Here's
my plan for Election Day:
Vote early, rent some videos, and shut myself away from outside communication
until Wednesday morning. I don't really want to drag myself through
the hell of waiting to see who won; it's going to be a close election,
so it means that they won't project a winner until very late. If I catch
any of it early on, I'm bound to be depressed and edgy all night because
either my man will be behind and I'll be worried he won't catch up,
or he'll be ahead and I'll worry he'll blow it. Much better simply you
wake up on Wednesday and take the news in one hard slug.
I honestly
don't know who is going to win. Dubya's been consistently up in the
polls, of course, but the margin is slim, and if the wanna-be Naderites
chicken out, as I suspect they might, it might be enough for Gore. Or
Bush could win the popular vote while Gore takes the electoral vote,
in which case, God bless the Electoral College. No matter what, it's
going to be close; if Al and Dubya don't already have ulcers, they will
by 11:59 Tuesday night.
If you
put a gun to my head and made me predict a winner, it would pain me
to admit that I think Bush might -- might -- come out ahead (and then
I might ask you to shoot me anyway). Every one knows that I think Bush
isn't qualified in the slightest for the job, but people, bless their
addlepated little hearts, seem to be floating him a great deal of good
will; they'd rather have a genial goof in the White House than someone
like Al Gore, who is the guy who always had his hand up in class, all
grown up ("Now, Al, let's give someone else a chance to answer the question").
I could be wrong (I hope I'm wrong); maybe Americans will go for brains
over comfortability. We'll have to see.
(And no,
I don't think the DUI flap will mean anything one way or another, except
possibly to a very few undecided MADD types. It was 26 years ago, and
no one seems to hold it against Dubya that he didn't want to talk about
earlier because -- duh -- why would you? He doesn't drink now, anyway.
And of course, when one is President, one is driven everywhere -- he
certainly won't be wrapping a limo around the White House guard station.)
Will I
move to another country, like all our Hollywood stars seem to be planning,
if Bush wins? Nah. It would depress me intellectually to see Bush win,
and of course the whole idea of him choosing Supreme Court justices
makes me want to jam a hangar into my skull. But, as I've mentioned
before, on a purely selfish level, none of Bush's policies will hurt
me personally. In fact, I do better moneywise with him than Gore, since
Bush is giving most of most his tax relief to the well-off, and I'm,
well, I'm not poor.
There's
also the matter that I suspect the House is going Democratic this election;
if it does, Bush's worse excesses will be checked for at least two years
(at which point, the Dems will probably take back the Senate too, since
mid-terms typically go against the incumbent). So while I'd rather not
have a Bush presidency if I can at all avoid it, I doubt it would be
the end of the world as we know it. And anyway, as I've said before,
if Bush does win, then I'm all for a smaller government, since I don't
want his jammy little hands fiddling with the thing. If Bush wins and
the House stays GOP-led, I might get a little nervous. We'll just have
to see.
In any
event, when I vote for President, I'll be casting my vote futilely --
I live in Virginia, which is Bush country through and through. However,
that's not the point. Futile though it might be, it's my vote to cast,
and I'll vote for the man I think should be President (or more accurately,
the man I think should be President, given the choices I have). Then
I'm going to hide for the rest of the day. The future will be here soon
enough. No need to rush it.
Let's
talk about Ralph Nader for a second. The
going line from the Democrats is that a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote
for Dubya, on the reasoning that Nader is sucking away voters that would
otherwise cast their ballots for Gore (the number of Nader voters that
would otherwise vote for Bush is so small that it could be counted with
a single finger, curled downward). I don't really think that's true,
however. Yes, he's detracting from Gore in the polls, since liberals
like to talk tough and say they're going to take their vote and give
it to Nader. It makes you look cool and lefty and all.
However,
when they actually get into the polling booth and are confronted with
the stark reality that their vote could in practical terms torpedo reproductive
rights and enviromental concerns for at least the next four years, I
figure the largest chunk are going to chicken out and go for the "half
a loaf" they'll get with Gore. The ones left over that will actually
vote for Nader are the ones that would have voted Libertarian/Socialist/whatever
anyway, or are legitimately new or previously disinterested voters that
Nader brought into the political process. None of these leftovers would
be voting for Gore anyway, so they're not taking away from his vote.
There are
far fewer true believers than you may imagine, however. I suspect that
when the polls close on Tuesday, Nader total vote is going to be closer
to one or two percent than the four or five percent he's currently polling
at. Buchanan, who is (thankfully) an aside to this whole election thing,
will be lucky to get a whole percentage point.
Personally,
I don't have a problem with the faux-Naderites losing their spine in
the voting booth and putting in for Gore, since a) I don't want another
President Bush, and b) I don't think Gore is a bad choice for President.
So I don't want any of you Naderites thinking this is a challenge to
you to stiffen your resolve and take one for the Nader. Quite the opposite.
Give in to your lefty fears, pal, since Bush (or more accurately his
cronies) are going to do their damnedest to make them come true.
If you've
never doubted you were going to vote for Nader, then you should clearly
vote for Nader. Have fun. If you've wondered if you should vote for
Nader, however, suck it up and vote for Gore. The hardcore Naderites
never really counted in this election; however, your vote might actually
be useful.
***
There's
apparently a movement underfoot for liberals to have their cake and
eat it too: "Vote-swapping," in which a lefty from a clearly pro-Bush
state such as Texas promises to vote for Nader if a Nader supporter
in a swing state promises to vote for Gore. The idea here is that Gore
benefits from electoral votes (which he needs to win), while Nader benefits
from the percentage of total voters (which his party needs to get on
the ballot next time around). Someone just sent me an e-mail on this
very subject, coincidence of coincidences, as I'm writing this.
