Happy Blogtoberfest!
(For anyone keeping track, this is a repost of the entry I originally posted October 1st, which blogger.com screwed up beyond all recognition.)
‘Ello all! Time for another installment of Chris’ World!
Lots o’ personal stuff to catch up on, obviously, but we’ll save that for next time. We have POLITICAL issues to talk about!
I know what you’re thinking: “Chris, we’ve been positively inundated with political news the last few months, and you’ve said nary a word about any of it! Why now?”
First: That’s some attitude you all have got there.
But second, and more importantly: It’s very true that there are a thousand different stories floating around out there. This is what the military refers to as a “Target Rich Environment”. However, on any given story/issue, you’ve got coverage from probably half a dozen different news sources, and opinion pieces from probably just as many pundits/political analysts, any one of whom can write you an article as thought-provoking and insightful as anything I can write (and, not irrelevantly, they’re paid to do so in a timely fashion).
However, there are a few topics I’d like to weigh in on.
First on the chopping block is the White House complaint that Obama just isn’t getting the credit he’s due for all of his ‘legislative accomplishments.’ This is usually in response to some new poll showing President Obama’s popularity testing some new bottom point (right now in the low to mid 40’s). This leads into Obama’s second-most overused whine that, while, yes, the economy’s still bad and people are justifiably angry about that, they aren’t giving him any credit for the other world-shattering, utopia-inducing notches on his Administration’s legislative belt. (The most overused whine, for any interested, is how he inherited all of his woes from his predecessor).
There are two problems with this line of thinking. First, and most importantly, the economy is the most important issue to the country, and a wide swath of the Independents and blue-collar democrats that voted for Obama in 2008 did so specifically because they trusted him to right the economy. Whether or not they theoretically agreed with him on healthcare, the auto bailout, the financial regulation reform, et al, did not matter: They wanted the vast majority of his energy expended on the economy. So when Obama spent the better part of a year hawking his signature health care reform, all those voters saw that as a totally unnecessary distraction from what they thought he should be doing.
Second, and scarcely less important, is that these same voters largely did NOT agree with what he was doing on all those other issues (you know, they ones he was working on INSTEAD of the economy). Case in point, Obamacare: By the time that was passed, a solid majority of the country opposed it, with some polls putting opposition nearly 20% higher than support.
Analogy time, boys and girls: Suppose I’m out of work, and Shelly says to me “While you’re home today, I want you to find a job. If you accomplish that, why don’t you take a look at our health plans and see if you can figure out something more efficient so we’re not paying so much per month. If you finish with that, there’re a few repairs around the house you could take care of. Oh, and send those inconsiderate neighbors a strongly worded letter about not dumping their trash on our lawn anymore!”
Later that night, Shelly comes home, and I cheerfully report, “Well, honey, I didn’t find a job, but I did sign us up for an awesome health insurance plan that will only cost us an additional $3000 a month, I took out a $40,000 home equity loan to help with those home repairs, and I sent those neighbors a letter apologizing for how we parked in their space that one time and how we realize they’re just littering our lawn in response to that.”
Still later that night, on the phone with my divorce attorney from my hotel room, I bitterly complain that Shelly didn’t give me any credit for my accomplishments. And that’s sort of how it is for Obama.
Second topic: Apparently, Obama learned nothing last year from his disastrous dust up with Fox News. The old saying “Don’t pick a fight with folks who buy ink by the barrel” applies here. This is especially stupid because, according to recent surveys, more people get their news from Fox than any other network; if they really WERE right wing shills, why give them ANOTHER reason to go after you when 42% of the voting age population watches them every night? Hypocritically praising MSNBC (which is guilty of far worse sins of bias than Fox) isn’t gonna help- a paltry 12% get their news from that network.
Furthermore, this is yet another case of Obama blaming others for his problems (his favorites, in rough order, are former President Bush, Congressional Republicans, Wall Street, Tea Party voters, and, of course, Fox News. Various other targets of opportunity, such as BP and the Supreme Court, make their way on the list from time to time). Maybe some day he’ll realize just how incredibly un-presidential this comes across.
