Boost For Obama In Polls After Bin Laden Killed–And Why It Could Last

The first polls show a bump in Barack Obama’s approval following the killing of Osama bin Laden. The Washington Post shows overall approval up to 56 percent, up nine points from April. There were also increases in other areas of the poll which were relevant to this news, such as a career high 69 percent on handling of terrorism. CNN also showed increased approval on the handling of terrorism but less of an increase in overall approval.

These results were widely expected but, as I noted yesterday, there is disagreement as to whether there will be long-term political benefits for Obama. One recent analogous situation was with George H. W. Bush  who defeated Iraq following their invasion of Kuwait. Bush appeared unbeatable after the first Gulf War, but wound up losing, largely due to a weak economy. This does provide warning that if the economy does not rebound further Barack Obama could be in trouble, with many voters likely to vote for the party which created the economic crisis as opposed to voting for an incumbent.

There are also major differences between Bush and Obama. George H.W. Bush had a great military victory, but it was still a response to the invasion of another country. In contrast, Obama’s victory was over someone who had attacked the United States and was still seen as a threat to our country. George H.W. Bush beat soldiers who turned out to be unprepared to fight a major power but did not remove Saddam. The killing of bin Laden represents a more dramatic victory for Obama. Further victories over al Qaeda will further strengthen his position.

Whether this will all matter in 2012 depends upon how well the Democrats do in reshaping the political discussion. This victory represents a graphic demonstration that Democratic ideas on handling terrorism have been more successful than Republican ideas. Congressional Republicans blocked Bill Clinton’s attempts to fight al Qaeda. When the Clinton Administration passed on their plans for fighting al Qaeda to second Bush administration, the Bush administration ignored the plans. Even worse, George Bush ignored warnings of the 9/11 attack. In contrast, Bill Clinton’s government took the warnings of the planned Millennium terrorist attack seriously and prevented the attack.

After 9/11, George Bush continued to mishandle the efforts against al Qaeda. He used the attack as an excuse to attack Iraq, while failing to pay sufficient attention to Afghanistan. Bush had an excellent opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden at Tora Bora but failed to execute an effective attack. Bush mocked John Kerry for discussing the importance of intelligence and police work, as well as military action, in fighting terrorism. Repeatedly we have found that Kerry was right and Bush was wrong as it has been intelligence work and police action, not war or torture, which has provided us with the most significant accomplishments. Barack Obama continued with this approach and accomplished our greatest victory to date over al Qaeda.

Despite the overall failure of Republican ideas, as compared to Democratic ideas, on fighting terrorism, Republicans have claimed a superiority on national security issues. The killing of bin Laden, following repeated failings by Republicans in handling terrorism, provides evidence to the contrary. Republicans did not hesitate to play politics with terrorism after 9/11, and Democrats now must be willing to present their case. While a Republican such as George H. W. Bush had limited upside potential from a military victory, there is far more potential for Democrats to increase their support.

Another common Republican argument has been that Barack Obama has not been up to the job of being president. While the argument has been counter to reality all along, this demonstrates that Barack Obama is quite capable of handling the 3:00 a.m. call, or any other challenges of the presidency. Suddenly the 2008 candidate whose inexperience was an obstacle is now the most experienced of all the potential candidates in carrying out the duties of Commander in Chief.

There is another comparison to consider besides that of the first Gulf War. Jimmy Carter’s presidency was doomed after the failure of a raid to free the hostages in Iran. Success by Obama could very well have the opposite effect.

Osama bin Laden Is Still Dead: Top Stories On The Attack

Osama bin Laden is still dead, and there is a lot of interesting things to read since the initial post here (which includes video and text of President Obamas statement).

Business Insider reports that President Obama watched the raid live via a helmet-cam.  The picture above shows Obama and others watching in the Situation Room.

The New York Times reports on the detective work which helped make this possible.  Remember when  George Bush mocked John Kerry for stressing the importance of intelligence and police work  (along with military action) in fighting terrorism?

Marc Ambinder reports on the secret team which carried out the attack.

WikLleaks claims documents show that Pakistan protected bin Laden. Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, called it “inconceivable” that Pakistan was not providing a “support system” for Osama bin Laden.