I think
this is a swell idea, for two reasons. The first is because if people
really are planning to vote for Nader, it'll limit the damage he does
to Gore. The second is because it's not actually going to work, since
while I suspect hardcore Nader voters will be credulous enough to accept
Gore supporter promises at face value and cast their vote for Al, Gore
supporters realize that a Presidential election ain't some stupid vote-swapping
game and will vote for Gore anyway. Be that as it may, I don't think
enough voters will go along with this sort of thing to make it actually
useful to anyone anywhere. Again, if you're seriously considering this
ploy, you're clearly not a hardcore Nader supporter. Suck it up and
vote Gore.
***
This
of course sounds like I'm shilling for Gore, and I don't suppose
I'll shy away from that accusation, since I've been very clear since
early on that I wouldn't be voting any other way. But I think it's less
of a show of a support for Gore as a call for the politically wishy-washy
to get a clue. Frankly, the same advice I'm offering faux-Naderites
is the same advice I'd offer the faux-Buchananites, if there were any,
which apparently there are not. People on the liberal and conservative
extremes both seem to approach politics with a sense of willful self-destruction;
it's easier to be part of the loyal opposition than it is to be part
of the compromised majority.
My only
response to this is: Whatever. I do think the US system of government
is inherently constructed to make sure no one ever gets everything they
want out of the political arena. The founding fathers, bless their powdered
pigtails, understood that this is a country of diverse interests and
that if someone was getting everything they wanted, they most likely
represented a threat to democracy in general. What we call "gridlock"
is by and large what the founding fathers would call "just right." If
you have more brains than passion, you accept you won't win every battle
and go with those who will realiistically allow you to win the battles
you can today, while you lay the groundwork for the battles to come.
This is
not a call to accept the inevitable, in the form of a two-party system.
I'm just itchin' to vote for a Presidential candidate who isn't a Republican
or a Democrat, who speaks to my own inclinations: Largely fiscally conservative,
largely socially liberal, who isn't beholden to a political machine
honed over 150 years. However, he (or she) isn't here now. And he certainly
isn't Nader. So I'll make do with Gore.
However,
I wouldn't be surprised if the first independent President is just around
the corner. In 2004, Gore or Bush, whoever wins, should probably be
less concerned about whoever the other major party fields than who could
be coming in from left field. Like it or not (and my own personal jury
is still sort of out on this one), I think a President Ventura is a
very real possibility. I'd be watching what goes on in Minnesota for
the next four years, if I were you.
I mentioned
before that this election is Gore's to lose,
and lo and behold, Al seems to be determined to do just that. The idea
that he is somehow unable to capitalize on the last eight years, arguably
the most prosperous eight years that any people anywhere in the history
of man has ever had, has simply got me agog. A cocker spaniel who had
been Vice-President under Bill Clinton should be able to win this election.
Look at my record in this administration, the dog would pant, waving
its tail fetchingly. People would fall over themselves to vote. President
Fluffy. He'd be the longest running president, at least in dog years.
Al Gore
is no cocker spaniel. For one thing, he wants to run this campaign as
his own man, which means, apparently, trying to pretend that he's not
actually the Vice-President at the moment. This is just plain nuts.
The fact is, as a person, as a real live human being, people don't like
Al Gore, and it's doubtful they ever will. Sure, Tipper likes him, but
Tipper ain't exactly a wild prize either, you know. Al needs to dump
this "be your own man" thing and get with the program and remind people
that he's at least partially responsible for them largely being better
off for the better part of the last decade.
Dubya's
winning in the polls at the moment not because he has anything to show
for himself politically or intelectually but in large part because people
feel Al's kind of a jerk. Al had a handle on this earlier in the campaign,
when he admitted he wasn't warm and fuzzy but that he would work hard.
He let that slide, and let the GOP begin to define him. Part of this
definition is the GOP's labelling of the last eight years as a "failure"
of some sort, which Gore aids by not putting up a fight on the matter.
I mean, honestly, if the last eight years define failure, for God's
sake, let's lose some more.
The person
who can win this election for Al Gore (or could have earlier; now it
may just be a little too late) is Bill Clinton, a fact that rankles
Al to no end. But the question is: Does he want to be his own man, or
does he want to be President? Dubya's dad didn't win because people
liked him, you know. They voted for the legacy of the Reagan years and
because Reagan did his boss-like duty and stumped for the man (he also
won because Dukakis, well, come on. Dukakis was the lamest Presidential
candidate in 30 years. Dubya is also a lame, but he's ahead at the moment,
so by definition, he's not in the same category yet).
Bill's
just itchin' to torpedeo Dubya -- if Al wants to win, he should just
swallow his pride and let Clinton at him. Then he'll have four years
to define himself as his own man. That should be enough. ***
It's
a good thing I was planning to vote for Frank Wolf as my congressional
representative, since it turns out that I don't have that much choice
in the matter. Wolf is essentially running unopposed; there is no Democratic
candidate in the 10th District of Virginia, where I reside, and the
other two candidates, one an independent and the other a Libertarian,
have about as much chance of toppling Wolf as I have of suddenly sprouting
a third arm from the small of my back.
Admittedly,
making a statement like this is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy,
since if people don't ever back independent or third party candidates,
there's no way they'll ever win. However, I'm not voting for either
of them, and I'm about as independent a voter as they come. If someone
like me won't vote for them, they're pretty screwed. As it happens,
this is the usual scenario for Virginia 10 -- Wolf runs pretty much
without opposition every year and sweeps back into office with 90% or
so of the vote.
Be that
as it may, mad props go to both of the other candidates, for making
the attempt pretty much without any financial backing -- Mark Rossi,
the independent, because he's doing it on his own, and Brian Brown,
the Libertarian, because the Liberarian Party ain't exactly rolling
in cash. The drawback for them is that no one's ever heard of either
of them -- I don't see little signs out on the roads for these guys,
or commercials on TV, or ads on the radio. Indeed, the only way I knew
about them is that I went to AOL's election site and typed in my zip
code to see who is running in my district (I don't see or hear any Frank
Wolf ads, either, but he's the incumbent and he's a Republican -- two
facts which go a very long way where I live).
