Them Dems

archived: 6 - 12 Apr, 2008 Back Next

UPDATED: APR 9, 2008

NO PLACE LIKE HOME

The Republican economic philosophy of laissez faire has profound political implications for their Party. Foreclosures will continue to rise throughout 2008, accompanied by rising inflation. Republicans will continue to bail out the financial market and even bail out the financiers that helped engineer the current economic crisis.

It is indeed a Party “thing.” Some 58% of all Republicans continue to believe that the Federal Government should simply let the recession take its toll and then correct itself as this Gallup poll demonstrates:

58% of Republicans oppose having the federal government take steps to prevent people from losing their homes because they can't pay their mortgages while, in sharp contrast, 71% of Democrats and 55% of independents support the idea. Overall, 56% of Americans favor and 42% oppose government intervention.

Congressional Democrats are again pushing for more Federal assistance for homeowners who are facing home foreclosures. Congressional Republicans blocked earlier legislation that would have provided assistance. Continued Republican resistance will extract a political price for their Party.

Congressional Democrats need to keep pushing and push hard for equitable treatment for hard working Americans. The simple message is that what is good for Bear Stearns is good for all Americans.

It is not only good economics; it is good politics.

UNEASE

A number of polls continue to reflect unease in the Democratic Party with both candidates. In some states, large percentages of Democrats are indicating that if their choice for the Democratic presidential nomination is not the winner they will vote Republican in the fall.

There is a growing opinion among a few Democrats that Hillary has determined that if she is not the nominee that Obama will not be president in ’08 to permit a Clinton candidacy in ’12. Dr. Steve Jonas has a fascinating column today in which he makes the case that Hillary’s objectives are narrower; she knows that she will lose the nomination but seeks Obama’s defeat in order that the DLC will retain control of the Democratic Party.

We think these opinions miss other realities that need to be addressed and considered.

First, Americans are not clones of their candidates. One of the truly fascinating aspects of the American body politic is that they have a mind of their own. Therefore, Clinton, nor any candidate, has the power that some are arguing that Clinton would have. Second, Americans are not dumb. They vote what they perceive to be in their best interest and America’s. They are fundamentally patriotic.

Gary Pearce, a sage North Carolina political consultant, recently penned his thoughts on the difficulty that Obama faces with a large segment of voters.

There were two articles – one about Barack Obama and another I’ll tell you about in a moment – in the News and Observer the other day.

Here’s one paragraph from the story about Obama. He said, speaking in Indianapolis, “No matter what the color of your skin, no matter what faith we practice, no matter how much money we have, no matter whether we are sanitation workers, or United States Senators, we all have a stake in one another, we are our brother’s keeper, we are our sister’s keeper, and either we go up together or we go down together.”

Here’s a line from the story right next to it: “Paris – Pirates seized control of a French luxury yacht carrying thirty crew members Friday off Somalia, the French government and the ship’s owner said. Attackers stormed the 288-foot Le Ponant as it returned…from the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea…”

It is impossible, morally, to argue with the idea we are our brother’s keeper.

But compare Obama’s messianic rhetoric to the real world in the Indian Ocean and you have to wonder, Is he ready to deal with pirates? (Or with the bigger villains in the mountains north of the Indian Ocean?)

Does he understand that when you deal with pirates saying ‘we’re all brothers’ and ‘we all go up together or down together’ is juvenile mush?

Here’s another soaring line from one of Obama’s ads. He intones:

“We can end a war,
“We can save the planet,
“We can change the world.”

This may set the young people afire and leave them swooning at Obama’s feet – but is this realism? Or rose-colored idealism? The last time we talked ourselves into a crusade to save the world – by spreading democracy – we walked right into a disaster.

Obama opines in another ad:

“There is not a conservative America,
“There is not a liberal America,
“There is a United States of America.”

Uplifting rhetoric. But it’s one true statement hiding two fictions beneath the sound of a chorus of angels singing hallelujah.

There is a conservative America. There is a liberal America. And what rational person would deny it?

Obama is a fascinating candidate. But his messianic rhetoric is beginning to set off alarm bells. He can’t heel by touch or walk on water. In fact, his greatest feat is raising $200 million over the Internet. So, how can he save the planet?

