John McCain
McCain was a frequent subject in my blog since its beginning in 2005--I feared his political potential.
I view him as the best Republican Presidential candidate of the past 50 years--by which I mean the strongest, in terms of his temperament, personality, status as a war hero, ability to communicate, and even capability. Ironically, he lost quite decisively in his one Presidential general election contest (his Electoral College margin of defeat in 2008 was slightly less than the worst Republican defeat over that period, that of Bob Dole in 1996). He was defeated by the best Democratic candidate over that same time period.
I apologize for being relieved when Dubya's campaign sandbagged McCain in the SC primary in 2000, as I thought Bush would be the easier opponent for Gore to defeat. I was punished, severely, for that arrogance. As it turned out, McCain's weakness was also Hillary Clinton's:--lack of ability to lead the strategy of a Presidential campaign, to select a suitable running mate, and most importantly, to select the people to run it. Like Hillary, he was also unlucky: in choice of opponent in 2008, and in the circumstances which contributed to his defeat (in his case, the collapse of the economy during his 2008 campaign)
Top services to our country by John McCain:
1) His incredible heroism as a POW in the Vietnam War. Regardless of what you may feel about that conflict, his leadership (as the most senior captive) and willingness to give all for country and his comrades-in-arms were all that we could have wanted or deserved. More, in fact.
2) His principled opposition to Donald Trump, on policy (as with the ACA vote this year), on Trump's astonishing betrayal of our national interest in Helsinki, on his lack of ethics, morals, honor or dignity--all four of these last characteristics were right in McCain's wheelhouse (Navy term). If Trump wants to "act Presidential", he should ignore what he thinks that would be, and instead consider: what would John McCain do?
3) tie - His alliance with Russ Feingold to lead reform of campaign financing; and his alliance with the "Group of 8" to put forward bipartisan immigration reform. In the end, both of these efforts failed, but that's not on him.
5) His opposition to waterboarding and other human rights violations as a matter of US policy. He deserves full credit for a strong stance on this, but I rate it lower, as this wss a no-brainer for him based on his own experience.
His worst moments in public service are easy to identify: 1) His cheerleading for the Iraq war after 9/11; and 2) Getting tangled up in the Savings and Loan scandal in the late '80's (one of the Keanting Five). The latter showed his talent for survival, something he had demonstrated amply in his Navy career (surviving being shot down, and the incredible experience he had of surviving a tragic accident on the deck of the USS Forestal). It was these moments of escaping tragedy which provided him inspiration, as he fully recognized how fortunate he had been, and I would say that one could draw a line from the scandal to his willingness to do something about campaign finance.
Among all the plaudits, I read one critical one that accused McCain of being a "fraud". The author was referring to the fact that his "maverick" reputation was overstated by the press, who loved him because of the access that he granted them. I would say that McCain probably encouraged the hero worship, but, again, it wasn't his fault, but the journalists'. He was a straight-up "conservative" in the classic Republican mode: free trade internationalist (in the American nationalist interventionist sense), militarist, anti-welfare state, and he didn't pretend otherwise.
Actually McCain was--or at least, became--a man of undoubted integrity. Interestingly, the word has two definitions: the first relates to quality of ethics and morals, but the second is "complete or undivided completeness". That makes Trump a man of integrity, too--a complete asshole, as he has proven, once again, with his behavior toward McCain. As usual, his comportment has been an obscenity, though Drumpf's handlers have managed to reduce the damage which his gut wanted. That gut--it's hateful, and also something to hate. And I do.
As he was Trump's leading opponent within the Republican party, McCain's passing will facilitate the completion of its transition into a total Drumpfian nightmare, particularly in Congress. No one of the party will be left standing after 2018 who is bold enough to challenge the President, unless the defeat of the party is unambiguous this November.
In McCain's absence, it falls exclusively upon us survivors to commit to the complete obliteration of The Party of Trump as a national force. Whether it is replaced by a rump of moderates in a new organization, it becomes a permanent minority party of reaction and bigotry, or just disappears entirely, any of those would be a great outcome for the future of the nation and for humanity. And you shouldn't worry for the future of two-party democracy under those circumstances: if the Democrats didn't have these creeps to oppose, their unity would fracture very quickly. In the meantime, though, I will brook no divisiveness; there can be dissent about the best way to Depose Trump, but none on the objective, and ultimately unity must be maintained until the job is done.
