John McCain has drawn criticism from both ends of the political spectrum for his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Most of the criticism has focused on the question of whether Palin, a first-term Alaska governor, has amassed sufficient "experience" in her career to be vice president. This question has in turn spawned renewed debate over the nature and extent of Barack Obama experience. While the entire debate is clearly steeped in partisan bias, it is nevertheless an interesting topic to consider from a civics perspective. I have a number of thoughts on the subject, starting with the issue of Palin's qualifications for the vice presidency.
First, it should be obvious that the requisite qualifications for the vice presidency are much less stringent than those for the top job. Vice presidents have no Constitutional responsibilities other than presiding over the Senate and occasionally casting a tie-breaking vote there. While recent presidents have sought to enlarge the roles of their vice presidents by putting them in charge of particular projects, there is no assurance this trend will continue.
To put it in purely practical terms, virtually any motivated elected official from the level of state legislator on up to governor or U.S. senator could adequately perform the job of vice president. It simply isn't that demanding. All that's really required is the ability to articulate the views of the administration. Of course, if the vice president can also serve as a capable advisor to the president or take charge of certain legislative, diplomatic, or political initiatives, so much the better. However, it is entirely up to the president to decide whether, and to what extent, the vice president should take on these additional responsibilities.
I would add that, from the standpoint of both good politics and civic responsibility, a vice president should be seen as someone who is "in the loop." Harry Truman was infamously out of the loop when FDR died, although I'm not aware that this actually created any problems beyond his own sense of discomfort.
Of course, as the Truman example reminds us, the reason we have a vice president in the first place is to assume the Oval Office in the event of the death or resignation of the president. Being next in line, however, doesn't imply that the veep needs the same level of experience as the president. There are three reasons for this.
First, the vice president is highly unlikely to succeed to the presidency. We've had eight presidents die in office, four by assassination. The assassinations all occurred long ago, under circumstances in which the security being provided to the president was at best negligent and at worst non-existent. Presidents are much, much safer from assassination today than they were in previous eras. In fact, the last time a president was assassinated was 45 years ago.
Presidents are also at lower risk of dying in office of natural causes than they were in previous times, due to medical advancements and the fact that it would be much harder for a modern-day president to conceal a life-threatening condition than it was in 1945, when FDR became the last president to die in office of natural causes.
I'm not suggesting that presidents are immortal or cloaked with an invisible force field. I'm simply observing that the likelihood of a modern president healthy enough to be elected in the first place dying in office is very small.
The second reason the vice presidency requires less experience is that, in the event of succession, the veep will be inheriting a fully-staffed administration which presumably is already operating in a manner consistent with the new president's desired policies. Since part of the accepted criteria for v.p. selection is ideological compatibility, there should be no pressing need for the vice president, upon assuming the Oval Office, to make wide-scale, dramatic changes in the make-up or direction of the administration. Moreover, since they would be assuming the presidency mid-term, it's entirely possible that the new president's administration will be of short duration.
The third reason the vice presidency demands less experience relates to the circumstances under which succession occurs. Whenever a president dies (or, in the case of Richard Nixon, resigns), the new president invariably enjoys the universal support of Congress and the people, at least during the first few weeks or months of the new administration.
I don't know much about Sarah Palin, but based on her record in Alaska and her obvious poise and intelligence, there is no question in my mind she is capable of serving as vice president and, if necessary, taking over the reins of a McCain administration in the unlikely event of Big Mac's sudden death or resignation.
UPDATE 09/02/2008: There now seems to be a full-fledged feeding frenzy going on in the lefty blogosphere over Sarah Palin's supposed lack of experience, her pregnant daughter, her decision as mayor to accept federal earmarks, her alleged membership in the Alaska Independence Party, and the McCain campaign's alleged failure to vet the Palin pick. One site (TalkLeft) is actually taking action on when Palin will quit the ticket, as if her decision to do so is somehow inevitable.
It occurs to me that, in pounding away at Palin's supposed lack of qualifications, these people are unwittingly helping to demonstrate that she has what it takes. If Palin can survive the deluge of attacks the left is trying to pour on, and perhaps even fight back a little, the country will see what a tough broad she can be. They're doing her a favor!
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
The Biden pick: No Joementum?
