppression bill. it’s all you have, isn’t it?
you do understand that john edwards hasn’t been in a position to “do anything” about iraq since he left the senate in 2004, right? or has your time “following” politics been just that short that you don’t get the difference between in office and not in office? funny how obama waited until after edwards started talking about withdrawal. obama had more than two years to “do something” and he played slap and tickle with his mentor lieberman instead.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 8:00 am ¶
sac wrote:
The troop withdrawal thing that was mentioned.
The alternative was to fumble it and be vague. He didn’t. I’ve never seen a national politician be so open about things like drug use. This doesn’t matter much when it comes to formulating policy, but it does a lot in gaining the public’s trust.
I don’t rule it out, but I doubt it unless Edwards proves to be ineffectual.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 8:07 am ¶
jamie wrote:
seriously stanford, if you do understand the difference between in-office and out of office, can you comment on the timeline matt mentioned above? it’s like all this jumping up and down about hillary voting to allow bush to go to war and obama _saying_ he wouldn’t have. wouldn’t he? i don’t know… do you?
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 8:35 am ¶
Stanford Miles wrote:
Matt:
There are numerous flaws in your argument. I’ll address the one that made me laugh the most:
There are two errors here in your reasoning. First off, you’ve mistaken coincidence for causality. even if Obama created his bill after Edwards yapped about troop withdrawal, you have zero grounds to claim that Obama wrote the bill as a result of what Edwards said.
The second error in your reasoning is all too obvious. Obama has come out strongly for withdrawal since last year, and has we both know has always been against the Iraq War. In other words, Obama came out against the Iraq War long before Edwards did.
You see, this is the critical difference between Obama and Edwards. Obama talks and then puts action behind his words. Edwards…votes for the war before he votes against it.
The other line that had me in stiches was this one:
Who’s fault is it that Edwards didn’t have the stones to run for re-election? Are you so googly eyed for Edwards that you view his political impotence as a virtue? His political ineffectiveness is precisely why he should not be considered a serious Presidential Candidate.
But okay, Matt, I’ll entertain your notion for a time. I guess because Obama is a Senator and Edwards is a….nothing. We really can’t compare them now. The most fair way would be to compare their Senate records.
Obama on Iraq: Obama introduced the Iraq-War De-Escalation Bill.
Edwards on Iraq: Edwards voted for the War and even lobbied to get Democrats to vote for the War!
Obama on Senate attendance: Obama has not missed a single Senate vote this year.
Edwards on Senate attenance: Well, according to Cheney, Edwards didn’t even bother to show up most of the time.
I mean, here is the thing. Words are not enough. We have to look at what each candidate has done. Obama’s issues are Civil Rights and ending the War in Iraq. To this end, Obama has passed numerous pieces of legislation in the Illinois Senate. He passed legislation to record police interrogations ad composed legislation end end housing discrimination against gays. As a US Senator Obama immediately came out with BINDING legislation against the Iraq War. Obama puts his office, time and money where his mouth is.
Edwards signature issue is poverty.
Curious.
What anti-poverty legislation did Edwards pass?
Barack Obama. President. 2008.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 8:58 am ¶
Stanford Miles wrote:
Jamie:
What reason do you have to believe that Obama would have gone to War if under the same pressure?
What extenuating circumstances do you believe exempt Edwards and Clinton from being criticized for the worst foreign policy decision of our generation?
But the fact that Obama wasn’t in office while Clinton and Edwards were in office is PRECISELY why they must be criticised for their decisions. Edwards is unworthy of leadership. Clinton is unworthy of leadership. They were given a foreign policy test and failed miserably. We hired them to make the right decisions and they made the wrong one. 3000 lives and 400 billion dollars….nope. sorry. huge blunder. Such a huge blunder that they cannot reasonably hope for a promotion.
Guys, come on. This is commonsense. Edwards and Clinton failed in the office they were given. We cannot conscionably reward failure with a promotion.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 9:10 am ¶
matt wrote:
no, i haven’t i pointed out the timing, nothing more.
by that “reasoning” you have zero grounds to claim he didn’t.
what did he do about it? he could have proposed that plan at any time. he didn’t. not for nothing, but edwards has been saying this since november of ‘05.
for fuck’s sake. he was up in the year that he was THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE. lieberman ran for the senate while running for VP and it hurt gore. or don’t you go back that far?
then why can’t you point to anything obama’s done but talk? and considering that the thrust of the original post (you know, the one you’re supposed to be using this comment section to, um, comment on) was obama’s reflexive bipartisanship and why it’s pointless and counterproductive.
and fyi, edwards spent his time out of office setting up and running the poverty center at the university of north carolina.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 9:14 am ¶
matt wrote:
what reason do you have to believe he wouldn’t have? these aren’t arguments, they’re wishful hypotheticals.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 9:18 am ¶
Stanford Miles wrote:
Matt:
You have a unique talent for being wrong. Let’s look at where you’ve gone wrong this time.
