Politics And Sports, I Love The Fall...

Since this was conceived primarily as a relationship blog I'm trying to stay away from posting about other things, but then the irony that is my life happened - a couple months into writing this damn thing I found a relatively normal woman.  Blogging about that was good for about two posts, so we're going to go some other places until I manage to fuck it up somehow.  Tonight that means mainly politics and a little bit of sports. 

Full disclosure - I'm a total partisan hack for the Republican Party - well, at least what the Republican party used to be (circa 1994 - 1995, maybe a bit into 1999).  I was actually fairly well connected back in the day, but as of now in my official life I'm completely non-partisan since I'm in the Air Force. 

As for sports - in another life I used to be an announcer for my college radio station for basketball and football.  I also co-hosted a sports commentary show.  It by no means makes me an expert, but I'm just not spouting off when I talk about sports either.  Well, maybe I am, but hopefully a little experience adds some credence to my rants.  However, this post will be about politics and it's a long one...(so to speak)

Ok, politics...

I'm pissed.  Politics has a way of making me feel this way, but less so now that I don't have to deal with idiots from the RNC, people that have overdosed on the kool-aid, or College Republicans that think that matching suits, collecting bumper stickers, and meeting Tom Ridge is the highlight of a college convention (my highlight, hotel room parties and rumors from the hot tub...there are always rumors from the hot tub in a hotel). 

Ok, I'm getting off point, why am I pissed? 

Well, I'll tell you.  I was getting somewhat close to at least thinking about jumping ship and checking out Obama.  This would be a monumental shift for me - I was one of the people (hopefully one of the cooler people) that actually attended College Republican conventions...yeah.  Not only that, but I was a McCain guy back in 2000.  I couldn't understand why anyone would vote for this untested, inexperienced (sound familiar?) governor from (gasp!) Texas when we had a flippin' WAR HERO that could grab the coveted center of the electorate that the Clintons had stolen away from the Reagan/Bush presidencies.  We had "the Maverick," a guy that would actually put what has become traditional politics aside and bring people and Congress together to make progress.  We would have lower taxes, continued surpluses, a shrinking debt, a strong national defense, clear Republican majorities for the next few decades, magical fairy dust that made everything taste like prime rib, ice cream that didn't make you fat, and everyone would come together at night and sing "Lean On Me." 

Obviously that didn't happen, but it was no matter - it was 2000, everything was cool and we were on a great break from history and then-Governor Bush certainly seemed better than then-Vice President Al Gore ranting about Man-Bear-Pig.
























































He just won't let it go....



Well, in any case McCain knew that at the time he was the better candidate, and we saw what happened - Karl Rove (while a genius and astute pol) and his strategy of abandoning the center and getting your base out resulted in a near miss for a Republican presidency.  Sure we ended up winning, but I sure John McCain thought (as I have always postulated) that a McCain/Gore matchup would have been a landslide type of victory.  He was the Republican that everyone liked - not just the press that was sure to turn on him, but that all important center.  And I'll say it again, this was 2000 - the "base" of the Republican party - the crazy social conservatives (truth be told, I consider myself socially conservative, but not crazy - the two are not always related) - was not the "base" that it's become today - a whiny group of walking stereotypes threatening not to vote.  Back in the day you might have seen a few of them on daytime cable news; they formed their own groups like the Christian Coalition, but these were in parallel with the Republican Party - they had not been cultivated into the main party by Karl Rove yet.  In 2000 they would have come out for John McCain.

So, John McCain fumed and didn't really care about larger Republican politics for a few years (example - if he had he probably wouldn't have pushed McCain/Feingold for all the mainstream Republicans hated it).  Then 2004 rolled along and McCain found an opening.  He could help now with President Bush's reelection - lend his credibility as an independent operator, get in the good graces of the larger Republican machine (by now the "base" we all know and love), and set himself up for 2008.  This obviously worked, but almost didn't for one reason - he never stopped pandering.  He went to Liberty University, reversed course on abortion, and tried to put his old team with some folks from the old Bush 2004 team. 

He came back from that of course, but now I had a problem as a voter - could I trust John McCain?  Would it be the 2000 McCain - fiscally conservative (in the fullest sense of those words meaning balanced budgets) and with a disregard for traditional party politics or would we have the 2004 - late 2007 McCain - right on the war, but other principles that could bend to get the nomination (a, gasp, flip-flopper)?

So, I started looking at Obama.  I found there a guy that might have a small chance of changing the tone of American politics - the guy that could beat Clinton without one word on Watergate, Vince Foster, the meaning of "is," or any of the nastier things he could have gotten into.  Oh, I hated his policies - enlarging government, raising taxes (and yes, repealing the Bush tax cuts would represent a raise across the board), abandoning the surge (at the time I started looking at him - he's since moderated this policy, but just a bit), but it was like watching The West Wing.  I cringed when some of the characters on the show would open their mouths, but damn if I didn't like the way they did things.  That's an important distinction now-a-days.  The federal government is at once so large, bureaucratic, and entrenched to be almost impossible for a single president to make a huge difference with individual policies (some of this was by design, some by the sheer weight of the government) and in other ways it's really the state and local governments that really make a difference.  So, the nascent idea in my head was that Obama might change the tone to get something done, but would be moderated by his position - kind of like the policies of the 1994 - 1998 Bill Clinton with a Republican Congress - aside from a couple of government shutdowns they came together to do some good things. 