Wing nuts on Andrew Breitbart’s web site came up with new conspiracy theory that bin Laden is not dead. They have been labeled “deathers.” Joe Scarborough, who should know better, engages in wing nut thought claiming Obama’s base did not want bin Laden dead. Of course there are nuts on the left as well as the right, with Cindy Sheehan joining those who claim that bin Laden is not dead.

There are varying views as to how what degree the death of bin Laden will affect Obama politically.  While the election will still be more likely to be decided by the economy, this could be huge. A common conservative meme is that Obama is not up for the job. Comparing this action to how Bush botched his chance against bin Laden at Tora Bora shows what a competent president really looks like. It will also be quite hard for conservatives to get away with the claims that they could keep the country safer or that liberals are soft on terrorism.

Twitter has had a CNN moment with coverage of the attack. TechCrunch reports that this was a record evening on Twitter with 4000 tweets per second.  Here’s a story on the person who first reported news of the raid via Twitter. Keith Urbahn  is given credit for being  the first  to tweet having a reliable source that bin Laden was dead.

Google has already mapped out bin Laden’s hideout.

Obama Releases Long Form Birth Certificate, Further Proving That Donald Trump Is Delusional

Barack Obama released a certification of live birth in 2008 which provided full legal documentation of his status as a native born American citizen. There was absolutely no need for him to do more but. In response to the increased attention to the story in the media, Obama arranged to have the long form, which normally is not released, made public today. The White House Blog provided the following explanation:

In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. The state sent the campaign the President’s birth certificate, the same legal documentation provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state, and the campaign immediately posted it on the internet. That birth certificate can be seen here (PDF).

When any citizen born in Hawaii requests their birth certificate, they receive exactly what the President received. In fact, the document posted on the campaign website is what Hawaiians use to get a driver’s license from the state and the document recognized by the Federal Government and the courts for all legal purposes. That’s because it is the birth certificate. This is not and should not be an open question.

The President believed the distraction over his birth certificate wasn’t good for the country. It may have been good politics and good TV, but it was bad for the American people and distracting from the many challenges we face as a country. Therefore, the President directed his counsel to review the legal authority for seeking access to the long form certificate and to request on that basis that the Hawaii State Department of Health make an exception to release a copy of his long form birth certificate. They granted that exception in part because of the tremendous volume of requests they had been getting. President Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate can be seen here (PDF).

Of course this won’t stop the false claims from the right any more than the bogus accusations against John Kerry stopped after he released his military records. The right wing attackers simply do not care about the truth, either in their personal attacks or in their discussion of policy matters. They lie because they know their views cannot stand up to the truth, and because their dominance over much of the news media allows them to get away with it. Many Birthers are now either questioning the validity of the birth certificate or claiming that this does not disprove their claim that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president. Leaders on the far right know that race-baiting works, and are not about to stop.

Some are asking why it took Obama so long to release the long form. Birthers can use the delay to suggest fabrication. Some Obama supporters speculate that Obama was laying a clever trap which many Republicans walked into. My suspicion is that it is simply a matter of living in a bubble. In this case the bubble I’m referring to is not the one which encases all presidents, but the bubble that many politicians and bloggers live in.

While the Birther arguments were commonly heard by those who watch Fox or read the blogs, until recently I bet most Americans didn’t even think about it. Those who did pay attention were people who would never vote for a black or a Democrat regardless of the facts, or liberal bloggers who were already debunking the claims. There was no reason for the White House to take the unusual action of having the long form released. Having a loud-mouth celebrity such as Donald Trump make an issue of this made it necessary for the White House to actually pay attention to this and arrange to have the long form released.

Beyond the questions of whether the Birthers would cease their bogus attacks and why Obama took so long, the next question is whether this was a victory or defeat for Donald Trump. Some conservatives gave the point to Trump, and anyone who has every watched Trump would have expected that Trump would claim this as a victory.

If Trump’s campaign is purely a gigantic publicity stunt to promote Trump’s ego, then in a way he did win. He forced the President of the United States to take unprecedented action in having the long form birth certificate made public.

If the goal was to promote his show, Trump might have miscalculated. With the Republicans moving to the extreme plutocratic right, capitalists these days are increasingly Democrats, not Republicans. Viewership of Celebrity Apprentice tends to be more liberal than other “reality” shows, and Trump’s ridiculous attacks on Obama are costing him viewers.

