Presidents Manson and McCain
The current political climate, with growing voter dissatisfaction and the Republican brand being termed “significantly damaged,” has many Democrats smiling like cats in the vicinity of empty canary cages. In fact, many observers seem to already be of the opinion that Barack Obama could take off on a long, well deserved vacation following the Democratic National Convention and return to Washington just in time for his inaugural ceremony. It is, however, my sad duty to remind readers of today’s column that this is the Democratic Party we’re talking about here – the same crew which managed to find a way for John Kerry to lose the 2004 election under nearly similar, favorable conditions.
The Democrats have shown nothing if not a marked propensity and dogged determination to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at every opportunity. Allow me, if you will, to paint a scenario for the 2008 elections which takes place in a parallel but not too distant dimension.
Following a series of long awaited signs and portents, Jesus Christ Himself returns to Earth. After issuing a few new commandments and performing a couple of miracles, the Democrats immediately draft Him as their candidate for the White House. Karl Rove, and an unexpectedly bold move, convinces George W. Bush to issue a full pardon for Charles Manson. Upon his release from prison, Rove talks the Republican leadership into drafting Manson as their candidate.
Shortly before the two parties’ respective conventions, Jesus raises Mother Teresa from the dead and selects her as His running mate. He also bestows the Blessing of Eternal Life upon her, thereby removing the “age factor” from the debate. Manson offers the VP slot to Mitt Romney who, after a few days consideration declines. Charles settles on convicted polygamous sect leader Warren Jeffs who particpates in the single Vice Presidential debate by live simulcast from his jail cell. During this appearance, in response to a question on America’s economic policy regarding China, Jeffs claims that he doesn’t really know much about economics or foreign policy, but thinks that Mother Teresa is “pretty hot for an old broad” and asks her if she would like to get married. The sainted Vice Presidential candidate politely declines.
With one month to go, the polls have swung to an unprecidented, lopsided blowout. Jesus leads by a margin of 95.5% to Manson’s 0.5%. Then, with no advance warning, the Philadelphia Inquirer releases security camera footage of the Pope picking up one of Eliot Spitzer’s hookers in a limo. Jesus fails to distance Himself from the Pope’s endorsement quickly enough and, on November 5, Manson narrowly loses the popular vote but squeaks out a 272 point electoral college victory. He quickly proclaims a mandate from the people and tells voters that he has now earned “poltiical capital” which he plans to spend.
Upon being sworn into office, President Manson’s first act is to sign an executive order stating that, henceforth, any murders committed by Manson or a specific list of his friends will be legal. The Democrats, enraged by this outrageous abuse of executive power, immediately move to impeach him. Unfortunately, an intra-party squabble breaks out over whether the special prosecutor should be a woman, an African-American or an Hispanic person of diminutive stature and the motion never makes it out of committee. In 2012 Manson easily sails to a second term victory, declaring that “the war on annoying rich people” is still in full swing and it would be unwise – nay, reckless – to change horses in mid-stream.
An unlikely scenario to be sure. But believe me… if Manson can defeat The Savior, you can bet that McCain’s team is already cooking up a plan that will send Senator Obama back to his Illinois Senate seat in November. And if I’m wrong, you can sign me up to do a write-in vote for Jesus next time around.
(Author’s note: Before the hate mail begins to arrive, this column carries the “Satire” tag for a reason. Happy Memorial day, everyone!)
19 Responses to “Presidents Manson and McCain”
[...] Crooks and Liars wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptPresidents Manson and McCain May 26th, 2008 by JAZZ SHAW The current political climate, with growing voter dissatisfaction and the Republican brand being termed “significantly damaged,” has many Democrats smiling like cats in the vicinity of empty canary cages. In fact, many observers seem to already be of the opinion that Barack Obama could take off on a long, well deserved vacation following the Democratic National Convention and return to Washington just in time for his inaugural ceremony [...]
OK, but isn't satire suppose to be both funny and have a point?
Great satire – realsitic enough to be truly xcary!
Maybe just a tiny bit over-the-top Jazz. . . Or perhaps not.
AustinRoth,
Don't you get it, its another entry from a “moderate” point of view that the Democrats are so good and the Republicans are so bad, that the only way the Republicans could win is by the Democrats messing up politically and the Republicans using smart tactics by Karl Rove.
