Bring It On! Election 2008

The more time I spend watching and listening to Mike Huckabee, the more I’m reminded of George W. Bush prior to his election in 2000. Huckabee, like Bush, presents himself as an affable character with a penchant for making simplistic connections with average folk. I contend that makes Mike Huckabee the logical successor to George Bush as the embodiment of the candidate voters would be inclined to select because they would enjoy sharing a beer with him.

At the same time, I suspect any presidential candidate is driven to win…and that desire likely leads candidates to adjust their positions on policies in order to be victorious. Many times this can lead a candidate to believe they must straddle the fence on controversial issues in order to maximize voter appeal. In that regard, I believe Mike Huckabee is also more similar to George Bush with each passing day.

Prior to his election, George Bush sold himself as a compassionate conservative…a position he frequently suggested had its origin in his evangelical faith. Mike Huckabee has put forth a comparable persona. Doing so affords a candidate the ability to broach volatile issues in “kinder, gentler” ways…at least superficially. It also has the added benefit of drawing more votes.

There are many other similarities, but I want to focus on one in particular. It involves a strategy I would call telegraphing…a plan to deliver uniquely tailored messages to different constituencies without overtly offending or alienating either. George Bush did this successfully with regards to his position on gays prior to his election and Mike Huckabee appears to be doing the same in relation to illegal immigrants (think Mexicans).

The goal of telegraphing is to sound sufficiently reasonable (moderate) to those voters who are uncomfortable with the targeting of any particular segment of society while also communicating one’s willingness to enact measures that do exactly that (targeting) to those voters who harbor bias for any number of reasons; not the least of which include homophobia and racism…although they are often couched as religious convictions or legalistic justifications.

To the impartial observer, the strategy often appears schizophrenic since rationality can rarely reconcile the divergent statements. At the very least, reasonable individuals are apt to notice some level of dissonance when placing the two statements side by side.

With George Bush, the dissonance was exhibited in numerous ways. On the one hand, the President spoke in support of the dignity of all Americans and against acts of discrimination directed towards gays. At the same time, he made strategic pronouncements in favor of an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage…spoken in terms that were broad enough to allow moderates to believe he may not oppose the affording of some benefits to same-sex couples while also leaving the far right convinced the President understood the absolute necessity of the amendment and the negligibly vague references to “allowing” for some lesser rights for gays.

The fact that the homosexuality of the Vice President’s daughter, Mary Cheney, was seemingly acceptable provided another avenue for telegraphing. Dick Cheney’s ability to voice some level of disagreement with the President’s occasionally more definitive position helped muddy the waters and allowed observers to draw whatever inferences they favored.

I’ll offer one final observation relative to telegraphing. I believe George Bush’s success with the strategy was enhanced by his belief that these discordant statements should be delivered proximate. The less time allowed between the statements helps to nullify the negative impact of both while still delivering an important message to each constituent group.

I view Mike Huckabee’s current strategy with regard to illegal immigration (Mexicans) much the same. I doubt telegraphing was initially a key element of his campaign. However, my impression is that Huckabee is an able politician…but even more so an astute learner. In short order, this crafty Christian has discovered the merits of message manipulation.

The following videos track the subtle, though significant, Huckabee shift on immigration. Note that in the first video (April 13, 2007) he focuses upon his compassion and understanding for those who are here illegally…suggesting that there should be a process for them to pay some fines and begin their assimilation. He doesn’t indicate his desire to send them all back home before this can begin.

Huckabee On Immigration - April 13, 2007

In this second video, the former governor positions himself as a person of compassion…going so far as to tell voters that if they’re looking for a president with a mean spirit, he’s not going to do it and they should choose another candidate.

Huckabee On Immigration - September 5, 2007

In this third video, Huckabee wants to first make clear that he and most American’s aren’t and shouldn’t be angry at immigrants; instead the problem is the failure of the government to enforce our existing laws. He avoids talk of sending all of the immigrants home while attempting to infer that there should be a simple process to have employers identify illegals and press them to begin the appropriate legal process.

Huckabee On Charlie Rose - November 1, 2007

In this fourth video, Huckabee is addressing the remarks he made the prior evening at the YouTube debate. Note his recognition that immigration is an issue that angers and impassions voters. He seems to still be struggling to abandon his compassionate stance though one gets the sense he’s increasingly frustrated at his inability to redirect the dialogue. He’s more defensive than in his prior discussions.

He closes by alluding to his position being apt to make his staff cringe and to possibly cost him the election. I suspect he and his staff sense his rising poll numbers and they’re struggling to reconcile themselves to an unpopular position on immigration.

