When California’s Supreme Court decision nixed a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage the question immediately raised by some talk show radio hosts was: will this be back now as a big campaign 2008 wedge issue?
The likely answer: back…yes…….but not quite..because voters have a few teenie-weenie other things on their minds this year. The Associated Press has come to the same conclusion:
[NOTE: An earlier version of this story had this link attributed to the New York Times. That was an error, due to a reference from a Times story on the ruling that was cut in favor of using the more recent AP piece. We regret the error.]
Yesterday’s California Supreme Court decision striking down a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage reintroduces a hot-button social issue into the presidential campaign.
Republicans used same-sex marriage to great political effect in 2004, putting proposed bans on the ballot in Ohio and other states to get conservatives to the polls. But now it will have to compete for attention with the economy, the Iraq war, and other issues.
Indeed, there were already rumblings yesterday reflected in some news reports and on some talk shows of some thinking of trying to put a new measure on the ballot and of a court challenge to the California ruling.
But the dynamics are different this year:
And impact of the gay marriage issue could be muted, not just because neither the Democratic front-runner, Barack Obama, nor the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, support gay marriage, but because McCain’s opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage - on federalist grounds - makes it more difficult for the right to get a lot of traction out of it.
Still, the issue is likely to come up in some races (or be raised by the so-called “independent” groups that make commercials to support or negatively define candidates). And you can already see how even this clear-cut California court ruling can be spun.
“California Court Strips Children of Right to Mother and Father,” declares the headline of Cybercast News Service’s hot-button-pushing article which declares “the court does not recognize that children have any right whatsoever to a mother and a father. In the decision, the California court sees children primarily through the eyes of same-sex couples who want to secure custody and control of children. The court makes emphatically clear that it deems this to be a right of same-sex couples that is equal to–and identical to–the right of married mothers and fathers to adopt or conceive and raise their own children.”
Spin is spin is spin…
So will it become another wedge issue used against the Democrats as hot buttons are pushed and voters cast their votes on this issue? Read the rest of this entry »
First, if you’re wondering what I as a Hillary supporter think about Hillary’s decision to continue running after yesterday, the answer is I don’t know what I think of it as a strategy. Naturally I would like to believe that she could still somehow prevail. I am not sanguine. People are speculating that she is now running for the VP slot. We’ll see.
But — and this matters more to me — I most definitely admire her for her unswerving commitment to see the process through. Despite the pissing and moaning in the media, and whatever the outcome, I predict that the day will certainly arrive when people will look back with awe and amazement at Hillary’s insistence in going the distance against all odds and wish that they had chosen her. She is indomitable. I like that in a Democrat and so should other Democrats. Alas, many of them are so beguiled by the media myths about Hillary that they just can’t see what a force of nature she really is.
Obama could learn a lot from her and he’d be a better (future) president for it. Instead, I imagine we’ll be stuck with him in his current incarnation — all rhetoric, all the time.
March 19th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
So was it a home run or not? Was Democratic Senator Barack Obama’s historical racial division speech — delivered due to the continuing political firestorm over his relationship with his controversial family pastor Jeremiah Wright Jr but containing one of the most thoughtful discussions of the racial issue ever uttered by a modern politician — a success or a flop?
Much of it is in the eye of the beholder. (You can watch the whole speech here.)
The reason: although generally acknowledged to be a historical speech in terms of content and importance, in hard-nosed political terms its success will eventually be judged by whether he reached his target audience. So watch the polls…and the primaries.
His target audience would NOT be:
–Conservative talk show hosts. On the radio yesterday Bill O’Reilly told listeners Obama could NOT really be a uniter — because he had dared to boycott the Fox Presidential debates. (Ohhhkayy…..). Meanwhile, on his Fox News evening show, Sean Hannity was again raising the name of Louis Farrakhan and seemingly trying to link Obama with him — as he has done before.
–Republican activists on and off the web who area looking for vulnerabilities — any vulnerabilities — to use against him in the general election if he gets the nomination. It’s like the old Groucho Marx song lyric: “Whatever it is, I’m against it…”
His target audience WOULD BE (and these are just a few): –Independent voters who are truly swing voters and showed great interest in Obama in the past. The Pastor’s comments have already had a bad impact on Obama, a CBS poll finds:
Sixty-one percent of independent voters say they are unaffected, but 36 percent said it made their view less favorable. Two percent of independents said it made them more favorable view.