The selection of Delaware senator Joseph Biden as Barack Obama's running mate seems both underwhelming and a bit anticlimactic. Biden has been around quite a long time and certainly would be qualified to assume the presidency if necessary. In fact, he's clearly a lot more qualified than the guy at the top of the ticket. But what does he offer in terms of political appeal?
The first fact to bear in mind about Joe Biden's electoral strength is that both of his presidential runs -- separated by 20 years -- ended in abject failure. His 2008 candidacy is of course the more relevant of the two, being so recent. Without looking at vote totals or delegate counts, I would estimate that Biden finished fifth, behind Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Arguably, he created less of a splash than Dennis Kucinich. Thus, for all of his credentials and apparent charm, he is anything but a hot political commodity.
The major qualities Biden brings to the ticket are age and experience. Not coincidentally, these are two major qualities lacking in Barack Obama. Obama had a chance to select a running mate who would enhance and accentuate his "change" theme, but he opted to move in the opposite direction. Therefore, I think this pick will ultimately be perceived as one more in a series of recent instances in which Obama has chosen to place his own brand-name identification at risk in order to meet a pressing political exigency. (The other examples that come to mind are his movement to the center on issues such as Iraq and offshore oil drilling and his willingness to use personal attacks on John and Cindy McCain to stem the erosion of his lead in the polls.)
Although Biden was supposed to be a "safe" selection, it is not without its downside for Obama. While Obama managed to keep the pick a secret until late Friday evening, McCain's people were able to launch a Biden attack ad even before the official announcement ceremony on Saturday afternoon. By "Biden attack ad," I mean an ad in which Biden is seen attacking Obama during the debates as being unqualified for the presidency. The Delaware senator is also shown heaping praise on McCain. Especially given the timing, it's quite an impressive piece of political advertising, and one that garnered significant play in its own right during the marathon coverage of the announcement. Biden even made an oblique reference to the ad in his speech at the announcement ceremony, implying that his regard for McCain has diminished as the campaign has progressed. Perhaps that is so, but it doesn't explain his repeated criticisms of Obama as being dangerously unprepared for the presidency. Knowing that these damaging soundbites would inevitably appear in a McCain ad, Obama may already be feeling some buyer's remorse.
The first fact to bear in mind about Joe Biden's electoral strength is that both of his presidential runs -- separated by 20 years -- ended in abject failure. His 2008 candidacy is of course the more relevant of the two, being so recent. Without looking at vote totals or delegate counts, I would estimate that Biden finished fifth, behind Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Arguably, he created less of a splash than Dennis Kucinich. Thus, for all of his credentials and apparent charm, he is anything but a hot political commodity.
The major qualities Biden brings to the ticket are age and experience. Not coincidentally, these are two major qualities lacking in Barack Obama. Obama had a chance to select a running mate who would enhance and accentuate his "change" theme, but he opted to move in the opposite direction. Therefore, I think this pick will ultimately be perceived as one more in a series of recent instances in which Obama has chosen to place his own brand-name identification at risk in order to meet a pressing political exigency. (The other examples that come to mind are his movement to the center on issues such as Iraq and offshore oil drilling and his willingness to use personal attacks on John and Cindy McCain to stem the erosion of his lead in the polls.)
Although Biden was supposed to be a "safe" selection, it is not without its downside for Obama. While Obama managed to keep the pick a secret until late Friday evening, McCain's people were able to launch a Biden attack ad even before the official announcement ceremony on Saturday afternoon. By "Biden attack ad," I mean an ad in which Biden is seen attacking Obama during the debates as being unqualified for the presidency. The Delaware senator is also shown heaping praise on McCain. Especially given the timing, it's quite an impressive piece of political advertising, and one that garnered significant play in its own right during the marathon coverage of the announcement. Biden even made an oblique reference to the ad in his speech at the announcement ceremony, implying that his regard for McCain has diminished as the campaign has progressed. Perhaps that is so, but it doesn't explain his repeated criticisms of Obama as being dangerously unprepared for the presidency. Knowing that these damaging soundbites would inevitably appear in a McCain ad, Obama may already be feeling some buyer's remorse.