On the
off chance you are reading this and actually live in Virginia 10, I'll
now do my part and chat a little about the other candidates and their
positions. Mark Rossi, the independent candidate. Rossi's a lawyer who
specializes in intellectual property (a hot topic around these here
parts, what with all the high tech and all) and who has, from the practical
standpoint of my vote, some positions that don't really work. For example,
he takes on Frank Wolf on the issue of mass transit in the area. Mass
transit's a big issue, since the area is growing and DC is one of the
most clogged traffic areas in the country. Wolf proposes adding additional
buses in the area, that will ferry people to the Metro, DC's subway
system. Rossi, on the other hand, seems to want to extend the Metro
service into the 10th District.
On a theoretical
level this is just fine; on a practical level, this would make moving
around a royal pain in the ass. As it happens, Frank Wolf heads the
House Sub-Committee on Transportation (which accounts for Virginia's
lovely roads); given his history of intelligence as well as moral and
ethical behavior, I'm willing to give Wolf the benefit of the doubt
and will cheerfully go with the idea that on this issue, Wolf almost
certainly knows what he's talking about, whereas Rossi may not.
Rossi presses
my buttons on another issue, which is term limits, suggesting term limits
of 12 years for members of both the House and Senate. Rossi notes that
Wolf himself once campaigned on the the issue of term limits, saying
he'd stay no longer than 12 years. He said this 14 years ago. Well,
and perhaps he did. However, I certainly don't hold this against Wolf.
A man's got a right to change his mind when he's campaigned on a stupid
idea, and term limits qualify. As anyone with a brain knows, there are
already term limits -- they're called elections. People have a right
to send anyone they like to office, even folks who have been in office
for years.
Wolf has
been a fine public servant, by and large; it'd just be plain dumb to
lose his experience and connections (and our fine, fine Northern Virginia
roads) on the idea that he should be thrown out of office just for the
sake of throwing him out of office. This is tempered by the fact, of
course, that Wolf is essentially running unopposed in Virginia 10. Still,
if enough people were fed up with Frank Wolf, there would be more serious
opposition. This district is filled with people who are both smart and
rich. They wouldn't tolerate bad representation. Knock on wood.
The second
candidate, Brian Brown, hardly looks old enough to be a Congressional
intern, much less a Congressman; in fact he's 30, well inside the constitutional
eligibility scale for the house. Hell, he could be a Senator, if'n he
wanted. I'm not worried that he's too young for the office, of course.
When I was 30, all those many year ago, I was capable of doing many,
many things, one of which, I suspect, would have been representing Virginia
10.
However,
I suspect I am morally opposed to voting for anyone with a silly-ass
goatee and pony-tail. Having had both at one time or another (though,
importantly, not both at the same time), I have to say it bespeaks a
certain level of dorkishness on doesn't really want in an elected official.
One would be frightened of Mr. Brown rising in the well of Congress,
and saying "Dude, this proposed law would be most heinous!" Yes, Jefferson
got away with a pony-tail. However, it was 200 years ago. And he did
write the Declaration of Independence. For that he gets a sartorial
pass.
My opposition
to Brown has nothing at all to do with his hair choices, really. It's
more to the point that I think that while Libertarian political philosophy
works just fine with small groups of moderately intellectual folks who
live on small islands and see themselves as characters in a Robert Heinlein
novel, it's rather impractical when you're dealing with 275 million
people, the vast majority of whom see it as part of their moral duty
to tell others how to live their lives.
I'm happy
Libertarians want to let me live free and easy; this does not mean they're
equipped to defend me politically from the other folks who think differently.
Politics is at least partially a defensive act, after all -- When I
vote for Al Gore in a couple of weeks, it's not so much of a vote for
Al as a practical vote against the GOP platform attaching itself to
the head of our political body (such as it would be with Dubya as that
body's brain).
Would I
ever vote for a politically independent candidate? Absolutely, if that
candidate's positions matched my own and I think there would be a definite
political advantage (or at least, no major political damage) in having
that person representing me in Congress. I'd vote for them even if I
thought they had no real chance at winning, because I would at least
be able to say I voted my conscience. Neither Rossi or Brown reach that
level, but I thank them for trying. Wolf will mop the floor with them,
but at least they put themselves out there. It counts, even if ultimately
it counts for little.
Rossi's
Website: http://home.att.net/~rossiesq/rossiforcongress.html
Brown's Website: http://www.brianbrown2000.com
Rats
For
the record, I don't think Bush had anything to do with the ad that
purportedly carries a subliminal message in it, for the simple reason
that anyone who can't pronounce the word "subliminal" correctly (Bush
repeatedly pronounced the word as "subliminable" when discussing the
ad) is unlikely to intentionally use the concept in his advertising.
To tell you the absolute truth, I'm far more troubled by the fact
Bush doesn't appear to know the word "subliminal" than I am by any
suggestion that subliminal advertising was attempted by the RNC. "Subliminal"
ain't that uncommon a word, folks. I think we can reasonably expect
the potential leader of the free world to be able to pronounce it
correctly.
However,
the entire incredibly stupid episode does point out yet another fundamental
weakness in the Bush campaign, which is that it is all-too-easy to
get it off message for entire news cycles at a time. The Democrats
who brought the "Rats" thing to attention of the media almost certainly
knew that it had almost nothing to do with anything. So the word "Rats"
(which is by everyone's admission meant to be part of the larger word
"Bureaucrats") pops up for 1/30th of a second before the longer, entire
word forms on the screen. So what? Even if it were intentionally subliminal,
subliminal advertising doesn't work. In any event, in the two weeks
the ad's been running, Gore's poll numbers have gone up. So even if
the subliminal advertising were working, it's apparently done nothing
but expose America's heretofore secret fondness for large rodents.