Overall, unfavorable views of Obama are up somewhat from February. His favorable ratings remain largely unchanged at 44 percent, but there has been some movement from undecided views to unfavorable views, from 23 percent in February to 30 percent now.
–Superdelegates. Too early to tell. They’ll be watching the remaining primaries and polls to see if Obama self-destructs. They’ll also likely watch to see how he handles himself under intense fire…that is sure to come in coming weeks. –White working class Americans. The impact here is problematical. Most working class Americans didn’t see the speech live, and it’s unlikely a larger number of them turned to C-SPAN or the web to see it in its entirety. As many analysts noted, the speech was “nuanced” and highly thoughtful. In fact, his passages about the way America politics operates in attack mode echoed what many independent voters have said for years. Most working Americans will get their take on what he said via TV sound bites — which are usually the most dramatic. In a “nuanced” speech, that could prove perilous.
The likely impact? It’s too early to tell — but it’s likely more footage of Wright will be shown and hammered via clips by Obama’s foes, particularly Republican. (Why should Hillary Clinton intervene at all when Obama is now being lambasted by GOPers and press coverage?).
But it’s clear the issue won’t go away, that Republicans were smiling yesterday, Newsday notes:
Barack Obama’s first major speech on race drew praise for its eloquence Tuesday — but Republicans think he handed them a major weapon by refusing to disown family pastor Jeremiah Wright Jr., who is known for racially inflammatory remarks.
“This is far and away the most damaging issue of the campaign for him, and his wonderful speech did nothing to make it go away,” said Whit Ayres, a longtime Republican pollster.
In the middle of a recession an economic slowdown (we’ll use White House terminology here), the war in Iraq and various other problems, it’s clear Republicans see an issue they can hammer home. The election could be about Obama and his pastor and his refusal to totally disown him:
“I think it’s an obligation of any opponent to use this issue, to make Reverend Wright a centerpiece of the campaign,” said Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford).
“His speech was disappointing and shameful,” King added. ” … This goes to the heart of who Barack Obama is. He’s trying to say he represents the 21st-century view on race and here he’s sticking up for this guy.”
Added pollster Ayres: “The problem is the contradiction between the fundamental message of the Obama campaign about bringing America together and Wright’s hate-filled, divisive message.”
So the most likely conclusions could be this:
(1) The speech will go down in history as one of the most nuanced and thoughtful discussions by a politician about race in decades.
(2) Future polls will prove hard evidence of what the impact is on the groups Obama needs to reach.
(3) Conservative talk radio, Fox News, and many weblogs that already vehemently oppose Obama were never in the target audience but can be expected to return to this issue repeatedly (as new clips will inevitably arise).
(4) If this issue starts to hurt Obama, Clinton will use this to argue that it’s too huge a risk to give him the nomination and that for the good of the party Superdelegates should vote for someone else (her).
Obama needed to address several audiences with the speech: undecided white voters in Pennsylvania, whose Rust Belt cousins Obama struggled to win over in Ohio even before the Wright controversy; African Americans aggrieved by the opprobrium being heaped on Wright; and staunch supporters such as Farley who needed reassurance about their candidate.
And the likely impact?
The speech drew praise across the political spectrum, though some on the right questioned Obama’s assertion that his liberal agenda could unite different races. But many who heard the speech wondered whether it would be enough to calm the anger generated by the Wright videos. Gerald Shuster, a political scientist at the University of Pittsburgh, found the speech “stylistically persuasive” but thought Obama should have moved aggressively to distance himself from Wright months ago, when reports of his harsher sermons first surfaced. “The rhetoric is convincing, but it’s just coming too late,” he said.
Martin Medhurst, an expert in rhetoric at Baylor University, was struck by the religious intonations as well as the echoes of John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech on his Catholicism, particularly the summons to overcome divisions to confront common threats.
Will yesterday’s speech be remembered along with Kennedy’s? “If Obama goes on to win the presidency, it will,” Medhurst said. “If he wins the presidency, this will be seen as a very important speech.”
The question is whether the bulk of voters will be able to find the entire speech or watch significant parts of it and listen to his discussion on race, its role, how it impacts perceptions, how existing politics always works and his call for a newer style. Or, whether the focus will remain on Wright as a hot-button issue — that eventually could sink him.
Here’s a prediction:
Parts of the speech may be read to students in future generations.
And parts of the speech will be read and used by Republican operatives.
Looking at it in purely political terms, is the Obama campaign ready for what is most assuredly going to come?