Third, I want to just address something that’s been bothering me for the last week or so, concerning the primary result in Delaware . To those not aware, what happened was Tea Party favorite Christine O’Donnell knocked off establishment pick Mike Castle in the Republican Primary, so she will face Chris Coons in November. Castle was virtually assured of winning the Senate seat (the one Vice President Biden used to occupy), whilst O’Donnell is a long shot for it (she’s down about 10 points to Coons; Castle was a similar margin above him).
From a totally pragmatic viewpoint, this was an incredibly stupid move on the part of the primary voters. For one, it made a Republican Senate takeover much less likely, and Castle, while no Tom Coburn or Mitch McConnell, probably would support the party in the Senate the majority of the time, and not cause any major mischief. Yes, there would probably have been times when he annoyingly and publicly supported the Democrats on some issue (see Snow, Olympia ; Collins, Susan; and Lugar, Richard), but by and large, having an extra vote is helpful, especially for the purposes of organizing the Senate.
On the other hand… would I have wanted to go and pull the lever (or fill in the circle) for a guy who’s reliably anti-gun and pro-abortion? (That’s what we call a rhetorical question). Therefore, I can definitely understand how the Republican primary voters of Delaware had a bit of heartburn over this, too.
The trouble is, Christine O’Donnell isn’t a quality conservative candidate running in a liberal state, where her ideology alone would normally blunt her chances of winning. While that would be a problem in any event, an additional drawback is that she comes with a LOT of personal baggage, and has a real knack for putting her foot in her mouth and, at very least, phrasing things inartfully. She would be a problem in ANY of the states where Tea Partiers got their chosen candidate (running total: Alaska , Kentucky , Utah , Florida , and Nevada ).
My solution: I probably would have just stayed home on this one. If you’re only offered bad choices, you can always opt not to pick either of them.
And now, there is one final issue that I REALLY want to vent over. Part of what’s driving the voter revolt this year is the perception (accurate, in my opinion) that their government is not listening to them. What sparked this revolt is the arrogance and disregard shown by the Obama Administration, which every day acts more as if its power stems from divine providence rather than consent of the governed. Unfortunately, the last year has shown that this ‘entitlement to power’ mindset is not limited to the Democratic side of the aisle (where it is more philosophically compatible anyway), and it REALLY gets my goat when Republicans start acting like that.
We first saw the forerunner of this last year, when the Republican establishment chose Dede Scozzafava as their pick to run in the special election for the district NY-23. The Republican base went into a rage, because Scozzafava wasn’t ‘moderate’ so much as she was ‘liberal’, and would never, ever have been chosen had she actually run in a primary. Scozzafava was so unpopular that she was forced to drop out of the race due to dismal poll numbers, but still managed to play spoiler when, in a fit of pique, she endorsed the Democrat in the race over the Conservative Party candidate, and ultimately cost the party a race that they could have won.
This year, we’ve seen numerous Republicans incumbents either refuse to accept the results of elections or not stand for them at all due to the prospect of defeat. Arlen Specter, facing a sure loss in the PA primary against Pat Toomey, switched parties (only to lose the Democratic primary, in the season’s most savory case of poetic justice). Charlie Crist, after blowing a 20 point lead in Florida against Marco Rubio, dropped out of the Republican primary to run as an Independent. And most recently, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska , after a shocking loss in the primary to Joe Miller, cited an “enormous out pouring of support” (read: three of her family members sent her ecards), and decided to mount a write in campaign to retain her Senate seat.
In each case, the primary motivation of these beloved elected officials is not the protection some lofty principle of policy or morality that they, and they alone, can uphold in the Senate. Rather, their motivation is that they, and they alone, are entitled to the Senate seat that their party has chosen a different candidate to pursue. And it’s exactly that sense of entitlement that has so disgusted a wide swath of voters this year.
My prediction: Not one of the people who have chosen to do this will win, nor will they ever hold a state-wide elected office again. Nor do they deserve to.
