Monday’s political round-up

September 10, 2007

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Ordinarily, I watch the presidential candidates’ debates (so you don’t have to), but I missed last night’s Democratic event in Miami, sponsored by Univision. As far as I can tell, there weren’t any race-changing moments, but the format was unprecedented — the candidates’ answers were translated live from English to Spanish, and English-speaking viewers had to rely on SAP (secondary audio programming) to follow along. The NYT and LAT had thorough coverage.

* AP: “Oprah Winfrey rolled out the red carpet Saturday for Barack Obama at a gala fundraiser attended by high-wattage stars that was expected to raise $3 million for the Democratic presidential candidate. The most powerful woman in show business celebrated her favorite candidate with 1,500 guests at her palatial estate in this coastal enclave south of Santa Barbara. Tickets to the sold-out private event went for $2,300 apiece, keeping them within campaign finance limits.”

* In addition to Oprah, Obama also picked up the support late last week of Federico Pena, a former mayor of Denver who served as Secretary of Energy in Bill Clinton’s administration.

* For a few months, the religious right considered actor/lobbyist/politicians Fred Thompson their savior in a Republican presidential race featuring zero solidly right-wing social conservatives in the top tier. Now, however, the religious right is having second thoughts. “The problem I’m having is that I don’t see any blood trail,” Rick Scarborough, a Southern Baptist preacher and president of Texas-based Vision America, said. “When you really take a stand on issues dear to the heart of social conservatives, you’re going to shed some blood in the process. And so far, Fred Thompson’s political career has been wrinkle-free.”

* John Edwards said over the weekend that he carries a running list of people he might put in his cabinet, and it includes “more than one” Republican. He wouldn’t, however, commit to a bipartisan cabinet, adding, “[T]he test for me is not whether they’re Democratic or Republican. The test is how competent they are and whether they’re the best person for the job, and to make a decision about who’s best to choose you have to spend time talking to them.” He all but ruled out a GOP running mate, saying the VP “needs to be someone who shares my vision for the country.”

* And, as expected, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) announced this morning that he will retire from elected office at the end of his second term next year. (For more, see my post from Saturday.)

As far as I can tell, there weren’t any race-changing moments”

As in changing from Caucasian to Hispanic? (tongue-in-cheek)

  • Thompson translation: The Reich spends months showing a little leg, while Freddie wonders if he can get past first base with this sexy political siren. But as with all thugs, he goes for the home run on the very first date—and Ms. Wingnut slaps the Commandments out of him with a brick-filled purse. Those fundies—such a tease!!!

  • The wingnut mind is always drenched in blood. From the time they’re born, they’re “washed in the blood of Jesus”, and they think that only blood will atone for sins (it used to be that blood from really nice animals would do the trick, but now they’ve got the special “lifetime” blood policy they offer).

    Nowadays the blood they want seems to be ours. And the Iraqis. And the Iranians. And…

  • That Rick Scarborough is a caution, isn’t he? I mean, putting the words “Fred Thompson” and “wrinkle-free” in the same sentence? Then there’s the “blood trail.” What part of the Prince of Peace does he actually understand?

  • Now, let’s see, John Edwards says he is willing to seriously consider more than one unnamed Republican in his cabinet. Now, if Hillary had said such a thing, she would have been pilloried here as a (spit, sputter) cold, calculating triangulater who would pander to anyone and say anything to get the support of the mushy middle.

    Edwards supporters will now begin to level the same such criticisms at him, uh, never.

  • I can see pandering to special groups. We used to do that in San Francisco politics. We made special visits to Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Italian political groups. Also to various specialized garden groups, service clubs, religions, hobbyists and so on.

    But I do not like the current trend, particularly noticeable among Democrats, to make even semi-official events like TeeVee debates Spanish (say) only. I see no reason why our ballots must be printed in 250 languages, or why public schools must provide a variety of languages for teaching (say) math or English.

    Such provision is almost as effective as is our Bureau of Indian Affairs system of reservations for maintaining a permanent underclass. I’m not making a moral judgment about any supposed superiority of English (though it factually is more of an amalgam of many diverse roots than any of its competitors), any more than I would say it’s more moral to drive on the right or the left. It’s just that whatever got there first set the standard, so it’s up to those who come later to compete according to that standard. To the extent our government institutions and political parties cater to special language needs, they rob the rest of us of the contributions which truly competitive “fresh blood” could make to our society.