HERE’S A CROSS-SECTION OF VIEWPOINTS FROM MANY DIFFERENT WEBLOGS ON THIS HISTORICAL SPEECH
February 5th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
A new Zogby poll contends Democratic Senator Barack Obama has pulled into a 13 point lead over Senator Hillary Clinton in California’s 2008 Democratic Presidential primary — and Republican former Gov. Mitt Romney has taken the lead in the GOP contest.
A cautionary note (again): polls this year have been less-accurate than weather forecasters. But here’s what Zogby has found:
The final day of polling before Super Tuesday was one of hardening positions in key races across the country, the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby survey work shows.
Arizona Sen. John McCain continued to dominate among Republicans in the states polled in the surveys, with 50% or more supporting him in New Jersey and New York. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won less than half that in those states.
Romney continued to lead, however, in delegate-rich California, with 40% support in that state, to McCain’s 33%. The Republican race was tighter in Missouri, with McCain ahead with 34% support, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in second with 27% and Romney third with 25% support.
On the Democratic side, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama continued to fight neck and neck for their party’s voters and delegates. Obama solidified his lead in California, but Clinton pulled ahead in New Jersey, where the two had been tied in the previous poll.
This is the third release of figures from rolling telephone tracking polls in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Missouri and California. In Georgia, only the Democratic race was polled and in New York only the Republican race.
And Zogby writes:
“In California, we have Obama polling into a 13-point lead. Monday was another big single day of polling for him there. What has happened here is that in addition to building leads among almost every part of his base of support, he has dramatically cut into Clinton’s lead among Hispanic voters.
…Arnold Schwarzenegger] said that the high profile and competing endorsements the Kennedy family - not including his wife Maria Shriver - in the Democratic presidential contest represents a dramatic departure from past years.
“What’s interesting is that, within the family, for the first time you have different opinions,” he said. “I’ve been in the family 30 years, and I’ve never seen that…that’s really the story - what created that, and how Caroline and Teddy hooked up with the same opinion, and Kathleen ended up going with Hillary.”
“I don’t know the whole scoop, because it just happened, ” he laughed. “But eventually we’ll find out.”
Schwarzenegger was referring to the news that Shriver’s cousins, Caroline Kennedy and Rep. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, and her uncle, Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama Monday in a dramatic event at American University. But other family members, including former Maryland lieutenant governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the daughter of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, has endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and said her brother Bobby and sister Kerry do as well.
As for the leanings of Governor Schwarzenegger’s wife, Maria Shriver:
Schwarzenegger declined to address a possible endorsement by his wife, saying “you’ll have to ask her yourself.”
But sources in the office of the California First Lady, who is the daughter of Eunice Kennedy Shriver and Sargent Shriver - and the niece to Ted Kennedy, the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and the late president John F. Kennedy - said today that Shriver currently has no plans to endorse in the 2008 presidential race.
Shriver political sympathies could be valuable to both Clinton and Obama in the race: she is an active First Lady who has been a leading advocate of women’s issues - and she is also a good friend to talk show host Oprah Winfrey, who has endorsed Obama.
I do like that he told the press to ask her and not him about her endorsement sentiments.
Any betting types out there who want to bet on this one?
January 31st, 2008 by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
Uh-oh. More trouble for the Hugh Hewitts of the world, the purificationist ideologues of the conservative movement. They hate McCain and are pitching Romney as the saviour of “the Reagan Coalition,” but McCain is now the frontrunner, Huckabee is still in the race, draining much-needed social conservative support from Romney, who has his own impurity problems, and Giuliani and other insufficiently conservative Republicans are enthusiastically lining up behind McCain — who, by the way, is stridently conservative, whatever the maverick myth, don’t let them fool you.
And one of the biggest additions to the McCain fold is one of the superstars of the GOP, the insufficiently conservative Arnold Schwarzenegger, who formally endorsed McCain today in Los Angeles. I’m hardly an admirer of Arnie the Politician (except on global warming), but it’s probably worthwhile to have him on your side, especially with the huge California primary coming up next Tuesday.
And just imagine how much more enraged McCain’s conservative enemies are. Romney looks awfully small next to the McCain-Schwarzenegger combo. As do the Hugh Hewitts of the world.
**********
The title of this post is taken from what may be Schwarzenegger’s best movie, Terminator 2: Judgment Day.
California and Arizona
are both preparing to vote on redistricting plans aiming to reduce political distortions.