But that's
hardly the point. The point was, someone at the Gore campaign saw
this, turned to his cronies, and said, Hey, wanna get Bush off-message
for yet another day? The Democrats don't give a damn about the "subliminal
message," for Christ's sake. They just want to keep Bush where's he's
been since the Democratic convention: On the defensive and looking
like he's making one damn fool mistake after another. Guess what,
it worked. The "Rats" controversy has far less to do with the Republican
campaign's weaknesses than it does with the Democratic campaign's
ability to effectively play dirty pool.
Not that
I blame the Democrats for using it. They didn't create the damn ad,
after all. If the Republicans are stupid enough to let it slip by,
they deserve what they get. Politics isn't about letting stupid mistakes
slip by. Otherwise, when Quayle misspelled "potato" on camera, everyone
would have stared uncomfortably for a moment and then moved on to
something else -- anything else -- as quickly as they could. The Dems
took a soft lob from their opponents and stuffed it right back down
their throats. If the situations were reversed, the GOP would do the
same thing. Of course, they would come across as smug and disingenuous
as they were doing it -- Republicans can't help themselves, any more
than Democrats can help seeming moist and overwrought -- so it probably
wouldn't help them as much as it's helping Gore and his pals.
The fact
is, Bush and the GOP now have two problems to deal with. The first
is the fact that they're still not getting their message out with
any frequency or reliability, and the closer we move towards election
day, the more of a problem this will be -- and the more you can expect
the Democrats to attempt to confound GOP attempts to stay on message,
aided by the Bush camp's seeming inability to get through a day without
doing something eminently mockable.
Which
brings us to the second thing: Now people are expecting dumb-ass moves
from Bush and the GOP. Every time I see Bush's mug on the TV screen,
I can't help but wonder what damn fool thing he's said now, or what
sort of crap his campaign has stepped in today. When you're running
for president, that's not what you want people think whenever they
see your face. I wonder if it's too late for Bush to do anything about
it now.
Dubya?
Dumb.
The more
I get to know Dubya, the more I'm convinced that what passes for thought
in the man is actually nothing more than an extended mental hiccup.
This would easily explain why the man is careening from one stupid
attack on Al Gore to another. The most recent of these attacks involves
Gore's refusal to accept Dubya's proposed debate schedule as it stands.
Bush is slamming Gore because Gore said he would debate anytime and
anywhere, but now Gore's apparently backed away from that. So much
for honesty, says Bush.
But let's
just think about this for a moment. Bush's proposed debate schedule
is well-designed, provided you don't actually want people to see the
debates. The first "debate" would take place on NBC's "Meet the Press"
-- i.e., on a Sunday morning when most people are in church or participating
in that other great American worship event, i.e., watching football
(my friend Mike Reed points out that the plan is for the "MTP" event
to take place in a special prime-time edition, but that still butts
up against football on the East Coast). The second "debate" would
take place on CNN's Larry King Live, which means that the folks out
there who don't have cable (i.e. the poor folk) wouldn't be able to
catch the live show. Also, let's face it, between watching this "debate"
and watching NBC Thursday programming (yes, the Larry King "debate"
is scheduled on a Thursday -- right at the beginning of a new TV season,
no less), most people will go for "Will & Grace."
Bush's
people have only placed one real debate on their schedule -- "real"
being defined as one that all media outlets will cover (ABC and CBS
have already chimed in that they won't cover the NBC or CNN "debates"),
which won't face highly popular counter-programming and which will
not have its format dictated by an existing show's format. As I understand
it, Gore is demanding that beyond these faux-"debates," two more real
debates are scheduled, for a total of three as proposed by the Commission
on Presidential Debates, which is a bipartisan group.
Bush
is making some short-term hay on the idea of Gore rejecting these
debates, but in typical GOP short-term-win, long-term-blunder fashion,
he's giving Gore a lot of ammunition with which to whack back. Why
won't he debate in a medium that will allow for maximum viewership
and minimal futzing by the political parties? Gore and his cronies
can spin it a couple of ways. Either Bush is so arrogant that he doesn't
feel the need to take the debates seriously (which, given the current
state of poll numbers, would be remarkably stupid if it were true),
or Bush's handlers know that the GOP policies won't play to the crowd,
so better keep the platform on the back burner and let Bush's charisma,
such as it is, carry them to the White House. Then question then becomes:
What is Bush trying to hide? Spun right, Gore could come out of this
looking rather good: Of course he declined this proposed debate schedule.
He wants to be President of us all, not just the cable subscribers
and the policy wonks.
This
latest episode illustrates the continuing problem that the GOP has:
They continue to press the character issue, while the Democrats hit
back with policy -- and the GOP has a lot more to answer for in the
matter of policy than Al Gore and Joe Lieberman have to answer for
in the matter of character. The more the GOP goes to the character
issue, the more the Democrats are going to whack back with policy.
This election, I'd be betting on policy. The fact that Bush is making
it easy for the Democrats to beat him at his own game doesn't give
one much faith in his mental processes.
***
Speaking
of character issues, let's talk a moment about the "asshole" comment.
At a stop in Illinois, Dubya pointed out a New York Times reporter
and commented to his running mate that the man was an asshole. Unfortunately
for Dubya, a microphone picked it up, and the next thing you know,
there he is on TV, pointing at some dude and audibly calling him an
asshole. When asked later if he planned to apologize for the comment,
Bush replied that he was sorry it had been picked up -- which is to
say, no, he's not sorry he called the guy an asshole, he just wished
that it hadn't stepped on his official message for the day, which
was bagging on Gore concerning the debates.
The comment
and the subsequent response make Bush look like something of a putz,
but I don't think it's going to do him any real damage. Speaking as
a former newspaper writer, I can guarantee you that no one cares if
one of them gets called an asshole or not. Newspaper folks are assumed
to be assholes until proven innocent, and that goes double for the
ones from the New York Times or the Washington Post. Besides, all
Bush supporters assume that the media has a liberal bias, anyway.
So if Bush calls some liberal reporter from "the ultra-liberal New
York Times" an asshole, that only scores points with the core constituents.
And if the NYT seems especially harsh on the Bush campaign from here
on out, why, it's because now the paper has it in for Bush -- they
protect their own, you know.
