Thursday, January 31, 2008
my primary vote
I've had a lot of people asking me who I'm voting for in next week's Arizona Presidential Preference Primary Election. Ever since Bill Richardson proved himself too inept at basic progressive messages to deserve my continued support, I've been uncommitted. I'm not bowled over by Hillary Clinton. I like her well enough, she's incredibly brilliant and, when not under the often-inexplicable tight controls of her advisers and consultants, is actually very warm and caring. She may not be a liberal lion, but I'm voting for her anyway.
A lot of people I know and like and respect very much are voting for Barack Obama. The enthusiasm with which they support the Senator from Illinois just baffles me. I have yet to see what they see. He talks a good game, but there's always been something mostly intangible that kept me from really feeling like I could get behind his candidacy. Until this week. I figured it out.
I'm looking for a fighter. I'm a red meat voter. As important as ideology and experience are to me, I want a nominee who will be a partisan pugilist. This isn't just a short-term battle for an elected office. This has long-term, big-picture implications for how elections will be won for generations to come.
Here's my major beef with Obama: his "post-partisan" message does nothing to shift the center of mainstream political discourse in this country back to the left, where it historically sat. He praises Ronald Reagan. He says the Republican Party is the party of ideas. He defends a homophobic preacher who he allowed to emcee a fundraising concert on his behalf with the excuse that we have to accept all points of view. This is worse than failing to shift the discourse to the left; "post-partisan" just reinforces the current rightward tilt of the center of mainstream political discourse. Nothing will change with this as Obama's message if he is the nominee, because the Republicans will not stop distorting and lying and attacking anything that would even remotely benefit the common good.
He talks a good game sometimes, but then he talks about elevating the discourse as though Democrats are the ones playing dirty tricks and dragging their opponents through the mud. There's just no comparison, and Senator Obama is sending mixed messages - at best - to Joe and Jane Everyguy. He may cause previously unengaged people to vote Democratic, but his rhetoric does nothing to sustain that partisan identification. This is the politics of personality, not the politics of possibility.
This approach may be bringing a lot of new people into politics who have never participated before. But I would rather people be engaged because of the issues, and the fact that Democrats are, by and large, right on the issues, than by empty rhetoric about how mean everyone in Washington is toward each other. This is especially frustrating because it is the Republican Party who has been, by and large, wrong on the issues but never reluctant to attack their political opponents anyway.
Let's not forget that George W. Bush ran for President in 2000 by claiming to be "a uniter, not a divider". Then he went on to become the most divisive and reviled and destructive president since the Civil War. Obama's message is rhetorically identical, but the difference is he believes his own hype. I worry that he won't fight back when he's attacked because he's so concerned about maintaining the moral high ground. Remember how John Kerry lost in 2004 because he seemed constitutionally incapable of fighting back hard enough or fast enough when he was attacked? We've seen Senator Obama and his surrogates willing to attack his primary opponents, but we've seen little evidence that he's willing or able to attack Republicans or Republican ideas (the really dangerous ones that he actually seems to herald).
I can find fault with Senator Clinton too, many of them in fact. But I know that when she's attacked, she'll fight back, hard and fast. She won't cede any more of the political discourse to the reactionaries on the right. I believe that she, more than Obama, will move the country back towards the left where it needs to be, has historically been, and belongs.
In other words, Obama supporters don't seem to see the forest for the trees when it comes to the long-term implications of a "post-partisan" campaign.
This is a primary competition, after all. Where's my red meat?
With all that said, I will enthusiastically support whichever Democrat wins enough delegates to secure our nomination. That person will make history as the first African-American or woman President of the United States.
A lot of people I know and like and respect very much are voting for Barack Obama. The enthusiasm with which they support the Senator from Illinois just baffles me. I have yet to see what they see. He talks a good game, but there's always been something mostly intangible that kept me from really feeling like I could get behind his candidacy. Until this week. I figured it out.
I'm looking for a fighter. I'm a red meat voter. As important as ideology and experience are to me, I want a nominee who will be a partisan pugilist. This isn't just a short-term battle for an elected office. This has long-term, big-picture implications for how elections will be won for generations to come.