If we are to take Trump at his word that this is a legitimate presidential campaign, it is not clear if this helps or hurts him in the Republican primaries. Some of his Tea Party supporters might see this as a victory for Trump, but it also takes away Trump’s argument that Obama needs to release the long form. Continued attacks along these lines will only make him look more ridiculous to moderates.

Over sixty percent of this country remains sane enough to never vote for people as nutty and unqualified as either Donald Trump or Sarah Palin. Trump’s problem is not that he needs more media coverage, but that people do not take him seriously. Being proven to be totally wrong on the major issue he is identified with hardly helps his credibility as a presidential candidate.

Those following the story saw today that a major conservative argument, and a belief held by a substantial percentage of Republicans, is wrong. The bigger question is whether more people will go on from there to realize the same is true of pretty much everything conservatives are saying these days.

 

Small Signs of Republicans Rejecting The Extremes

The major problem with the Republican Party is that it has been taken over by far right extremists, but there are two hopeful signs today that some are rejecting the extremes.

The first is that Sarah Palin, the major example of both the extremism of the GOP and of its disdain for intelligence and reason, is declining in popularity among Republicans. A Washington Post-ABC News poll found that Palin’s popularity has fallen to a new low:

For the first time in Post-ABC News polling, fewer than six in 10 Republicans and GOP-leaning independents see Palin in a favorable light, down from a stratospheric 88 percent in the days after the 2008 Republican National Convention and 70 percent as recently as October.

In one sense, the poll still finds Palin near the top of a list of eight potential contenders for the GOP nomination. The former vice presidential candidate scores a 58 percent favorable rating, close to the 61 percent for former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and 60 percent for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, and better than the 55 percent that onetime House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) received.

But Palin’s unfavorable numbers are significantly higher than they are for any of these possible competitors. Fully 37 percent of all Republicans and GOP-leaning independents now hold a negative view of her, a new high.

In another first, fewer than 50 percent of Republican-leaning independents — 47 percent — hold favorable views of Palin.

I would hope this is a sign of the rejection of Palin’s policy positions and of the authoritarian right, but much of the opposition to Palin is simply a rejection of her personal ignorance and incompetence.

Findings such as this, along with criticism of Palin by many conservatives, has increased doubt about Palin’s ability to win the Republican nomination in 2012. It is far too early to make any predictions regarding how such a primary contest will play out. An early win in Iowa, where social conservatives dominate the Republican Party, could suddenly make her the front runner and possibly give her a victory similar to John Kerry’s victory in the 2004 Democratic primary race. Palin could also conceivably win the nomination by being first or second in many states, picking up a larger block of candidates than anyone else in a divided race. While it is premature to write off her chances of winning the Republican nomination, Palin is no Ronald Reagan and her chances of ever winning in a national race is extremely remote.

Meanwhile Politico reports that some “Republican House members are pushing back against conservative deficit hawks who are pushing for endlessly deep spending cuts, saying the right wing of the party is creating unnecessary divisions for the GOP majority.” A good sign, but I’m still waiting for the day when more Republicans push back against the growing tendency of Republicans to support increased government interference in the private lives of individuals and for a day when more Republicans push back against the right wing’s rejection of knowledge, reason, and science.

Egypt, The Koch Brothers, And Democracy

The challenge in Egypt is now to establish a democracy rather than slip back into another form of dictatorship. Since the Bush years, many Americans have feared that we are in danger of democracy slipping away here. Bob Herbert wrote about this challenge today:

In an Op-Ed article in The Times at the end of January, Senator John Kerry said that the Egyptian people “have made clear they will settle for nothing less than greater democracy and more economic opportunities.” Americans are being asked to swallow exactly the opposite. In the mad rush to privatization over the past few decades, democracy itself was put up for sale, and the rich were the only ones who could afford it.

The corporate and financial elites threw astounding sums of money into campaign contributions and high-priced lobbyists and think tanks and media buys and anything else they could think of. They wined and dined powerful leaders of both parties. They flew them on private jets and wooed them with golf outings and lavish vacations and gave them high-paying jobs as lobbyists the moment they left the government. All that money was well spent. The investments paid off big time.

As Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson wrote in their book, “Winner-Take-All Politics”: “Step by step and debate by debate, America’s public officials have rewritten the rules of American politics and the American economy in ways that have benefited the few at the expense of the many.”