I was just settling into this place of looking at the greener grass (I'll admit all the excitement was enticing) while probably voting for McCain and hoping for the best when the Democratic Convention started.  All the speakers were nothing but doom and gloom...listing problem after problem, and taking no blame.  Meanwhile Obama was putting up a ridiculous stage at Mile High (I will not call it by the bank name) and was falling into the trap of getting more and more negative and letting his campaign play the traditional political games (so much for a change in tone). 

This was the first reason why I was pissed - the Democratic Convention turned a promising choice into just another Democrat.

Then, a little ray of light came and John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate. 

WTF?

I will be the first to admit that there are a whole host of more experienced candidates for VP on the Republican/Independent side (had to include my man from Connecticut), but sometimes it's not the amount of experience that matters (which is why everyone is harping on it), but the kind of experience you have that matters.

What do I mean and why else am I pissed?

Everyone is harping on comparing the amount of experience between Obama/Biden and Governor Palin and I'll fully admit that when you compare the amount of experience there you'll find Palin lacking.  However, Obama has spent much of his adult life trying to be a politician - that's not necessarily a bad thing, but Palin has spent her entire short political career trying to fix corruption and darker parts of Alaskan politics.  It's also important to note that she came to office on the same wave of reform that has actually created a coalition government in the Alaskan Senate (Democrats and Republicans working together).  She pushed through a plan to reduce the oil companies power in Alaskan politics specifically pertaining to a proposed natural gas pipeline.  Called AGIA, this plan, even while being voted on, was ignored by oil companies.  Those oil and gas companies started work on their own pipeline confident that Governor Palin wouldn't get her plan passed, but she did.  She passed anti-corruption legislation despite the fact that everyone was getting fat on oil money.  She cut spending in a state awash in oil money.  She made Wasilla, Alaska (of all places) one of the fastest growing towns in America. 

Simply put, no one is putting any weight on her experience - and that weight is important.  I'll admit that Obama has spent time in the Senate, attended meetings, learned about many things, but aside from co-sponsoring (Senate double-speak for "me too") some bills what has he done?

For any law school nerds out there it's like the difference between procedural and substantive due process.  Procedures are great, but if there is no substance then it doesn't matter.  Sarah Palin, for all her limited time in government, has had substantive time in government.  More importantly, it's the right kind of experience that might actually serve to change Washington just like it changed the 50 year old status-quo in Alaska in merely two years.

So, no one's giving the Republican VP pick any credit - that can't possibly piss me off enough to blog after a month of silence can it?  Well, no, I'm pissed for a couple of other reasons.

First is the way the press views the Republican Party.  McCain shook up the race by picking Palin - Obama has not managed to create his anticipated 90 point lead, and we just might have a race (I'm not sure yet whether this is going to be 1988 or 1996 for the Republicans, but we'll see).  So, of course, the press goes on the attack and right on to the first target of opportunity - Sarah Palin. 

The DailyKos was the worst - briefly exploring the conspiracy theory that Bristol Palin was really the mother of Trig - the latest addition to the Palin clan.  I saw so many pictures of various Palin bellies that I almost got sick. 

Then the story turned to Bristol Palin's actual pregnancy.  The story didn't focus on how Sarah Palin might handle this on the national stage, but rather it was coverage of the father's MySpace page and whether the base of the Republican party might turn against Palin.  Peggy Noonan can explain the latter better than I can...

For one thing, you assume evangelical Christians will be appalled and left agitated by the circumstances of Mrs. Palin's daughter. But modern American evangelicals are among the last people who'd judge her harshly. It is the left that is about to go crazy with Puritan judgments; it is the right that is about to show what mellow looks like. Religious conservatives know something's wrong with us, that man's a mess. They are not left dazed by the latest applications of this fact. "This just in - there's a lot of sinning going on out there" is not a headline they'd understand to be news.

So the media's going to wait for the Christian right to rise up and condemn Mrs. Palin, and they're not going to do it because it's not their way, and in any case her problems are their problems. Christians lived through the second half of the 20th century, and the first years of the 21st. They weren't immune from the culture, they just eventually broke from it, or came to hold themselves in some ways apart from it. I think the media will explain the lack of condemnation as "Republican loyalty" and "talking points." But that's not what it will be.