The California version focuses on trying to keep cities and counties contiguous, rather than broken up into obscure gerrymandered shapes. Perhaps these new districts can be made more competitive for candidates by pairing communities with different political inclinations. In order for Gov Schwarzenegger to get support for this from the Democratic leaders he had to agree to allow the term limit laws to be altered to give those leaders an extended stay in power.
The Arizona version is more precisely aimed at making the districts competitive which may allow for some splitting of cities and counties. With more competitive districts we will have a better chance of electing more moderate and pragmatic representatives who have to appeal to a diverse electorate, rather than ideological extremists who have little inclination or need to compromise.
I am delighted that these states may join Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Jersey and Washington that have objective redistricting plans that aim to allow the voters to choose their representatives rather than the representatives choosing their voters.
He writes primarily about term limits but also Campaign Finance reform and Redistricting.
We need redistricting reform to make the political system more competitive and more representative of the citizens of California. We need campaign finance reform to limit the influence of money in politics, and it is time to reform legislative term limits.
…Though some progress was made last year on that issue, we have not been able to agree on a redistricting measure in the Legislature; I’m supporting a proposal that was drafted by reform allies including AARP, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters.
While I welcome his leadership on election reform I am less excited about the idea of term limits. The main argument for term limits is that representatives can become detached from their constituents and fall to the influence of special interests. I would prefer that this risk be resolved through redistricting that makes campaigns more competitive so that candidates have to struggle to appeal to the independent and moderate voters. A candidate that can accomplish this is the kind of representative who is more likely to be grounded in a temperament of pragmatism, reality, cooperation, collaboration, and persuasion, rather than inflammatory extremism meant to provoke those with the least open minds among us - both Ds and Rs.
But I will not quibble if his success with adjusting term limits is a springboard to reform of public finance of campaigns and redistricting.
In the recent past the main adversaries to these reforms are the Democrats who apparently want to hold onto their current advantage in California. This is one of the quintessential reasons I define myself as an independent even though I share so few values with the current GOP. Given the chance, the Democrats are just as likely to abuse power and put party above progress. Witness recent stories about John Murtha’s abuse of earmarks.
Are Americans really prepared to elect a Black president? According to this op-ed article from France’s Sunday newspaper, Le Journal du Dimanche au Quotidien, if Barack Obama does manage to reach the White House, ‘it will be because his case eases the very conscience of the country … and something really essential will have changed in the United States.’
“Is the United States ready to elect a Black president? In two centuries, only two Blacks have been elected governors. … If Obama does maintain his lead throughout this campaign, it will be because his case eases the very conscience of the country.
The Chronicle of Gilles Delafon
Translated By Pascaline Jay
December 23, 2007
France - Le Journal du Dimanche au Quotidien - Original Article (French)
Is the United States ready to elect a Black president? In two centuries, only two Blacks have been elected governors in the country. So President? … probably not.
Yet a week before the kickoff to the race for the White House, the Democratic senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, born of a Kenyan father, is favored in the polls. He now outstrips his rival Hillary Clinton in the state of Iowa, where the first primary will take place on January 3rd. [Actually, Iowa holds a caucus rather than a primary ]. He’s also catching up in New Hampshire, where voters will decide on the 8th.
Better still, he’s so far the only Democrat that can beat all of his potential Republican rivals on Election Day. This is the hour of Obama. With his freshness and his spirit of “openness,” he says that once elected, he’s prepared to reach out to Republicans, such as Californian governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Prudence is called for, however. Iowa is an epiphenomenon blown out of proportion by hungry media pugilists. Barely 130,000 voters will decide these polls, and they are hardly determinative. Four years ago, Democrat Howard Dean was the odds-on-favorite in Iowa until he confronted maneuvering by supporters of John Kerry. [Most would argue that it was Dean’s famous “scream” and the reaction of the media to it that did him in].
November 3rd, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
The audience cheered. They roared, in fact. You’d think it was for a movie star or something.
The guy they were cheering for was shouting “GO CHARGERS, GO!!†in the heart of San Diego Chargers country. The location was what had been the team’s home before 25,000 shell-shocked people took it over for nearly a week, taking refuge from a massive natural disaster.
The politician who elicited heart-felt cheers had, of course, been an actor before becoming California’s governor. But he had become something even more than both as he stood there that Sunday after hideous fires had decimated many parts of San Diego County and incinerated some 1200 structures. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was in Qualcomm Stadium during a Chargers football game to honor the firefighters. Just one day earlier, the 41-year-old stadium had been emptied of some 20,000 fire evacuees — some of them leaving to live in hotels, or elsewhere, because they were without homes. The game was a victory celebration of sorts.
