Analysis: Dennis is at it again

He's at it again. Dennis Kucinich (D-iminutive) has once more introduced an article of impeachment against the president. Back in June, Kucinich claimed 35 counts of impeachable offenses against George W. Bush. They soon died in the House Judiciary Committee. This past Thursday however, The Littlest Congressman simplified and introduced one article, entitled "Deceiving Congress with Fabricated Threats of Iraq WMDs to Fraudulently Obtain Support for an Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq."

The Left's desire for righteous payback is understandable. Bush came to power in 2000 illegitimately and held on to power in 2004 through vile means. During his tenure, Bush has endangered national security, executed a poorly planed, unneeded war and squandered America's world standing. Yes, this is the worst presidency in over a hundred years. Still, it is a strategic error to pursue impeachment, even symbolically. The Cleveland Elf is hurting the Democrats and their chances of undoing Bush's catastrophic legacy.

First and foremost -- it won't work. There is no chance the president is going to be impeached, let alone convicted in the Senate. If Liberals ever wonder why they, or figures like Kucinich are not taken seriously, this is it. They are not acting seriously; tilting at the impeachment windmill is inherently not serious. As Bismark, among others said, "politics is the art of the possible."

This sort of do-nothing showmanship and deadlock is exactly what people don't like about Congress. Bear in mind, Congress is doing about as poorly in approval polls as President Bush. Kucinich is doing nothing to improve this image of not doing anything, but he does help tie it to the Democrats. Indeed, the only reason why this is not hurting the Democrats more is that not enough people take people like him seriously.

The Democrats were given Congress in 2006 because the country had enough of Republican incompetence. The American people are generally not political savvy, but they are forward looking. "Attempted a snowball's-chance-in-hell to impeach Bush" is not a winning answer to "What have you done for me lately?"

The effort is especially futile when the president has only six months left in office. It would be a little like expelling a student on the last day of school. The electorate is far more interested in who will replace Bush than how to prosecute him. This is true even abroad; remarkably low numbers of protesters took to the streets during the lame duck's farewell tour of Europe.

Recriminations, even well-deserved ones, are looking to the past, not the future. The future -- that's where the votes are.

Speaking of the past, take a look at the last time a president was impeached. The Republicans gained very little from their attempt to unseat Bill Clinton. While Clinton was not actually impeached until early 1999, it was clear that was where Congress was headed during the November 1998 midterm elections. It was a major issue in the elections.

The threat of impeachment and the focus on "getting" the president, rather than actually doing something, cost the Republicans. Instead of posting the expected gains in both houses, the Republicans lost. Yes, it resulted in a total backlash against the Republicans.

The smartest move Nancy Pelosi made as Speaker of the House was before she actually took the office -- it was to take impeachment off the table. It neutralized it as a Republican campaign issue. Justified or not, it would have let the Republicans paint Democrats as crazy Communists who want to arrest the president. If the Democrats truly believed there is enough popular support to impeach Bush, they would do it. The support simply is not there. Outside of chatter on the Internet, that is.

John McCain would love to talk about impeachment instead of the economy. He would also love for Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter to talk about impeachment instead of the conservative issues they differ from McCain on. He would also love for Barack Obama to talk about impeachment, where his lack of support would enrage the petulant Left and not convince the Right.

You want to undo the last eight years? Let the subject of debate be what Obama wants to talk about.

Read more!

Daily Scold: I want to cut his tenders off!

I'm sure you've all heard this by now, but those intrepid journalistic sneaksters at Fox News caught a snippet of conversation between the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Reid Tuckson, a black executive with the United Health Group. The two men were preparing to go on air for an episode of The O'Reilly Factor. Jackson, who whispers the entire inflammatory comment, apparently thought his microphone was off. He whispers to Tuckson, "Barack ... he's been talking down to black people. I wanna cut his nuts off."

The good Reverend was evidently referring to remarks Obama made around Father's Day, remarks stating that fathers (implying black fathers) need to take more personal responsibility in their children's development. After all, Obama's black father went AWOL on his white mother after he was born.