Monday, August 18, 2008
How "the devil you know" can survive a "change" election
The word "change" has held nearly talismanic sway over political commentators throughout this presidential campaign. The conventional wisdom held that 2008 is a "change" election, and that John McCain, as a living embodiment of the Republican status quo, would stand little chance against his young Democratic opponent. As the race has unfolded, however, it becomes increasingly apparent that the voters' thorough familiarity with John McCain, far from being the albatross that will sink him, is actually one of his greatest assets. In fact, for a number of reasons, it is the gift that keeps on giving.
First, the nature of John McCain's career in the public eye is such that he has managed to earn the respect of most Americans for something he has done, while simultaneously pissing off those very same people for something else he has done. He has done so not by changing positions on issues, but by involving himself prominently in a wide range of national issues, staking out clear positions on those issues, and refusing to hew to any particular partisan or ideological agenda. Accordingly, voters have known McCain when he was right and they have known him when he was wrong, but they all know him nevertheless. The advantage this gives him is he doesn't need to spend time or money in defining himself to the American people.
The second advantage for McCain derives from the first: Because he doesn't need to define himself to the voters, he can focus his campaign on defining Barack Obama (or, as he puts it, "drawing contrasts"). He could construct his entire campaign around the basic formulation of "Here is how Barack Obama is different from me," and the "me" half of the ensuing comparison would already be well-understood by the average voter. Being such a known commodity frees McCain's hand to run effective attacks on Obama's lack of experience, liberal voting records, and questionable personal associations.
Finally, because voters feel like they already know who McCain is, he is largely immune to the negative attacks that Obama might otherwise run against him. Negative campaigning works, but mainly it works against candidates who are not already well known. Candidates who lack a well defined image with the public are vulnerable to negative advertising because, at the same time they are trying to introduce themselves to the voters, they must contend with whatever counter-narrative their opponents are presenting. To take just the most recent example, John Kerry had little hope of establishing his self-defined image as a war hero once he was branded as a liberal Washington phony.
Negative attacks work only so long as they are credible. Because McCain is so well-known, certain attacks just aren't credible. The idea that McCain is some kind of Bush progeny out to give the President a third term is just silly. Everyone can recall innumerable instances in which McCain seemed to relish the opportunity to stick his finger in Bush's eye. Even household pets, moreover, would question the suggestion that McCain would adhere to any predictable policy agenda, whether Bush's or anyone else's.
This AP report on Obama's supposed "tearing into McCain" illustrates how difficult it will be for Barack to land a glove on his well-known opponent. In it, Obama is reported as having unleashed the following "attacks" on McCain:
1. "Obama called the U.S. economy a disaster thanks to 'John McCain's president, George W. Bush.'" (Again, this kind of general linkage won't work if Obama can't establish the predicate that McCain is some kind of Bush acolyte.)
2. Obama "prais[ed] the Arizona senator as a 'genuine American patriot.'" (There is no way at this point for Obama to undermine McCain's bona fides as a war hero. He must accept that as a given.)
3. "McCain says 'Here's my plan, I'm going to drill here, drill now which is something he only came up with two months ago when he started looking at polling." (McCain is a poll-driven political opportunist? Nice try, but everyone remembers McCain's wildly unpopular stances on immigration reform and the Iraq war.)
4. Obama noted that "many" of McCain's advisers "had been lobbyists in Washington before McCain asked them to sever all lobbying ties." (Fine, except voters will remember McCain as a vocal supporter of campaign finance reform who has spoken out on the need to reform Washington. Because of his history in this area, most voters seem to regard McCain as far less corrupt than the average member of Congress. Moreover, his basic reputation for integrity and independence would seem to supersede this rather parochial and ill-defined charge of having employed former lobbyists to work in his campaign.)
5. Obama attempted to label McCain as being unfair for questioning Democrats' approach to foreign policy. According to Obama, McCain's people "say this other guy is unpatriotic, or this guy likes French people [emphasis added]. That's what they said about Kerry." "They try to make it out like Democrats aren't tough enough, aren't macho enough. It's the same strategy." (While it's certainly debatable whether Democrats are "tough enough," McCain has hardly revealed himself to be a monster by calling into question the Dems' commitment to a strong foreign policy. This has been one of the defining differences between the two major parties since at least 1972. At worst, the charges to which Obama is alluding are just the usual rough and tumble of presidential politics. For Obama to become whiny and defensive about this kind of stuff -- he's been accused of liking French people? -- provides some insight into how frustrating this campaign is becoming for him. )
I've said before that I think Obama may have already peaked. Part of the reason for that relates to the fact that McCain is such a well-known figure. Americans have witnessed McCain in action for years and a large majority most see him as a credible chief executive and commander in chief. It will difficult for Obama, in the span of a couple months, to dramatically alter that perception.