Be that
as it may, I think all gained a little bit of insight into Dubya's
soul, and we all walk away with a valuable lesson -- if you're a presidential
candidate, check your mike before you call someone an asshole. One
stupid slip can wrest your whole campaign off message for a day. At
this point in the game, Bush doesn't really need to be knocked off
message anymore often than he already is. Especially by doing it to
himself.
The
Kiss
I was
wrong about this election. It's actually turning out to be fairly
interesting, not because of anything the candidates are doing (they're
out stumping stumping stumping and will be doing so for the next three
months), but because this is an election that is best showing the
fundamental disconnect between the people who are paid to comment
on the politicians, and the people who, you know, actually vote. The
best and clearest example of this was the ruckus among the commentariat
about "The Kiss," the big fat smackeroo Gore placed on Tipper as he
was on the way to accept the Democratic nomination.
Apparently
(and I say "apparently" because I did not see it; right up until Gore
started speaking I was watching the utterly ridiculous martial arts
flick "Romeo Must Die") when Gore kissed his wife after she introduced
him at the convention, he didn't just kiss her, he, like, totally
kissed her -- one of those kisses that apparently sent the message
maybe later that night Tipper would find out just how stiff ol' Al
could really be.
This
shocked and appalled the commentators; I believe Robert Novak called
it "appalling,"though I may have misattributed the quote and I don't
want to bother with looking it up. Someone called it appalling, in
any event. Some even suggested it was a purely political play, a way
to show Al wasn't like Clinton, the implication being that Clinton
would never slip Hillary the tongue on the stage at the Democratic
National Convention, and were he to try, she might just bite it off
right there (and who could blame her). In any event, the pundit reaction
to "The Kiss" was mostly negative. That's just now how things are
done in Washington, apparently.
Most
of the rest of the Americans that saw it liked it just fine. The fact
that Al felt entirely comfortable slobbering all over his wife on
national television, right before the most important political speech
of his life, says a lot about the man. It says that his priorities
are straight, for one thing; while no one doubts Gore is a political
animal, one also gets the feeling that if he were to lose the election,
he would be okay after a while -- the center of his life isn't his
political career but his wife and by extension his family.
One
couldn't ever shake the feeling that Bill Clinton would push a puppy
in front of an Amtrak train if he thought there were a vote in it;
certainly when it comes to the office or his wife, the wife had to
give. Look at the strained, tight-lipped smile Hillary has whenever
you see her and Bill in public together and you can't help but think
that there's a woman who knows where she ranks on Bill's "Important
Things" list. You see the same knowledge on Tipper's face, too, of
course. It just signifies a different ranking; Tip ain't exactly the
tight-lipped sort, as that kiss went to show.
And,
besides all that -- Al and Tipper are married, for Christ's sake.
You're supposed to want to lay one on your wife. Al and Tip have been
married, what? 30 years? Something like that. If you're a man who
can be married that long and still come out and give your wife a snog
that makes an entire nation think man, these two need to get a room,
you know what? That's a damn fine marriage you have going, there.
People like that. People like to see people in love with other people.
They especially like seeing people in love with the people they're
married to -- and especially after 30 years.
This
isn't the first time the commentators have been off-base regarding
Gore, of course. They didn't like Al's speech, either, while the voters
apparently went nuts for it -- convention bounce or not, you don't
leap 16 points in a poll and take the lead in the presidential race
if you didn't connect with the folks at home. Either the commentators
have it in for Gore (which is possible but unlikely; unlike his boss,
Al's not the sort to inspire instinctual vituperation) or they've
just been away from actual human beings for so long that they've forgotten
how people really are. That, and they're not getting any really good
lip action, either. Given the general attractiveness of political
commentators, this is quite possibly a seriously relevant point.
I do
find it amusing that the commentators seem to feel that the general
populace can be swayed by the illusion of sincerity in politics, but
when they're presented with the real thing that it somehow leaves
them cold. Well, they got the real thing, in both sense of the term,
when Al gave Tipper that lip lock. There's a family value for you,
folks. No wonder they've got four kids.
August
18, 2000
Gore
to voters: Hey, I'm kind of boring. Voters to Gore: Yeah, well, Al,
we knew that.
However,
I have to say that I was glad that Al didn't try to pretend he was
someone who was very exciting, since whenever he does that, he ends
up looking something like an ass. So he went the other way, stood
up in front several thousand screaming partisans, and was the biggest
freakin' wonk he could possibly be. And it worked -- one, because
that what he is, and everyone's better off being who they are when
it comes to these things, and two, because he was absolutely right
when he noted that the Presidential race isn't a popularity contest.
It's not, or shouldn't be, at the very least. Al's a stiff, but he's
a thoughtful, intelligent stiff, and it ought to count for something.
The analysts
I heard from groused that Al's speech seemed too much as if it were
fomenting some sort of class war, a sort of "hang the rich" screed
that won't sit will with the folks who have made a hunk of cash in
the last five years and hauled themselves up a tax bracket or two.
This is the sort of analyst crap that makes me roll my eyes. For Christ's
sake, I know the New Rich -- I worked at AOL with them, after all.
There's not a one of them that doesn't think in his or her heart that
they're actually middle class -- they're simply a very wealthy subdivision
of the same. I doubt any of them watched Gore's speech last night
and thought, Damn, Al is dividing me! I better vote Republican!
And anyway,
I'm doing well enough financially that I can say this speaking from
my own experience: The well-off don't need any more damn help. Let's
be clear, I don't mind getting a tax break now and then; I pay more
taxes than most of the rest of you, after all, thanks to being self-employed
(that's as a percentage, not as straight dollars). But even with an
additional 10% tax hit, after all is said and done, guess what? I'm
just fine, thanks. Call me altruistic or fiscally insane, but I'd
rather if someone's going to get a break on taxes and deductions,
it's someone for whom an extra five bucks a week might actually mean
something: A better class of canned food for their kid, or some more
socks, or a doctor visit that doesn't induce panic about how it's
going to be paid for.
