The good news is that even Republicans are starting to get it. Bush's approval ratings have been in the toilet for years, but those same polls have generally indicated that his approval within his own party remained reasonably strong. But an interesting thing emerged from the exit polls of the first few Republican primaries. Freed of the obligation of rooting for the home team, it turns out that fully half of Republicans think they voted for a moron the last two times out.
That's all well and good -- better late than never, I suppose -- but what I really want to know is, do you still want to have a beer with him?
I never understood the media obsession with that non-issue in the 2000 campaign. Not only was it a stupid question to begin with, I couldn't believe anyone thought the right answer to the question was Bush. Yeah, George, we know -- you were so dumb you traded Sammy Sosa. You're a million laughs, but do you know anything about anything interesting? What's your take on global warming?
With all that baggage, you have to feel good about the Democratic chances in November. Now if only you could feel good about the Democrats.
The Clinton tag team campaign is emerging as one of the most disgusting things I have ever witnessed in politics (and the media is falling for it -- surprise) -- trotting out surrogates to make the most outrageous insinuations, then throwing them under the bus, all with this "Who? Me?" look of innocence on their faces. I've had friends on both the left and right who just despised Bill Clinton, turned red in the face at the mention of his name, and I never got it. It seemed like despising Dwight Eisenhower, or Grover Cleveland, political centrists of no lasting impact, like despising a hot dog wrapper blowing in the wind. But I think I'm beginning to get it. He's Eddie Haskell come to life.
But it's clear Bill's desperate lust to return to the White House borders on derangement. Look, I know she's his spouse and he's bound to support her, but he's an ex-President, for God's sake. There are certain rules of decorum. Oh, right -- Bill doesn't do decorum. But at this point, I can't even tell which one is running. And make no mistake -- lust is the right word. It must be the interns. I'm telling you, though, the first time I see a Manson-like gleam in his eye, I'm outa here.
But that's just the Clintons being the Clintons, and if their campaign is the most disgusting, Obama's is the most disappointing. I forgave his caution when he first entered the Senate, even on his signature issue, the war. He was new in the place, learning his way around, finding his legs, not wanting to make a stupid mistake. That's just being smart. But when you run for President, you ought to have the courage to take a principled stand, somewhere, about something.
Instead, his obviously poll-driven, consultant-driven campaign of personality, all in the name of "authenticity" and "a new kind of politics", reminds me of no one so much as George Bush in 2000. Go ahead, Barack, say it -- you're a uniter, not a divider. And his vague incantations of "hope" and "change" are worthy of the Clintons themselves. Great. He combines the most superficial and empty qualities of our last two Presidents. How inspiring.
But he hit Barack-bottom, so to speak, with his recent statements in praise of Ronald Reagan. The founder of "trickle down" (that is, piss on you) economics, the man whose very first act in office was to bust a union, the man who made ignorance a virtue in politics (but he had a nice smile), arms-for-hostages Reagan, dirty-wars-by-death-squads-in-Central-America Reagan, regulatory-foxes-in-the-henhouse Reagan, James Watt-Ed Meese-Ollie North Reagan, the President who first pointed the car toward the cliff we're now hurtling over -- yes, that Ronald Reagan.
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell later assured me that Obama was aiming not so much at the Nevada voters where the remarks were made (and where indeed it may have backfired among his potential union supporters), but at courting independents in the upcoming California primary, with whom Reagan remains a popular figure. Okay then -- smart politics for a stupid people.
But yes, I'll vote for whichever one is on the ballot in November. What choice do I have? The Republicans may never mention Bush by name, but boy, do they love his policies. They're all more for torture, more for illegal wiretapping, more for trashing the Constitution, more for more tax cuts for the rich, and above all, all more for more war.
It appears that the 70% of us who want an end to the Iraq war will not have a candidate in November. Oh sure -- both Clinton and Obama say they will begin withdrawing troops, but I'm more interested in when they plan to finish it. Neither will say.
Still, surely they'd stick with the wars we already have, not start any new ones. But even there, Obama says he's more than ready to invade Pakistan if circumstances dictate, while Clinton votes to brand Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which Bush says he has the right to pursue by any means necessary, anywhere in the world. Of course, she says her vote was actually a vote not to attack Iran, just as her vote to authorize war with Iraq was actually a vote not to attack Iraq. It's a logic only the Clintons understand.
But unlike current Republican frontrunner John McCain, at least they don't make up songs about it. It's a slender reed to hang on to. Baby steps, Gregg. Baby steps.
I've been a Dennis Kucinich backer all along -- right on the issues, courageous in his advocacy -- but it has become clear that he simply is not going to be allowed to be heard. Whatever criteria the TV networks set for inclusion in the debates, if Dennis meets them, they'll keep changing them until he doesn't. There's nothing anyone can do about it. Then just as I was moving toward John Edwards as a realistic alternative, he started sinking like a stone as well (though he may yet rebound, the beneficiary of the "I'm rubber, you're glue" -- "It takes one to know one ... times infinity" quality of the Clinton-Obama squabbling).
My best hope scenario now is that Clinton and Obama remain in a virtual tie, while Edwards snares just enough delegates to keep either from getting a majority. A deadlocked convention then turns to Al Gore. He's the obvious choice -- anti-war, pro-civil liberties, respected around the world for his prescient leadership on global warming -- which means he has a snowball's chance in hell. We all know wishing for something won't make it so, but in my case, when it comes to politics, wishing for something will most assuredly make it not so. I'm sorry, Al.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