As if the corporate stranglehold on American democracy were not tight enough, the Supreme Court strengthened it immeasurably with its Citizens United decision, which greatly enhanced the already overwhelming power of corporate money in politics. Ordinary Americans have no real access to the corridors of power, but you can bet your last Lotto ticket that your elected officials are listening when the corporate money speaks.

When the game is rigged in your favor, you win. So despite the worst economic downturn since the Depression, the big corporations are sitting on mountains of cash, the stock markets are up and all is well among the plutocrats. The endlessly egregious Koch brothers, David and Charles, are worth an estimated $35 billion. Yet they seem to feel as though society has treated them unfairly.

As Jane Mayer pointed out in her celebrated New Yorker article, “The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry — especially environmental regulation.” (A good hard look at their air-pollution record would make you sick.)

It’s a perversion of democracy, indeed, when individuals like the Kochs have so much clout while the many millions of ordinary Americans have so little. What the Kochs want is coming to pass. Extend the tax cuts for the rich? No problem. Cut services to the poor, the sick, the young and the disabled? Check. Can we get you anything else, gentlemen?

The Koch brothers have been the target of many liberal bloggers lately. I agree with criticism of them for matters such as their pollution record, criticism of the increased concentration of wealth among the ultra-wealthy, and criticism of a system which allows small numbers of wealthy people to have so much power. I do not object to the fact that they are spending money to promote their views (if you can look beyond the other areas of criticism). Personally I wouldn’t mind if we had more wealthy individuals spending money promoting democracy and true freedom. What is really amazing is the number of libertarians who see the Kochs as promoting liberty as opposed to oligarchy.

This leads to one of the reasons our democracy is in trouble–many on the right confuse limitation of government with liberty. In an era where there are many powerful forces, a liberal government is often essential to preserving liberty for the individual.  On the other hand, we must also be vigilant in preventing government from infringing upon our liberties. Here, far too many people on the right look the other way and advocate increased government action where it does not belong while complaining about legitimate actions of government.

In any discussion of the dangers to our democracy, we must include the importance of an informed electorate. The conservative dominance of the news media helps create the problem of people who see people like the Kochs as supporting rather than threatening freedom and democracy, along with the many falsehoods common on the right which I have discussed in multiple other posts. How can voters intelligently access health care reform when right wing media outlets are making false claims about death panels, job killing, and a government take-over of health care? How do voters evaluate proposals to deal with climate change when the right wing noise machine spreads the propaganda of the petroleum industry? How do individuals assess the candidates in a democracy when, hearing the false claims of the Swift Boat Liars and Birthers, along with distortions of the actual beliefs of liberal candidates?

Kerry Not Interested In Being Secretary of State

In follow up of yesterday’s story, The Note reports that John Kerry is not interested in being Secretary of State and is happy in his current position as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Of course the position of Secretary of State is not currently available. We shall see what happens should the position open ut. Timing might also be important as he’d have to have the position for a meaningful amount of time for it to be worth giving up his Senate seat and current Chairmanship.

Posted in John Kerry. Tags: . 1 Comment »

John Kerry, Future Secretary of State

The Boston Globe discusses how John Kerry is positioning himself to become the next Secretary of State after Hillary Clinton leaves the position:

The Bay State’s senior senator is running an unofficial campaign to become the next secretary of state. For once, he looks artful, as well as ambitious.

His recent opinion piece in the New York Times said what President Obama couldn’t or wouldn’t: Mubarak must go.

Kerry’s conclusion was elegant, but unequivocal: “President Hosni Mubarak must accept that the stability of his country hinges on his willingness to step aside gracefully to make way for a new political structure.’’

Secretary of state is the spot Kerry wanted when Barack Obama won the presidency. He lost out to Hillary Clinton and Obama’s “team of rivals.’’ But his fallback position as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee provides a powerful platform to press his case.

At times Kerry has already been considered the de facto Secretary of State. Kerry was the obvious choice for the position when Obama took office but other priorities took precedence. At the time it was more important to get Hillary Clinton out of the Senate where she might have established a conflicting power base, as well as to keep her out of health care policy. With that accomplished, there is no reason to consider anyone else for the position should Hillary Clinton to decide she does not want to remain at the State Department in a second Obama term.