Huckabee Following The YouTube Debate - November 29, 2007

In this final video, which follows on the heels of his victory in Iowa, the former Baptist minister starts off with a comment that suggests he’d be happy to avoid the subject. He then moves to quickly defend his position to send illegals home with two defensive arguments. One, he argues we need to have a speedier path to legal immigration…lessening the wait illegals may have in returning to the U.S. Secondly, he posits that the dignity of illegals is dependent upon their compliance with the law…arguing they will feel better if they do it right.

In essence, Huckabee is well on his way to successfully straddling the fence…and doing so while preserving the bulk of his all-important compassionate credentials.

Huckabee During New Hampshire Debate - January 5, 2008

Hence, Mike Huckabee has completed his telegraphing of an immigration policy that satisfies the far right. In so doing, he improves his chances of ingratiating himself to the base of the GOP while removing a formidable obstacle to his acceptability.

Note that this new Huckabee plan avoids any meaningful discussion of a temporary-worker program. In doing so, Huckabee is catering to those who he initially characterized as mean-spirited and likely racist. By and large, this message by omission is now palatable to the voter demographic that views the influx of Mexicans as a threat to the political status quo. Therefore, he can now entice those voters who believe that a rapidly expanding Hispanic population would be apt to undermine the ability of the GOP to promote its preferred ideology.

Simultaneously, his previously unabated compassion for the plight of 12-15 million illegals and their “innocent” children has morphed into a dissertation on the fundamental attributes that will afford these individuals the dignity that comes with obtaining their citizenship…by returning home and getting in line to obtain legal status. In presenting his message in this manner, he succeeds in distracting from the harsh reality of his new position by focusing upon the idealization and elevation of the American dream…a vastly popular and innocuous concept.

Say what you will about the foibles of the George Bush presidency but one should never underestimate his political acumen. Granted, history may frown upon his accomplishments, or lack thereof, while in office…but it may also note his success in achieving his goal of serving as the president for two terms in an evenly split, though wholly divided, nation.

In less than a year, we will know if Mike Huckabee succeeded in adopting much of George Bush’s political template. I shudder to think he just might pull it off. If he does, the critical question will instantly be whether the nation can survive more of the same. I have my doubts.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Just in case anyone noticed, I haven’t been writing much lately on my blog. I’m not in a funk or suffering block - in fact it’s just the opposite: There has be SOOOOOOOOO many things to write about that I’m just in a malaise. I don’t know where to begin! There’s just been so much stupidity, so much irony, so many idiots to write about, I just couldn’t peg any one story as more inspirationally insipid than any other. But then I woke up this morning to something so stupendously stupid, so immensely ironic, that I just couldn’t take it anymore. My Stupid Bone immediately started tingling. I had found the story, and it is by far the stupidest story I’ve seen in a long, long time.

From the Detroit Free Press…

MITT ROMNEY TAKES MICHIGAN

Yes, Mitt Romney won the Michigan GOP primary. Mitt Romney.

Amazing.

“Tonight is a victory of optimism over Washington-style pessimism,” Romney told cheering supporters in Southfield shortly after his victory was called.

Ah, “optimism.” Where would we be without it? After all, would we have invaded Iraq unless the Iraqis had their rose petals ready to shower upon us? Would the economy be so strong if we hadn’t merrily assumed that it would be? Good ol’ optimism. In the GOP world optimism is a tangible entity that moves markets, wins wars, and grows economies. It’s all those Negative Nabobs that cause market crashes, lose wars, and ruin economies. How dare those cynical anti-sycophants spoil the party!

Republicans have special magical oral powers, ya’ know. Remember, Reagan Tore Down That Wall and defeated the Evil Empire with his Super Reagan Rhetoric Breath! It was George Dubya Bush who kept us safe from the villainous Ter’rists of AL QAEDA (Association of Longbeards Quagmire And Evil Destructive Annililists) with his Strength of a Thousand Unilateralists Power! Yes, in the Republican Comic Book Universe it’s not what you do, it’s what you say and think. In fact, it’s best to simply not do anything - do not act, do not question, and certainly never critique - for the world is moved by the sanguine surety of Pollyanna positivism. If something isn’t going well, just ignore it, and it will go away. If it doesn’t go away, then just don’t talk about it, and then it won’t matter anyway.

It’s like their religion. As I recently wrote in a new set of lyrics I’ve been working on; It doesn’t matter what you do, it only matters what you think inside. And if you think it real hard, you go to heaven when you die.

After squandering leads in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, the victory was a desperately needed one for Romney, whose father George was a three-term governor of Michigan in the 1960s and ran American Motors.

