OperaDem's Open Salon Blog

The New Dan Quayle

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:11:37 -0500

“Sarah Palin is the next Ronald Reagan”

- Richard A. Viguerie - September 9, 2008 – Pioneer of political direct mail and a pillar of the modern conservative movement

This time last year, conservatives everywhere were busy anointing Sarah Palin the second coming of “The Gipper” and savior of the conservative movement. Right after the election Phyllis Schlafly gushed “Sarah Palin is certainly a rising star – she was a breath of fresh air, and [brings] a lot of excitement to the conservative movement. I think she is a genuine conservative.”

But, Reagan positioned himself as an optimist. He hid his hard-line conservative past in gauzy proclamations of better days ahead for everyone. Whether it was his “There you go again” line off of Jimmy Carter in 1980 or the “Morning in America” strategy in 1984, Reagan tried to wrap everyone together in an avuncular embrace.

A better analogy would be Palin is more like Richard Nixon. Unlike Reagan, Nixon ran by appealing to people’s fears. The “Silent Majority” in 1968 was not just a veiled appeal based on race. It was also an appeal to voters who felt their world had been turned upside-down by elites who laughed at them and made no attempt to understand them.

You only have to take a look at the itinerary of Sarah Palin’s book tour to confirm these are the people Palin is speaking to. Her schedule includes Fort Wayne, Indiana; Washington, Pennsylvania; and Birmingham, Alabama. The largest city in her tour is Dallas, Texas – hardly a place where she will run into an unfriendly crowd.

She also has the same dark paranoia that Nixon has. To listen to her blame all of McCain’s advisors for her failures is not much different than Nixon’s obsession with Kennedy aides that he was sure were conspiring to bring him down. Nixon’s view of Daniel Schorr is not much different than Palin’s view of Katie Couric. Each was sure they were set up by unsympathetic reporters determined to do them in.

The difference between Nixon and Palin, however, is that Nixon was able to wrap his paranoia up and hide it from general view. He was able to impress people with tour-de-force monologues on the state of world affairs that even his enemies conceded were insightful and brilliant. Unfortunately for Palin, she can’t do the same, and consequently has nowhere to hide. Where Nixon was able to draw deeply on his knowledge of international affairs, Palin can only talk in bumper sticker slogans while pointing out Russia and Alaska are next door to each other. With little to discuss Palin can only talk about herself.

Nixon started working on his comeback as early as 1966. He carefully stage-managed every detail of his public life. He knew one mistake would brand him a loser and would destroy his credibility. Palin is very careless about her public image, whether it is backing out of an event at the Reagan Library or trying to charge for an appearance at an Iowa political meeting, Palin continues to reinforce the image that she is incompetent and not ready to handle the national spotlight, let alone the nation’s interests.

In this way she is more like Dan Quayle than she is any other modern American politician.

In a CNN Poll taken on October 28, 2009 over 70% surveyed in the Oct0ber 28, 2009 CNN poll said she was not qualified to be President. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/28/cnn-poll-7-in-10-say-palin-not-qualified-to-be-president/). Even worse for her, only 58% of Republicans and 28% of Independent voters feel she is qualified to be President.

At this point after his introductory speech at the Republican Convention of 1988 Dan Quayle was perceived as more qualified. (http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2009/10/sarah-palin-polls-like-dan-quayle.html). 40% of voters felt Quayle was qualified to be President. This is a terrible number for a sitting Vice President. But when you look at Sarah Palin’s numbers on the same question (28%) they are catastrophic. When you consider the high disapproval rating she has with Democrats it is difficult to see how she can be a viable candidate for the Presidency. Quayle, despite all his hard work was never able to overcome the perception that he was a lightweight. He withdrew from the 1996 Presidential race soon after he entered. Palin is headed to the same fate.

As Vice Admiral James Stockdale discovered, national reputations, once set, are hard to change. Few people remember his Congressional Medal of Honor. But 16 years later what most people remember about him, is his question in the 1992 Vice Presidential debate “Who am I? Why am I here?”

