RENEW THE NEW YORKER — FOR LIFE!
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
Barack Obama’s campaign denounced it as “tasteless and offensive” and an insult to all Muslims. John McCain called it “totally inappropriate.” They both take themselves too seriously.
Pardon my political incorrectness, but when I saw the cover of this week’s New Yorker magazine, I laughed out loud — as Obama should have, too. First, it was LOL funny. The image of Barack and Michelle Obama invading the Oval Office in Muslim garb, while giving each other what Fox News dubbed the “terrorist fist jab,” highlights the absurdity of the fear campaign which Republicans are trying to stir up against Obama. Indeed, cartoonist Barry Blitt named his artwork “The Politics of Fear.”
Not only that, the cover makes a great point, which is to dig up all those rumors about Obama circulating on the Internet, expose them to the light of day and show just how ridiculous they are. Obama’s tried to knock them down with his own Web site, fightthesmears.com, but satire and humor are much more effective tools for fighting bias than outrage. What better way to illustrate the ignorance of those who spread rumors about “Obama the closet Muslim” than by dressing him up in Muslim garb in the Oval Office, with a portrait of Osama bin Laden on the wall and the American flag burning in the fireplace?
Bravo for the editors of The New Yorker! In the all-American tradition of political humor dating back to Colonial times, they poked fun at and destroyed the credibility of those who are desperately trying to make Obama the scary man he is not. They deserve a Pulitzer. Instead, all they got was manufactured outrage from every side.
Obama supporters cried foul. How dare they make fun of our sacred candidate? TV commentators howled over what they condemned as one more example of religious and racist bias. Editorial writers lamented the lowering of standards for political discourse.
Give me a freaking break. This presidential campaign has been taken over by the political niceness police. You can’t say anything clever about anybody anymore. Obama’s criticized for calling Phil Gramm “Dr. Phil.” McCain’s slammed for calling Obama “Dr. No.” The New Yorker’s condemned for running a political cartoon on its cover. We’ve suddenly become a nation of insufferable political snobs.
Come on, people, lighten up. All politicians, including Barack Obama, are fair targets for late-night comics and editorial cartoonists. And The New Yorker, especially, has a history of skewering politicians on the left and right. As Bill Maher wonders: “If you can’t do irony on the cover of The New Yorker, where can you do it?” Stephen Colbert had perhaps the best take on the whole cover flap: “It’s a completely valid satirical point to make — and it’s perfectly valid for Obama not to like it.”
What’s even more offensive is the argument that, while regular New Yorker readers will get it, the joke will be lost on most average Americans. Or, as one of my radio listeners put it, “I can just imagine my redneck brother-in-law picking up that magazine and saying: ‘See, even you damned Yankees get why we’re so worried about Barack Obama.’”
Talk about elitism! That argument, usually made by people who live in New York or Washington, assumes that most people living in the heartland are boobs, which is simply not true. There is wisdom to be found west of the Hudson and Potomac. It also assumes that rural Americans will vote against Barack Obama simply because he is black, which isn’t true, either. In fact, polls show Obama leading McCain or close to him in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota, where blacks make up less than 2 percent of the population.
Nervous nellies need to relax. It doesn’t matter what part of the country we’re talking about. Everyone gets it. There’s nobody anywhere dumb enough to take The New Yorker cover seriously.
Most commentators have it backwards. Instead of condemning or complaining about its controversial magazine cover, people should go out, buy this week’s New Yorker and enjoy a good laugh. God knows we won’t have many more of them between now and November.
---------------
Note: In last week’s column, I may have given the wrong impression that founders of the Web site LiebermanMustGo.com are seeking the immediate expulsion of Joe Lieberman from the Senate Democratic caucus. Not so. They are responsibly seeking his ouster, but not until after the November elections.
Leave your comments here!
7/10/08
WHAT TO DO ABOUT LIEBERMAN?
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
How do you recognize John McCain in a crowd? He’s the guy walking alongside Joe Lieberman.
Why doesn’t John McCain have a cell phone? He doesn’t need one. Joe Lieberman’s always by his side.
Did you ever see such an odd couple? They’re joined at the hip. In Iraq, whispering the difference between Shiites and Sunnis into John McCain’s left ear, it’s Joe Lieberman. In Colombia, joining John McCain in praising another trade deal to steal American jobs, it’s Joe Lieberman. In Mexico’s sacred Lady of Guadalupe shrine, being blessed alongside John McCain by the Roman Catholic bishop, it’s Joe Lieberman. They’re so inseparable, you’ve got to wonder: How did John McCain survive six years at the Hanoi Hilton without him? And what does Cindy think?
As for all that gossip about a shakeup in the McCain campaign, fuhgetaboutit! No new campaign manager would ever have the clout Joe Lieberman currently enjoys. The first senator to endorse McCain, he not only travels with him everywhere, he’s McCain’s number one cheerleader; he pumps him up and runs Obama down on the Sunday talk shows. Lieberman has been invited to address the Republican National Convention and he’s even on McCain’s short list for vice-presidential nominee.
And to think, this same man was the Democratic candidate for vice-president just eight years ago. Oy vey!
Of course, there’s something to be said for bipartisanship. Americans are tired of the partisan bickering in Washington. They like to see politicians reach across the aisle and work at solving problems with members of the other party. And Lieberman was always that kind of Democrat. But there’s a difference between bipartisanship and selling out.
Now, the Democratic Party has seen traitors before. Who could ever forget crazy Zell Miller? He addressed the Republican Convention in 2004. But even Miller showed some restraint. He didn’t campaign fulltime for George W. Bush. Joe Lieberman is Zell Miller on steroids.
What should Democrats do about Joe Lieberman? The party’s net roots are demanding that he be unceremoniously tossed overboard. They’ve organized a new Web site — LiebermanMustGo.com — and they’ve delivered over 43,000 signatures so far to the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee, asking them to strip Lieberman of his rank in the Democratic caucus and dump him as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
It is, indeed, strange that Democrats continue to reward Lieberman with a committee chairmanship while he’s daily stabbing them in the back. But no matter how satisfying it would be to throw Lieberman from the train, there are two problems with doing so. One, he’s no longer a Democrat. He switched to Independent after losing the Connecticut Democratic primary to Ned Lamont and, unfortunately, then won re-election.