Here's my major beef with Obama: his "post-partisan" message does nothing to shift the center of mainstream political discourse in this country back to the left, where it historically sat. He praises Ronald Reagan. He says the Republican Party is the party of ideas. He defends a homophobic preacher who he allowed to emcee a fundraising concert on his behalf with the excuse that we have to accept all points of view. This is worse than failing to shift the discourse to the left; "post-partisan" just reinforces the current rightward tilt of the center of mainstream political discourse. Nothing will change with this as Obama's message if he is the nominee, because the Republicans will not stop distorting and lying and attacking anything that would even remotely benefit the common good.
He talks a good game sometimes, but then he talks about elevating the discourse as though Democrats are the ones playing dirty tricks and dragging their opponents through the mud. There's just no comparison, and Senator Obama is sending mixed messages - at best - to Joe and Jane Everyguy. He may cause previously unengaged people to vote Democratic, but his rhetoric does nothing to sustain that partisan identification. This is the politics of personality, not the politics of possibility.
This approach may be bringing a lot of new people into politics who have never participated before. But I would rather people be engaged because of the issues, and the fact that Democrats are, by and large, right on the issues, than by empty rhetoric about how mean everyone in Washington is toward each other. This is especially frustrating because it is the Republican Party who has been, by and large, wrong on the issues but never reluctant to attack their political opponents anyway.
Let's not forget that George W. Bush ran for President in 2000 by claiming to be "a uniter, not a divider". Then he went on to become the most divisive and reviled and destructive president since the Civil War. Obama's message is rhetorically identical, but the difference is he believes his own hype. I worry that he won't fight back when he's attacked because he's so concerned about maintaining the moral high ground. Remember how John Kerry lost in 2004 because he seemed constitutionally incapable of fighting back hard enough or fast enough when he was attacked? We've seen Senator Obama and his surrogates willing to attack his primary opponents, but we've seen little evidence that he's willing or able to attack Republicans or Republican ideas (the really dangerous ones that he actually seems to herald).
I can find fault with Senator Clinton too, many of them in fact. But I know that when she's attacked, she'll fight back, hard and fast. She won't cede any more of the political discourse to the reactionaries on the right. I believe that she, more than Obama, will move the country back towards the left where it needs to be, has historically been, and belongs.
In other words, Obama supporters don't seem to see the forest for the trees when it comes to the long-term implications of a "post-partisan" campaign.
This is a primary competition, after all. Where's my red meat?
With all that said, I will enthusiastically support whichever Democrat wins enough delegates to secure our nomination. That person will make history as the first African-American or woman President of the United States.
Labels: Barack Obama, Democratic brand, Hillary Clinton, Pres-08
Thursday, August 23, 2007
of course she's going to run
In case you haven't heard, a new poll released a few days ago showed that Janet Napolitano leads John McCain by 11 percentage points in a hypothetical matchup for his Senate seat in 2010.
I've been saying for the past year and a half that she's been preparing to run for that seat when she's term-limited out as Governor in 2010. She was a cautious moderate during her first term, never really going out on a limb for any major progressive causes. Indeed, thanks to a Neanderthal Legislature, all she had to do was veto the clearly batshit insane garbage that they sent her in order to build credibility and support among Arizona's voters.
Her caution made sense when she was preparing to run for re-election. But now that she's been re-elected by a pretty impressive margin and can't run for the same office again, one would think that she would temper some of her caution by throwing some red meat to her base that has been the core of her support through her terms as AG and Gov.
Not so much, apparently, as she signed a fairly draconian employer sanction bill and decided to accept more abstinence-only funding for another fiscal year instead of following the lead of other Governors around the country. There are plenty of other examples to be found, but her moderate-to-conservative policies in the first year of her second term are starting to turn off her core supporters.
Why would she be doing taking toward the right if she theoretically had the freedom to be true to her (presumed) progressive populist roots? Clearly, Governor is not the pinnacle of her political career.
A lobbyist friend of mine in Phoenix told me the buzz up there is that she's gunning for Attorney General in the next Presidential administration, which will almost certainly be headed by a Democrat. That may be her hope, but I think it's highly unlikely that she'd be selected for that role.
In Arizona's Constitutional offices, the Secretary of State is the equivalent of Lieutenant Governor. Our current SOS, Jan Brewer, is a Republican former state legislator. There is no way that a Democratic President would hand over the Governorship of a purple state to the GOP two years before the next Governor is scheduled to be elected, especially with a Republican-controlled legislature.