  • “When you really take a stand on issues dear to the heart of social conservatives, you’re going to shed some blood in the process. And so far, Fred Thompson’s political career has been wrinkle-free.”

    This either sounds kinky or frickin’ stupid. WTF do blood and wrinkles (on clothing one assumes) have to do with one another? Nothing, unless you’ve got some sort of vampire fetish and spend a lot of time thinking about rumpling the nighties of unsuspecting virgins.

  • colonpowwow, #7: Edwards clearly was not saying he’d triangulate to find the right balance of labels to satisfy all factions. That would be more Hillary’s style. What he was saying is that “the test is how competent they are and whether they’re the best person for the job” regardless of Party label. His comments on a future running mate make it clear that he is talking real policy rather than pussyfooting his way through endless focus groups to come with the least offensive combination. Given the behavior of some Democrats-In-Name-Only lately I’d say that makes a lot of sense.

  • Hey, Ed,

    I wrote to the reporters who did the original story in North Carolina on the Edwards’ Estate Clear-Cutting Project and asked them, since he is getting support for the uniions these days (deserved from his voting record, etc.), if he had personally supported union workers by requiring his contractor to use them whenever possible.

    What do you think? One reporter didn’t think so but he’s checking into it. I’ll keep you posted, or just watch for the ongoing saga of Do-As-I-Say Edwards.

  • JKap, #6

    Aber er verlor die deutsche Stimme, e che cosa con gli italiani, и русские, 并且不要忘记中国人, ή οι Έλληνες, abor thabose whabo spabeak Dabouble Dabutch.

  • colonpowwow, #11:

    As I mentioned when you brought this up before, it would be insane to use union carpenters in a state with right-to-work laws. Better to direct you efforts toward removing those anti-union laws for everyone.

    It may be instructive to point out that you’re confusing personal political preferences with political behavior at the organizational level. There was a famous Political Scientist at UC Berkeley (Seymour Martin Lipset) who tried to take the San Francisco Longshoremen’s Union to court for being “authoritarian” since the union was building quasi-public housing for the cheap labor which had come up from the south during the war. Since Lipset’s own poll of the union members revealed a “racial bias” (southern blacks, after all, were threatening white Irish and Italian jobs), the union must be acting in “authoritarian” and undemocratic ways to thwart the will of their members. The judge had to point out to professor Lipset that people behave differently on private and social levels, otherwise all social science could be reduced to individual psychology.

    I don’t happen to care for Edwards’ position with respect to gay relationships (I left my religious prejudices and beliefs behind long ago). But his policies, particularly with regard to giving everyone an equal footing in the essentials of education, health and housing, are consistent with traditional Democratic Party values. So I’m an avid supporter. I guess if my personal wealth came directly from corporations I’d have somebody else (or some other party) in mind, but it don’t.

    I don’t care so much about Edwards’ use of union labor in North Carolina as I do his policies with regard to unions and laboring people. You may call that hypocritical. I don’t. Though clearly among the wealthy of their day, FDR and Eleanor and JFK and RFD worked tirelessly for the poor. Were they hypocrites? Maybe. I don’t care.

  • #14 Ed Stephan

    Thanks for your thoughtful and informative response. I mostly find Edwards personal behavior rends his pronouncements silly and baseless in a way – not to mention open to broad attack as being hypocritical. Russ Feingold shredded a couple of progressive Democrats when he was an unknown, by focusing his first commercial on their fancy homes (lifestyles).

    That said, if Edwards wins the nomination, I would have no problem voting for him based on his policies, even though I think he’s more than a bit of a phony. After all, I cheerfully voted for Bill Clinton twice and even grew to like him.

  • As a former member of the community in which this “minister” and Tom DeLay appeared to rule, I can tell you that Scarborough is a real nut case that seems to be extremely ego driven. Either he is VERY stupid or just does not do research before spewing his uninformed opinions.

    That said, after watching this guys for 10 years, he seems to be gaining momentum and finding a place in the Religious Right extremist “sect”.

    • Comments are closed.