The second problem is: Without Lieberman’s vote, Democrats would lose control of the Senate. Republicans and Democrats are tied today with 49 votes each. Harry Reid is Majority Leader only because both Independents, Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, caucus with the Democrats. Removing Lieberman from the equation would end Democratic control and, in effect, hand Republicans the keys to the kingdom.
So what to do about Lieberman? No matter how obnoxious he is, for Democrats today there is little choice but to grin and bear him. In the short term, that is. Once, as expected, Democrats pick up more seats in November, they can quickly show Lieberman the door — and should.
Unless Lieberman makes the first move. He has, after all, never ruled out joining the Republican Party. He’s already a Republican today, in everything but name. Why not make it official?
By becoming a Republican, Lieberman would solve everybody’s problems. Doing so would get him out of the Democrats’ hair. It would make his life more honest. And he’d be in a perfect position to become John McCain’s running mate, and thereby become the first politician in history to lose the vice-presidency twice.
Leave your comments here!
7/3/08
THE RELEVANCE OF BEING SHOT DOWN
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
It's only July, but already we know the rules of this year's presidential campaign. Actually, they're the same rules that apply every election: You can say anything you want about the Democratic candidate, but you have to treat the Republican candidate with kid gloves.
In 2000, for example, you could accuse Al Gore of taking bribes from
Here we go again. In 2008, it's OK to suggest, as conservative bloggers do daily, that Barack Obama is a gay, American-hating, chain-smoking Muslim. But not OK to suggest that just because John McCain was shot down and spent six years in the Hanoi Hilton does not, in itself, qualify him to be president. Unfortunately, Gen. Wesley Clark learned that lesson the hard way.
Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation,"
Host Bob Schieffer persisted. Didn't his being shot down give McCain an advantage over Obama? Whereupon Gen. Clark gave his now-famous answer: "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
Ironically,
But for his comment,
Again, what counts is judgment. How much judgment did John McCain show when he suggested it would be OK for American forces to remain in
The way Gen. Clark was treated was unfair. But what's more unfair is the double standard applied to Democratic and Republican candidates. Why is John McCain's military service out of bounds in 2008, when it was considered perfectly fair to challenge John Kerry's war credentials in 2004, or Max Cleland's in 2002?
And notice this big difference. In 2004, the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" didn't stop at Kerry's readiness to be president. They called him a phony. They questioned the very authenticity of Kerry's service in
But this is not the only double standard we've seen regarding the Swift Boat veterans. To his credit, John McCain condemned their tactics in 2004. To his total discredit, he has embraced them in 2008. McCain has named Bud Day, one of the most vitriolic Swift Boaters against John Kerry, to his campaign "Truth Squad." And, according to USA Today, so far McCain has accepted almost $70,000 in campaign contributions from Swift Boat associates. Whatever moral outrage he felt toward them four years ago disappeared once he needed them as his own attack dogs.
Leave your comments here!
6/26/08
YOU CAN’T LEGISLATE BY THE BIBLE
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
A couple of years ago, in a book called “How The Republicans Stole Religion,” I urged Democrats to steal religion back. Today, Barack Obama is doing just that, by daring to stand up to the religious right and prove them wrong.
Hallelujah!
James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, recently blasted Obama for his now famous “Call to Renewal” speech of 2006, in which he pointed out that there’s an inherent difficulty in attempts by evangelicals to establish the Bible as the road map for public policy. “Would we go with James Dobson’s interpretation (of the Bible),” Obama asked his audience, “or Al Sharpton’s?”
For Dobson, even raising that question is pure heresy. “I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology,” Dobson told his national radio audience. He even accused Obama of having a “fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.”
But unlike previous Democratic candidates, Obama didn’t back down. He questioned what Dobson meant by the “traditional understanding” of the Bible. “Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy?” Obama asked. “Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?”
Again, Obama tackled head-on what Dobson, Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell have been saying for years: that we are a Christian nation; that public policy must be based on the Bible; and that every word of the Bible must be taken literally. In our pluralistic society, it’s not that simple. Because not all Americans are Christians, or even believers, you can’t find common ground for legislation based on the Bible. And even in the Bible, you can’t give equal weight to Old Testament prohibitions against homosexuality and New Testament admonition to “go sell your possessions, and give to the poor.”
What’s most surprising is that Barack Obama’s not alone. In his criticism of Dobson and the old-fashioned religious right, he’s joined by some prominent evangelists. No spiritual advisor, for example, is closer to President Bush than Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, pastor of Houston’s Windsor Village United Methodist Church. Caldwell introduced Bush to the 2000 Republican convention, offered the official benediction at both his 2001 and 2005 inaugurations, and recently presided over first daughter Jenna’s wedding to Henry Hager.
But today, Caldwell has not only endorsed Barack Obama for president, he has launched a Web site — jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com — which says that, when it comes to the role of faith and politics, Obama is right and Dobson is wrong.
James Dobson doesn’t speak for me “when he uses religion as a wedge to divide,” writes Rev. Caldwell on his site. “He doesn’t speak for me when he speaks as the final arbiter on the meaning of the Bible. He doesn’t speak for me when he denigrates his neighbor’s views when they don’t line up with his.”
Ouch! Dobson’s pious balloon has just been popped by Bush’s own spiritual adviser. It shows how off-base Dobson is with his attacks on Obama’s faith. But it also shows how ineffective Christian conservatives will be in this presidential campaign. In years past, they lined up lock-step behind the Republican. This year, not only can they not agree on a Republican candidate, they can’t even agree on attacking the Democratic candidate.
And that will have a significant impact in this election. It means John McCain will not be able to count on a unified block of religious right voters, 88 percent of whom voted for George Bush in 2004, giving him 26 percent of his total vote. Barack Obama, a Christian himself, very comfortable with his faith, will capture a healthy chunk of that vote. The love affair between Christian conservatives and Republicans may not be over, but it’s definitely on the rocks.
Beyond the election, it also means that Americans are beginning, once again, to put faith and politics in the proper perspective. Even though most Americans are Christians, we are not a Christian nation: never have been, never will be. Therefore, in making the laws that govern our nation, we don’t turn to the Old Testament, the New Testament, or the Koran. We turn to the only sacred text that all Americans worship: the U.S. Constitution.
Leave Your Comments Here!
6/19/08
MCCAIN SELLS OUT TO BIG OIL
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
Elections are about the future, whether for the city council or the White House. In this election for president, one candidate represents the future while the other candidate remains stuck in the past — and there’s no doubt which is which.
