Broken Thumb Blog - Politics

Very Funny, John...Now, Seriously, Who's It Gonna Be?

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:34:39 -0700

I gotta blog this. I gotta blog this. I gotta seriously, seriously blog this.

John McCain, in his first act of dementia, has chosen a former beauty queen to be his running mate.

Now, lest I seem completely indifferent to this woman's executive experience, let me say that I feel she is eminently qualified to govern one of the few places in the U.S. less populous than her own state, including ND (pop. 640K), VT (pop. 621K), DC (pop. 590K) or WY. (pop. 522K) Likewise, she would be a capable mayor of one of the following U.S. Cities: Baltimore (637K) ranks 20th, Charlotte (pop. 672K) ranks 19th, Memphis (pop. 674K) ranks 18th, or Fort Worth (pop. 681K) ranks 17th.

Hypothetically speaking, since a brisk 3 a.m. run to the toilet could render President McCain a rather stately corpse I wonder how much more or less comfortable I would be with the mayor of Indianapolis negotiating the removal of troops from Iraq. Since Governor Palin's resume also includes multiple terms as a mayor (Wasilla AK) prior to becoming governor I'm sure she will do as well as the mayor of Indianapolis. However, it is worth noting that being the mayor of Wasilla (pop. 9,800) requires winning the support of as many people as it might take to get elected to the Student Assembly of Cornell University.

Admittedly, my Party's talking points have some validity. It is the quality, not necessarily the quantity, of her experience which matters. But it must be mentioned that for the fiscal year 2006-2007 the budget of the State of Alaska was $6.7 billion. By comparison, one would have to go all the way to Number 362 on the list of Fortune 1000 Companies to find an organization with the same level of revenue. So--hypothetically speaking--should President McCain have a brain aneurism while fulminating over legislation passed by Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi, it's good to know that Sarah Palin will have experience with budgets larger than those of Bed, Bath & Beyond or Whole Foods.

I also concede that as governor she does make some life-and-death decisions as head of the Alaska Army National Guard. Wikipedia tells me there are 70 armories and 1850 guardsmen in the state. That means in the event of a call-up Gov. Palin would have authority over as many lives as the junior and senior classes of West Point. Certainly then she is at least half as qualified as the Commandant of the USMA.

So while I trust that John McCain fully believes Gov. Palin to be qualified to assume the Presidency should he be unable to complete his term of office, I think the decision proves his judgment to be suspect.

I am a lifelong Republican. I support my Party. I think Gov. Palin would make an interesting candidate to see in a primary battle someday. However, since she was obviously chosen to bring novelty to the ticket I think that John McCain no longer appears to take this election seriously. As more and more people contemplate this, they will recognize that he himself is not the better candidate for President and will elect Barck Obama.

Congratulations Senator McCain. As you so delight in doing, your maverick actions have once again betrayed the interests of your party. We will not only lose this election, but we may have to spend as many as eight years suffering the effects of your misguided choice.

Words Matter, Especially "Casuist"

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:21:39 -0700

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright has caused a political problem for Barack Obama that is surprisingly not centered on race, radical religiosity, or strident anti-Americanism. Nor is the problem their 20-year relationship or the possibility that Senator Obama secretly harbors the same politics as his pastor.

A preacher's profession is defined by words. Through his sermons he argues a specific morality, advocating a better life for his congregants through the precepts he promotes . His words, being the only tools of his trade, truly matter.

Politicians, like preachers, are defined by what they say. They reach for the right language to make moral and civic precepts acceptable to their audiences. Using words, they reason, promise and persuade. Failing to win support for their positions by those means alone, they cajole, intimidate, and threaten. If they are really good they need only inspire and uplift.

Having made the point that words matter in politics, Senator Obama cannot now tell us that what he says is of consequence while what his preacher says is not. When the man is the message and the message is the man, there is no difference between the preacher and the politician.

That is the problem Reverend Wright poses for Senator Obama.