First, the nature of John McCain's career in the public eye is such that he has managed to earn the respect of most Americans for something he has done, while simultaneously pissing off those very same people for something else he has done. He has done so not by changing positions on issues, but by involving himself prominently in a wide range of national issues, staking out clear positions on those issues, and refusing to hew to any particular partisan or ideological agenda. Accordingly, voters have known McCain when he was right and they have known him when he was wrong, but they all know him nevertheless. The advantage this gives him is he doesn't need to spend time or money in defining himself to the American people.
The second advantage for McCain derives from the first: Because he doesn't need to define himself to the voters, he can focus his campaign on defining Barack Obama (or, as he puts it, "drawing contrasts"). He could construct his entire campaign around the basic formulation of "Here is how Barack Obama is different from me," and the "me" half of the ensuing comparison would already be well-understood by the average voter. Being such a known commodity frees McCain's hand to run effective attacks on Obama's lack of experience, liberal voting records, and questionable personal associations.
Finally, because voters feel like they already know who McCain is, he is largely immune to the negative attacks that Obama might otherwise run against him. Negative campaigning works, but mainly it works against candidates who are not already well known. Candidates who lack a well defined image with the public are vulnerable to negative advertising because, at the same time they are trying to introduce themselves to the voters, they must contend with whatever counter-narrative their opponents are presenting. To take just the most recent example, John Kerry had little hope of establishing his self-defined image as a war hero once he was branded as a liberal Washington phony.
Negative attacks work only so long as they are credible. Because McCain is so well-known, certain attacks just aren't credible. The idea that McCain is some kind of Bush progeny out to give the President a third term is just silly. Everyone can recall innumerable instances in which McCain seemed to relish the opportunity to stick his finger in Bush's eye. Even household pets, moreover, would question the suggestion that McCain would adhere to any predictable policy agenda, whether Bush's or anyone else's.
This AP report on Obama's supposed "tearing into McCain" illustrates how difficult it will be for Barack to land a glove on his well-known opponent. In it, Obama is reported as having unleashed the following "attacks" on McCain:
1. "Obama called the U.S. economy a disaster thanks to 'John McCain's president, George W. Bush.'" (Again, this kind of general linkage won't work if Obama can't establish the predicate that McCain is some kind of Bush acolyte.)
2. Obama "prais[ed] the Arizona senator as a 'genuine American patriot.'" (There is no way at this point for Obama to undermine McCain's bona fides as a war hero. He must accept that as a given.)
3. "McCain says 'Here's my plan, I'm going to drill here, drill now which is something he only came up with two months ago when he started looking at polling." (McCain is a poll-driven political opportunist? Nice try, but everyone remembers McCain's wildly unpopular stances on immigration reform and the Iraq war.)
4. Obama noted that "many" of McCain's advisers "had been lobbyists in Washington before McCain asked them to sever all lobbying ties." (Fine, except voters will remember McCain as a vocal supporter of campaign finance reform who has spoken out on the need to reform Washington. Because of his history in this area, most voters seem to regard McCain as far less corrupt than the average member of Congress. Moreover, his basic reputation for integrity and independence would seem to supersede this rather parochial and ill-defined charge of having employed former lobbyists to work in his campaign.)
5. Obama attempted to label McCain as being unfair for questioning Democrats' approach to foreign policy. According to Obama, McCain's people "say this other guy is unpatriotic, or this guy likes French people [emphasis added]. That's what they said about Kerry." "They try to make it out like Democrats aren't tough enough, aren't macho enough. It's the same strategy." (While it's certainly debatable whether Democrats are "tough enough," McCain has hardly revealed himself to be a monster by calling into question the Dems' commitment to a strong foreign policy. This has been one of the defining differences between the two major parties since at least 1972. At worst, the charges to which Obama is alluding are just the usual rough and tumble of presidential politics. For Obama to become whiny and defensive about this kind of stuff -- he's been accused of liking French people? -- provides some insight into how frustrating this campaign is becoming for him. )
I've said before that I think Obama may have already peaked. Part of the reason for that relates to the fact that McCain is such a well-known figure. Americans have witnessed McCain in action for years and a large majority most see him as a credible chief executive and commander in chief. It will difficult for Obama, in the span of a couple months, to dramatically alter that perception.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
This matters.