Just look at the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain on energy. Obama proposes a windfall profits tax on big oil companies in order to help develop wind and solar energy, research new alternative energy technologies, and wean ourselves from fossil fuels. McCain proposes drilling for oil off the coast, one of the oldest and worst ideas in the Big Oil pipeline.
Environmentalists fought the battle over offshore drilling decades ago, and won. New oil rigs in state coastal waters have been banned in California since the days of former Gov., now Attorney General, Jerry Brown. There’s a congressional ban on drilling off both the Pacific and the Atlantic coasts, in place since 1981, plus an executive ban on both coasts, originally signed by President George H. W. Bush in 1990. And there’s a good reason why.
Offshore drilling will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs: destroy our most beautiful stretches of coastline, wreck our valuable tourism and fishing industries. And it will continue our dependency on fossil fuels. Meanwhile, it won’t do anything to ease today’s energy crisis. Even if the moratorium were lifted tomorrow, it would take at least 10 years to develop the offshore rigs and onshore tanks, pipelines and roadways necessary to begin production. By that time, with a new energy policy, we could be well on our way to a new, alternative-energy future.
Offshore drilling won’t bring any relief for consumers, either. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates there are 18 billion barrels of oil in the moratorium areas. At present rates of consumption, those fields would be exhausted in less than two and a half years. Our coastline and beaches, of course, would have been lost forever. And don’t expect lower prices at the pump. According to the Campaign for America’s Future Online, lowering the price of crude by $1 per barrel saves roughly 2.5 cents per gallon. Which means that getting rid of the ban on coastal drilling would lower the price at the pump by less than 6 cents — by 2025.
After oil executives, nobody was happier with John McCain’s proposal than oilman George W. Bush, who’s wanted to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling ever since he got to the White House, but didn’t dare. But whether McCain or Bush takes the lead, proposing offshore drilling as a solution to our energy problems is nothing but a cynical attempt to exploit public anger over $4-per-gallon gasoline in order to overturn economic and environmental protections in place for the last 27 years.
Even John McCain knows that, or used to. His U-turn on offshore drilling is one of the most spectacular flip-flops in presidential campaign history. When he first ran for president, in 2000, McCain opposed drilling off the coast and attacked the “special interests in Washington” that were pushing it. As recently as three weeks ago, he told a questioner at a Greendale, Wis., town hall meeting: “With those resources, which would take years to develop, you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels.”
Amazing! In less than a month, McCain has had the political equivalent of a religious conversion. And he’s not the only one. Charlie Crist ran for governor of Florida on a pledge to protect the Sunshine State’s beaches from offshore drilling. Yet no sooner did McCain flip than Crist flopped. Isn’t it amazing what an inordinate ambition to become vice president can do to a shallow politician?
Florida’s Sen. Mel Martinez did a parallel back flip on offshore drilling. In fact, among Republican politicians, only California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has resisted the urge to throw principle out the window and jump on the Bush-McCain offshore drilling bandwagon.
Echoing Barack Obama, Schwarzenegger told reporters: “We are in this situation because of our dependence on traditional petroleum-based oil. The direction our nation needs to go in, and where California is already headed, is toward greater innovation in new technologies and new fuel choices for consumers. That is the way we will ultimately reduce fuel costs and also protect our environment.”
How refreshing: a Republican with both backbone and brains.
Leave your comments here!
6/12/08
ARE REPUBLICANS HAVING BUYERS REMORSE?
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
You almost have to feel sorry for Republicans. As presidential nominee of their party, they could have chosen Rudy Giuliani, or Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee.
Instead, they got stuck with John McCain. And McCain’s already starting to show signs of losing it. Especially on Iraq.
His first slipup, made while visiting Iraq, was accusing Shiite Iranian forces of training Sunni al-Qaida terrorists. Only after Joe Lieberman, standing by his side, whispered in his ear did McCain correct himself. Still, after eight visits to Iraq, you’d think he’d know Shiite from Sunni.
Then McCain volunteered that it would be OK with him if American troops remained in Iraq for 100 years. He wasn’t talking about combat troops, he hastened to add, but simply forces stationed long-term in Iraq, much like American troops now serving in Germany or South Korea. But surely the former chairman, and now ranking member, of the Senate Armed Services Committee should recognize the folly of attempting the permanent occupation of a foreign land. Didn’t we learn anything from the mistakes of the Russians in Afghanistan or the French in Indo-China?
Sowing further confusion, McCain next suggested we might be able to start bringing some troops home, but not until 2013 — as if we could afford, or endure, five more years in Iraq. He also goofed in claiming that George Bush’s surge had allowed us to reduce the number of troops in Iraq to pre-surge levels when, in fact, the exact opposite is true.
And now McCain has stepped in it again, asserting that it really doesn’t matter whether we disengage from Iraq or not. Appearing on NBC’s “Today,” he was asked about consequences of the surge by Matt Lauer: “If it’s now working, Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?”
Get this. “No,” replied McCain, “but that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That’s all fine.”
Oh, yeah? Does he really believe that the question of when American forces start coming home from Iraq is “not too important”? Try telling that to the families of 140,000 Americans still serving in Iraq, many of them on their second or third tour of duty. At worst, McCain’s response suggests a callous disregard for the dangers still facing American troops every day. At best, it reflects a man who, in the words of Sen. John Kerry, is “unbelievably out of touch” with reality in the Middle East — if not with life in general.
McCain’s conflicting statements on America’s continuing presence in Iraq are especially troublesome because the U.N. mandate allowing the presence of American troops in Iraq expires at the end of the year. Because of that deadline, the United States and Iraq are now in the middle of negotiating a new Status of Forces Agreement, under which the Iraqi government has authority to decide when American forces must leave the country. How can the Iraqis trust any deal offered by the Bush administration when the would-be next president says we’ll stay in Iraq as long as we damn well please?
For John McCain, it’s been one misstep after another on Iraq. And, remember, after George W. Bush, he’s the war’s biggest defender. McCain has made Iraq his number one issue. It’s too late for him to change his focus now to the economy. After all, in December 2007, McCain admitted to reporters: “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.”
Given McCain’s increasingly embarrassing public statements on the war, it’s small wonder that so many Republican members of Congress have distanced themselves from him. In a survey conducted by The Hill newspaper, 14 GOP senators and congressmen refused to endorse John McCain. Another 17 simply declined to comment.