I predict McCain will end up winning, and one of the primary reasons will be because the Democrats overestimate how much support they have and act too confidently about it.
You can keep on repeating that “most Americans are against the war” and “most Americans want to get out of Iraq” as much as you want, but most Americans don't think Bush lied, and most Americans want to follow whatever prudence is suggested by generals like Petraeus acting in Iraq.
If Obama is face to face with McCain in a debate, and says, right in front of McCain, that McCain wants “to be at war for 100 years”, and McCain, in front of Obama, is given a chance to respond, Obama will look like a flat out fool.
Just a warning.
I will admit, you guys never cease to amaze me. I spend seven paragraphs talking about how the Democrats are so bad at winning elections they they probably couldn't win against a mass murderer and so caught up in internecine fighting that they can't get an issue out of committee due to identity politics, and we *still* have somebody construing it as an attack on Republicans. Simply breathtaking!
Jazz,
I construed you as saying “The Democrats would be easily able to win if they got their act together”.
I was offering a warning that Democrats overestimate their appeal. I said that when Obama loses, Democrats will blame their lack of political skill, instead of the lack of support for the Democratic campaign and platform over the Republican campaign and platform.
I was saying the Democratic belief that “we would win if it weren't for tactical mistakes” is wrong.
If Kerry were running against anyone other than Bush he would have been embarassed in a landslide. He only did as well as he did because people didn't like Bush. People saw Kerry as a shmuck. Nobody “found a way for Kerry to lose”
Construe as you will, Redfish, but my main point is that the “conventional wisdom” in the polls actually does reflect something you were making light of in your original comment. Regardless of various perceptions, there are simply too many polls coming up with the same numbers. People appreciate the troops and don't wish them ill, but essentially 7 in 10 Americans want us to get out of Iraq, which *should* be a weak point for McCain. And there is no shortage of GOP leaders themselves talking about how badly the brand is damaged, Republican registrations dropping, Dem registrations rising, etc. In a climate like that, it's not hard to think that McCain would have a very uphill slog in November. My point is, contrary to your take on it, that it really is tactical errors, poor candidate selection and vetting, etc. which leads to what I still see as a very possible if not probable McCain victory.
Jazz,
As I said, most people want the US to get out of Iraq, but most people don't necessarily disagree with McCain's position on getting out versus Obama's position on getting out.
I understand why people view this as an election where Republicans have an uphill battle, because of generic Congressional ballots favoring Democrats, and the apparent necessity to convince people who are skittish on the economy and on Iraq and Bush. In fact, because Republicans have been in government so long and ineffective, most people are disgruntled and just want to change things around to send a message.
But analysts don't agree, that Americans are in unison behind the Democrats on Iraq policy, or economic policy. Americans don't believe in everything the Democratic party is selling.
Not tactical mistakes, but message mistakes may end up killing Obama, in the end. Like I said, if Obama shows up in a debate with McCain and says McCain wants 100 years of war, he will look like a fool.
All McCain has to do is say “we WILL win the war in my term”, and get out when we win. He's already starting this message.
One of the reasons Republicans have focused so much attention on Obama's connections to liberal politics and statements like he made in SF; is that most Americans don't have liberal positions.
In the end, it won't be an election between Obama and Bush, but Obama and McCain.
I will certainly agree with at least a portion of the point you are making. I'm not seeing any general outcry about how *great* the Democratic party's points and goals are, but rather a perception that the GOP is the status quo and voters are generally unhappy with the way things are going, in the economy, Iraq, gas prices, you name it. And with Bush still in the oval office, the blame tends to land at least partially there and drive people to vote for “change.” (Note, I'm not talking about “change” as in the campaign mantra of the Obama campaign, but as in “we don't like what we have right now so let's vote in some new guys and see if things get any better.” ) With that in mind, it's still possible that we'll see additional slippage of the GOP in both houses of Congress even if McCain takes the presidency.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/poli…
* Close to half of people think McCain will win the war
If John McCain is elected President, 49% of voters say it is at least somewhat likely that the United States will win the War in Iraq. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 20% believe victory in Iraq is likely if Barack Obama is elected in November.
* Asking the right question, not as high as 7 in 10, favor Obamas position:
Most Americans—52%–say bringing the troops home within four years is a higher priority than winning the War.