Ah yes, American Motors. How could the people of Michigan forget that fine company, makers of such top quality brands as the Hornet, Rambler, Pacer and Gremlin! Sadly, and probably because people just weren’t optimistic enough, AMC is no longer with us. But the legend lives on with Mitt Romney, the man who will bring the sort of innovation, quality, and of course positive thinking that made AMC the great car company that it was. And Mitt will do the same for the people of Michigan, because if there’s one thing they need, it’s a return to AMC’s automaking philosophy!

From Salon…

All week, Romney and John McCain have been feuding over whether the auto industry represents Michigan’s past, or its future. On Saturday, at a town hall meeting in blue-collar Warren, McCain gave his supporters some of his straight talk, telling them, “The jobs that are leaving the state of Michigan have left and are not coming back. We’re going to try to create new jobs.”

To replace the old lifestyle of building internal combustion engines, McCain proposed research in hybrid motors, battery-powered cars and hydrogen fuel cells. He also wants to open job retraining centers in the state’s community colleges. “Our future is ahead of us in Michigan,” he said. “Let’s not look back. Let’s look forward. We’ll restore Michigan back to its preeminent place in America and the world.”

To Romney, McCain’s approach isn’t futurism, it’s pessimism. In Southfield, he had a one-word retort: “Baloney.”

“I hear people say, ‘It’s gone, those jobs are gone, transportation’s gone, it’s not coming back,’” he said. “I’m going to fight for every single job. I’m going to rebuild the industry. I’m going to take burdens off the back of the auto industry.”

Romney criticized federal fuel efficiency standards — passed last year over the objection of Michigan’s congressional delegation — which require cars and light trucks to average 35 miles per gallon by 2020. He’s also been slamming McCain for supporting a tax on energy companies that exceed certain levels of carbon dioxide emissions.

At a speech to the Detroit Economic Club on Monday, Romney told an admiring audience that “Washington has to stop loading Detroit down with unfunded mandates. Of course fleet mileage needs to rise, but discontinuous CAFE [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] leaps, uncoordinated with the domestic manufacturers, and absent consideration of competitiveness, kills jobs and imperils an industry.” Romney also proposed spending $20 billion a year on “energy research, fuel technology, materials science, and automotive technology.”

But government regulation isn’t killing Michigan’s auto industry, nor is government neglect. Labor costs are. General Motors, especially, is getting crushed by the health benefits it pays its workers. The company and its 150,000 employees are paying the medical bills for 350,000 retirees, a cost to the company of more than $5 billion a year. If Romney wants to bring auto plants back to Michigan, he’ll have to fund research into a shop rat who works for $2 an hour, never gets sick, and dies on retirement day.

If the people of Michigan are so fucking stupid as to think that Mitt Romney can “rebuild the industry” - ignoring the healthcare crisis, ignoring the need to modernize the American auto fleet, and ignoring the trade deficit - with Optimism, then those wacky Scientologists are right: “psychotropic or street drugs damage a person physically, mentally and spiritually. They decrease awareness and hinder abilities. They are a “solution” to some other problem and themselves become a problem.” Prozac and crack must be very popular amongst republican Michganders.

No state has suffered modern deindustrialization more than Michigan. Free Trade, healthcare costs, and an auto industry that uncannily finds ways to kill itself at every chance have left Michigan in a perpetual recession for years, regardless of the state of the rest of the union. Its unemployment rate holds steady well above the national average. Detroit is a ghost town. The last time I visited, the only people I saw on the streets were gang members in full uniform dress, right out in the open. George Romney, Roger Smith, and the rest of the corporate scoundrels left Michigan to die while lining their pockets with the blood money left on the auto plant floors, while the Powers That Be sat back and took their campaign donations.

Yet somehow the republicans of Michigan decided ol’ Mitty, the prototypical GOP establishment guy, was their guy. They believe Romney is going to return Michigan to the days of yore, when being a Blue Collar Man was something to be proud of and not just an old forgotten Styx song. How will he do it? That doesn’t matter. He’s going to be Positive and Optimistic and all will be well. No need to modernize the fleet, make it more competitive and responsible. No need to address trade agreements that have sent the four-to-five thousand manufacturers that go into any automobile into the Third World sweatshops and subsidized First World competitors. No need to nationalize healthcare and lop off more overhead than the price of steel to build a car. No, Mitt Romney has a better idea. He “will not rest until Michigan is back.” Yes folks, Mitt Romney will save Michigan - with insomnia. Insomnia, Positivism and Optimism - the IPO of GOP rhetoric.

Michigan republicans are morons.