[Nurse] Stanek says her friend had been told to take this baby and leave him in a soiled utility closet. She offered to take him instead. “I couldn’t let him die alone,” she says.
Stanek was horrified by this experience. This was not an abortion — it was something worse. Could it be legal to take a living and breathing person of any size, already born and outside his mother’s womb, and just leave him to die, without any thought of treatment? . . . .
Stanek’s effort to right this wrong would lead her to testify before various committees. It would lead her to a state senator, Patrick O’Malley, who would propose a bill to stop what was going on at the hospital. Her attempt to change a corrupt medical practice and bring hope to defenseless infants would put her on a collision course with a state senator named Barack Obama.
Read the whole thing.
Georgia on my mind
It's unfortunate the Russians decided to launch an invasion in an unfamiliar corner of the world during the height of a U.S. presidential campaign. The timing of their move makes it nearly impossible for an ordinary citizen to make heads or tails of what's going on. At the risk of exposing myself as a complete ignoramus, here is what I have been able to gather:
Evidently, Georgia was an independent nation until the early 1920s, when it was swallowed up by the U.S.S.R. (or what became the U.S.S.R.). After the fall of European Communism, Russia never quite reconciled itself to the notion of Georgian sovereignty. The geopolitical situation there has been highly unstable due to the existence of two semi-automonous regions within the borders of Georgia known as Ossetia and Ajaria. Naturally, these areas represent distinct ethnic enclaves (because what's a good international crisis anymore without the scourge of rampant tribalism?). Moscow supports the Ossetian and Ajarias autonomy movements because of Russia's rich tradition of liberty and self-government. Actually, it's because Moscow views Georgia's internal struggles as a source of weakness and vulnerability for the government in Tiblisi.
Given the mess there, you're probably thinking it's a good thing there's no oil in Georgia and no perceived strategic interest at stake for the U.S. Unfortunately, both of those assumptions are wrong. Oil from the Caspian Sea transits Georgia via the Baku-Supsa oil pipeline. And the U.S. has been actively courting Georgia for years as an ally and possible future member of NATO.
Vladimir Putin and his criminal cohorts in the Kremlin evidently decided the opening of the Olympic games would be a good time to send a column of tanks into Georgia in order to bring the former satellite back into the Russian fold. Of course, this was done under the pretext of responding to Georgia's persecution of the Ossetians. Russia's action leaves the West in a bit of a bind. Although the U.S. properly regards the move as an intolerable act of aggression, there doesn't appear to be any practicable military response available to us.
Here in the U.S., Barack Obama initially responded to the outbreak of hostilities with a plea for the parties to work toward restoring peace to the troubled region, fueling speculation that he might appoint Barney the Dinosaur as a special envoy. John McCain's response was, predictably, more bellicose in tone. While not explicitly advocating a military response, McCain has made it clear he would take a tough stand against Russia.
McCain has also used the occasion to make several important points with voters. First, he never bought into the starry-eyed notion that Russia could become a force for peace and justice on the world stage. In other words, he was right about Putin just as he was right about the surge in Iraq. Second, and again as in the case of the surge, McCain saw the unvarnished truth of the matter immediately, without succumbing to the false optimism that infected Bush's perception of the situation. In other words, he's not "McSame" at all, but foreign policy realist with impeccable judgment. Third, he's an experienced hand at foreign policy, who's known Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili well enough to call him "Misha." Barack Obama probably thinks Misha is a sushi bar in Harvard Square.
All of that would seem to make the emergence of this crisis something of an unexpected boon for McCain's candidacy. I'm not sure that's the case, however. While Americans in large numbers would probably agree that McCain is better equipped to deal with a crisis such as this, the country is also quite war-weary. They would welcome a Clintonesque "vacation from history." What people like about vacations, most of all, is taking a break from responsibility. In a sense, Obama's vacuous initial statement on the crisis, issued from the beaches of Hawaii, is exactly what America wants to hear. By the same token, McCain's response is about as welcome as receiving an urgent message from a dutiful assistant back at the office. You say to yourself, "What now?" So the apparent benefit McCain derives from the sudden flare-up of an international crisis is mitigated, I think, by the temptation of American people to avoid having to deal with the issue beyond the level of simply expressing disapproval for the Russians' actions.