Neil Simon
He was at the top of the heap of Broadway comedy scriptwriters for a period, which I would place in the '60s and early '70's. He produced sterling dialogue which favored characters, typically upper-class white New York men, in comedic situations suitable also for TV and movies which did not overly challenge our social mores. Along with "Barefoot in the Park" and "The Out-of-Towners", he is best remembered for originating"The Odd Couple", a play about two men of opposite temperament living uncomfortably together in an outsized New York apartment. It was a huge success as a movie, then as a long-running TV series.
In the last 40 years or so, he remained prolific but not so relevant. Today, The Odd Couple would be a standard gay sitcom looking for a real hook. As a cultural icon, his logical successor was Woody Allen, who was much more provocative (I'd say funnier, too, at least in the early days). In the television sense, successors which show his influence would include "Will and Grace", "Frasier", and "Modern Family" .
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
The Passing of Two Role Models
Aretha Franklin
She made her own path to fame and success. Her youthful background included a heavy dose of grounding in gospel music, but she then emerged as a young, single mother from an abusive marriage. And it took off from there, into the stratosphere.
She became an icon for black women, one who delivered her message of empowerment and strength though her formidable musical ability, maintained through the decades. And she gained that "respect" that she craved; the accolades she has received were more than well-earned.
At some point, not particularly early in her career, I realized what a powerful and positive message she embodied: I think it was "Freeway of Love". It showed off her distinctive phrasing and her powerful, clear musical voice. Less apparent were Aretha's community service and philanthopy, along with her skills in musical arrangement.
We have to recognize that there will be many more passing and retiring in the near future from that generation of popular musicians that reached fame in the '60's through the '80's.
Kofi Annan
He was Secretary-General of the United Nations for ten years, two full terms, around the turn of the last century, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001 for his peacekeeping leadership.
I would suggest that he was everything that we could want from someone in that role, devoted to the success of the organization, speaking out for peace and for humanitarian causes, not a captive of the powerful nations whose agreement is always necessary for ascension to the job. During his tenure, the 9/11 attacks occurred, followed by the US' invasion of Iraq; Annan did not refrain from criticizing that war for violating the principles of the organization, which prohibits conflict except in self-defense.
Unlike previous Secretary-Generals, who were drawn from the diplomatic corps, Annan was raised from the U.N. Secretariat, a career functionary who earned universal respect for his dignified, calm demeanor. I had the privilege of meeting him on a few occasions, some 25 years before his terms at the top of the organization began, when he was responsible for UN human resources, a middle-level senior position several levels directly above my own short-term assignment in personal services for the UN community. In person, there was no mistaking his personal qualities or leadership potential.
She made her own path to fame and success. Her youthful background included a heavy dose of grounding in gospel music, but she then emerged as a young, single mother from an abusive marriage. And it took off from there, into the stratosphere.
She became an icon for black women, one who delivered her message of empowerment and strength though her formidable musical ability, maintained through the decades. And she gained that "respect" that she craved; the accolades she has received were more than well-earned.
At some point, not particularly early in her career, I realized what a powerful and positive message she embodied: I think it was "Freeway of Love". It showed off her distinctive phrasing and her powerful, clear musical voice. Less apparent were Aretha's community service and philanthopy, along with her skills in musical arrangement.
We have to recognize that there will be many more passing and retiring in the near future from that generation of popular musicians that reached fame in the '60's through the '80's.
Kofi Annan
He was Secretary-General of the United Nations for ten years, two full terms, around the turn of the last century, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001 for his peacekeeping leadership.
I would suggest that he was everything that we could want from someone in that role, devoted to the success of the organization, speaking out for peace and for humanitarian causes, not a captive of the powerful nations whose agreement is always necessary for ascension to the job. During his tenure, the 9/11 attacks occurred, followed by the US' invasion of Iraq; Annan did not refrain from criticizing that war for violating the principles of the organization, which prohibits conflict except in self-defense.