Anyway, the Rev. Jackson seems to believe this is somehow not being fair to black fathers, or black people in general. Well, I call B.S. on that. Amusingly enough, so does the Rev. Jackson's son, who issued a statement soon after Fox released the tape: "I thoroughly reject and repudiate his ugly rhetoric." Ouch.

Upon watching this play out on the evening news, my own father remarked, "This just shows Jesse Jackson is obsolete."

Well, it surely does. What's really surprising is that this flap is arguably a good thing for Obama's campaign, an argument that MSNBC's First Read blog makes this morning. The logic goes as thus -- this just shows Obama isn't one of those crazy radical black people, you know, the kind of black person that's secretly a Manchurian candidate for the Black Panthers!

I suppose this does show there's no particular love lost between the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton type of black leaders and Barack Obama, which I suppose is good for Obama when it comes to convincing white people that he's not out to advance the notorious "black agenda."

Why I am doing all this supposing, you ask? Well, I would venture to suppose I'm feeling a little disappointed all this is necessary to convince some white people that Obama isn't a radical. I mean, at worst or best he's just a conventional liberal Democrat with a unique bio and good charisma. It makes you think about how easily people allow their stereotypes to overrun their logical faculties. Let's just remember and scold some other amusing logical jumps that some white people have made about Obama:

1.) OMG WTF THIS GUY HAD HIS BACK TURNED DURING THE PLEDGE!1!11! NON-PATRIOT!
He's a politician. Do you have any idea how many times he has to say the pledge? More to the point, if similar footage of John McCain emerged, showing McCain turning his back on the flag, say to discreetly pick his nose or itch his testicles, would there be the same screams that he's not a patriot?

2.) OMG WTF THIS GUY DOESN'T WEAR FLAG LAPEL PINS!!!111! NON-PATRIOT!
Sigh. Maybe we should look at all the times where Republicans don't wear flag pins. Obama got himself into this with a remark he made in 2007 about how the lapel pin has taken the place of true patriotism, which he suggested might be better measured by how a politician treats American veterans (Obama voted for a stronger GI Bill, but McCain inexplicably did not). For more on the lapel pin, get a load of previous Scold coverage.

3.) OMG WTF THIS GUY WAS SWORN INTO OFFICE ON THE QU'RAN NOT THE BIBLE! HE'S A SECRET MUSLIM! HIS MIDDLE NAME IS HUSSEIN OMG!!@11!1!
This shrill refrain has often been fanned by conservative bloggers, but it's so blatantly false that even such august right-wing institutions such as The Weekly Standard and Fox News have distanced themselves from it or repudiated it. In any case the facts are simple, Obama received some education as little boy in a secular school in Indonesia. He's been a Christian for 20 years at his controversial Chicago church, for better or worse depending on how Jeremiah Wright's role will shape up in the fall. In any case, if you believe this, you were probably one of those people who was OK with Arabs, Muslims (and even some Hindus, which aren't at all like Muslims) and other foreign-looking people being harrassed in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks.

If you honestly believe this, you are a person who is acting on fear. As one prominent Nazi (Hermann Goring) said: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

It's people who are afraid, ironically enough, that pose the greatest danger to the compromise of American values.

Read more!

Analysis: What elitism?

Of course Barack Obama is part of an elite class. He's wealthy, educated and famous. Having gone to a prestigious college and Harvard Law school in the 1980s, his superiority is clear. While losers like us were doing low-quality blow off of moderately attractive hookers, he was getting complimentary pure Columbian from the same co-ed doctoral candidates he snorted it off of. It is through this charge of "elitism" that the GOP hopes to undermine Obama's support with moderates and independents. Karl Rove's comments about Obama form the attack machine's blueprints: "He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by." First of all, that guy is cool. The irony is that it was Rove who trained a dull socialite in Texas and took him to the White House.