* A great deal many of people believe McCain will bring the troops home also
If Obama is elected, 59% say it is at least somewhat likely that virtually all combat troops will come home from Iraq during his first term. Just 43% believe the troops are that likely to come home if McCain is elected.
* Among Independents
Unaffiliated voters are evenly divided—47% say bringing home the troops is the top priority while 42% say victory is more important.
Unaffiliated voters are also evenly divided as to the prospects for victory if McCain is elected—46% of unaffiliated voters say victory is likely while 45% say it is not.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/poli…
* McCain leads Obama in trust on many issues
>>>ECONOMY<<<
Given a choice between McCain and Obama on the economy, 46% trust the GOP nominee while 39% opt for the Democratic frontrunner.
>>>WAR IN IRAQ<<<
Forty-eight percent (48%) trust McCain over Obama while 39% prefer Obama.
National Security:
With Obama, McCain’s advantage is 52% to 31%.
Taxes:
by a 41% to 38% margin over Obama.
Ethics (favor towards Obama):
This is the issue that breaks the pattern. Democrats are trusted more than Republicans by a 38% to 32% margin. Most unaffiliated voters don’t trust either party on the topic. Here, Obama outperforms the Democratic Party label and is trusted more than McCain by a 44% to 33% margin. However, McCain is trusted more than Clinton, 47% to 34%.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/poli…
Immigration:
39% Obama 45% McCain
Health Care (favor towards Obama):
43% Obama 39% McCain
Balanced Budget:
40% Obama 44% McCain
Trade:
36% Obama 47% McCain
Education (favor towards Obama):
44% Obama 39% McCain
Jazz,
My biggest point is that whenever I see a Democratic strategist or campaign chair on TV they talk about the “7 in 10″ figure, which is completely meaningless. People all over the Internet who hear this say things like “Obama will win in a landslide” or “Americans agree with us on Iraq”/”Americans think Bush lied”. Its completely misleading people, and Democrats will suffer from overconfidence.
Jazz,
My biggest point is that whenever I see a Democratic strategist or campaign chair on TV they talk about the “7 in 10″ figure, which is completely meaningless. People all over the Internet who hear this say things like “Obama will win in a landslide” or “Americans agree with us on Iraq”/”Americans think Bush lied”. Its completely misleading people, and Democrats will suffer from overconfidence.
All interesting numbers for the moment, but as we have pointed out here repeatedly, I'll start believing those Dem vs. Rep numbers more when when we see the polling done around August after poth parties have well established candidates. If the numbers hold, McCain should do well. However, keep this in mind. Right now those pollsters are ringing up a certain percentage of clinton supporters claiming they will vote for McCain if they don't get Clinton as a candidate. I won't say how the break will go in late summer, but keep your eyes open for a shift.
All interesting numbers for the moment, but as we have pointed out here repeatedly, I'll start believing those Dem vs. Rep numbers more when when we see the polling done around August after poth parties have well established candidates. If the numbers hold, McCain should do well. However, keep this in mind. Right now those pollsters are ringing up a certain percentage of clinton supporters claiming they will vote for McCain if they don't get Clinton as a candidate. I won't say how the break will go in late summer, but keep your eyes open for a shift.
I understand your point also, but I'd like to offer an additional warning about overconfidence.
People often cite the turnout numbers for Republican vs Democratic primaries on Super Tuesday. But more Republican primaries were caucuses, and fewer Republican primaries allowed Independents to vote.
For example, in California, Independents were only allowed to vote in the Democratic primary, and not the Republican primary. Do you know how huge of a number California Independents accounts for alone?
I understand your point also, but I'd like to offer an additional warning about overconfidence.
People often cite the turnout numbers for Republican vs Democratic primaries on Super Tuesday. But more Republican primaries were caucuses, and fewer Republican primaries allowed Independents to vote.
For example, in California, Independents were only allowed to vote in the Democratic primary, and not the Republican primary. Do you know how huge of a number California Independents accounts for alone?
A fair point. I'd love to consider this, but my bbq grill is calling and the wife brought home two nice steaks and four ears of corn to toss on it.
Have a great evening!
A fair point. I'd love to consider this, but my bbq grill is calling and the wife brought home two nice steaks and four ears of corn to toss on it.
Have a great evening!