Yes, you almost have to feel sorry for Republicans. It’s still two months before the convention, but already they’re starting to experience buyers’ remorse. They’ve got to wonder whether John McCain is really up for the job. Ron Paul, anyone?
6/5/08
A PROUD DAY FOR AMERICA
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
“Tonight, we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another. Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for the president of the United States.”
Listening to Barack Obama say those words on the night of the last primary contests, I’ve never been so proud to be a Democrat. And I’ve never been so proud to be an American.
We made history, friends: by nominating the first African-American to carry a major party’s presidential banner, and by awarding a close second place to the first serious female candidate for president. In one exciting primary campaign, we shattered both the glass ceiling and the “black ceiling.”
What a great tribute to this county. And what a great tribute to the Democratic Party, which has proved itself — in deeds, not just in words — the party of minority rights and women’s rights, and the party of equal opportunity.
The nomination of Barack Obama, especially, is an event that should make every American — not just every Democrat, but every American — proud. Consider: Just 150 years ago, Obama and his family would have been in chains. Until 40 years ago, Obama would not have been able to attend the same school, drink from the same water fountain, worship in the same church, or shop in the same store as whites. Yet today he’s the standard bearer of the Democratic Party and could very well be the next president of the United States.
Obama’s success, of course, is due primarily to his exceptional skills as a candidate. He motivated millions of Americans who had given up on politics and inspired millions of young people to discover politics. He electrified an entire nation with his promise of change.
Yes, there were charges of racism and sexism during the primary. And, to a certain extent, they were well-founded. Sadly, some Democrats refused to vote for Obama, simply because he’s black. And some Democrats, and the media, ganged up on Hillary because she’s a woman. But that’s not why he won or she lost. Obama won because he ran a much tighter campaign.
Starting from nowhere, the Obama team crafted a winning message, developed a campaign strategy aimed at both large states and small, at both caucuses and primaries. They also set new records for raising small, repeat contributions over the Internet. The Clinton campaign, by contrast, made one blunder after another.
For starters, there was Hillary’s stubborn refusal to join John Edwards in apologizing for voting to authorize the war in Iraq. She also got off on the wrong foot by basing her campaign on “experience,” thereby letting Obama identify himself as the candidate of “change.” And her campaign failed by making no plans to win important caucus states or how to proceed if the primaries dragged on beyond Super Tuesday. As a result, they allowed Obama to win 11 contests in a row.
In the end, Clinton got stronger and Obama seemed to run out of gas. But by that time, thanks to his superior campaign organization, Obama had already built up the lead in delegates and the perception of inevitability that Clinton could never overcome.
Even though she did not prevail, Hillary Clinton proved to be one hell of a fighter. And by refusing to quit when everybody told her to get out of the race, she made Obama a stronger candidate.
But Obama’s success is more than a story about who won the Democratic primary and how. It also speaks volumes about how much progress we have made in America. An African-American woman called my radio show to talk about her 7-year old son, who stayed up late to watch Barack Obama declare himself the Democratic nominee. And there are millions more young Americans like her son, inspired to believe in America by Barack Obama, the same way we were inspired by John F. Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy.
By choosing Barack Obama as the Democratic Party’s nominee, we have demonstrated that we do, indeed, value the content of one’s character over the color of one’s skin. We’ve shown the world that we are, indeed, the land of unparalleled opportunity, where every little boy or girl can grow up to be president — even, as he describes himself, a skinny little black kid with a funny name. God bless America!
Leave a Comment here!
5/29/08
SHOWING SUPPORT FOR THE TROOPS
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
It’s one thing to brag about supporting the troops. It’s another to do so. And George Bush and John McCain are braggers.
The GI Bill is one of the most important government programs ever created, right up there with Social Security and Medicare. It was first passed by Congress in 1944 and signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt, as the final program of his New Deal. FDR wanted to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression that followed World War I and did not want WWII veterans to suffer the same fate as veterans of the Great War, who were given little more than $60 and a train ticket home.
Under terms of the first GI Bill, World War II vets who had served a minimum of two years were eligible for government assistance in getting a college education, with grants covering the cost of books, fees and tuition up to $500 a year. The program was enormously successful. College enrollment exploded. In 10 years, 7.8 million of 16 million World War II vets had taken advantage of the program. And economists estimated that, for every one government dollar spent on educating GIs, seven new dollars were pumped into the American economy.
What worked so well for World War II veterans should not have been limited to them, and it wasn’t. Congress made the same educational opportunities available to veterans of the Korean War and, later, the war in Vietnam. Eventually, an even higher percentage of Vietnam vets than World War II vets took advantage of the benefits of the GI bill. And now two Vietnam vets have moved to extend the program even further.
In a rare display of bipartisanship, Sens. Jim Webb (D-Virginia) and Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), both decorated veterans of Vietnam, are sponsoring legislation to upgrade the GI bill and make it available to veterans of today’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. To qualify, veterans must have served since Sept. 11 in any branch of the military, including the National Guard and Reserves. Depending on their length of service, veterans could receive payments covering up to four years’ tuition at the most expensive in-state public college, plus a monthly housing stipend.
Surely most Americans agree that helping vets get a college education and start a new career is the least we can do to honor those who stepped up to defend our country in the aftermath of Sept. 11. The Webb-Hagel legislation, in fact, passed the Senate 75-22. Only the most hard-hearted could oppose it, and for only the flimsiest of reasons.
But Bush and McCain say they oppose offering benefits of the GI Bill to today’s veterans because it’s too expensive and because it will discourage troops from re-enlisting. Poppycock. True, the expanded program would cost about $2 billion a year. That’s a lot of money, but it’s less than the cost of (BEGIN ITALICS) one week (END ITALICS) of the war in Iraq.
It’s also true, as McCain regularly points out, that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the new GI Bill would cause a 16 percent drop in re-enlistment rates across all four branches of the military. But McCain fails to mention that the very same study predicts a 16 percent uptick in new recruits, who would be attracted to join the military by the same educational opportunities. Hypocrisy, thy name is McCain.
There is simply no excuse for denying veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan the same benefits enjoyed by veterans of earlier wars. But this is not the first time that McCain, who prides himself on his family’s three generations of military service, has double-crossed his fellow veterans. In Congress, he’s voted for veterans’ benefits only 30 percent of the time, according to the scorecard of the Disabled Americans for America.