His rhetorical crescendos are wearing thin. They’re beginning to sound like the misty-eyed claims of a politician promising castles-in-the-sky to win an election – or a man so naïve and wildly proud his juvenile hubris blinds him.

But, what about the pirates? Is Obama the man – as President – to confront them? Or is electing a man who’s mission is to save the planet – asking for trouble?

Everyone will certainly not agree with Pearce’s assessment – but that is not the issue. There are large segments of Democratic Party voters who share the unease that Pearce expresses. If these voters are not convinced that Obama would be a strong Commander-In-Chief, a lot of these Democratic voters and independents will vote Republican.

Since Pearce’s article, two more stories have surfaced at about the same time. First, Iran is waving the saber again by announcing that it has acquired more hardware from which nuclear weapons could be made. Sen. Obama announces that he wants to “talk” with Iran.

One can see how the issue will play out if Sen. Obama is the Party nominee. Republicans will raise the specter, again, of a mushroom cloud over Europe, Israel or the United States. McCain will counter that he is willing to “do what it takes” to keep America safe, including war. Republicans will then turn to a clip of Sen. Obama saying he wants to “talk,” implying that he would be a weak in a crisis.

It is issues such as these; rather than any political machinations of Sen. Clinton, that will determine the ’08 election.

_____________________________________________

UPDATED: APR 6, 2008

Democrats slip ever closer to the abyss of dividing the Party beyond repair. DNC Chairman Dean met with the financial backers of Sens. Clinton and Obama. The result:

The ostensible purpose of the event . . . was to make sure that the Democratic Party had enough money to hire staff and campaign around the country to defeat John McCain, no matter who the nominee would be.

The meeting, which started at 7 p.m. and lasted several hours, included, among others, Clinton supporters Rattner and White as well as Alan Patricof, Hassan Nemazee and Bernard Bergreen, and Obama supporters Soros, Brian Mathis, James Rubin, Michael Froman and Josh Steiner. [T]he chairman himself offered remarks. According to one of the attendees, he talked broadly about the dynamics of the race and urged everyone to rally around the eventual nominee, before taking questions.

It only took two or three queries for the Clinton partisans to put Dean on the defensive about the Florida and Michigan delegate issue. Nemazee, a Clinton national finance chair, pointedly asked Dean why he and the DNC were not doing more to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates. Dean energetically defended himself, saying it was up to the states and the candidates to reach a solution, and that DNC involvement could be perceived as unfairly assisting one campaign or the other. As he spoke, some Clinton supporters protested, while the Obama supporters mostly sat quietly, according to the attendees.

Patricof, another of Clinton's national finance chairs, sensed that things were going to get ugly, and left early.

"I went there to demonstrate that I'm supportive to the Democratic Party," said Patricof. "I just didn't think that was the forum that I wanted to bring out my feelings to the fact that Howard Dean and the DNC has not exercised the leadership in terms of settling the Florida and Michigan situation and the role of the superdelegates. I have made my feelings clear in a letter to Howard directly, which was a respectful but firm letter asking him and the party to exercise leadership. People were very unhappy and I was certain they were going to express it one way or another."

Some participants grew so angry that Gail Furman, a Democratic donor who is neutral in the race, bemoaned the divisions in the party. According to a source, Furman said that as a psychologist, she was saddened and upset that some of the party's leaders were displaying such raw and rancorous emotions.

White had a different take, saying that politics was a nasty and sometimes very unfair business. Nobody ever said democracy would be easy, she said, but called on all of those present as leaders in the party to reduce the level of rancor, even if it went to a convention.

According to the source, White's intervention met with applause. At least from the Clinton donors.

The growing divisions within Party at this level are comparatively mild to the rancor developing at the grass roots level. For example:

Sen. Obama is also on the receiving end of these types of attacks as this reader response to an article by David Knowles (AOL) exemplifies:

This is the political equivalent to the Chinese “death by a thousand cuts,” regardless of who wins the nomination. We note again that a recent Gallup poll found that “28 percent of Clinton's supporters say they would not vote for Obama if he got nominated. They would vote for John McCain instead. And 19 percent of Obama supports say they'd vote for McCain over Clinton.”

Party leaders are already entreating rank and file Democrats to come together after the Party’s nominee is chosen. Unless all Democrats handle the contest that is now nearing its end responsibly, the eventual nominee may find that they have won the nomination to lose the election.