In the end, however, I think McCain will come out ahead as a result of all this. I say this because I think the "crisis" part of this episode is going to pass rather quickly. Russia will achieve (if it hasn't already) its military objectives and some semblance of stability will emerge from the ashes. As noted above, there really doesn't seem to be much the U.S. can do about it beyond simply condemning the action in one form or another. Or, put it this way: whatever we do in the immediate aftermath, it won't involve preparing troops to march into battle. McCain can still trumpet his superior judgment in perceiving the Russian threat while tacitly acknowledging that our hands are tied, militarily. In this way, he can still play the role of the responsible statesman without spoiling Americans' hoped-for day at the beach.
Evidently, Georgia was an independent nation until the early 1920s, when it was swallowed up by the U.S.S.R. (or what became the U.S.S.R.). After the fall of European Communism, Russia never quite reconciled itself to the notion of Georgian sovereignty. The geopolitical situation there has been highly unstable due to the existence of two semi-automonous regions within the borders of Georgia known as Ossetia and Ajaria. Naturally, these areas represent distinct ethnic enclaves (because what's a good international crisis anymore without the scourge of rampant tribalism?). Moscow supports the Ossetian and Ajarias autonomy movements because of Russia's rich tradition of liberty and self-government. Actually, it's because Moscow views Georgia's internal struggles as a source of weakness and vulnerability for the government in Tiblisi.
Given the mess there, you're probably thinking it's a good thing there's no oil in Georgia and no perceived strategic interest at stake for the U.S. Unfortunately, both of those assumptions are wrong. Oil from the Caspian Sea transits Georgia via the Baku-Supsa oil pipeline. And the U.S. has been actively courting Georgia for years as an ally and possible future member of NATO.
Vladimir Putin and his criminal cohorts in the Kremlin evidently decided the opening of the Olympic games would be a good time to send a column of tanks into Georgia in order to bring the former satellite back into the Russian fold. Of course, this was done under the pretext of responding to Georgia's persecution of the Ossetians. Russia's action leaves the West in a bit of a bind. Although the U.S. properly regards the move as an intolerable act of aggression, there doesn't appear to be any practicable military response available to us.
Here in the U.S., Barack Obama initially responded to the outbreak of hostilities with a plea for the parties to work toward restoring peace to the troubled region, fueling speculation that he might appoint Barney the Dinosaur as a special envoy. John McCain's response was, predictably, more bellicose in tone. While not explicitly advocating a military response, McCain has made it clear he would take a tough stand against Russia.
McCain has also used the occasion to make several important points with voters. First, he never bought into the starry-eyed notion that Russia could become a force for peace and justice on the world stage. In other words, he was right about Putin just as he was right about the surge in Iraq. Second, and again as in the case of the surge, McCain saw the unvarnished truth of the matter immediately, without succumbing to the false optimism that infected Bush's perception of the situation. In other words, he's not "McSame" at all, but foreign policy realist with impeccable judgment. Third, he's an experienced hand at foreign policy, who's known Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili well enough to call him "Misha." Barack Obama probably thinks Misha is a sushi bar in Harvard Square.
All of that would seem to make the emergence of this crisis something of an unexpected boon for McCain's candidacy. I'm not sure that's the case, however. While Americans in large numbers would probably agree that McCain is better equipped to deal with a crisis such as this, the country is also quite war-weary. They would welcome a Clintonesque "vacation from history." What people like about vacations, most of all, is taking a break from responsibility. In a sense, Obama's vacuous initial statement on the crisis, issued from the beaches of Hawaii, is exactly what America wants to hear. By the same token, McCain's response is about as welcome as receiving an urgent message from a dutiful assistant back at the office. You say to yourself, "What now?" So the apparent benefit McCain derives from the sudden flare-up of an international crisis is mitigated, I think, by the temptation of American people to avoid having to deal with the issue beyond the level of simply expressing disapproval for the Russians' actions.