So they went after experience - which I've already covered.  But the press in general could have done an analysis - present the experience of Sarah Palin and let people decide if she's experienced enough.  Instead we got pithy questions about exactly how she manages the Alaska National Guard in an effort to get a "gotcha" moment.  Instead of an analysis of executive vice legislative experience we got judgments saying that she wasn't experienced and then challenging the McCain representatives to prove she was experienced enough.  The stories would start out with a question "Is she experienced enough to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?" before presenting her assumed inexperience rather than the more balanced - "Obama supporters say she's inexperienced, McCain surrogates say she's right for the job...here's what she's actually done".  I love editorials just as much as the next guy, but I also like the facts without spin.  And for all my democratic friends still reading, I realize Fox News is just as bad the other way, but they're still a minority voice. 

So after this and a bunch of debunked stories ranging from Palin firing the librarian to her being a secessionist (the McCain camp actually had to release voter registration forms for that one) the press asked the obvious question - did McCain actually vet this woman, because we don't like her.  While Governor Palin was laying low there were actually whispers on Wonkette (it's another blog) that McCain would pick someone else after a few days of this press beating. 

Then...she spoke...

It was a homerun!  I'll be the first to admit that I'm not nearly as conservative as her, but you have to respect that she's an obviously intelligent person that's a great talent.  It was clear McCain would not be trading out Palin. 

How did the press react - and why am I STILL pissed? 

They responded by printing and publishing the AP fact check of the Republican Convention, but not the Democratic one (only two newspapers had the dems compared to numerous mainstream news sources carrying the fact check of the Republican convention).  Keith Olberman responded to McCain's comments on Palin saying "there was on obvious gaffe - he said she worked with her hands and her nose."  Wow, way to miss the point Keith. 

Politico responded by writing as if they were petulant children - mock apologizing for "asking questions."  I would be fine if all the larger press did was ask questions, but they asked loaded questions with their own conclusions.  They didn't just ask if she wasn't experienced - they judged her experience as inadequate.

The basic problem comes from the mainstream media idea of the Republican Party...

 

 

         










Excellent...


There's one more reason why I'm pissed.  Despite all the problems the press has this year, the Republican party has no idea and is ill equipped (except for McCain and Palin themselves) to handle the press.  No one is raising the point in a clear manner about substantive experience, McCain backers are trying to fall back on this National Guard thing to explain Governor Palin's executive experience.  That's all well and good, but they have better things to point to and no one can seem to articulate that any governor has regular communication with their state's adjutant general, command the Guard during natural disasters, and specifically in Alaska the Guard helps to rescue people that get lost in the woods or become victims of avalanches and other calamities.

The point is that there are good points to be made here and most of the spokespeople are not making them either because they've been on defense or they're incompetent.  

Even the crowd is making us look bad.  The Republican crowd is a bunch of robots - it's almost as if they're anticipating applause lines and coming in too early.  The chants are stupid and these are obviously the people drinking the Kool-aid.  The best crowd is a truly interactive one - one that acutally listens to the substance of your speech and cheers appropriately. 

One thing we did get right - burying Andrea Mitchell from MSNBC in balloons - I actually like her, but that was hiliarious.  It was like those reporters that grabbed the last straw and ended up in the hurricane, except with balloons.

Also, with the exception of McCain tonight no party has been positive - there's no "Morning in America" line or moment.  The closest we've had is "Yes we can" - mainly a speech saying yes we can elect Obama - nothing too much more than that.  Every Republican on TV should be positive - taking about not about how McCain will make things better, but rather being positive about the future in general. 




So...at the end of the day what do we have...what's the summation of all of this?

1.)  I want to believe the maverick in John McCain is back, but what I fear is that it has become merely a package they're trying to present to the American people.  I think this kind of stuff works with regular people, but with John McCain this is coming off as fake and packaged.  Time will tell if John McCain can overcome his own campaign and his own campaign's narrative. 

2.)  I do believe the maverick part of John McCain ended up picking Sarah Palin.

3.)  Sarah Palin is a great pick, but she'll have two or three problems
  
          - She'll have Troopergate, but the trooper she's trying to get fired tasered his own kid so there you go...
          - She'll have earmarks - as mayor she tried to get them, but that's the job of a mayor
          - She'll have the experience thing, but she has good substance in her experience

Everything else I think will be chaff and easily dismissed by most people. 

4.)  Obama is becoming more "regular" all the time.  Much like John McCain he needs to transcend his own campaign and narrative.  A good first step was forcefully declaring Sarah Palin's family off limits. 

5.)  It's going to get nasty as hell - even without the regular stuff the press has already proven with Sarah Palin they're going to get crazy.  That's the real shame, for the first time in many years we have two candidates that can realistically avoid that and run better campaigns, but it's not going to happen.

6.) I'm pissed at McCain for not being himself, Obama for not being who he could be, the press for being worse than usual, the Republicans for not handling the press well (even the convention crowd), and the campaigns for not being optimistic enough. 

7.)  With all of that I'm still hopeful - this year, for the first time in many years, there are two candidates I'm actually excited about and hopeful for.  Instead of hoping my candidates don't lower the bar, I'm disappointed they don't reach my high expectations - that's a good sign for America.