« July 2010 | Main | September 2010 »
August 26, 2010
Where's Libby?
Maine Democrats have had a lot of fun with their "Where's Paul?" campaign.
I guess Elizabeth Mitchell wasn't all that fond of the concept, and decided to undermine the message.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Libby Mitchell has pulled out of a forum scheduled for Thursday in Bangor because the forum’s organizers did not invite all five candidates.Mitchell has been in politics long enough to know how ridiculous this excuse is - Scott and Moody may, technically, be candidates for governor but realistically they are not viable candidates for governor. I'm sure both of them are fine individuals with their own visions for the state, but there is very little chance either is going to enter the Blaine House later this year.Mitchell, Republican Paul LePage and independent Eliot Cutler were invited to a leaders roundtable breakfast hosted by the Bangor Region Development Alliance, Maine Ahead and Bangor Metro. Two other independents, Kevin Scott and Shawn Moody, were not invited.
“By winning primaries or gathering signatures, five candidates earned a spot on the general election ballot,” Mitchell said in a statement. “At this early stage, when voters are still learning where the candidates stand and what their visions are for Maine, all of the candidates should be included in the debates.”
Debates like the one Mitchell is fleeing refusing to attend are hosted by various groups. The groups who host debates have the right to determine which candidates will attend, and it is in their best interest to invite only those who have a legitimate chance of being elected. There is a very good reason that groups make these decisions - candidate time is limited, and valuable. All candidates are not created equal. Some of them are going to lose, and everyone knows it. Limiting debates to those who will likely win maximizes the amount of time each invited (and viable) candidate can speak.
Career politicians like Libby Mitchell know Scott and Moody are destined to lose the election, but she has made the decision to seek solidarity with also-rans. In this instance, though, I think "solidarity" should be read as "political cover." I do not think Mitchell's campaign expected poll results like these. LePage on top? Cutler cutting into her support? Darn it...wasn't Maine supposed to be a blue state? Like far too many politicians, Mitchell seemed to regard the race for governor as a formality to her ultimate ascension, not an actual election.
It seems Mitchell thinks working to win the race is too much effort, so she's decided to hide behind the also-rans to avoid the icky campaigning thing.
Considering her record, that's actually not a bad decision. I'm a giver, so I offer the Mitchell campaign the following campaign slogan.
You're welcome.
explain why you voted for tax increases.
Posted by slublog at 12:48 AM | Comments (132) | TrackBack
August 10, 2010
Who is the Bully Behind the Pulpit?
Earlier today, President Obama engaged in one of his favorite activities. He stepped in front of television cameras and talked. The message was the usual mix of scaremongering, untruths, demagoguery and, of course, cheap shots aimed at the GOP.
Now, this proposal is fully paid for, in part by closing tax loopholes that encourage corporations to ship American jobs overseas. So it will not add to our deficit. And the money will only go toward saving the jobs of teachers and other essential professionals.The transcript is from the White House website. As JackM pointed out earlier, Obama is not entirely telling the truth about this money "only" saving jobs:It should not be a partisan issue. I heard the Republican Leader in the House say the other day that this is a special interest bill. And I suppose if America’s children and the safety of our communities are your special interests, then it is a special interest bill. But I think those interests are widely shared throughout this country -- a challenge that affects parents, children and citizens in almost every community in America should not be a Democratic problem or a Republican problem. It is an American problem.
$10 billion of this money goes to the unions. Before the money gets to the "teachers" the unions skim off their share of mandatory "contributions".The second part of the statement is the usual "for the children" pablum issued by Democrat politicians every time one of their most important constituencies needs a payoff. What struck me when I heard him criticize the GOP was how unnecessary it was, given the partisan makeup of the House. When he made this statement, Obama knew he had the votes to pass this bill. He doesn't need the GOP. Basically, he took the cheap shot because he could and it's all he has left.The money skimmed by the unions goes directly into the union political advocacy/footsoldier network to get out votes for Dems.
The White House knows what's coming in November, and instead of acknowledging the political reality and changing tactics, the president and his advisers have decided their best course of action is to make the GOP less popular than the administration. As a co-blogger pointed out during an email discussion, this is similar to how Bill Clinton responded to his party's loss in the 1994 election.
Unlike Obama, however, Clinton took a two-pronged approach: attacking the GOP was one part. Pursuing center-right policies was the other. I don't think Obama has the ability or interest in pursuing centrism, so attacks are all he has. I'm not sure it will work as well for Obama as it did for Clinton.