Unlike previous Secretary-Generals, who were drawn from the diplomatic corps, Annan was raised from the U.N. Secretariat, a career functionary who earned universal respect for his dignified, calm demeanor. I had the privilege of meeting him on a few occasions, some 25 years before his terms at the top of the organization began, when he was responsible for UN human resources, a middle-level senior position several levels directly above my own short-term assignment in personal services for the UN community. In person, there was no mistaking his personal qualities or leadership potential.
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Political Whoas
Shutdown City or Shakedown City?
Have you noticed how Trump's threats to shut down the government if the Congress doesn't give him enough money to build his stupid wall have disappeared? He is no longer on the offensive--and I do mean offensive--about immigration policy; the legal danger has thrown him, and he can barely think about doing his job. While I feel it's sad that Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen will go to jail for their crimes--I am sad for anyone's misfortune, even if it were of their own making--I am encouraged that this thing will continue to distract the Maladministration and will reduce the harm that ImPotus can do.
If it came to it, I would be in favor of appropriating a small amount--a few hundred million or so--for an expanded prototype of the wall, a few kilometers wide. We can stop there--it would be Trump's Monument to Stupidity, and we could paint his ugly puss on the wall on both sides so that all could see, for time immemorial, what an idiot we once had for a President.
Meanwhile, I see the US economy, while currently very strong, on a path that will lead to a crash in the medium term. The Drumpfian trade policies are leading to inflation, and his jawboning the Fed against higher interest rates will paradoxically lead, fairly soon, to sharper interest rate rises if he gets his way. There is even the possibility that we will repeat the errors leading to the last crater, as consumer debt rises and collateralized loan obligations for weak mortgages, once again with layering to produce bogus investment-grade ratings, have returned to financial markets.
There is one essential result needed in the short run to guarantee his political demise: the Democrats must win control of the House (winning the Senate is a longshot). If that does not happen, people may become convinced that this mess has been endorsed by the voters. The House contest is a difficult one to handicap, but I like (and am backing up with my bets on predictit.org) an estimate of 225-235 Democratic seats, with a fairly wide margin of error. In that situation, it is critical that we understand the seats that are truly balanced on the edge. We are studying the many competitive races and trying to identify the ones whom I should give my (relatively small) contributions; now that the primaries are ending, I am becoming less concerned the money will be wasted on internecine party battles.
A couple of particular personal political bugaboos of recent weeks: I have been getting a bunch of emails daily from Danny O'Connor, the Ohio Congressional candidate who trails narrowly in the special election held recently. He is somewhat deceptively arguing he will need a bunch of money for a recount. The real deal is that the recount is not going to happen, or if it does, it will not put him into Congress. He should be more honest and say that he needs the money to win his rematch in November, which will ultimately matter more than the outcome of the special, though it will never have the same media attention. The other one concerns one of the key governor's races, in Arizona. There's a closely-contested Democratic primary coming to a conclusion, which has inhibited my getting involved; however, the importance of Arizona and Georgia, as potential breakthrough states for the Democrats in 2020 is paramount. I had thought there was even a dimension of even more critical importance there, which turned out not to be the case: if John McCain were to resign due to health or to die in the near future, that governor could appoint a Senator which could be decisive for the majority. Except...I have been advised that Arizona has a shocking law that the appointed senator must be of the same party as the previous incumbent. This elevates party membership to the level of state law--we are expecting a Democrat to appoint a Republican to replace him? If this ends up being a pivotal seat for a majority, there will be a huge issue, both constitutional and political.
Donnelly's Dilemma -
Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana exemplifies the political problem that McConnell has posed, through the nomination, and its timing, of Brettt Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. For several Democratic senators in states which had large Republican majorities in 2016, a difficult set of choices will present themselves.
Donnelly is in a tough race against a formidable opponent, and thus a prime target for the Republicans to pick up a seat. Everyone knows that Indiana went for Trump very solidly (10% margin). Not everyone remembers that Obama defeated McCain in the state, and therein lies the rub. Indiana can be a competitive state with a strong Democratic turnout; can Donnelly produce it?
The Republican voices pretend to be sympathetic for Donnelly's difficulties. "We know he'd want to vote the way his constituents want, but he's pressured by Schumer...." What they mean is, please give us this vote to beat you over the head--we need a campaign message.