In the end, however, I think McCain will come out ahead as a result of all this. I say this because I think the "crisis" part of this episode is going to pass rather quickly. Russia will achieve (if it hasn't already) its military objectives and some semblance of stability will emerge from the ashes. As noted above, there really doesn't seem to be much the U.S. can do about it beyond simply condemning the action in one form or another. Or, put it this way: whatever we do in the immediate aftermath, it won't involve preparing troops to march into battle. McCain can still trumpet his superior judgment in perceiving the Russian threat while tacitly acknowledging that our hands are tied, militarily. In this way, he can still play the role of the responsible statesman without spoiling Americans' hoped-for day at the beach.
Monday, August 11, 2008
John Edwards thinks you're an idiot
When the National Enquirer broke the story of John Edwards' and Rielle Hunter's midnight rendezvous at the Beverly Hilton, his fans on the left started performing mental gymnastics in a vain attempt to salvage the Silky Pony's dubious standing as a future Democratic standard-bearer. This weekend, Edwards sent out the following message to those fans and defenders: "You are all a bunch of idiots."
On Friday, Edwards copped to the relationship with Hunter, but insisted he wasn't the father of Hunter's baby, Frances Quinn. He also insisted he was unaware of the fact that his close friend and political ally Fred Baron has been providing huge financial support to Hunter. For his part, Baron insists that the money and multi-million-dollar housing he is lavishing on Hunter and Edwards aide Andrew Young are simply his modest way of helping out a couple of friends and "former colleagues" in need. This from the same loyal and generous guy who recently sued his own son to collect on an $800,000 loan used to fund a start-up company the kid was involved in.
It seems highly unlikely Fred Baron has any genuine relationship to either Hunter or Young other than his role as their benefactor. If anyone should be ladling out tens of thousands of dollars to help give those cute kids, Rielle and Andrew, a start in life, it would be Edwards himself, who was much closer to them than Baron was and nearly as wealthy. But of course, that would look bad.
For those inclined to accept the veracity of Edwards' explanations on Friday, Saturday must have been a tough day. For it was then that his purported willingness to take a paternity test was hammered successively from two opposing sides. First, Rielle's younger sister, seemingly speaking on behalf of sane and intelligent people everywhere, demanded that the DNA testing proceed forthwith and predicted it would not turn out the way Edwards would have us all believe. Then, on Saturday evening, it was revealed through an attorney for Rielle that she would not be agreeing to the paternity test, her sister's opinion on the matter notwithstanding. Rielle supposedly ruled out DNA testing out of concern for her privacy. Of course, that's tantamount to an admission that Edwards is the father. If the testing indicated that Edwards was not the father, the story would presumably die and Rielle could immediately go back to being a nobody.
It would be inappropriate to speculate as to whether Ms. Hunter is being paid off in exchange for letting Edwards maintain his claim of non-paternity. It would be inappropriate to speculate because we already know she is being paid off, to the tune of $15,000 a month. The idea that Fred Baron would continue supporting her in this fashion even if she were to blow the cover off Edwards' "I-can't-be-the-father" shtick is simply absurd.
All of this would be funny if it weren't so downright disturbing. The fact is, there's a level of personal corruption here almost too staggering to put into words. It obviously goes well beyond Edwards' mere carrying on of an extramarital relationship. He has used his wealth and connections, and played on the good will of his credulous supporters, to orchestrate a campaign of deception involving not only himself and Ms. Hunter, but also Mrs. Edwards, Andrew Young, and the entire Young family. In order to try to salvage some small part of his meager public reputation, he has pulled who knows how many others down to the gutter with him. And, perhaps worst of all, he has done this in order to be able to say to his own flesh and blood in years to come, "I am not your father." What kind of man does this?
I was never an admirer of John Edwards. Prior to this, however, I merely saw him as a phony and a lightweight. Now, he seems positively evil to me. I hope his supporters come to see him brought down -- all the way down -- so they can realize what fools he made of them.
On Friday, Edwards copped to the relationship with Hunter, but insisted he wasn't the father of Hunter's baby, Frances Quinn. He also insisted he was unaware of the fact that his close friend and political ally Fred Baron has been providing huge financial support to Hunter. For his part, Baron insists that the money and multi-million-dollar housing he is lavishing on Hunter and Edwards aide Andrew Young are simply his modest way of helping out a couple of friends and "former colleagues" in need. This from the same loyal and generous guy who recently sued his own son to collect on an $800,000 loan used to fund a start-up company the kid was involved in.