Comic Books and the Three Emails They Didn't Erase

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:31:20 -0700

The funniest thing came through my radio the other day. It shouldn't have been funny; every President since Truman has done it, and I should have expected it. Nonetheless I laughed indeed when I heard mention of the "George W. Bush Presidential Library."

Immediately I had a vision of Derek Zoolander and his Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good. Given all the materials that the GWB people will call "classified files which must be hidden to preserve the people of this good nation and to keep them safe from the evildoers," I wondered what small sample of memoribilia and documentation will researchers and guests find in the Bush Presidential Library.

Below are a scant few of the small number of items I expect to be on display or otherwise available to the public.

Captain America, published by Marvel Comics, issues 1-current (bet that Steve Rogers would've found Osama by now)
Flight Suit and Banner with "Mission Accomplished."
Handwritten Letter from GWB to Mike Brown, Dir. of FEMA, dated August 3, 2005. "My Dearest Brownie,..."
The Texas Chainsaw used to massacre Crawford brush.

While it is this man's personal prerogative to establish the library, I wonder how much about the Bush Presidency we will learn that we don't already know. Given that the administration has hidden and deleted as much as possible during his tenure in the Oval Office, we probably already know as much as we ever will. What we do know is probably not worth enshrining and re-visiting. I suspect the whole thing will amount to little more than a sanitized retrospective of a legacy unworthy of commemoration.

I recognize that as a Republican I am supposed to fawn over the man, this great "Compassionate Conservative." However, I am one of those pesky--but true--Conservatives who cannot stand the way GWB expanded the scope and size of the federal government, waged an unnecessary foreign war at great cost in blood and treasure, and willfully circumvented Constitutional limits meant to constrain the elected agents of a tyranny of the majority.

At least I can laugh at the irony.

Raucus Caucus

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:52:49 -0700

Bruce Chapman of Seattle's Discovery Institute has penned a nice overview of the primary process (both Democratic and Republican) in Washington State. I recommend it for all of you who may be interested in what's going on here.

As for the Potomac Primary tomorrow, I foresee a Huckabee win in Virginia (the sizeable military vote for McCain notwithstanding) and more than a few of the proportional delegates from Maryland going his way. DC belongs to Senator McCain't-Yet-Close-the-Deal.

You can retain me, Governor Huckabee

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:11:53 -0700

It seems that Gov. Huckabee, failing to major in math, also skipped pre-law. The Washington State caucus rules are located on the website for King County here.

Did the State GOP make a stupid mistake in calling the winner here? I don't know enough about what exactly happened. Perhaps Luke Esser got ahead of himself and announced McCain won (which was not appropriate given the close tally so far reported). I doubt that the Washington State GOP would have committed such a blatantly stupid "manipulation" of the results in plain view of the whole country during this highly energized election cycle. At least, I hope not.

Blah, Blah, Blah...Less Spending. Blah, Blah, Blah...Judges.

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:03:30 -0700

Seriously, I'm supposed to support John McCain? Really? What exactly do I owe him?

The Senator pays lip service to the areas where we agree. He promises to toe the line on judges and taxes, but he has consistently demonstrated an eagerness to stick it to the party's base whenever it suits him. The only promise I expect him to keep as President is staying in Iraq forever and ever. And I suppose that if he feels the need to raise taxes in support of unending war spending, he will do it.

The strength of the Republican Party is derived from its conservative base. Moderates represent many branches of the Party, but they all draw their sustenance from the roots. One can cut a branch from the tree and survive. But to cut out a root weakens the whole tree.

I am not going to fall in line and cast a vote for John McCain. I am not going to move to the middle in support of his positions simply because the Democratic candidate presents a "worse" alternative.

The Senator from Arizona tells me he's going to unify the party and win the Presidency. He says it as though it's the natural order of things. He seems to think that the political realities of the day favor his ultimate ascendancy. He is wrong because he mistakes my firm political loyalties for his malleable ones.