And for George Bush, this is just one more example of saying one thing and doing another. He even had the audacity to honor the troops on Memorial Day while threatening to veto the educational benefits millions of them are counting on. At least, observed the New York Times, he’s consistent: “Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform.”
One thing is for sure: If Bush and McCain have any questions about the merits of the GI Bill, they don’t have to go far for answers. McCain could ask fellow Sens. Frank Lautenberg, Ted Stevens, John Warner and Jim Webb, all of whom got their college education thanks to the GI Bill. And George Bush could ask his own father.
Had he listened to his father five years ago, Bush might not have sent young Americans to risk their lives in an unnecessary war. Had he listened to him today, he might not deny them the opportunity to improve their lives, if they’re lucky enough to come back home alive.
Leave your comments here!
BRING ON THE WINNING TICKET
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
With another victory in Oregon, Barack Obama has now won the support of a majority of the Democratic Party’s 3,253 pledged delegates and stands within 100 votes of the 2,026 total delegates needed to secure the nomination.
Could Hillary Clinton still win? Technically, yes. But it would take one of two events: either a complete meltdown by the Obama campaign (unlikely); or a total repudiation of Obama by superdelegates (even more unlikely, given his success in the primaries and caucuses).
The time has come. As difficult as it may be, even loyal Clinton supporters must recognize that, although officially it’s not over, unofficially, it is. Barack Obama will be the 2008 presidential nominee of the Democratic Party.
The end of one road, and the beginning of another, comes with mixed emotions for many Democrats, including this one. I voted for Clinton in the California primary, and would do so again today. She has the judgment and experience to be president, and she’s an exceptional candidate. But she was not served well by her campaign advisors. And she was crucified by the media, who decided early on that Obama was their favorite and painted her every legitimate criticism of him as racist, while refusing to acknowledge many criticisms of her as pure sexist.
In fact, I still think Clinton would be a stronger candidate against John McCain in the general election. She’s right on all the issues. She has demonstrated her appeal to the working-class voters Democrats need in order to win swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. She would easily put into play formerly red states like Florida, Indiana and New Mexico. And there’s no doubt she’s tough: tough enough to take anything Republicans might throw at her, toss it right back at them, and enjoy doing it.
At the same time, I have no hesitation in getting 1,000 percent behind Barack Obama. He’s a phenomenal candidate, with a trans-generational, trans-racial, indeed trans-political appeal unlike any political figure we’ve seen in our lifetime. Obama makes you believe again: believe in the goodness and greatness of this country, believe in our potential to come together and work together for the common good, and believe in our ability to restore our image in the world.
Obama’s got the nomination. The next question is: Whom does he choose as his running mate? And the answer is obvious. After all, what are the criteria for choosing a vice-presidential candidate? That person must be a plausible president, for starters. But also someone who can help win the White House by uniting the party and broadening its appeal in key swing states.
Be honest. There’s only one person who fits that bill: Sen. Hillary Clinton.
True, Obama carried more states in the primaries than she did. But Clinton won more big states, more swing states, and more Democratic voters. Both ran remarkable primary campaigns. It would be a mistake to let either one walk away in the general. The key to victory lies in combining their strengths — her female, senior, middle-class and white blue collar voters with Obama’s male, higher-educated, and African-American voters — into one unbeatable ticket.
And besides, none of the other potential candidates for the number two slot would bring to the ticket what Clinton could, and each has his own shortcomings. Sam Nunn? Boring. John Edwards? Been there, done that. Chuck Hagel? Good man, but put him in the Cabinet, not on the ticket. Bill Richardson? No demonstrated electoral strength. Joe Biden? Perfect Secretary of State. Jim Webb? Another freshman senator; make him secretary of defense. Janet Napolitano? Janet who?
Ironically, most vocal opposition to an Obama-Clinton ticket comes from passionate supporters of both. But those people are the same reason the so-called dream ticket makes so much sense. If the Democratic Party could harness the passion of the Obama camp with the energy and excitement of the Clinton camp, the team of the first African-American and the first woman to lead the country would electrify the nation.
Barack Obama has a lot going for him: his own strengths as a candidate; an endless fundraising ability; the burning desire of the American people for change; and the combined impact of an unpopular war and a failed economy. He has a great chance of becoming our next president. All he has to do to seal the deal is to name Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential nominee.
Leave a comment here!
5/15/08
DESPONDENT REPUBLICANS TURN TO DRUGS
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
Hillary Clinton scored a huge victory over Barack Obama in West Virginia: enough to keep the Democratic primary contest alive and enough for her to continue to make the case, however unpopular, that maybe, just maybe, she’d be a stronger candidate against John McCain than Barack Obama.
Overshadowed by Hillary Clinton’s big win in West Virginia, however, was a big victory for Democrats in Mississippi — which is even more significant, in terms of its impact on November 2008, than the results of one more primary.
In Mississippi’s First Congressional District, Democrat Travis Childers defeated Republican Greg Davis in a district that George W. Bush carried in 2004 with over 60 percent of the vote. Even though Republicans spent $1.3 million desperately trying to hold onto the seat. And even though — or maybe because — Dick Cheney flew to Mississippi and spent election eve campaigning for the Republican candidate. Poor Greg Davis. Campaigning with Cheney proved almost as dangerous as going hunting with him!
Not only that, forgetting that “all politics is local,” Republicans tried to win the special election by linking it to national politics. They said Childers would be a puppet of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. They accused him of embracing “the same values” as Barack Obama. But the Pelosi/Obama attacks backfired, proving that Obama, especially, may have more appeal in the Deep South than Republicans bargained for.
The Democratic victory in Mississippi doesn’t stand alone. This is the third special election held this year — all in Republican strongholds — and under the leadership of DCCC Chair Chris van Hollen, Democrats have won all three: in Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi. On March 8, Democrat Bill Foster replaced former House Speaker Dennis Hastert as Representative from Illinois’s 14th Congressional District, held by Republicans for over 30 years. On May 3, Democrat Don Cazayoux captured a solid Republican seat in Baton Rouge, La. Just 10 days later, he was joined by new Democrat Travis Childers from Mississippi.