The worst of the big fires were waning, and it seemed that Schwarzenegger was back in the good graces of the bulk of California voters. From cynical reporters to the man and woman on the street, the man some call “Ahnold†received high marks for his management style during the disaster that caused the largest evacuations in state history.
President George Bush’s high-concept imagery moment came after 9/11 when he picked up the bullhorn in the rubble of the World Trade Center. Much of that image would later dissipate in the partisan polarization wars that followed. But it was an image-making moment.
Schwarzenegger had earlier tried political polarization, got burned and pulled back. Arnold was back to the kind of politics for which a broad coalition of Californians elected him four years ago, when they angrily kicked out the hapless Governor Gray Davis in a recall election. He had come full circle.
Schwarzenegger never really had his bullhorn moment. But it could be argued that he has had his bullhorn phase — his handling of the California wildfires.
He became the role model of a governor on-the-move, a Consoler-in-Chief, a go-between clamoring for help for his state’s residents from federal officials. His poll numbers had been on the rise, but the tragedy of the fires seemed to restore Arnold to the man who came to office seeming to be a different kind of governor.
Schwarzenegger hit just the right note and received praise in newspapers and from the man and woman on the street. For instance, Bill Whalen, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, said:
SAN DIEGO - Faced with unrelenting winds whipping wildfires into a frenzy across Southern California, firefighters conceded defeat on many fronts Tuesday to an unstoppable force that has chased an estimated 1 million people away.
Unless the shrieking Santa Ana winds subside, and that’s not expected for at least another day, fire crews say they can do little more than try to wait it out and react — tamping out spot fires and chasing ribbons of airborne embers to keep new fires from flaring.
“If it’s this big and blowing with as much wind as it’s got, it’ll go all the way to the ocean before it stops,†said San Diego Fire Capt. Kirk Humphries. “We can save some stuff but we can’t stop it.â€
If Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney or Chief Justice John Roberts applied for private health insurance, they wouldn’t get it.
Neither would Michael Moore for his obesity or Arnold Schwarzenegger, who went to the hospital in 2005 for rapid heartbeats.
An organization called the Medical Information Bureau would take a quick look at their histories and tell 470 companies they are hopelessly bad risks. Their work helps health insurers cherry-pick prospects to cover only those who are unlikely to get sick.
So much for universal coverage and the faith that Republicans, including President Bush, have in the marketplace. After the removal of his five polyps last month, he would have trouble getting health insurance himself.
CBS reported recently that a survey by the Commonwealth Fund last year found that 89 percent, or 52 million, of those looking for individual health insurance didn’t get it because it was too expensive or they were turned down.
“Insurers are getting double the profit that they make in the group market. Why is it so lucrative? Because they exclude anybody and everybody who has even a remote sense of risk associated with their health care,” said Dr. Bryan Liang, who has studied the insurance industry for more than a decade.
Someone should break the news to Rudy Giuliani, who loves the current system. His 2001 treatment for prostate cancer would rule him out for coverage in a New York minute.
A new, comprehensive study of independent voters by the Washington Post in collaboration with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University has bad news for both parties, but better news for the Democrats:
(1) The Republicans continue to lose independent voter support.
(2) Independent voter unhappiness with Washington and both parties could bolster a strong independent, third party candidate.
The details:
The study is a comprehensive examination of a broad segment of the electorate — about three in 10 voters call themselves independents — that is poised to play the role of political power broker in 2008. Independents split their votes between President Bush and Kerry in 2004 but shifted decisively to the Democrats in 2006, providing critical support in the Democratic takeover of the House and the Senate.
The new survey underscores the Republican Party’s problems heading into 2008. Fueled by dissatisfaction with the president and opposition to the Iraq war, independents continue to lean heavily toward the Democrats. Two-thirds said the war is not worth fighting, three in five said they think the United States cannot stabilize Iraq, and three in five believed that the campaign against terrorism can succeed without a clear victory in Iraq.
So can the Democrats breathe a sigh of relief? Not really:
The power of independents could also be felt in other ways next year. The survey found frustration with political combat in Washington and widespread skepticism toward the major parties — perhaps enough to provide the spark for an independent candidacy by New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.
Seventy-seven percent of independents said they would seriously consider an independent presidential candidate, and a majority said they would consider supporting Bloomberg, whose recent shift in party registration from Republican to unaffiliated stoked speculation about a possible run in 2008.