Look:
There are class divisions in our society. I grew up poor and spent
my teenage years as the scholarship case at high school that cost
so much my mother couldn't have paid for it with an entire year's
worth of income. While my friends lived literally on that house on
a hill, I lived in a mobile home. White trash all the way, baby. I
remember one time talking to a high school acquaintance and seeing
him get all noble about how we had a responsibility to "the other
half," and thinking, you dumb ass, I am the other half. It's not fomenting
class war to note those divisions are there; certainly it's better
than pretending they don't exist, particularly for the purpose of
letting the rich get richer.
Now I'm
not poor and I don't think there's a damn thing wrong with saying
that because I make more and have more, I can afford to give more
-- and that I don't mind doing it through taxes. The goverment won't
necessarily spend my money more wisely than I could, I'll be the first
to admit. However, it can do it more effectively, and they can do
more good than I could do on my own, so long as the right people are
guiding it with the right policies. If the GOP win, sure, I'll take
a tax cut, since I don't really want them fooling around with my cash
in the first place.
This
doesn't change the fact that personally and financially speaking,
as I've noted before, I would be better off with all the nifty tax
breaks and such that the GOP is ready to hand to me, in its genial
and blandly charismatic way. I mentioned that fact to Krissy, and
she said "Yeah, but we don't vote on just that." She right; we vote
for what we think is best overall. When Al Gore stood up there, admittedly
stiff, he still told us what he thinks is the direction our country
should go. In a general sense, I agree with him more than I agree
with George W. and the GOP. He's a stiff, but he's right (or more
right). I can live with that.
Would
it be better if Al were more exciting? Possibly. But, remember: Clinton
sure as hell was exciting. I don't think we need any more of that
at the moment, do you?
***
Speaking
of Bill, it just boggles the mind that Robert Ray and his happy crew
are still planning to go after Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky thing;
given the sort of damage the whole scandal did to Clinton's enemies
in the '98 elections, you'd think they'd prefer not to bring it up
again just when they're trying to elect a Republican to be President.
Can't think of a better way to scare off normal people than to remind
them that Republicans would rather be right than sane. Fortunately
there seem to be some folks in the Bush campaign who feel the same
way, since they appear to be distancing themselves from the current
Clinton investigation. They'd probably be happier if it just went
way.
Personally
speaking, though I wouldn't mind if the Bush campaign got torpedoed,
I would rather they do it to themselves than to have themselves torpedoed
by a Republican legacy of rabid partisanship. If Al Gore shouldn't
be judged by the excesses and stupidity of his boss, neither should
Dubya be saddled by the dumb moves of the Republicans before him.
***
You know,
every time I write something that slams the GOP and exposes my own
native lefty leanings, I wonder if'n I ought not just pack it in,
renounce my supposedly independent leanings, and register as a Democrat.
I don't for two reasons. First, the last thing I need is more crappy
junk mail hitting me up for cash (I get enough of that from the GOP
side, thanks to the fact I used to subscribe to the Washington Times).
Second, I wholeheartedly support Frank Wolf, my representative in
Congress, who as it happens is a Republican.
Mr. Wolf
and I don't see eye-to-eye on a some of my hot button issues (he'd
never get my vote for President), but here's the thing: He's not a
brainless, party-line apparatchik who only does what his overlords
tell him to do. He appears to have a well-developed sense of personal
honor and ethics, which he follows even at the expense of his party's
politics. And he's also on the House Subcommittee on Transportation,
which helps keep my local roads smooth and pothole-free. In short,
a decent man, a useful public servant, and someone who has never done
anything not to deserve my vote.
This
also reminds me why I do bother with saying I'm independent, because
it does matter to me who is representing me, as much as his policies.
I like Al Gore well enough and his policies well enough; he's gonna
get my vote. I think Dubya isn't personally qualified to be President,
nor to I like his party platform; he's not. Frank Wolf disagrees with
me on some key issues, but I respect him and there's enough where
he and see eye-to-eye that I'll return him in November. Being politically
independent helps to keep me honest. I recommend it for everyone.
August
12, 2000
Dubya
went on record yesterday calling Clinton's moral behavior while in
the Oval Office as "embarrassing." Pretty strong words from someone
who's strongly suspected of being a former blowhound, not mention
the man who traded Sammy Sosa to the Cubs. Admittedly Dubya did neither
of those things while in the White House, though, given the stupidity
of a trade like that, it's entirely possible he was doing the coke
and making the trade at the same time.
Anyway,
it does signal that Bush is still going to try to peg his campaign
as a vote against Clinton rather than Gore,and that he plans to try
to make it a vote on morals rather than platforms and policy. This
is a testament to the enduring stupidity of the GOP, which has for
the last eight years seemed utterly incapable of learning one salient
thing about Bill Clinton: Campaign against Clinton on his character,
and you will lose. It didn't work in '92, it didn't work in '96, and
it sure as hell didn't work in '98, when the GOP heedlessly rammed
through an impeachment and ended up losing seats because of it.
It's
astounding to me that the Republicans would want to take yet another
swack at Clinton; I mean, really, Gore is sitting there, slow and
logy, a weak campaigner and possibly the stiffest man to run for President
since Calvin Coolidge. Put a sick rodent next Gore, and it will look
more vital than Al. Instead they decide once again to after the man
who is arguably the single most effective campaigner in the last 10
presidential elections. If Bush goes after Clinton, chances are very
good Clinton's gonna bury him.
In fact,
he's already doing it -- Clinton dramatically won over an audience
of several thousand evangelical ministers (read: Not a Clinton crowd)
in Chicago on Thursday, by doing his patented lip bite and chokeful
admission of wrongdoing. They loved him. They gave him a standing
ovation, for Christ's sake (literally). These evangelicals wouldn't
vote for Clinton if Jesus himself arrived for the Second Coming dressed
only in a robe made from Clinton bumper stickers. He had them slobbering.