These are two questions Sarah Palin has not even begun to coherently answer.

Nullification and Health Care Reform

Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:09:04 -0400

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.- The 10^th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

AmericaCongressional Republicans seem to have conceded the field to the Democrats and Obama. The best they could do for their official response to Obama’s Healthcare address was to rudely heckle from the gallery and send an obscure member of Congress who, as a heart surgeon, was sued three time for malpractice.

Their proposals in the Senate Finance Committee are being voted down along party lines. Furthermore, Senate Republicans have overplayed their hand. They wrung a number of concessions from Democrats, yet they still won’t support any health care bill. Now the Democrats have concluded they can go it alone, and Senate Republicans will be left on the sidelines.Republicans elsewhere are not throwing the towel.

On Sept. 11, 2009, in a response to a phone question at the Republican Governors Conference, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn) said in that he may invoke the 10^th Amendment to block implementation of any health reform signed by Obama. “Depending on what the Federal Government comes out with here, asserting the 10th Amendment may be a viable option. The Governor finished with "I think we can hopefully see a resurgence in claims and maybe even bring up lawsuits if need be." (http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/59009217.html)

On Sept. 13 2009 on ABC news, Gov. Pawlenty backed off of his remarks. On George Stephanoplis, Pawlenty said “…I think the courts have addressed these Tenth Amendment issues, but more in the political sense, in the common sense arena, we need to have a clear understanding of what the federal government does well and what should be reserved to the states.” (http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/09/pawlenty-backs-off-nullification.html)

What makes the Pawlenty story an interesting one, is he is a mainstream politician bringing up an argument that had, up to this point, been limited to the right wing fringe. He did this while being seen the best hope the Republicans have for taking the White House either in 2012 or 2016.

The 10^th Amendment is becoming a favorite among conservative activists as a way to circumvent health care reform, and anything else they are afraid of from the Obama Presidency. A quick look at the list of states that have some sort of 10^th Amendment sovereignty legislation is sobering. (http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/23/state-sovereignty-resolutions/). 10^th Amendment resolutions have been passed and await Governor Signatures in South Dakota, Alaska, Idaho, and Oklahoma and dozens more are proposed.But this is a constitutional dead end.

The 10^th Amendment was designed to prevent the Federal Government from swallowing up a State, force it out of the Union, or interfere with how it operated within the Union. It was not designed to define the specific powers allocated to either the State or Federal government. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/01.html#t8).

In 1819 Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in McColluch v Maryland that framers had not used the work “expressly” to qualify the powers granted to the Federal Government, ''whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend upon a fair construction of the whole instrument.'' (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=17&invol=316#372).

In short what Marshall said 190 years ago was that as the 10^th amendment did not place specific limits to the rights of either the State or the Federal government. What was delegated to each depended upon the proposed law, its fairness, and how it fit in the overall constitution.

But even if the 10^th Amendment were interpreted the way Gov Pawlenty (and John C. Calhoun) wanted he would still be wrong when it comes to health care reform. Article 1 Section 8.2 of the Constitution clearly states that [Congress has the power …] to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

Unless the 10^th Amendment group can figure out a way that health care is not a classic case of interstate commerce they have no leg (so to speak) to stand on. To carry Pawlenty’s 10^th Amendment argument to its logical conclusion, each state would have to have its own health care system and insurance that was valid only in its own borders.

Over the life of the country opponents of progress have invoked the 10^th Amendment at every turn. Whether it was as the basis of nullification in the 1830’s, the New Deal in the 1930’s, Anti-lynching laws in the 1940’s or Civil Rights in the 1960’s, the 10^th Amendment has been invoked to stop progress, even though attempts to use the 10^th Amendment has been pushed aside by the courts time and time again.