It seems highly unlikely Fred Baron has any genuine relationship to either Hunter or Young other than his role as their benefactor. If anyone should be ladling out tens of thousands of dollars to help give those cute kids, Rielle and Andrew, a start in life, it would be Edwards himself, who was much closer to them than Baron was and nearly as wealthy. But of course, that would look bad.
For those inclined to accept the veracity of Edwards' explanations on Friday, Saturday must have been a tough day. For it was then that his purported willingness to take a paternity test was hammered successively from two opposing sides. First, Rielle's younger sister, seemingly speaking on behalf of sane and intelligent people everywhere, demanded that the DNA testing proceed forthwith and predicted it would not turn out the way Edwards would have us all believe. Then, on Saturday evening, it was revealed through an attorney for Rielle that she would not be agreeing to the paternity test, her sister's opinion on the matter notwithstanding. Rielle supposedly ruled out DNA testing out of concern for her privacy. Of course, that's tantamount to an admission that Edwards is the father. If the testing indicated that Edwards was not the father, the story would presumably die and Rielle could immediately go back to being a nobody.
It would be inappropriate to speculate as to whether Ms. Hunter is being paid off in exchange for letting Edwards maintain his claim of non-paternity. It would be inappropriate to speculate because we already know she is being paid off, to the tune of $15,000 a month. The idea that Fred Baron would continue supporting her in this fashion even if she were to blow the cover off Edwards' "I-can't-be-the-father" shtick is simply absurd.
All of this would be funny if it weren't so downright disturbing. The fact is, there's a level of personal corruption here almost too staggering to put into words. It obviously goes well beyond Edwards' mere carrying on of an extramarital relationship. He has used his wealth and connections, and played on the good will of his credulous supporters, to orchestrate a campaign of deception involving not only himself and Ms. Hunter, but also Mrs. Edwards, Andrew Young, and the entire Young family. In order to try to salvage some small part of his meager public reputation, he has pulled who knows how many others down to the gutter with him. And, perhaps worst of all, he has done this in order to be able to say to his own flesh and blood in years to come, "I am not your father." What kind of man does this?
I was never an admirer of John Edwards. Prior to this, however, I merely saw him as a phony and a lightweight. Now, he seems positively evil to me. I hope his supporters come to see him brought down -- all the way down -- so they can realize what fools he made of them.
Paddy Harrington takes a huge step toward golf greatness
There aren't many golfers who have won two majors in the same calendar year. Their names read like a roll call of the greatest golfers of all time: Nicklaus, Woods, Hogan, Palmer, Player, Watson, Trevino, Faldo, Price, O'Meara. And now Harrington.
Harrington also joined an elite group of players who have won at least three majors in their careers. In an era dominated by a guy with 14 professional major championships, it's easy to lose sight of how few players win even two majors, let alone more than that. Harrington joins only Woods, Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els, and Vijay Singh as an active player with three majors under his belt.
Harrington won the PGA at Oakland Hills yesterday in a manner strikingly similar to his victory last month at Royal Birkdale. In both cases, it appeared that as soon as he caught the glimmer of victory on the horizon, he locked onto it like a fighter pilot locks onto an enemy bandit. Fangs out. He poured in lengthy putts on 16, 17, and 18 to nail down the win. Watching from his sofa, Tiger may have experienced for the first time what a clutch golf performance looks like on live TV.
Harrington also joined an elite group of players who have won at least three majors in their careers. In an era dominated by a guy with 14 professional major championships, it's easy to lose sight of how few players win even two majors, let alone more than that. Harrington joins only Woods, Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els, and Vijay Singh as an active player with three majors under his belt.
Harrington won the PGA at Oakland Hills yesterday in a manner strikingly similar to his victory last month at Royal Birkdale. In both cases, it appeared that as soon as he caught the glimmer of victory on the horizon, he locked onto it like a fighter pilot locks onto an enemy bandit. Fangs out. He poured in lengthy putts on 16, 17, and 18 to nail down the win. Watching from his sofa, Tiger may have experienced for the first time what a clutch golf performance looks like on live TV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