SciFi Weekend: The Cape; A Baby Timelord; Torchwood Casting and Filming News; The Voldemort Effect

With the limited number of genre shows on this season, and No Ordinary Family taking a lighter approach to super heroes, there has been considerable anticipation for the premiere of The Cape. The show has been billed as a more serious and realistic superhero show. While there is a limit to how realistic such shows can possibly be, we have seen excellent results with such an approach with Iron Man and the latest Batman movies. Unfortunately it is unlikely that television will match the qualities of  Iron Man or The Dark Knight.

Like Iron Man and Batman, The Cape is an ordinary guy who learns tricks and utilizes gadgets as opposed to having true superpowers. The Cape learned his skills from a gang of criminal circus performers. Unfortunately we had all we wanted of mixing a circus and superheroes in the final season of Heroes.

The story would probably have been stronger if they used the full two hours of the premiere as an origin story instead of cramming in a weak follow up story. It is hard to judge shows such as this entirely by their first episodes as there is often room for improvement after initially setting up the situation. Even the last few episodes No Ordinary Family have been much better than the initial stories.

The best thing about The Cape is the return of Summer Glau as super-hacker Orwell. While I welcome her presence, I also fear that her character risks providing easy solutions to any problems. There is also an exaggerated view of the powers of technology in the show. Besides Orwell’s hacking abilities, having Vince Faraday (The Cape) have a card which opens multiple safes and is never canceled was far-fetched.

Besides Orwell, the show provides other supporting characters such as Faraday’s wife. Faraday is forced to take on a secret identity when framed for crimes committed by Chess/Peter Fleming, and when Fleming threatened Faraday’s family. While I can accept the situation of having Fleming keep secret the fact that he is still alive from the public and from Fleming, there is no reason why he can’t secretly see his wife.

Both Faraday and Fleming were pretty careless with their secret identities. The worst mistake was for Fleming to continue to appear as Chess after making it appear not only that Faraday was Chess but that he had been killed.

It is hard to evaluate the show without seeing future episodes. The weekly format of the show does place limitations on it, such as the need to keep Peter Fleming around  for further episodes as opposed to resolving that conflict as a stand alone movie might. James Frain, who plays the title role,  has provided hints as to where the series is going:

Speaking to The Hollywood Reporter, Frain teased that Vince (David Lyons) and Peter will be involved in a number of confrontations in the future.

“They have to go head-to-head,” Frain said. “Vince has to confront this guy but he’s in a very unusual position of not being able to destroy him.

“The obvious thing to do is to take your revenge and go get the guy who framed you, but he can’t do that. He needs to keep this guy alive because he can’t prove his real identity without him, and so he realises that to really be free, he has to frame this guy and flip the tables on him. And so it’s not just a straightforward combat – it’s more psychological warfare.”

Frain also suggested that viewers will learn more about Peter as the series continues, saying: “We start to find out that Peter is a little bit more of a ladies’ man than we first thought. As the show goes on, the guy who he is by daytime, the guy who he is in the mask, becomes more and more separate and this conflict starts opening up.”

He added: “There’s going to be some action with a young woman that comes up that’s very interesting.”

I am glad that they will be expanding more upon Peter’s character. Having him be the head of a corporation who turns out to be evil was far too much of a television cliche.

Series creator TomWheeler has provided more background on where he wants to go with the series:

Wheeler says that the cape in The Cape also has its own backstory, and it will be explored throughout the life of the series. “In episode three, you get a big chunk of it,” he says. “One of our writers is getting his doctorate in mythology, and one of the things we talk about is the cape has a lot of primal symbolism. There’s the blanket you tie around your neck as a kid. That’s your first contact with being a superhero, so as a symbol, the cape connects you to childhood. But there’s also the cape in Jungian mythology/psychology that represents the shadow. So we are setting up a history for the cape that is quite dark. Even though the cape has no supernatural ability to do something to the wearer, we do get into what it means to embody your shadow; we explore the question ‘Do you wear the cape or does the cape wear you?’ That becomes an issue. We will be planting clues and mysteries along the way about the cape because there’s a big story to be told about the cape and what Vince is destined for.”

Another aspect of the superhero mythos that The Cape indulges is the super-villain. We’re not talking garden-variety crooks–we’re talking diabolical masterminds and high strange baddies. Wheeler’s ambition is to give The Cape a large rogues gallery, though Vince’s ongoing conflict with Chess provides the narrative spine of season 1. “Chess is a psychotic James Bond and we deal a lot with him and his alter-ego, Peter Fleming,” says Wheeler. “But we will see that while Peter is awful, he has a complicated life. In total, we’ll introduce seven new villains in the first season, including one that’ll be the center of a two-parter in the middle of the season.”