Lesson: Don't screw with this man, he'll turn your own against you.
Clinton's
mea culpa in the lion's den (and, not coincidentally, his mention
that Al should not be judged because of his sordid actions) took the
news cycle, putting Bush on the defensive -- his "embarrassing" comment
came in the wake of the Clinton appearance -- and his campaign had
to spend the news cycle explaining how they weren't going to hold
Clinton against Gore during the election. They had to spend the news
cycle reacting rather than moving ahead. Meanwhile, Gore is beginning
a slow rise in the polls.
One
of the reasons Bush is campaigning against Clinton instead of Gore,
and indeed, one of the primary reasons Bush is in the Presidential
race at all, is because Dubya sincerely hates Clinton, most specifically
because Bill beat Poppy Bush in '92. Dubya, Hamlet-like, needs to
avenge his father's defeat at the hands of who he perceives as a lesser
man. Of course, in Hamlet, the avengement came at the expense of the
prince's own life. In this particular play, things will be a lot cleaner.
Either Bush will win or he won't.
If he
continues to try to campaign against Clinton, I think he won't --
and Clinton will have the lingering post-presidential distinction
of hardstopping both Bush pere and fils. I think he'd enjoy that a
lot -- because as embarrassing as Clinton's behavior was in the White
House, it would be even more embarrassing for Bush to have his hat
handed to him by the very man he wants so badly to bring down.
August
8, 2000
Now,
this is more like it. Al Gore did a hell of a thing in asking Joe
Lieberman to be his Vice-President -- he's making Bush run against
him, rather than Bill Clinton, which Bush and his crew was clearly
planning to do. This is because Lieberman was famously the first Democrat
of stature to take a whack at Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky thing,
a fact which was trumpeted over the media as soon as the Lieberman
pick leaked out, effectively innoculating Gore from Monica-itis by
its implication. Also, there's the fact that Lieberman is an Orthodox
Jew, and is also unimpeachably of good moral character. It's hard
to get your opponents to take hits on morality when one of them is
so observant he won't campaign on the Sabbath. Heaven forbid, they
may just have to campaign on the issues!
There
will be some (read: Republicans) who will intimate that Gore chose
Lieberman strictly for the prophylactic value he carries in the debate
over morality. Which may be entirely true, but even if it is, I don't
see that as a bad thing. Independent of that factor, Lieberman seems
to be a fine man, both intellectually and morally capable of being
President, so there's no harm done. But beyond that, the choice shows
that Gore, whose campaign has been about as interesting as a dead
possum in the road, means to fight for this election.
The only
thing the Republicans actually have going for them this election cycle
is "Clinton Fatigue" -- everything else, especially that "compassionate
conservative" crap, is slight of hand intended to sucker people into
voting with the same part of their brain that they use to select one
fashion magazine over the other. The Republican social platform still
hates gays, women and minorities, excepting the very rich ones. Sure,
the Republicans have a big tent. You just have to be able to afford
the admission price. Once you eliminate Bill Clinton's moral sinkhole
of a personality, there's not a damned thing wrong with the last eight
years. The economy's still growing, people are working, we're at peace,
prosperous and happy, and most of us even get along with our neighbors.
AND, we're not deficit spending anymore. As much as the GOP would
like to intimate that none of that has anything to do with who has
been in the White House the better part of the last decade, anyone
with a brain knows that's a load of crap.
This
administration gets at least half the credit, and considering that
the only thing the Republicans seemed interested in during the 90s
was obsessing over where Bill hid his sausage, I'm willing to cede
a little more of the credit Bill and Al's way. If Al tells me he's
basically going to stay the course, I'm in. I mean, look: In 1991,
I was damned lucky to find a job, the economy was so lousy. From 1992
to today, my income quadrupled. Why on earth would I want to mess
with that?
Personally,
I think that Al Gore needs to take the last eight years and shove
them right down the GOP's throat. Yeah, I was Vice-President of the
United States during the longest economic boom in the history of the
United States -- you got a problem with that? And really, do you?
Now that Lieberman is covering Gore's ass on the Clinton Fatigue front,
there should be no reason Gore ultimately shouldn't win this thing.
This is not to say Gore can't or won't screw it up. Just if he does,
it's no one's fault but his own.
July
31, 2000
Now that
the Republican National Convention is about to get underway, I've
been speding a little time trying to figure out why I don't give the
smallest damn about this particular presidential election cycle. Part
of it is due, of course, to the fact the neither Gore nor Bush excites
me in the slightest; several years back I thought I would eventually
become a "Gore man," as it were, because his wonky stiffness appealed
to me in an intellectual sense. Finally, a man who's not afraid to
show he's a dork!
But as
the reality of actually voting for him for President comes closer,
the wonky stiffness loses what meager charm it had. I'll end up voting
for Gore, but I frankly am not expecting much out of him. As for Bush,
I pretty much get the feeling that the only reason he wants to be
president is to revenge himself on those who booted his dad out office.
That makes him a good son, but it's hardly a qualification for having
one's finger on the button.
But the
fundamental loserosity of the candidates is not what's making me bored
with this election -- after all, I remember getting fairly worked
up in '88, and look what we had to work with then. I think the issue
here is that on a very personal level, it's hard to say how different
my life will be if one of these men is elected over the other. Gore
wins, Bush wins -- either way, my personal situation doesn't change
significantly.
Reasons
for this: Well, first off, I'm a well-off straight white male of Christian
background, so that takes a load off right there. Being of such composition
is of neutral value for the Democrats, and is of course more of a
positive for the GOP. I find the Republican social position intellectually
less appealing than the Democratic position thanks to the GOP position
on abortion and school vouchers (It's been noted that the GOP is concerned
about the welfare of children only up to the point that they're actually
born, and I think that charge, while glibly put, is also substantially
true) and the fact that when it comes right down to it, Republicans
are still largely uncomfortable with anyone whose skin has a lower
albedo than theirs. But from a purely practical standpoint, neither
sides' social positions changes my life situation in the slightest,
at least in the short term.