But the charge against Obama just isn't sticking. It's not that the ploy won't work; it sank John Kerry in 2004. It's also not that people don't think Obama is part of the elite. But they are not so concerned about elitism in and of itself -- after all, they are used to rich and powerful politicians. "Elite" is meant to be code for "out of touch." An example of "bad" elitism was on Feb. 28, when President Bush had no idea that gas was expected to rise above $4 a gallon later in the summer.

The attempts to make hay off Obama's elitism have either failed or backfired. The RNC have lost several special elections in which they linked the (eventually) victorious Democrat to Senator Obama. These were in deep-red districts that Bush won in 2004 by double digits, yet the link between the candidate and Obama may have actually helped the Democrats. And now, as a further insult, Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon is promoting his own ties to Obama in his bid for reelection. That's right, a Republican senator is touting his ties with Obama to get reelected.


In a televised ad, Sen. Smith included praise he received from Obama, earned when the two reached across party lines to cooperate. "Who says Gordon Smith helped lead the fight for better gas mileage and a cleaner environment?" the add asks. The female narrator answers simply "Barack Obama." The ad then cuts to a picture of the Illinois senator's face.

The move is smart for Smith, who represents a state far more moderate than his party's leadership. He fears getting caught up in the tide of anger at Republicans, and his opponents are dedicated to painting him as a typical Republican. Even many of Oregon's actual Republican voters are fed-up with Bush, the war and the economy. They are tired of the Far Right's perceived stranglehold on their party; independents are frustrated as well. This is how Smith hopes to convince these moderate and independent voters to vote for him, even if a good number of them will not be voting for John McCain.

If Obama can can help Democratic candidates in the Deep South, and if some Republicans are looking to ride his coattails, is there any hope of painting Obama as lacking the common touch? Johnathan Weisman reports in The Washington Post that a "senior Republican strategist involved in House races said that strategy is now largely dead." The source added, "except in rare instances and I'm not sure it was a good idea in the first place."

It's not that Obama has played a perfect game. He's made mistakes. When he commiserated with Midwestern voters about the cost of "arugula at the Whole Foods," there was concern that Jerry Bown and George McGovern had possessed Obama's body. The Bittergate comments -- which, by the way, are absolutely true-- were really stupid things to say out loud. Yet, perhaps because of Obama's personality, the elite smear just isn't translating into real damage.

This is no doubt a big disappointment to the Republican National Committee, which thought they could use the same playbook against Kerry all over again. Grover Norquist, showing his customary wit, took this belief far too literally when he called Obama "Kerry with a tan." Maybe this was a test balloon to see how much coded racism could be injected into the campaign. But still, given how close 2004 was and the immediate disaster of Bush's second term, it is a stupid thing to say. When the President's poll numbers are around 25%, does Norquist really think there are still a lot of swing voters out there saying "Phew, at least we're still safe from that Kerry guy!"

In one way, the Republicans have done a great service to Obama. The GOP really did succeed into painting John Kerry as an effete, wish-washy liberal. He was "haughty," "French-looking," and above all, an elitist. He was not the guy you invited to a BBQ, but Bush, the rich kid, the cowboy from Connecticut, was the one you invited. And so, Kerry was defeated for his elitism while Bush desperately twang-ed away from his. A year later, Bush found his poll numbers so low that the country clearly regretted its decision to pick a president on superficial issues. Talk about buyer's remorse.

Maybe through such incompetent governance since that election, the Republicans have actually taught voters to care more about ideas than labels, more about competence than congeniality. Maybe voters this year will see if the accused is actually out of touch with their values on real issues like the war, healthcare and the economy.

And if you believe that, I've got one hell of a bridge to sell you.

Read more!

Counter Scold: Public financing overblown

No one cares about public financing. Let me repeat: no one cares about public financing. The GOP may think they can score points off Barack Obama's decision to opt out of public financing, but hardly anyone outside the beltway is listening. True, the Scold's own Horace Johnson was so peeved he blasted Obama in a Daily Scold, but it is also true that public campaign funding is one of the un-sexiest issues to holler about. Try to make the case to someone who does not sleep and breathe politics-- the story is not a barn burner. Really, try: "Obama said he would take federal matching funds, but instead he is opting out and using just his own donations. Plus he said he would sit down with John McCain and work out and deal but instead..." Too late, they fell asleep. Even if the merits of the case were truly damning of Obama (and they certainly are not) no one is going to pay attention. Is this the best they can do? If the Right wants any juice in this race, they might as well return to screaming about Obama's "terrorist fist jab".