I do have grounds for believing he would not have voted for the war: consistency. Obama has been consistently against the war. None of the other candidates have. Edwards, on the other hand, has flipped flopped.
Yes, he could have. Anytime. And the time Obama chose is now. And Obama proposed it while in his second year of office. As for why Obama chose now to reveal the bill, the answer is only all to obvious: This is the first time Obama’s party has been in the majority in Congress.
Sure, blame Gore’s loss on Lieberman. Anyways, do keep in mind that Lieberman won re-election. Edwards has no excuse for his failure.
Note: Gore won Connecticut. Kerry lost North Carolina. So please explain again how Lieberman was a detriment to the campaign while Edwards was not.
Pulling a page from John Howard are we? Stop the empty rhetoric. I’ve already shown two things that Obama has done. Obama wrote and introduced an anti-voter suppression bill. Obama wrote a troop withdrawal bill. Last year Obama sponsored 37 bills. Obama is putting his reputation on the line NOW. Obama is putting his office on the line NOW. He has taken and continues to take action.
Edwards has done nothing but talk.
Oh, and you still haven’t answered my question what bills has Edwards passed to end poverty?
(Shakes head)
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 10:04 am ¶
matt wrote:
easy when you don’t have to record a vote.
so would it be the height of silliness to ask you if you know that any senator can propose any bill or amendment at any time? senators often propose long shot bills to make the other side either vote against it, or hold it back from a vote. but you knew that, right?
lieberman ran for re-election. edwards didn’t. lieberman “helped” gore win a deep blue state, one he certainly would have won anyway.
you haven’t answered anything. and your charge that i’m a liar apparently still stands, no? I gave credit to obama for his voter bill, and then reminded you of it. but you don’t have anything else except for a politically expedient withdrawal plan. and you can’t even defend its timing.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 10:18 am ¶
Stanford Miles wrote:
Matt:
You can argue about the timing of Obama’s bill as much as you like, but the fact of the matter is that he wrote it. Stop trying to move the goalposts here. Your first issue against Obama was that all he did was talk. I demonstrated that he also takes action. Now you’re whining over the timing of his action!
In the meantime, however, you support an undistinguished, lackluster candidate who has done nothing(Edwards). Excusing his political impotence, for his lack of substantive, positive policy on the Iraq War.
The bottomline here is that Obama is against the war and Edwards is for it. Obama has DONE something. Edwards just talks.
If you’re willing to look at actions and instead of words, I’m sure this fact will become obvious.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 10:35 am ¶
matt wrote:
me move the goalposts? the post was about one thing. you’re trying to make it about something that didn’t even appear in the post. wtf?
that, as they say in the parlance of the times, is a fucking lie. you’re a liar.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 10:40 am ¶
Anderson Cooper wrote:
I’m glad to see that you’re still hurling around that “empty platitudes” stuff. Readers can say what we might, but at least you’re on message.
In the future, though, I’d like to suggest you avoid starting off your argument with a totally ridiculous defense of the Carter administration.
I mean, really? You feel comfortable saying that’s what would have happened? Your ability to channel alternate pasts is nearly as impressive as Edwards ability to conjure “substance” from a massively inexperienced haircut of a litigator.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 11:03 am ¶
matt wrote:
i’ll stop when he stops, and i’ll celebrate the day.
reading comprehension? i said “is afforded the time required.” i didn’t say he did it, or would have succeeded. i said that his honesty cost him the chance. and look what it got us.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 11:09 am ¶
Anderson Cooper wrote:
You said, “consider the outcome versus the road not taken,” and contrasted the Reagan administration and your possible future as though it’s an equivalency. I can’t say that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore was the choice between an entanglement in Iraq or a solution to global warming. The reality of the day is equal to what might have possibly happened given idea circumstances, good luck, and a lot of fairy dust.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 1:34 pm ¶
matt wrote:
never read the PNAC letter, huh?
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 3:15 pm ¶