One, there's no Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole, who made great foils. I like Newt Gingrich, but he couldn't compete with Clinton's oily charm. When interviewed, he had the tendency to come across as a bit condescending. Gingrich didn't help matters any by telling a roomful of reporters that he forced the government shutdown of 1995 because Clinton made him sit in the back of Air Force One. This, I think, is when the GOP revolution of 1994 lost its momentum and Clinton easily won re-election two years later.
As much as he's tried to create one, Obama has no Gingrich. The GOP leadership may irritate us at times, but they do manage to come across mostly as affable, well-meaning public servants to the average voter. One of Obama's most visible GOP opponents is Rep. Paul Ryan, whose soft-spoken voice of fiscal sanity is a marked contrast to Obama's partisan bomb-throwing.
In addition, Obama doesn't have Clinton's ability to charm a crowd. Or if he does, he doesn't communicate it well. He's a Frankenstein monster made up of the preachy sanctimoniousness of Al Gore, the elite snobbery of John Kerry and the ultra-partisanship of Nancy Pelosi. A perfect storm of economic chaos, media cheerleading and an awful GOP presidential candidate made Obama's election possible. That storm has passed, and in its wake, the true nature of our president is starting to become evident.
Not to get too psychoanalyz-ey, but for all of the "no drama Obama" hype we heard during the campaign, it's pretty clear to me that the president isn't comfortable in his own skin, because who he pretends to be and who he really is are not the same person. What he presented during the 2008 campaign was all construct and he's constantly engaged in an internal struggle. On the one hand, he wants to recapture the spirit of 2008 and live up to that construct, but on the other, he wants to be himself. In the past year and a half, the American people have caught glimpses of who he really is and it's not pretty.
Obama has at times revealed himself to be petty, whiny and generally unlikeable. I think a lot of those who voted for him have seen the mask slip, which is why he is not likely to get those voters back. People can forgive bad policy decisions, but they're less likely to forgive betrayal. In some ways, Obama is unlike any president in the modern era. Americans expect candidates to fib on the campaign trail, but few are revealed to be completely fictional creations.
I've been re-watching my "Sopranos" DVDs lately. In the episode "College," Tony Soprano studies a great quote from Nathaniel Hawthorne that describes Obama's dilemma well: "No man for any considerable period can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true."
As the November election approaches, I think the multitudes are going to get more glimpses of the true Barack Obama. The question is, will they like what they see?
Cross-posted at Ace of Spades HQ.
Posted by slublog at 09:02 PM | Comments (129) | TrackBack
August 04, 2010
An Open Blog Post to Mitt Romney, Even Though He'll Never Read It
Governor Romney,
First off, I voted for you in the last GOP primary and made a donation to your presidential campaign. I receive, and read, mailings and emails from your new "Free and Strong America PAC." Although I disagree with some of your positions, I think you're an effective spokesman for conservative, free-market principles.
A small piece of advice, though - the marketing needs a bit work.
Normally, I don't answer calls when the caller ID says "unknown caller." I did tonight, and after the pause of doom, was greeted by a friendly woman who identified herself as being with your PAC. She asked me whether I supported the Obama agenda. I said I did not, and she agreed with me.
She spoke for a few moments about the need to vote liberals out of office, which would be the only way to halt the White House agenda. I agreed with her, and she responded by asking me for a donation of $100. I knew it was coming, so I didn't mind the request. At present, though, I'd had already planned to give money to some missionaries I know who just sent me an email, and perhaps some local candidates.
So I thanked the woman for her time, and said I could not give at this moment. She responded by emphasizing the need to defeat the Obama agenda, and I once again told her I could not give at this time, but thank you for the call. When she began the sales pitch a third time, I politely interrupted her and asked her to respect the answer I had already given.
Her response? To ask me whether $50 would be a better amount.
At this point, I'd had enough, so I apologized and hung up the phone. I don't like to do such things, but it was clear there was no other way to end the call. In the future, please instruct your callers - when I say I cannot donate at this time, the correct answer is to thank me for my time and previous support of you and your cause and hang up.
That would have been a lot less irritating, and would have left open the possibility of me supporting your PAC in the future. As of this moment, I will send my conservative-supporting dollars elsewhere.
Sincerely,
Slublog
Posted by slublog at 08:15 PM | Comments (116) | TrackBack