Wheeler says viewers can expect a show that will span a range of genres. There’s an episode that’ll be more sci-fi. There’s an episode that’s more “gothic” and scary. He believes non-geeks will be able to connect with emotional heart of the show–a story of a husband and father trying to reconnect with his wife and family. For all its old fashionedness, Wheeler believes The Cape is as entertaining as other state-of-the-art superhero action fantasies–even the ones of the grim and gritty stripe. “I think there’s a thirst out there for something that can marry the old and the new, something everyone to sit down and watch together as a family,” he says. “But we are very aware of the other entertainments that are out there and we believe we can be a compliment to them. God willing, we can be considered a branch on the tree of the great things Chris Nolan is doing or Zack Snyder or Jon Favreau have done–all the great adult stuff that’s out there.”

More from Wheeler here.

Doctor Who, which has had many inconsistencies during its near fifty-year run, has both had stories stating both that Timelord children do and do not exist. If the British tabloids are to be believed, we might have a Timelord child born on Earth this spring. Reportedly Georgia Moffat, who already has an eight year old son, is pregnant. News was recently released that Moffat is engaged to David Tennant. Tennant played the tenth Doctor, including staring in The Doctor’s Daughter where he met Georgia Moffat. Besides playing the Doctor’s daughter in the 2008 episode, Moffat is the daughter of Peter Davison, who played the fifth Doctor from 1981 to 1984.

There will be another reunion of cast members from Doctor Who. John Sim (who has played The Master, in addition to staring in the BBC version of Life on Mars) will be staring with Marc Warren (Elton Pope in a 2006 episode of Doctor Who entitled Love & Monsters) in Mad Dogs:

Woody (Beesley), Quinn (Glenister), Baxter (Simm) and Rick (Warren) have been friends since sixth form. The fifth member of their gang is Alvo (Ben Chaplin, Dorian Gray), a risk-taking opportunist who, having made his fortune in property, leads a luxurious lifestyle in Majorca.

Now in their 40s, they’ve all taken different paths in life with varying degrees of success. When Alvo flies them to his extravagant villa to celebrate his early retirement, they enjoy a trip down memory lane.
However, all does not go to plan and they find themselves entangled in a web of deception and murder involving beautiful police women, large yachts, Speedos and a rather short assassin in a Tony Blair mask…

Continuing Sky 1 HD’s dedication to homegrown high definition drama, Mad Dogs is a dark and twisted comic tale in which four ordinary guys discover how easily the line between friend and foe can be blurred.

The Doctor Who News Page has a report on the first week of filming Torchwood: Miracle Day. TV Squad has more information from Russel T. Davies on the series.  Lauren Ambrose, who played Claire Fisher on Six Feet Under, has been added to the cast. She will play Jilly Kitzinger, “a sweet-talking PR genius with a heart of stone who’s just cornered the most important client of her career … and maybe of all time.”

Julian Sanchez has blogged about The Voldemort Effect:

…as Harry’s sage mentor Dumbledore notes at one point, it was Voldemort’s choice to regard Harry as his predestined foe that made it true.

There’s a similar phenomenon in American politics, which I long ago mentally dubbed The Voldemort Effect. Maybe it’s always been this way, but it seems like especially recently, if you ask a strong political partisan—conservatives in particular, in my experience—which political figures they like or admire, and why, they’ll enthusiastically cite the ability to “drive the other side crazy.” Judging by online commentary, this seems to be an enormous part of Sarah Palin’s appeal. Palin herself certainty seems to understand this. Her favorite schtick, the well to which she returns again and again, is: “Look how all the mean liberals are attacking me!” Weekly Standard writer Matt Continetti even titled his book about the ex-governor “The Persecution of Sarah Palin.” Perversely, liberals end up playing a significant role in anointing conservative leaders.

This is, I think, a bipartisan phenomenon everyone at least subconsciously recognizes: A political figure—though more often a pundit than an actual candidate or elected official—gains prominence largely as a function of being attacked or loathed with special vehemence by the other side. Which means it’s crying out for a convenient shorthand so we can talk about it more easily; I propose “The Voldemort Effect.”