Here's some straight talk for the Senator. My vote does not belong to him simply because he is the default candidate. It does not belong to him any more than it belonged to Bob Dole in 1996 or to George H. W. Bush in 1992. He has never earned my vote. And his speech at CPAC did not earn it today.

Regarding Romney

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:32:00 -0700

The following is the letter I sent to friends and family after McCain's win in Florida.

Dearfriendsandfamily.doc

Please Senator may we (not) have some more?

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:30:23 -0700

When facing the prospect of war, I prefer that the President of the United States and the Senate choose such a course only after much consideration, deliberation, and soul-searching. I would prefer the cost in national blood and treasure be weighed against the dire consequences of all possible outcomes. I would likewise prefer that all alternatives be subjected to equal degrees of due diligence.

George W. Bush was obviously not capable of these things. He decided on war, groped about for a justification, and ignored any possible outcome which did not involve laurel wreaths and rose petals.

Now Senator McCain has declared that there will be other wars. It was a guarantee he euphemistically passed on as more of his signature "straight talk."

Until now, I have only viewed McCain as simply a nuisance within the GOP--buzzing about, interjecting his self-righteous opposition on issue after issue, and pursuing a self-serving "bi-partishanship." But now, I recognize that he is a dangerous little war-monger. So eager is he to avenge the hurts of Vietnam--to the nation and its veterans--that he is incapable of evaluating the future course in Iraq (and the our future course in the world) with a judicious eye. He is inclined to pursue national security threats, no matter how remote, with a vigor that will make W look Fonda-esque.

Add to that his self-professed ignorance on the economy and you end up with a much WORSE version of Bush. How exactly does he intend to balance the budget, provide tax cuts, and wage wars without end? There will be guns, but no butter.

I very much intend to vote for anyone but McCain, and that includes Hillary Clinton, in November should this bellicose little man become the Republican nominee.

Keep it up, Bill. Keep it up.

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:26:26 -0700

I never thought I'd find myself so happy to hear Bill Clinton prattle on. However, during this last week his big mouth has obviously begun to hurt the Democratic Party. He's quickly undoing all the goodwill he built during his eight years in the White House and in the eight years since he left. It's ironic that by turning the "identity politics" of his party against itself in support of his wife Bill is very likely ruining the party they'll need to mobilize against the GOP. One could almost say he's burning the village it takes to raise the candidate.

By employing a Southern Strategy all his own he's undermining his wife's ability to rely on the magic of the Clinton legacy. Any successes Hillary could otherwise claim as the hallmark of the Clinton Administration will be forced into stark contrast with the blatant way she and Bill waged their dirty fight to win the nomination.

Interestingly, the same sort of thing was happening in the Democratic Party about the time that Bill and Hillary became politically aware and active. In 1968, the candidacy of George Wallace destroyed the hopes of Hubert Humphrey and led to the Nixon presidency. Those who are interested in that bit of history should start with the Wikipedia article on Wallace.

I'm fairly certain Hillary sill is more favored for the nomination than is Barack, but she will be the standard-bearer of a ragtag bunch of demoralized Democrats. Her nomination itself will highlight that the party of the left is just as rife with establishmentarian overhang as is the Republican Party, and it will show that the all-consuming lust for power is the most bi-partisan force in American politics.

This is just fine with me. A hamstrung Hillary will have even more difficulty trouncing any Republican nominee in the Fall. A hamstrung Democratic Party will have difficulty claiming a grand mandate in Congressional races and may not gain the super majority it hopes for.

On a final note, my last post (lo those many months ago) was off the mark. I'm a little surprised that the Obama candidacy continues to have legs. I do however stand by my even earlier post on the nature of his candidacy. I still think it's sound and fury.

Why Obama's Well Will Run Dry

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — Sun, 8 Apr 2007 11:59:55 -0700

Much has been said about the sums of money Barack Obama has raised for his presidential contest. Even more has been said about the vast numbers of people who contributed (100,000). Conventional wisdom sees this as a broad-based support for his candidacy among mainstream Democrats. Professional pundits are calling it "netroots enthusiasm." I, however, see it differently.