JMJ

Any doubt that Mike Huckabee is the dream candidate for most evangelicals can be dispelled by watching the following video. In the span of 30 seconds, the former Baptist minister makes his clear argument for a theocracy. Nothing like calling for the virtual discounting of more than 200 years of constitutional governance in order to pander to those who believe that “Biblical Law” should supersede all else.

Yep, so much for the separation of church and state and the freedom to worship as one chooses or to not worship at all. Perhaps Mr. Huckabee’s next move can be to call for a Crusade to vanquish all other religions so we can live under the laws of the “one true god”. Why not…it gives the christians someone new to attack now that the allure of gay bashing seems to be waning.

If one were looking for a silver lining in the Huckster’s statement, perhaps this will give the Mexicans a momentary reprieve while we focus on the Islamists and the “foolish” beliefs they garner from the Qur’an.

After all, how can we have compassionate conservatism until we vanquish all those who hold false beliefs. Looks like the Axis of Evil just grew exponentially. It just goes to show that religious tolerance may well be the ultimate oxymoron…and Mike Huckabee wants us to know that he is one hell of a moron.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Can anyone out there explain math to the media? I’m having a hard time understanding why when it’s a three point difference between McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee, it’s a tie, but when Clinton beats Obama by three points, it’s a stunning victory.

It’s three points, people.

Yes, I understand one was a result, and the other a poll with margin for error. Please don’t yammer in the comments on this point. What I’m trying to say, is that it’s still three eff-ing points. Not the stuff of legend, landslide or legion. There is no call for an adjective like stunning in the same sentence as the qualifier “three points”. By that benchmark, my breakfast this morning was stupendous and my drive to work this morning immortal.

Just for fun, google — new hampshire stunning upset – and look how many identical headlines you find. Even with the ledes, they’re lemmings.

Much has been said about the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama and his campaign themes of change and hope. To say that his message is resonating with voters around the country would not be an understatement. He has been compared to a rock star. He has been compared to Bobby Kennedy. He even got Oprah to stump for him. Clearly Barack Obama has star power unusual for politicians. Clearly Barack Obama is an energizing speaker. But there is something else going on here with this man and his candidacy, something that doesn’t happen but once in a great while. What exactly is it? Is it real? Or is it just smoke and mirrors, a clever ploy to gain election yet devoid of substance and ultimately unattainable? To answer this question is to determine whether Barack Obama should become the next president of the United States of America. For me, this is the only question about Barack Obama that matters. 

For the record, I’m an “independent voter,” meaning I have no official registered political affiliation. (I must be one of those folks that the pundits like to deride- just not partisan enough for their liking it seems.) My regular readers know that I lean liberal-progressive on social issues, moderately conservative on fiscal matters, and try to take a rational approach to foreign affairs. I vote mostly Democrat, but have voted for Republicans more than once. More often than not, the choice of candidates given leaves me holding my nose with one hand while marking the ballot with the other. I am weary of the stink that is American politics, but am even more loathe to succumb to apathy as so many across this land have. Yet it is apathy that Barack Obama and his candidacy seem to be taking on headfirst. So while the pundits and political foes take turns telling us why Obama shouldn’t be America’s next president, I want to move beyond the “professional king makers” and their opinions and really try to understand the dynamics that have led this little known former state legislator to seek the highest office in the land. Even more, to decide for myself whether his message of hope and change can become reality under his leadership or if his is just a well polished message, taking advantage of the disappointment in American government to get one man elected who will ultimately be like so many before him- full of promise and short on delivery. 

The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result. And that’s a risk we can’t take. Not this year. Not when the stakes are this high.  – Barack Obama, Des Moines, IA- 12/27/07

No man (or woman for that matter) is one-dimensional. By this I mean, that certain qualities can be possessed by multiple individuals, but when combined with other attributes, these qualities create either positive or negative outcomes. For instance, political inexperience is frequently thrown onto the list of Obama negatives. But how negative is it really? After all, being a “Washington outsider” was considered a plus for George W. Bush, remember? Clearly, labels can be both objective and subjective. Objectively here because both men have had a relatively short political career before heading towards the Big Chair®.  But subjectively because what the Republicans once saw as a positive they now seek to portray as a negative in another. Obama’s Democratic opponents portray his lack of political experience in a slightly different way, but with a similar result. In their case, other candidates do have longer government careers on the resume, and more varied experience at that. But when one takes into account the totality of Obama’s message of hope and change, it is just this kind of entrenched experience that perpetuates the problems with government. As they paint him to be a novice, he paints them all as jaded sell-outs.  