The capture of all three conservative districts is a great omen for Democratic chances in November and raises hopes of breaking an institutional jinx. Historically, neither party cleans up two election cycles in a row. The party that picks up over 20 seats in a so-called “wave” election typically loses ground in the next cycle. The last exception to that rule was in 1976. After adding 43 seats in 1974, thanks to public outrage over Watergate, Democrats actually bounced back in 1976 to score an additional gain of — one!
This year promises to be different. Having already won three Republican seats in special elections, Democrats are already two ahead of 1976. According to Politico.com, GOP House experts are predicting Democrats could pick up an additional 20 seats this fall. That could give them an advantage of 70 seats in the next session of Congress.
Which, of course, leaves Republicans tongue-tied. After his party’s latest embarrassing defeat, Republican House Leader John Boehner explained: “The results in Mississippi should serve as a wakeup call to Republican candidates nationwide. As I’ve said before, this is a change election. . . . Our presidential nominee, Senator McCain, is an agent of change.” This is, almost word for word, how Boehner defended his loss in Louisiana, 10 days earlier: “The result this weekend in Louisiana’s Sixth Congressional District should serve as a wakeup call to Republican candidates across the country. . . . Our presidential nominee, Senator McCain, is an agent of change.”
Even Republicans are asking: How many “wakeup calls” does Boehner need before he get gets the message? And is the Republican leadership really that bankrupt of ideas?
If there were any doubt Republicans are in complete disarray following three consecutive losses, they quickly proved it. After holding an emergency summit meeting, Boehner and other House GOP leaders emerged to announce they had adopted a new slogan for the 2008 campaign season: “The Change You Deserve.” There’s only one problem. It turns out that very same phrase is already the trademarked advertising slogan for the antidepressant drug Effexor.
Manufactured by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Effexor is prescribed for “depression, anxiety disorder, and panic disorder in adults.” It is, in other words, just what congressional Republicans need. Except they should be taking it, not selling it.
Leave a comment here!
5/8/08
THE CANDIDATE AND THE PASTOR
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
Imagine this: A preacher endorses a candidate for president. Then we learn the preacher has, for years and from the pulpit, made disgusting, inflammatory and un-American statements. Yet the mainstream media totally ignores the preacher’s remarks and never pressures the candidate to explain all the ugly things the preacher has said and done over the last 20 years.
Impossible scenario? That depends on whether your name is Barack Obama or John McCain — and whether the preacher’s name is Jeremiah Wright or John Hagee. Obama, of course, was held personally responsible by the media for everything Jeremiah Wright ever said, and forced to repudiate him. McCain, on the other hand, has been given a free ride by the media and never challenged to answer for Hagee’s comments — even though, in many ways, they are more outrageous than anything heard from Pastor Wright.
Hagee is founder and senior pastor of San Antonio’s 19,000-member Cornerstone Church. He’s also a leading televangelist, whose radio and television broadcasts are seen and heard in 99 million homes. On many occasions since he began his ministry in the 70s, Hagee has come under criticism for his controversial remarks on women, gays, Israel and Catholics.
Hagee shows no mercy for the Catholic Church. He has called it “the Great Whore” and “an apostate church,” and accused Catholicism of being nothing more than “a false cult system.” Hagee also blames the Catholic Church for the Holocaust, telling viewers in one telecast that Hitler learned his hatred for Jews from growing up as a Catholic. When launching his wholesale slaughter of Jews, according to Hagee, Hitler told his followers: “I’m not going to do anything in my lifetime that hasn’t been done by the Roman Church for the past 800 years. I’m only going to do it on a greater scale and more efficiently.”
On women, Hagee makes St. Paul, notorious for treating women like second-class citizens, look like a feminist. “Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher?” asks Hagee. “The answer is lipstick.” As if that’s not insulting enough, he continues: “Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? . . . You can negotiate with a terrorist.” Real cut-up, that John Hagee.
We all remember that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were condemned for asserting, the day after Sept. 11, that God had punished America for, among other “sins,” our tolerance of gays. Yet John Hagee made a similar claim five years later about Hurricane Katrina and nobody cared. Appearing on NPR’s “Fresh Air” on Sept. 18, 2006, Hagee said: “The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades.”
An incredulous host Terri Gross asked if he was really saying that God had flattened the entire city of New Orleans, because a gay pride parade was scheduled in the French Quarter. Yes, said Hagee, that’s exactly what I meant. “All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.”
Hagee is also founder of Christians United for Israel, which sounds innocuous enough until you realize that, like most evangelical Christians, he only supports Israel in order to trigger another war that would bring about the end of the world. As he himself told a July 19, 2006 CUFI event in Washington, D.C.: “The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West . . . a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation and the Second Coming of Christ.”
Now here’s what’s different about Obama/Wright and McCain/Hagee. John McCain actually sought out Hagee’s endorsement, said he was proud to receive it, and continues to brag about it.
My question is not: How could a Christian preacher say such ugly things? But rather: Why did the media pay so much attention to one preacher, and zero attention to the other?
Leave a comment here!
4/24/08
THE DIRTIEST CAMPAIGN EVER?
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
After Hillary Clinton’s surprisingly comfortable win in Pennsylvania, the Democratic primary moves on North Carolina and Indiana. And so continues the dirtiest and most vitriolic political campaign in history — or so the mainstream media would have you believe.
The night of the Pennsylvania primary, ABC’s Charlie Gibson lamented that the campaign had become “so nasty and negative and dirty.” The next day, The New York Times bemoaned a primary contest that was “even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pandering contests that preceded it.” And David Broder of The Washington Post lamented a campaign that has become “markedly more negative.” Same with the rest of the media. When they’re not complaining about how long the primary’s lasting, they’re carping about how nasty it is.
What I want to know is: What rock have they been living under? Have they ever covered a political campaign before? By any standard, the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has been one of the most civilized in our lifetime.
Of course, both candidates have emphasized differences between them. That’s what campaigns are all about. Obama says Clinton’s vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq means she can’t be trusted to make other foreign policy decisions. Clinton says Obama doesn’t have enough experience to govern from day one, especially when the phone rings at 3 a.m. Tough? Maybe. But nasty? No way. Those are legitimate issues.
Clinton tells superdelegates that Obama’s such a weak candidate he can’t beat John McCain. Obama counters that Clinton has so much baggage, she can’t beat John McCain — and, besides, she’s too beholden to insurance, pharmaceutical and oil company lobbyists. Tough? Sure. But dirty? Absolutely not. Those, too, are legitimate issues.