Matthew Yglesias responded:

I think the equivalence here is not only mistaken, but actually 180 degrees off base. You do see this Voldemort Effect in a lot of conservative thinking, but if liberals go awry it’s more likely to be in the reverse way—a lot of Team Blue’s thinking about politics is dominated by a kind of desperate search for leaders who won’t drive the other side crazy. Hence Bill Clinton, southern good ol’ boy. Hence John Kerry, decorated war hero. Hence calm, rational compromising Barack Obama instead of polarizing meanie Hillary Clinton. And that goes back to war hero George McGovern, southern good ol’ boy Jimmy Carter, Massachusetts Miracle technocrat mastermind Michael Dukakis, etc. In retrospect all of these people are hated by the right and “obviously” represent just another strain of out of touch liberalism, but in advance each and every one appealed to the rank and file as somehow “different” from his predecessors in some key way.

John Kerry on Civility

While the facts are still not entirely clear, the recent shooting of Gabrielle Giffords appears to have  been motivated by delusional and extremist views which transcend the political spectrum. Jared Loughner echoed the anti-government sentiment common on the right mixed with far left wing extremism, including Marxism. The idea that all government is evil, accompanied by the frequent calls for revolution, calls for “Second Amendment remedies” by Sharon Angle, and calls to “reload” accompanied by a graphical representation of a rifle’s crosshairs by Sarah Palin, can inspire the deranged to commit acts of violence. This is true regardless of whether such specific hate speech inspired this particular murderer.

John Kerry gave an excellent speech at the Center for American Progress countering the extreme anti-government philosophy of the far right.Kerry spoke of the danger of a government which is too limited:

Do they want a government too limited to have invented the Internet, now a vital part of our commerce and communications?  A government too small to give America’s auto industry and all its workers a second chance to fight for their survival?  Taxes too low to invest in the research that creates jobs and industries and fills the Treasury with the revenue that educates our children, cures disease, and defends our country?  We have to get past slogans and soundbites, reason together, and talk in real terms about how America can do its best.

Kerry spoke of the dangers of failing to spend the money necessary to restore our infrastructure and of how this places us at risk of a lower standard of living and of falling behind countries such as China. He pointed out how many of the ideas now proposed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans were previously supported by Republicans.  He discussed the unwillingness of Republicans to work on bipartisan solutions to problems as Ronald Reagan had:

Folks, you won’t find a Republican today who would dare criticize Ronald Reagan. Last week, when the candidates for chairman of the Republican National Committee had their debate, Grover Norquist asked each of them to name their favorite Republican other than Ronald Reagan. He said he had to add that caveat so everyone didn’t give the same answer. But we’d all be better off if some of these Republicans remembered that Ronald Reagan worked across the aisle to solve big problems. And we’d all be better off if Grover Norquist thought of THAT Ronald Reagan before he announced that “bipartisanship is just another word for date rape.”

That’s the difference today. Ideology isn’t new to the American political arena and ideology isn’t unhealthy. The biggest breakthroughs in American politics have been brokered not by a mushy middle or by splitting the difference but by people who had a pretty healthy sense of ideology. Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch were a powerful team precisely because they didn’t agree on that much and they spent a lot of time fighting each other –and  so the Senate leaned in and listened on those occasions when somehow this ultimate odd couple found things they were willing to fight for together.

The entire speech is well worth reading and is posted under the fold.

(more…)

Biden Calls Same Sex Marriage Inevitable

Things have really changed since 2004. In the 2004 election, the Bush campaign used homophobia to get out the vote by putting all those propositions opposing gay marriage on the ballots. Now we appear to be rapidly approaching a tipping point where discrimination against homosexuals is as frowned upon as discrimination based upon race. That doesn’t mean it will go away, but it will no longer be possible to base legislation on such discrimination.

In 2004 the unpopularity of same sex marriage may have doomed John Kerry’s campaign. By the summer of 2010 we had the first major poll showing a majority supporting same sex marriage at 52 percent. Other polls show a smaller number, but it will continue to grow. After the passage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, ” Barack Obama spoke of how his views on the subject are “evolving.” Now Joe Biden says that gay marriage is “inevitable.”

My bet is that Barack Obama will be the last Democratic candidate for president who doesn’t support legalization of same sex marriage–assuming it even remains illegal outside of the repressive GOP-belt by the end of Obama’s second term.