On Sunday's Meet the Press, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the American public will not soon forget Obama's reversal. Well, of course not, they do not know what the hell he is talking about. Campaign financing has never really resonated with the public. As recently as 2006, California voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposition aimed at near total transparency in fundraising. People just do not care that much.

Except, of course, when they sense wrongdoing. Sure, things like the Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay scandals pissed off Americans-- because there was a real sense that corruption had stained the very way our leaders did business. There was subversion of the law; it was a clear-cut case of right and wrong to ordinary Americans. This is why, in the end, the Republicans will not be able to paint Obama with his decision. They can huff and puff "Obama broke his word!" all they want, but there is no sense of underlying corruption. The public will not be shocked by the revelation that a politician reversed himself to make a winning play. Without a tangible "wrong" to hit Obama on, the charges will not stick. His money is coming from small donors and working Americans, the issue makes Obama look good.

The statement Obama signed stated that he would either take federal money or work out an arrangement with John McCain. Sure, he did not do either one. But the document also said something else: he was doing this to limit the influence of special interests. Obama is doing that without public financing; he cannot find himself beholden to the hidden agendas of so many people without special political influence.

Senator Graham made another comment on that Meet the Press. Essentially, he said that this reversal proved Obama was ruthless. Obama, according to the South Carolina senator "wants to win; will do anything to win". Good! This is why Obama could be president to begin with.

Obama is not the messiah of Starbucks baristas that the Left wants him to be. He is a smart, centrist, hard-nosed politician that knows how to make people love him. Yes, he is less willing to compromise his standards than the Clintons, but he can count to 270 just as good as the Republicans. He is too good of a politician to turn down a nearly endless supply of money on his mission to save this country from John McCain.

Oh, one last thing: Forgoing public financing means Obama is not costing the taxpayers money. How is that for spin?

Read more!

My last post

It's all gone by far too quickly. While I've enjoyed posting on this blog about the multi-faceted nature of current events, my duties require me to step aside. I am about to go active-duty in the United States Army for a time (to answer anyone's question, no I am not deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan, I'll be finishing my officer training in Oklahoma and then Georgia). Here's a few final thoughts before I go.

1.) Despite the promise that is Barack Obama, I believe that McCain offers better solutions to the pressing issues of the day.
- On Iraq: Before anyone was in favor of the highly-successful surge, McCain was advocating it. This shows a clarity in thought which is so desperately needed and one in which Senator Obama is unwilling to show.
- On the proper role of the Federal Government in the economy: McCain favors making the tax cuts permanent which would continue to allow citizens to keep more of their paycheck. Obama favors repealing the tax cuts and raising taxes on the investor class. Meanwhile, McCain has consistently argued for elimination of earmarks and unnecessary government spending, Obama has proposed billions of dollars more in government spending
- On the judiciary: McCain wants judges who will interpret the law to the Constitution, not allow the tyranny of the judiciary to make new laws from the bench.

2.) The United States is center-right nation despite the Bush administration

3.) Partisanship should continue and serve people through the exchange of different ideas and ideologies

4.) As the United States moves to post-racial society, it should reverse race-centered laws and focus on merit as the basis of promotion at the workplace, acceptance into college and contractual agreements

5.) the United States should be determined to project its power militarily when its people interests are threatened by foreign powers, groups and individuals. We should not wait for an attack to respond, we should have the right to preemption.

6.) The government that governs least governs best. The role of the Federal Government is limited and should be restrained.

It has been a real pleasure writing for this blog and reading the posts of others. Keep up the good work and I shall try when able to read this blog. Godspeed to you all.

-- Jeff Hartline

Read more!