Seriously, if you can’t challenge the credentials of your opponent, or his or her ability to win and govern, you might as well not even have a campaign. Flip a coin or draw names out of a hat instead.
Of course, as they say, “politics ain’t beanbag.” And we learned that from the very beginning. In the 1800 presidential campaign, as David McCullough recounts in his masterful biography of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson paid James Callender to vilify his opponent. In a campaign booklet, Callender called Adams a “repulsive pedant,” a “gross hypocrite,” and “in his private life, one of the most egregious fools upon the continent.” Not only that, Callender portrayed Adams as a “hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”
Shown proofs of the campaign pamphlet, Jefferson assured Callender: “Such papers cannot fail to produce the best effects.” But Adams gave as well as he took, allowing Yale president Rev. Timothy Wright to warn what would happen were “atheist” Thomas Jefferson elected president: “The Bible will be burned, the French ‘Marseillaise’ will be sung in Christian churches and we may see our wives and daughters the victims of legal prostitution; soberly dishonored; speciously polluted.”
And these were our Founding Fathers!
Politics weren’t much gentler in President Lincoln’s day. In her excellent book, “Dirty Politics,” Kathleen Hall Jamieson recounts the terms used to describe candidate Abe Lincoln: “filthy story teller, despot, liar, thief, braggart, buffoon, usurper, monster, Ignoramus Abe, old scoundrel, perjurer, robber, swindler, tyrant, fiend, butcher, and land-pirate.” Notice that “Honest Abe” wasn’t on the list.
Of course, you don’t have to go that far back to wallow in dirty campaigns. Think 1988 and Lee Atwater’s promising to make Willie Horton “a household name.” Think South Carolina 2000, when George W. Bush’s henchmen accused John McCain of fathering an illegitimate black child (actually, his adopted daughter from Bangladesh). Think Georgia 2002 and ads equating Max Cleland with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Think 2004 and the “Swift Boat” smears against John Kerry.
The truth is, we’ve seen a lot of dirty campaigns, but this isn’t one of them. You can call the 2008 Democratic primary many things. Call it historic. Call it hard-fought. Call it colorful, lively, and long. Just don’t call it dirty.
Leave a comment here!
4/10/08
MAKE IRAQIS SPEND THEIR OIL MONEY, NOT OURS
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
The Iraq War dog-and-pony show’s back in town, with the same old tired arguments for staying the course.
Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker anesthetized Congress with a “progress report” almost identical to the one they gave last September. According to the duo, dubbed “the surge twins” by Maureen Dowd, we’ve made some progress, but not enough; we can bring home some troops, but not all; the surge is working, except when it’s not. Yawn.
Even after five years of war and one year of the surge, Petraeus had to admit he saw “no light at the end of the tunnel” and no possibility of bringing more troops home until at least September — when conditions might allow further withdrawals, or might not. The whole presentation had a kind of “Alice in Wonderland” quality to it. As Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh summed it up: “We’ll know when we get there, and we don’t know when we’re going to get there.”
Petraeus and Crocker did succeed in one respect, however. They managed to run out the clock for another eight months, thereby helping President Bush achieve his number one goal in Iraq: keeping the war alive until he can dump it in the lap of his successor. That’s all Bush asked of Petraeus, and he delivered. “General, you did a heck of a job!”
Despite their lackluster performance, at least one good idea did emerge from Petraeus’ and Crocker’s appearance before Congress. It didn’t come from them. It came from Democrats. And here it is: If we’re going to stay in Iraq any longer, let the Iraqis pay for it — with their own oil money. Allah knows they can afford it. In fact, they’ve got a surplus, while we’re running a deficit. So why should we continue to pick up the tab?
This is not exactly a new idea. During the buildup to the Iraq war, remember, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz assured Congress that the entire cost of the operation would be paid for with Iraqi oil revenues — without costing American taxpayers one dollar. Today, at least $600 billion later, that’s just another one of George Bush’s broken promises.
But now the Iraqi oil fields are up and running, the pipelines are repaired, the price of oil’s at an all-time high, and money’s pouring into the Iraqi government’s coffers. In fact, according to Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Iraq has over $30 billion squirreled away in U.S. banks, collecting interest, and it could reap an additional $100 billion in oil profits from 2007 and 2008. Meanwhile, American taxpayers are not only paying for the cost of the war, we’ve spent $47 billion so far on Iraq reconstruction.
Adding insult to injury, American troops in Iraq are forced to buy gas on the open market, paying $3.23 a gallon for gas in Baghdad that they’ve sacrificed their lives to help deliver. Which means the Pentagon’s spending $153 million a month in Iraq on fuel alone. Thus does the Iraqi government show Americans its gratitude: by sticking it to us at the pump.
Ironically, even though over 4,000 Americans have died in Iraq, it may be the cost in dollars, and not in lives, that in the end unites both supporters and opponents of the war in demanding a change in direction. Arch-conservative Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, a cheerleader for the war from the beginning, told Petraeus and Crocker it was way past time the Iraqis started to pay for their own security. If they don’t, warned Rohrabacher, “There’s going to be trouble on the Republican side, as well as the Democratic side, of getting support for an ongoing conflict.”
Enough’s enough. Time to put all those Iraqi oil profits to good use. If we’re going to be stuck in Iraq any longer, at least let the Iraqi government pay for it. They can afford it. We can’t.
4/3/08
GEORGE W. BUSH: THE OUTLAW PRESIDENT
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
It’s hard for this liberal to admit, but conservatives actually get some things right.
They are correct, I believe, in advocating smaller, more efficient government; fiscal responsibility; balanced budgets; a non-interventionist foreign policy; and a constitutionally limited chief executive.
The problem is — as I document in my new book, “Trainwreck: The End of the Conservative Revolution (And Not A Moment Too Soon)” — once conservatives came to power, they delivered just the opposite: a bloated federal government; out-of-control federal spending; record budget deficits; a trigger-happy foreign policy; and a president who thumbs his nose at the law and Constitution.
Indeed, while failing in many things, George Bush and Dick Cheney have succeeded in restoring the imperial presidency of Richard Nixon. From the beginning, they have operated as if they are above the law. By refusing to reveal the names of oil executives on Cheney’s Energy Task Force, tapping phones without a warrant, or authorizing the use of torture, Bush and Cheney have put into practice Nixon’s rule: “When the president does it, that means that it’s not illegal.”