For my money, I already know what the status-quo politicos have to offer, no matter what color lipstick they put on the pig. Obama’s  political inexperience doesn’t bother me much. He has the kinds of life experiences that build empathy, tolerance, and realistic understanding of the plights of average folks that our current presidential novice never had or will have. Were Obama more Bush-like with regards to his background, I’d never have given him another look. As it is, the lack of political experience is about the only trait they share. In Bush’s case, lack of political experience coupled with arrogance and disinterest to create a maelstrom of mayhem around the world and across this country. In Obama’s case the lack of political experience may be the will that could break the chains of bondage that our democracy has been bound with, reminding Americans that this country is ours to guide into the future, not just for ourselves, but for our children and grandchildren and their future generations. 

(But) this is about more than George Bush. He’s just the beginning of the change that we need. These problems didn’t start when he came to office and they won’t end just because he’s leaving. We’re not going to reclaim that dream unless we put an end to the politics of polarization and division that is holding this country back; unless we stand up to the corporate lobbyists that have stood in the way of progress; unless we have leadership that doesn’t just tell people what they want to hear - but tells everyone what they need to know. That’s the change we need.- Barack Obama, Bettendorf, IA- 11/7/07

Hope and Change. Not all that original when it comes to campaign slogans. Every politician says they’ll make a change. They all offer hope in one form or another. What does Obama mean when he talks about hope and change. Surely he knows that one man can’t change the whole course of a country by himself. Even Bush couldn’t have so drastically changed American politics and world standing without a compliant Congress and battered public. Obama isn’t an idiot, so either his message is just typical political rhetoric or it isn’t. But how to tell the difference? Again, this is the crux of the matter. 

But wait a minute…Obama isn’t telling us that HE is going to do all the changing, but that WE need to work together to change. He is saying that we need to put down our petty partisanship to solve the things that need to be solved now, today, things that can’t afford to be ignored any longer. He is telling us that we need to change our outlook from one of fear to one of action. He is reminding us that American’s have more in common that not, more shared goals than not, and a larger sense of justice than most. Obama isn’t offering us change in a Magic Eight Ball, he’s telling us that change comes from within. He knows it won’t happen overnight, but he also knows that until the halls of Congress are filled with a new breed of American politician- a generation of leaders empowered by necessity, forced to make tough decisions to benefit the many over the few, left to clean up the mess of their elders- that change is just a word. At this moment in time, Obama is a mere cheerleader for change, and he must know it. But if elected to the office of president, he could be a bullhorn for change, forcing politicians to adapt or depart. This still sounds like rhetoric, but it’s a far cry more hopeful than most rhetoric I hear. And in this case, if the electorate elected like-minded members to Congress, the rhetoric could transform into reality. This is the message- change is possible. He wants to lead it. But we have to want it.  

But his message, while popular, doesn’t strike me as populist in nature. While exciting and inspiring, telling Americans they need to be the ones to change politics (of all things) isn’t exactly a crowd pleaser. Americans are lazy, apathetical, and ignorant of their government. In a country where more people are incensed by seeing Janet Jackson’s nipple than they are by a senseless war, asking folks to find and elect people who will really turn America around isn’t likely to make you popular. At least not when they realize you really want them to get involved. Obama is a great speaker, and may indeed get more people involved in politics, but for most folks, they need to see results before jumping on board. In this aspect, there certainly seems to be an aura of naïveté about the message. 

So there is rhetoric. And there is naïveté. But there is also the promise of something else, something that if realized would turn naïve into common sense. Something that if achieved would turn rhetoric into reality. I guess the answer is “all of the above.” But no other candidate in either party holds the kind of promise, the kind of vision that Obama professes to have. No other candidate is as far from the entrapments of political entrenchment as Obama is, and thus none can truly wish to dismantle that which gives them such power. No other candidate has been able to generate such a cross section of excitement. And no other candidate has had their loyalty to America called into question in the way he has and been able to maintain the dignity to ignore it.  

Barack Obama isn’t a saint. He isn’t a hero. He isn’t the next best thing since sliced bread. But he does seem to be something unique in American politics, something we don’t get to see all that often- a candidate that has bright visions for America and the ability to energize the public to act.  

Could Obama really bridge the partisan divide? Consider this: Two of America’s greatest presidents were related. One was a Republican and the other was a Democrat. The Republican fought for environmental protection and against big corporations. The Democrat fought against world tyranny and economic depression. Funny how things turn, isn’t it. Americans aren’t really that far apart on most things they want and value, just in how they get or keep them. As you can see, history shows the parties themselves flip-flopping more than once. 

Hope and change. Just words? Or words with meaning? I think that in this case, the messages of hope and change represent what could be as well as what will be, if only enough of us remember what kind of government we have. One that is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

(Cross posted at Common Sense)