Donnelly is trying to walk the high road, saying that he would make his judgment purely on the merits of the nominee. Of course. He is very likely to vote for confirmation with that positioning, as this was not some rash (or destructive) selection, but instead one based on careful preparation and designed to get 100% Republican votes for confirmation. If that happens, then Donnelly's vote can not be decisive (even if another Republican senator goes down; then the Pence tiebreaker would decide) and he would be free to vote "his conscience" (which, by this logic, would be to confirm).
On the other side of the scales is the weight of his obligation to the Democratic party and its leadership, which seeks to apply pressure in the reverse on some Republican senators who would differ with Kavanaugh on some big issues, like abortion or same-sex marriage, but may feel compelled to maintain unity on their side. (As things stand, with no Democrats supporting the nomination, the Republicans would need to stay 100% united.)
Chuck Schumer has leverage as representing all the rest of the country's Democrats, who would like Donnelly to do the right thing in opposing this political ploy. To do less than resist is to help empower their despicable tactics.
In my view, this is not about overturning Roe v. Wade, as some more hysterical emails have threatened to me. One way or the other, Kavanaugh will be confirmed, and he will push the court's decisions further in the direction of restricting access to abortion--without revoking the legal access now provided to women, at least in their first trimester. So, that is what is going to happen there, with the resulting damage to our society.
(Spoiler alert)The stage is set, and the timing of the climactic vote seems destined for the last week of September or first week of October. The critical vote will actually be the cloture one, to end debate, which now only requires a majority vote in this case. Here, Donnelly--and the other similarly conflicted senators, namely Heitkamp, Manchin, Tester, Nelson, and McCaskill--must stand firm and make the Republicans vote unanimously to close off the debate. For this vote, the Democrats have all the merit of the argument: the process will have been rushed, without sufficient consideration, and the vote's premature timing forced for political reasons.
Unfortunately, I feel the Republicans will do it/ 50-49 for cloture, and then the final confirmation vote may differ substantially, when Democrats in weak political positions can argue the 'merits' of the candidate's qualifications.
So, I will judge Donnelly--who is a moderate, pro-life Democrat right in the center--by whether he stands with the party in the cloture vote. If not, he should lose all support from thinking Democrats, who must learn to punish their own DINO's. In this knife-edge year, it is not the right time to primary the Donnelly's of the times. But he must justify the support of Democrats, too, especially in his state, but also those outside--his national party organizations and email base--who are asked (constantly) for help.
Have you noticed how Trump's threats to shut down the government if the Congress doesn't give him enough money to build his stupid wall have disappeared? He is no longer on the offensive--and I do mean offensive--about immigration policy; the legal danger has thrown him, and he can barely think about doing his job. While I feel it's sad that Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen will go to jail for their crimes--I am sad for anyone's misfortune, even if it were of their own making--I am encouraged that this thing will continue to distract the Maladministration and will reduce the harm that ImPotus can do.
If it came to it, I would be in favor of appropriating a small amount--a few hundred million or so--for an expanded prototype of the wall, a few kilometers wide. We can stop there--it would be Trump's Monument to Stupidity, and we could paint his ugly puss on the wall on both sides so that all could see, for time immemorial, what an idiot we once had for a President.
Meanwhile, I see the US economy, while currently very strong, on a path that will lead to a crash in the medium term. The Drumpfian trade policies are leading to inflation, and his jawboning the Fed against higher interest rates will paradoxically lead, fairly soon, to sharper interest rate rises if he gets his way. There is even the possibility that we will repeat the errors leading to the last crater, as consumer debt rises and collateralized loan obligations for weak mortgages, once again with layering to produce bogus investment-grade ratings, have returned to financial markets.
There is one essential result needed in the short run to guarantee his political demise: the Democrats must win control of the House (winning the Senate is a longshot). If that does not happen, people may become convinced that this mess has been endorsed by the voters. The House contest is a difficult one to handicap, but I like (and am backing up with my bets on predictit.org) an estimate of 225-235 Democratic seats, with a fairly wide margin of error. In that situation, it is critical that we understand the seats that are truly balanced on the edge. We are studying the many competitive races and trying to identify the ones whom I should give my (relatively small) contributions; now that the primaries are ending, I am becoming less concerned the money will be wasted on internecine party battles.