Strategists and the media variously describe independents as “swing voters,” “moderates” or “centrists” who populate a sometimes-undefined middle of the political spectrum. That is true for some independents, but the survey revealed a significant range in the attitudes and the behavior of Americans who adopt the label.
Please note that we’ve repeatedly said this about reaction to this site: being a “moderate” or “independent” does NOT mean coming down lockstep on an issue with other moderates. Some may be center, center-left and center right and vary, depending on the issue. And there is not an opinion poll that shows that independent voters and/or moderates think totally alike on any given issue.
The study underscores this diversity of independent and moderate thought as well:
The survey data established five categories of independents: closet partisans on the left and right; ticket-splitters in the middle; those disillusioned with the system but still active politically; ideological straddlers whose positions on issues draw from both left and right; and a final group whose members are mostly disengaged from politics.
What they share is an aversion to party labels. As Adele Starrs, an editor from Columbia, N.J., put it, “I can’t go down either side.”
My personal experience:
I have been in both parties and at different times in my life on the left and on the right. I was recently asked by someone to affiliate with an independent movement. My reply was that at this point, having been in both parties, I’m going to remain independent and won’t even sign up for that. I’ll even remain independent of belonging to an organized independent group.
BUT this doesn’t mean that I look down my snoot at people who ARE Democrats, Republicans, proud liberals and proud conservative.
And there is a TRAP that independents (and moderates fall into).
Jonathan Chait, writing the TRB column called “Bloomsday” in The New Republic, calls this the “partisanship scolds.” They’re people who feel there is an intrinsic value in not affiliating with parties and that it makes them superior to those who belong to parties.
And that is indeed a WRONG and short-sighted attitude: to each his own. Because Democrats, Republicans and independents all see things through their own filter — and each side thinks it’s right. Elections are to sway enough to one side so that one side can prevail.
Chait writes, in part:
Bloomberg has thus become the most prominent example of what you could call partisanship scolds.These are people who believe that disagreement is the central problem in U.S. politics, that both parties are to blame in equal measure, and that rejecting party ties or ideology is synonymous with the demonstration of virtue. While partisanship scolds believe that they stand in bold contrast to Washington, they are probably more heavily represented among the Beltway elite than any other demographic.
Chait is particularly critical of Unity 08. But his more general observations about the “partisanship scolds” includes these:
Unfortunately, when the partisanship scolds get a little more specific, things tend to break down. The first problem is that they can’t agree on whether partisanship is making Washington pay too much attention to public opinion or too little….
He gives some examples and then mentions:
The second problem is that the partisanship scolds are extremely vague about which chunk of Americans is being left out by the growing extremism in Washington. It is true that some broadly popular views are underrepresented in national politics. A detailed political typology released by the Pew Center in 2005 showed that Democratic voters are not as socially liberal as their leaders and Republican voters are not nearly as economically conservative. So there is a sizeable base of socially traditionalist, economically populist voters to be had. Unfortunately, the partisanship scolds invariably cater to exactly the opposite demographic: elites who favor free trade, open immigration, cutting entitlements, and social tolerance.
And then he adds a comment that will make many conservatives who distrust moderates and independents smile a big smile:
Third, in the age of George W. Bush, the substance of the partisanship scold ideology is no longer, by any reasonable definition, centrist. They are moderate Democrats who don’t want to admit it.
He says Bloomberg’s politics are to the left and that he’s “an out-and-out social liberal.” He adds: “But for Bloomberg and his admirers to admit that their views do have a home in a major party would destroy the basis of their self-image. Thus they must maintain at all costs the pretense of transcending ideology.”
He points to the Time Magazine cover hyping Bloomberg and our own California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (who is angering California Republicans now to the point that they are angrily opposing him on many issues).
Partisanship scolds oppose the GOP agenda, but rather than acknowledge and confront those ideological differences, they assume them away.
Indeed, the premise that ideological extremism has left no room in either party for moderates like Bloomberg is belied by Bloomberg himself. There are many things keeping Bloomberg from running on a conventional party ticket, but the alleged extremism of the two parties is not one of them. A longtime Democrat, he switched his affiliation for his initial mayoral run in 2001, but only because running as a Republican offered him a clearer path to the nomination. Bloomberg’s ideology today places him firmly within the Democratic camp.
If Bloomberg took the honest route and switched back to the Democrats to run for president, he’d be condemned as a transparent opportunist. Instead, he disingenuously renounces party altogether and is praised as a visionary.
Fair enough.
But Chait makes an error in his piece, too.