Small political contributions are easy to make. Unlike big-money donations, they represent a lesser emotional commitment by the donor to the candidate. A donation of $50 is the economic equivalent of a family of four going to the movies and buying a couple of sodas, or filling up the tank on the family SUV. Those opposed to the Iraq War or the presumptive candidacy of Hillary Clinton can make a $25-50 donation to Obama without feeling the pinch.

When all is said and done, the money raised by a candidate is only as good as his (or her) message. I don't think Obama's message is all that potent. It makes good rhetoric but lacks strong substance. We'll see how far that and his cash can take him.

To pander is a politician's first imperative

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:01:48 -0700

I know that Romney has some political qualities which are objectionable to my peers, though I’m not sure there is a better candidate in this election. McCain wants to send 100K more troops to the Middle East. Guiliani is nothing less than a Nero untroubled by constitutional “nuisances.�? Clinton will govern from a place to the right of Goldwater just to make her bona fides in foreign policy and to prevent the appearance of weakness as a woman in the Oval Office. Obama’s greatest competency is making nice speeches. John Edwards has the unfortunate problem of believing in two Americas but choosing to live in only one of them.

I fully expect that Romney’s candidacy will destroy the hold of the religious right on the Republican Party. Jesus-soaked fundies hate nothing more than Mormons. They will be chased from the party if it backs him, allowing his pro-business backers (who will overlook his religion in favor of his resume as governor of the nation’s most liberal state) to reform it.

As for his opposition to gay-marriage and the like, I fully believe the highest office will temper his personal preferences in favor of precedence confirmed by the practice of the wealthiest businesses in the county. Lyndon Johnson, when asked by Martin Luther King Jr. how he would be able to politically support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, responded “Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, I am free at last.�? What he meant was that as President he no longer had to respond to the narrow bigotry of his Texas constituency.

I am not a single-issue voter. As important to me as universal marriage rights are, I think it would be irresponsible to cast a vote on that alone. Of more pressing concern is the Southern-based, oil-centric, Baptist cabal that has infiltrated the federal apparatus—the military, the bureaucracy, and the judiciary.

Ultimately, Mormons are too thin a slice of the population to sustain a religiously-motivated, socially conservative orthodoxy within the government. Such ideologies will be opposed by a (surprising) coalition of Ivy-educated citizens and their less-educated Christian fundamentalist compatriots. Born-agains will oppose any such measures because a Mormon President will be suspected of bowing to the will of Salt Lake City. Others will oppose them simply because the measures are wrong-headed. In all events a Romney administration will be hamstrung by political expediencies beyond his control. I think he knows this, but he will never concede as much during his campaign.

In re isto, multus venitus est.

Mitt for President

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:47:38 -0700

For years I've avoided getting too actively involved in Presidential politics. Frustration drove me from it; no candidate standing for election was a candidate I could stand behind. That's changed today. Mitt Romney formally announced his candidacy and I am going to join his campaign.

Over the next 20 months I'm going to wear a button, put a sticker on my bumper, and ask others to support Mitt. I know there will be reservations about whom and what he may represent, but I have none. Any deficiency he may have is dwarfed by the disingenuousness of the other frontrunning candidates.

I hope for the best from his campaign and am glad to be a part of it.

Excuse me, Mr. President, but what's that you say?

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:48:43 -0700

O My God!

I saw on aol.com that the President gave an interview to ABCNews where he indicated that this election will not be "about" him.

Pardon my rather unpatriotic use of the French language when I say, "C'est Bullshit!"

While I realize this is merely a last-ditch tactic employed by the White House to salvage its dignity in anticipation of pending electoral defeat, it's also the dumbest thing the man has ever said. All the other dumb comments can at least be attributed to a general ignorance and/or a willful ignorance. But the man knows politics. It's probably the only thing he knows as well as lighting bongs and doing kegstands.