A couple of particular personal political bugaboos of recent weeks: I have been getting a bunch of emails daily from Danny O'Connor, the Ohio Congressional candidate who trails narrowly in the special election held recently. He is somewhat deceptively arguing he will need a bunch of money for a recount. The real deal is that the recount is not going to happen, or if it does, it will not put him into Congress. He should be more honest and say that he needs the money to win his rematch in November, which will ultimately matter more than the outcome of the special, though it will never have the same media attention. The other one concerns one of the key governor's races, in Arizona. There's a closely-contested Democratic primary coming to a conclusion, which has inhibited my getting involved; however, the importance of Arizona and Georgia, as potential breakthrough states for the Democrats in 2020 is paramount. I had thought there was even a dimension of even more critical importance there, which turned out not to be the case: if John McCain were to resign due to health or to die in the near future, that governor could appoint a Senator which could be decisive for the majority. Except...I have been advised that Arizona has a shocking law that the appointed senator must be of the same party as the previous incumbent. This elevates party membership to the level of state law--we are expecting a Democrat to appoint a Republican to replace him? If this ends up being a pivotal seat for a majority, there will be a huge issue, both constitutional and political.
Donnelly's Dilemma -
Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana exemplifies the political problem that McConnell has posed, through the nomination, and its timing, of Brettt Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. For several Democratic senators in states which had large Republican majorities in 2016, a difficult set of choices will present themselves.
Donnelly is in a tough race against a formidable opponent, and thus a prime target for the Republicans to pick up a seat. Everyone knows that Indiana went for Trump very solidly (10% margin). Not everyone remembers that Obama defeated McCain in the state, and therein lies the rub. Indiana can be a competitive state with a strong Democratic turnout; can Donnelly produce it?
The Republican voices pretend to be sympathetic for Donnelly's difficulties. "We know he'd want to vote the way his constituents want, but he's pressured by Schumer...." What they mean is, please give us this vote to beat you over the head--we need a campaign message.
Donnelly is trying to walk the high road, saying that he would make his judgment purely on the merits of the nominee. Of course. He is very likely to vote for confirmation with that positioning, as this was not some rash (or destructive) selection, but instead one based on careful preparation and designed to get 100% Republican votes for confirmation. If that happens, then Donnelly's vote can not be decisive (even if another Republican senator goes down; then the Pence tiebreaker would decide) and he would be free to vote "his conscience" (which, by this logic, would be to confirm).
On the other side of the scales is the weight of his obligation to the Democratic party and its leadership, which seeks to apply pressure in the reverse on some Republican senators who would differ with Kavanaugh on some big issues, like abortion or same-sex marriage, but may feel compelled to maintain unity on their side. (As things stand, with no Democrats supporting the nomination, the Republicans would need to stay 100% united.)
Chuck Schumer has leverage as representing all the rest of the country's Democrats, who would like Donnelly to do the right thing in opposing this political ploy. To do less than resist is to help empower their despicable tactics.
In my view, this is not about overturning Roe v. Wade, as some more hysterical emails have threatened to me. One way or the other, Kavanaugh will be confirmed, and he will push the court's decisions further in the direction of restricting access to abortion--without revoking the legal access now provided to women, at least in their first trimester. So, that is what is going to happen there, with the resulting damage to our society.
(Spoiler alert)The stage is set, and the timing of the climactic vote seems destined for the last week of September or first week of October. The critical vote will actually be the cloture one, to end debate, which now only requires a majority vote in this case. Here, Donnelly--and the other similarly conflicted senators, namely Heitkamp, Manchin, Tester, Nelson, and McCaskill--must stand firm and make the Republicans vote unanimously to close off the debate. For this vote, the Democrats have all the merit of the argument: the process will have been rushed, without sufficient consideration, and the vote's premature timing forced for political reasons.
Unfortunately, I feel the Republicans will do it/ 50-49 for cloture, and then the final confirmation vote may differ substantially, when Democrats in weak political positions can argue the 'merits' of the candidate's qualifications.
So, I will judge Donnelly--who is a moderate, pro-life Democrat right in the center--by whether he stands with the party in the cloture vote. If not, he should lose all support from thinking Democrats, who must learn to punish their own DINO's. In this knife-edge year, it is not the right time to primary the Donnelly's of the times. But he must justify the support of Democrats, too, especially in his state, but also those outside--his national party organizations and email base--who are asked (constantly) for help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