Not all independents and moderates who may criticize parties from time to time are “partisanship scolds.”
Some are people who’ve BEEN THERE, DONE THAT and had once been faithful and trusting Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives. They were bitterly disappointed by their leaders, ashamed by the behaviors of some in their own camp, or concluded that political parties really don’t believe what they say they say they do as much as wanting to claw their way to power.
Some are people who feel BURNED.
So their attitude now is:
Convince me. Prove it to me. Don’t just say “trust me.” Because I don’t anymore.
And do it on the substance of the issues and your arguments, not on how you don’t stink to high heavens as much as the other guy.
But no matter what the study and Chait’s piece point out a fact:
The election won’t be just determined by both parties in 2008. There are others out there.
Well … Maria apparently does, for one, as well as a few others, including yours truly, albeit with a entirely different kind of “love.”
Then, there are those who are simply fond of him, like Dennis Sanders, and those who are intrigued enough about him to write a book, like Daniel Weintraub, columnist for The Sacramento Bee.
Granted, the Govuhnator doesn’t make everyone happy, and he’s not as staunch an advocate of individual liberties as some might like him to be, but he’s leagues better (IMHO) than practically any other Republican in a major office today.
Perhaps changing the U.S. Constitution, via the “Arnold Amendment,” wouldn’t be such a bad idea, after all.
NOTE: This was posted with the wrong byline but itis now corrected.
He’s considered the present front-runner. He still has an aura of heroism in the wake of 911 surrounding him. He has enjoyed support from independent voters in the past and from a segment of Democrats.
But now, in his difficult task of trying to woo more conservative and ideologically anchored Republicans far and wide to get the Republican 2008 Presidential nomination the operative question becomes: is former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani stumbling?
The Politico has a story based on a tip “from a rival campaign” (which is easy to guess in political stories) that is likely to do deep damage to Giuliani among some parts of the Republican electorate:
Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani in his campaign appearances this year has stated that he personally abhors abortion, even though he supports keeping a legal right to choose. But records show that in the ’90s he contributed money at least six times to Planned Parenthood, one of the country’s leading abortion rights groups and its top provider of abortions.
Federal tax returns made public by the former New York mayor show that he and his then-wife, Donna Hanover, made personal donations to national, state and city chapters of Planned Parenthood totaling $900 in 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999.
The returns have been on the public record for years, but the detail about Giuliani’s support for Planned Parenthood — along with e-mailed copies of the returns — was provided to The Politico by aides to a rival campaign, who insisted on not being identified.
Those who regularly read my posts know that I am sickened by what the Republican Party, under current leadership, has become. You may also recall that I made the decision a month or so ago (after much soul-searching) to re-engage with the Party, via the Republican Leadership Council, and attempt to advance reforms that will help moderate the Party and refocus it on certain core principles.
In the meantime — on my own, separate from my collaboration with the RLC — I’ve been wrestling with this question: How big of a tent can the GOP hoist before it loses its definition and distinctiveness? The Democrats have done a remarkable job, under Senator Schumer and others, advancing a big-tent strategy for their ranks; a strategy that (along with BushCo’s missteps) played a major role in their return to power after the November elections. I believe the GOP must do the same.
My first shot across the bow, to test this thinking, was fired yesterday at Central Sanity.
Based on the discussion and definitions offered there, I’d be interested to know …
Are there TMV readers who consider themselves Schwarzenegger Republicans?
Alternatively, could you (depending on the circumstances) respect, accept, vote for, or otherwise support Schwarzenegger Republican candidates?
How many of you think the concept (again, as it’s described at CS) is a viable expansion of the Party platform?
Alternatively, how many of you think (as Chuck Butcher does) that this is nothing more than dressing a Donkey in Elephant’s clothes?
And if you do agree with Chuck, please recall the D’s newfound love for the Blue Dogs and their acceptance of Southern, pro-life and pro-gun members, and then please help answer this question: Why can the D’s thus broaden their ranks but the R’s cannot?
Or, for that matter, toss in any category of comment you want … with maybe one exception: Those of you who think I must be smoking crack to focus on the reform of an existing party rather than the creation of a new party, I heard you loud and clear the last time. You made some good points, but that’s not really what the debate here is about. Then again, it’s a free country, so have at it, if you like.
Yesterday, the National Governors Association announced “the creation of a new Health Care Working Group and a series of Webcasts on state health reform initiatives.” The group’s purpose is “to develop recommendations for federal action. The group will present a final report summarizing their findings and an action plan that supports state reform initiatives over the next several months.”