Economically
I am likewise immune to the charms of either party. I am neither rich
enough to benefit from all the Republican tax repeals, nor poor enough
to benefit from the Democratic wealth distributions. I'm not itching
either for massive tax cuts or any shiny new government programs;
the only thing I really want the government to do with that fabulous
two trillion dollar surplus they think they're going to be getting
is to pay down the national debt. I'd like to pass on a solvent country
to my daughter and her children. But that doesn't seem to be a priority
for either party.
The biggest
issue that could reasonably be expect to impact me is a repeal of
the "marriage tax," traditionally a Republican issue. But this doesn't
really move me, first because I don't particularly feel overtaxed
at the moment (and consider that I say this while paying higher taxes
than most people, thanks to the 15.3% self-employment tax), and second
because it's not likely to have very much impact on me anyway (the
"marriage tax" repeal largely affects couples who have roughly similar
incomes, which is not the case with my wife and me).
The only
compelling reason to vote for either Gore or Bush over the other is
something of an indirect reason, which is that whoever gets elected
this year will have a chance to nominate at least one, and more likely
two (or even three) Supreme Court justices. If I could conjure no
other reason to vote for Gore, this would be the deciding factor --
The GOP's wackos, for better or worse, have more influence on their
party than the Democrat's wackos have on theirs, and Bush would be
beholden to nominate justices who would undoubtedly vote roll back
a woman's right to choose at the next available opportunity, which
would also no doubt be presented to them in short order.
But then
again, should the Democrats take Congress, as it is entirely possible
they might, any wholly unsuitable candidates would get Borked, and
Bush would be forced to choose a moderate that stands a chance of
making it past the Democratic guard dogs (and of course, should Gore
get elected and the GOP maintain their position in Congress, he'd
be forced towards moderation as well). So while this is an important
issue, ultimately it's not one without other remedies. And again,
it's not like this issue is likely to affect me personally anytime
soon.
To be
honest, if you throw out my own issues with the GOP abortion plank,
from a strictly personal viewpoint, I'd probably be slightly better
off under a Republican adminstration, whose policies and point of
view favor people like me, i.e., reasonably well-off white folk. But
I've never really liked the GOP. Individual Republicans are fine;
some of my best friends are Republican, in fact. Get them all in a
big group (such as you'll find in Philadelphia, for example), though,
and they start with that annoying "Lords of the Universe" thing they've
always got going; you know, that thing where they just wish the rest
of us would stop worrying about the details and just let them go about
with running the world and being the privileged class and everything.
It's irritating.
Democrats
can be irritating as hell, too, but at least you don't get the feeling
they're just waiting to talk mean about you behind your back as soon
as you're not there. Democrats want you to be a true believer; Republicans
can't understand why you're not. At this point, for someone like me,
it may be the only relevant distinction between the two parties. I
wish I had more motivation to vote for one over the other.
McCrazy
For McCain
I didn't
vote in the Virginia Republican primary yesterday, sorely tempted
though I was to do so. As of last week, my plan had been to go in
and punch a card for John McCain. I'm not McCrazy for McCain (and
I'm apparently the only non-conservative who's not at the moment),
but every vote for McCain is another 5 bucks that "Dubya" Bush has
to spend fighting him, and I'd rather Bush blow his wad in the largely
pointless primary portion of the electoral cycle than in the slightly
less pointless actual presidential election portion.
And
of course, Bush's wad has been magnificently blown; he's scraping
the bottom of his $70 million campaign contribution barrel, and it
ain't even Super Tuesday yet. I would bet that Bush is somewhat annoyed
that he's had to spend $70 million to remind voters he's a Republican,
something which they presumably already knew. But you know, I
like it just fine.
Be that
as it may, I ended up keeping my gunpowder dry. There was no reason
to willingly hang out with Republicans; the damage to Bush has already
been done. He's going to have to keep spending at least through next
week. Also, frankly, as much as I prefer the idea of a John McCain
presidency to a Dubya administration, John McCain might actually win
a general election, whereas Bush, thanks to McCain's drive to the
center, is already deep in his cups with the right wing nuts, making
him less attractive to normal humans.
One of
the ironies about our two party system is that in order to be able
to present yourself as a nominee for everybody, first you have to
jump through the hoops the various wackos want you to. On the Republican
side, it's the religious conservatives; on the Democratic side, it's,
well, whoever over there that still has that lefty freak flag flying
(Tom Hayden must be still lurking somewhere). The persistence of McCain
has forced Bush to go to that well far earlier than he'd want to (he
was sort of hoping he could just wrap up their vote without actually
campaigning to them), and it's going to hurt him later.
McCain
did Gore a favor by lashing out at Falwell and Robertson. Virginia's
primary showed that religious conservaties here voted 8-to-1 for Bush.
Now Gore has all the ammunition he'll need to show that Dubya will
owe big favors to the right. "There goes the Supreme Court!" he'll
say (or have someone say for him). And of course, he'll be correct.
McCain has essentially assured he'll never win the GOP nomination
-- Super Tuesday has too many closed primaries, and the religious
conservatives, whatever else one might say about them, sure love to
vote in primaries -- but he's also made it a lot more difficult for
Bush to win the Oval Office. It's hard to paint yourself as moderate
when you have to beg Pat Robertson not to campaign for you.
Don't
think Bush doesn't know it -- as well as McCain. God forbid Bush does
manage to win in November, don't expect McCain to get a front row
seat the inauguration. Hell, don't expect him to get a seat behind
the janitor.
But I
think that's just the way McCain likes it. My personal feeling is
that deep down, in the place you can neither confirm nor deny, McCain'll
enjoy having torpedoed that smug Dubya's shot at the White House almost
as much as he would have enjoyed being in the White House itself.
There's an old saying that in Hell, the size of you honor guard is
determined by the number of people you take down with you. Well, McCain's
honor guard will have Dubya as its captain. You just know he'll love
that.