Her chances of landing the AG post might improve if Democrats could pick up at least one house of the legislature next year. It's possible, I suppose, but I'm not yet convinced it's likely. We need a Democratic Governor to be our firewall against the truly crazy, regressive, dangerous legislation that emanates from 'neath the copper dome.
This also calls to mind for me the reason I doubt she's a serious candidate for the VP slot on the Democratic ticket. I complained on this here blog a couple of times about her lack of campaigning for legislative candidates. It seemed that she had no interest in accruing or spending any political capital (I loathe that term, but it's apt here) from or for legislative candidates from her party.
If I was the chief executive of a state and the legislature was controlled by the fringe of the opposing party, I'd want to do everything in my power to help increase the number of my allies in the legislature so we could actually pass some positive legislation.
My theory is that the fringe legislature makes for a useful foil for the Governor as she positions herself for the Senate race against Grampa McCrazy. Why mess with a formula that yielded several successful statewide campaigns? The base be damned!
"Senator Napolitano" may very well be something we hear by December 2010, but at what cost to the Democratic brand in Arizona?
P.S. I believe that Arizona's resign-to-run law applies to Constitutional officers, which means she can't formally declare her intention to run for the U.S. Senate until the final year of her current term starts or she would have to resign. So expect to hear a lot of coy remarks about and deft dancing around those questions for the next three years.
I've been saying for the past year and a half that she's been preparing to run for that seat when she's term-limited out as Governor in 2010. She was a cautious moderate during her first term, never really going out on a limb for any major progressive causes. Indeed, thanks to a Neanderthal Legislature, all she had to do was veto the clearly batshit insane garbage that they sent her in order to build credibility and support among Arizona's voters.
Her caution made sense when she was preparing to run for re-election. But now that she's been re-elected by a pretty impressive margin and can't run for the same office again, one would think that she would temper some of her caution by throwing some red meat to her base that has been the core of her support through her terms as AG and Gov.
Not so much, apparently, as she signed a fairly draconian employer sanction bill and decided to accept more abstinence-only funding for another fiscal year instead of following the lead of other Governors around the country. There are plenty of other examples to be found, but her moderate-to-conservative policies in the first year of her second term are starting to turn off her core supporters.
Why would she be doing taking toward the right if she theoretically had the freedom to be true to her (presumed) progressive populist roots? Clearly, Governor is not the pinnacle of her political career.
A lobbyist friend of mine in Phoenix told me the buzz up there is that she's gunning for Attorney General in the next Presidential administration, which will almost certainly be headed by a Democrat. That may be her hope, but I think it's highly unlikely that she'd be selected for that role.
In Arizona's Constitutional offices, the Secretary of State is the equivalent of Lieutenant Governor. Our current SOS, Jan Brewer, is a Republican former state legislator. There is no way that a Democratic President would hand over the Governorship of a purple state to the GOP two years before the next Governor is scheduled to be elected, especially with a Republican-controlled legislature.
Her chances of landing the AG post might improve if Democrats could pick up at least one house of the legislature next year. It's possible, I suppose, but I'm not yet convinced it's likely. We need a Democratic Governor to be our firewall against the truly crazy, regressive, dangerous legislation that emanates from 'neath the copper dome.
This also calls to mind for me the reason I doubt she's a serious candidate for the VP slot on the Democratic ticket. I complained on this here blog a couple of times about her lack of campaigning for legislative candidates. It seemed that she had no interest in accruing or spending any political capital (I loathe that term, but it's apt here) from or for legislative candidates from her party.
If I was the chief executive of a state and the legislature was controlled by the fringe of the opposing party, I'd want to do everything in my power to help increase the number of my allies in the legislature so we could actually pass some positive legislation.
My theory is that the fringe legislature makes for a useful foil for the Governor as she positions herself for the Senate race against Grampa McCrazy. Why mess with a formula that yielded several successful statewide campaigns? The base be damned!
"Senator Napolitano" may very well be something we hear by December 2010, but at what cost to the Democratic brand in Arizona?
P.S. I believe that Arizona's resign-to-run law applies to Constitutional officers, which means she can't formally declare her intention to run for the U.S. Senate until the final year of her current term starts or she would have to resign. So expect to hear a lot of coy remarks about and deft dancing around those questions for the next three years.
Labels: AZ-Sen, Democratic brand, Janet Napolitano, John McCain, Pres-08