Good for them.
The working group will include these Governors …
Janet Napolitano (AZ), Co-Chair
Tim Pawlenty (MN), Co-Chair
Jon S. Corzine (NJ)
Jim Douglas (VT)
Sonny Perdue (GA)
Mitch Daniels (IN)
Kathleen Sebelius (KS)
Matt Blunt (MO)
John Hoeven (ND)
Ted Strickland (OH)
Phil Bredesen (TN)
Tim Kaine (VA)
Anyone else find it odd that Arnold’s not on the list?
Ka-Dang! Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger has definitely broken with the right wing of the Republican Party and, instead, embraced the center. On the Today Show Schwarzenegger said the following in response to criticism from certain conservatives like Limbaugh: “Rush Limbaugh is irrelevant. I am not his servant.� He added: “I am the people’s servant of California. What they call me - Democrat or Republican or in the center, this and that - that is not my bottom line. This is for them to talk about.�
Limbaugh, of course, isn’t happy with Governor Schwarzenegger’s views / proposals on health care, global warming, stem cell research, etc.
March 14th, 2007 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
Britain is to become the first country in the world to set legally binding targets for cutting its carbon dioxide emissions, says The Independent. The targets will be aimed at cutting emissions of the gas which causes global warming by between 26 per cent and 32 per cent by 2020, and 60 per cent by 2050.
In a draft Bill published yesterday, ministers promised to enshrine into law their commitment to cut emissions. Opposition parties and Labour MPs joined forces in calling for an 80 per cent reduction.
*New system of five-year ‘carbon budgets’ to cap total emissions. Limits set 15 years in advance to help business planning. Ministers say that the caps will set a ‘trajectory’ for hitting longer term Government CO2 emissions targets.
*Courts are to be given powers to ‘name and shame’ ministers if targets are missed.
“Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, hailed Mr Blair as an ‘action hero’ for inspiring him to introduce a law committing California to an 80 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.
“In a joint interview with Mr Blair for ITV News, Mr Schwarzenegger said: ‘It is very clear the Prime Minister has been a great inspiration to many, many countries all over the world… I think he is a pioneer, because he has had the guts to sign the Kyoto treaty and to show to the world that you can protect the environment and protect the economy at the same time’.”
Schwarzenegger stresses the importance of centrism in American politics, decries excessive partisanship and said the current system of political gerrymandering in which the vast majority of seats in the House of Representatives are heavily weighted in favor of one party or the other “creates extremism.� He favors redistricting such seats and also said he favors open primaries in every state so that Republicans can vote for Democrats and vice versa. “I am very glad we have Republican candidates that are very much in the center and can appeal to both Republicans and Democrats,� Schwarzenegger said. Adding that he wanted his own legacy as governor, aside from specific achievements, to be his bipartisan approach to “fighting for the people.� “That is my primary goal,� he said. “That’s why sometimes Republicans are up in arms and saying this is not our philosophy or sometimes Democrats are up in arms. That’s OK.�
This compares with Newt Gingrich’s most recent email broadcast:
“The American people repudiated the GOP, because the idea of Republicans’ trying to manage the liberal welfare state they inherited from the Democrats was a dead loser. I am not sure many Republican consultants have come to understand this. Certainly the elite news media want Republicans to run as non-ideological “centrists” who will then have no persuasive appeal to the vast majority of Americans that elected Ronald Reagan in 1980 and ‘84 and the Contract with America House Republicans in 1994…The liberal welfare state has failed, and its bureaucracies cannot be defended if we focus on the human costs of their failures. It is our challenge to focus on the big choices, the big truths and the big contrasts…This choice between a failed liberal, welfare-state future and an exciting, successful, conservative, opportunity- society future requires transformation at all levels of American elected office (511,000+ elected officials) and not merely the oval office.
It seems to me that the Governor is observing what appeals to the largest proportion of voters, while Newt is more focused on GOP loyalists. But I don’t think that Newt is accurate is concluding that the liberal welfare state has failed and most voters would support its dismantling. I feel that most voters accept the role of government in our lives and want effective leaders who can make the systems as efficient as possible. Perhaps a better angle for the GOP is to champion policies that improve efficiency: Tax simplification, removing barriers to competition, increasing technology and standardization in the management of entitlements and health care, individually owned health insurance, cap and trade environmental strategies…
For moderates I suspect that we have broad consensus about the aims of society to be fair, and provide opportunity and security. I think our main concerns are about the means.