The President is head of party. He controls its agenda. He controls its actions. For years, his White House has even decided who runs for Congress in most all races. The man's administration has even threatened to withdraw access and support from anyone (bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyists) who opposed his will.

This election is all about him. Every vote cast, and even those not cast, will be a reflection of public sentiment on the administration. The American people are eager for a little political restraint of the White House. Nearly six years of single-party rule has reminded them why the architects of the capital housed Congress and the President at opposite ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. When the politicians forget this, when they disregard their duties to balance the authority exercised at the polar ends of that axis, when they collude to destroy the Constitution, and when they yield to the seductions of unlimited power then they all share the same fate.

Thank God that the American people, who themselves are not always the smartest, are wise to this president and disagree about what's being decided in this election.

You say you wanna Revolution?

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:39:45 -0700

A few months back I did a podcast with Mollie Bradley-Martin who blogs at www.liberalgirlnextdoor.com.

I regularly read her blog because I'm open-minded, and because she's a good writer. I like her style.

Yesterday, she quoted the Declaration of Independence and attempted to draw a parallel between the situation faced by the colonists (absolute subjugation of their entire political heritage by the King of England) and the current political situation faced by Republicans (remaining loyal to a party that has shown how absolutely power corrupts).

I'm okay with her selective quoting of the Declaration. I mean who really wants to hear the founding fathers gripe against the King for preventing our expansion into the Western frontier? Or how he confounded proto-globalization by refusing to tolerate piracy?

I would like to just offer up a little opinion on the matter.

The problem with Mollie's analogy is that Jefferson offered people an option to their political ails -- leave the Empire. For Republicans who are disenchanted with their party, there is nowhere else to go. They certainly won't be turning out in force for the Democrats. At most, Republicans will stay home on election day. Any Democratic victory will therefore be the result of Apathy 2.0.

And should some Republicans "declare their independence", as Mollie advocates, the result would not be a stronger Democratic Party but a weaker one. Those who would leave the Republican Party are socially moderate, fiscally conservative, pro-business types. The platform of this new party would include support of gay marriage but not of universal health care. It would support a woman's right to choose, but not federal funding of clinics providing abortions.

If these GOP revolutionaries formed a new party it would siphon a large number of Democrats who are in the Blue simply because they don't consider themselves (and won't affiliate with) Republican moralists. The new political reality would be the Religious Right, the Liberal Left, and the Moderate Majority.

Mollie might not want to push so hard for a Republican Revolt if her dream is for Liberal Left America.

You get what you vote for

nospam@example.com (Brian Gaither) — Fri, 6 Oct 2006 08:21:18 -0700

Yesterday's blog may seem at odds with the one from the day before. A little clarification may help.

I believe that the public is ultimately responsible for the behavior of its Congresspeople. Such is the curse of a democratic republic; we get the government we elect.

Bad behavior by congressional representatives is nothing new. Nor will it go away. However, it is silly for national indignation to be heaped on the leadership of the House or the Republican Party for this Foley situation. It should be directed at the people of Palm Beach who returned this man to Washington term after term after term. They did the country a disservice in not investigating the character of this pathetic lecher. It warns that we should all be more conscientious about the votes we cast and the representation we choose.

I think Foley should have told the whole country to take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut. I think he should have stood for re-election. I likewise think the people of Palm Beach should have been given the opportunity to publicly shame him with a resounding trouncing at the polls. Instead he was able to resign, to fade into rehab and history, and to allow the Republicans in South Florida to field an alternate candidate.

We should hold our representatives to higher standards. They reflect our society. They should show off our nobler selves rather than our baser urges. And while they have a responsibility to look after the dignity of our public offices, we have a responsibility to look after them. When they fail to uphold the public trust, we must withdraw it.

But for the entire 2006 election to turn on this one issue, is sad. It's also indicative of the people's abdication of their duty to the republic--namely to be informed and ever vigilant of their government.