This week we saw two more blatant examples of their disdain for the law. First was an 81-page memo provided to the Defense Department by Deputy Attorney General John Yoo in March 2003, shortly after the invasion of Iraq. Yoo advised officers of the Pentagon that, in interrogating suspects in the war on terror, they didn’t have to worry about international treaties prohibiting torture. They didn’t even have to worry about U.S. laws against assault, maiming or other forms of physical abuse. After Sept. 11, advised Yoo, any abusive treatment of prisoners was justified as self-defense.
In other words, on behalf of the Bush White House and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, Yoo made the argument that, in wartime, anything goes: an argument long ago rejected by the civilized world, especially after Nazi atrocities in World War II. And an argument that led directly to the abuses of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
Perhaps more chillingly, Yoo’s 2003 memo — released to the ACLU under a Freedom of Information request — cites an earlier, 2001 Justice Department memo, still classified, advising the Bush White House that Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure do not apply to actions taken against American citizens as part of the so-called “war on terror.” That memo was most likely used by Bush as the basis for his illegal NSA wiretapping program, which continues to this day.
But it’s not only on national security matters that the Bush White House flouts the law. This week’s second example: Construction of Bush’s 670-mile fence along the border with Mexico has been held up because of legal challenges from ranchers, property owners, and environmental organizations. Rather than resolve those differences under the law, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that the administration will simply ignore 30 different applicable federal laws, declare itself exempt from the law, and build the fence by the end of the year. Property rights, states rights and the environment be damned.
How convenient. Wouldn’t you and I love the privilege of deciding which laws we like, or which laws we would obey — and chucking all the rest?
What’s so shocking about these two Bush administration actions is not simply their utter lawlessness. It’s how far they are from what conservatives profess to believe. Starting with the Founders, conservatives have always stood for strict limits on presidential power as a safeguard against tyranny. In keeping with James Madison, conservatives Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley Jr. taught that the Congress, not the president, was the most powerful of the three branches of government.
Even Barry Goldwater opposed the idea that presidents could ever operate outside the law. As if anticipating the power-grabbing days of Bush and Cheney, Goldwater warned in 1964: “This is nothing less than the totalitarian philosophy that the end justifies the means. . . . If ever there was a philosophy of government totally at war with that of the Founding Fathers, it is this one.”
But here again, as in so many areas, today’s conservatives have thrown true conservatism out the window. George W. Bush doesn’t believe he has to obey the law. He believes his is the law.
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier,” he once confessed, “. . . as long as I’m the dictator.” Fortunately, he won’t be much longer.
3/27/08
HANG IN THERE, BARACK AND HILLARY
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
You might call it Press’ First Rule of Politics: The longer you’re inside the Beltway, the more disconnected you are from the real world. And nothing proves it more than the current whining about how harmful this year’s continuing primary is to the Democratic Party.
You’ll notice that most complaints about the primary come, not from real Americans, but from talking heads on television: — 90 percent of whom live inside the Beltway, and 95 percent of whom are incapable of thinking for themselves and merely echo what other gasbags have to say.
It’s ironic that those complaining about the Democratic primary’s taking too long are the same bloviators who were complaining, only a few months ago, that the party’s nominee would be decided too early. At least they’re consistent. They were wrong then and they’re wrong now.
But it’s hardly the first time the media intelligentsia have been hopelessly out of touch with reality. During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Washington’s sanctimonious talking heads demanded that Bill Clinton resign the presidency. Meanwhile, out in the heartland, a majority of Americans said he should hang in there and fight.
We’re seeing the same disconnect today. Inside the Beltway, most pundits are demanding that Hillary Clinton quit the primary because Barack Obama’s ahead in delegates. Besides, they argue, Democrats are worried that the long primary is irreparably damaging the Democratic party.
Nonsense. Once again, the chattering class is living in its own world. It’s not true that Democrats are sick and tired of the primary. According to the latest Rasmussen poll, only 22 percent of Democrats believe that Hillary Clinton should abandon the race. Curiously enough, the same number, 22 percent, believe Barack Obama should drop out. Meanwhile, 62 percent of all Democrats want the primary to continue until there’s a clear winner. Most Americans, in other words, get what the Washington elite doesn’t: You don’t call the game at halftime just because one team’s ahead.
Nor is there any evidence that the unusually lengthy primary is damaging the Democratic party. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Starting in Iowa, Democrats have come back to life with a vengeance. The Iowa Democratic caucus attracted a record 227,000 voters — many of them first-time and young voters. That was almost twice the Republican turnout. And that outburst of enthusiasm has continued in every state.
In Ohio, as reported by Dan Balz in The Washington Post, 2.2 million voters turned out for the Democratic primary, compared to only 1.1 million Republicans. Voter participation in Texas was equally lopsided: 2.9 million Democrats vs. 1.4 million Republicans.
And the excitement has kept growing with each additional primary. When registration for the April 22 Pennsylvania primary closed on March 24, state officials announced that Democrats had set a new record for either party: over 4 million registered voters. Leading up to the primary, Democrats added 161,000 new voters, while Republicans lost almost 60,000. The same pattern is being observed in North Carolina, Indiana and other states with upcoming primaries.
There are only two reasons for that newfound energy: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They’re providing us with the most exciting primary contest in our lifetime, and the end result will be extremely advantageous to Democrats. Whenever it’s over, and whoever wins, Democrats will have built a ground operation in every state, including states and congressional districts they never bothered to campaign in before. And Democrats will have created a huge new historic pool of dedicated voters to help propel them to victory.
When will either Obama or Clinton lock down the nomination? Who knows? But whether it’s Puerto Rico in June or Denver in August, there will still be plenty of time to unite the party against John McCain. All those newly energized Democrats are not going to go away quietly. They will quickly rally to prevent a man from reaching the White House who would simply deliver the third Bush presidency.
So far, so good. Unless it gets really, really ugly — which neither Clinton nor Obama will allow — the Democratic primary of 2008 is not hurting the Democratic Party. It’s the best thing that has ever happened to the Democratic Party. Let every state vote!
Leave a comment on the blog!
- 101 Reasons to Vote Against John McCain
- Get Bill's Parting Shot sent to your cell phone, every day - with Foneshow!
- TRAINWRECK Book Tour Dates
- Bill's Pundit Blog in The Hill
- Be our friend on Facebook!
- Bill's wife, Carol Press - Scarves