The 10^th Amendment does prevent Obama from driving Nebraska from the Union to settle a score with Sen. Chuck Grassley, or to eliminate his “Nay” vote, but it doesn’t at all prevent him from regulating health care.

Edward M. Kennedy - 1932-2009

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:08:24 -0400

“My babies were rocked to political lullabies.”

- Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy

“We know the future will outlast all of us, but I believe that all of us will live on in the future we make. I have lived in a blessed time.”

- Edward M. Kennedy, (D-Mass) December 2008, receiving an honorary degree from Harvard.

“For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”

- Edward M. Kennedy, 1980 Democratic Convention, August 1980 ending his campaign for the Presidency.

“Those of us who loved him and take him to his rest today pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will someday come to pass forall the world”

- Edward M. Kennedy, June 1968, Eulogy for Robert F. Kennedy

“He was the survivor. He was not a shining star that burned brightly and faded away. He had a long, steady glow. When you survey the impact on the Kennedys on American life and politics and policy, he will end up by far being the most significant.”

- Norman Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute

Bill Clinton Should Know...

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:08:11 -0400

What you can't do, or you can, but you shouldn't do -- is start saying things like we want to set up death panels to pull the plug on grandma."

- President Obama in a Town Hall meeting in Grand Junction Colorado. “I don't care how low they drive support for this with misinformation. The minute the president signs this bill, his approval will go up. Within a year, when the good things begin to happen, and the bad things they're saying will happen don't happen, approval will explode."

- Former President Bill Clinton on Obama and Health Care reform

If anyone knows how this works it’s Bill Clinton. No House Republican voted for Clinton’s 1993 economic package. In the Senate, Republicans hacked away and what was left survived only because Al Gore cast the tie breaking vote to pass it. Despite all of the Republican doomsayers, the Clinton package kicked off eight years of prosperity and created the surplus that Bush would later squander.

Now it is Obama’s turn with health care.

Rather than making an honest effort to work out policy differences and create a stronger bill, Republicans are more focused on winning points with their base. Their goal seems to be to defeat the reform not because it is bad, but because a Democrat has proposed it.

In his book “The Waxman Report: How Congress Really Works,” Henry Waxman (D-CA) states again and again, the best legislation has input and support from both parties. Despite his reputation as a hard knuckle partisan fighter, he attributes every major success he has had to working with Republicans, even when he was in the minority.

But here we are about to institute the biggest social reform since the 1965 Civil Rights Acts, without any Republican support. Obama has tried to reach out to members of the other Party, but they have responded by stirring up rage in the darker corner s of society with exaggerations like “Death Panels.” There are two reasons for their reaction that have little to do with Obama. First, the Republican response is a natural end of the Gingrich revolution. Second there are no leaders on the Republican side to negotiate with.

When the party of Hugh Scott became the party of Newt Gingrich, partisan loyalty took over and kicked the art governing to the side. Gingrich and his successors did everything to make sure their members toed the party line. They recruited candidates not for their skills, but for their loyalty and ability to follow orders. Now, without anyone in the White House to direct them, Republicans seem unable to come up with any ideas of their own. They were unable to come up with an alternative health care proposal –even after they said they would – and they proposed a four page budget alternative to Obama’s stimulus proposal that lacked any numbers. So with no original ideas all they have is scare tactics. It is a sad sight to see the party of Lincoln and the Cooper Union speech become the party of Sarah Palin and Death Panels.

The second reason Obama has not had any luck with a bi-partisan approach is the party leadership has been compromised by the Bush administration. There is no one left to negotiate with. In normal years, John McCain, as the Presidential candidate who lost, would be the spokesperson for the loyal opposition. His Vice Presidential candidate would a natural workhorse carrying the water for the party and taking over – while preparing for a run in four years.

But this is not a normal year by any means.

Sarah Palin has finished the implosion that started when she asked “What do you mean?” when asked about the Bush doctrine. No one, except the most red meat conservative listens to her anymore. McCain also is too damaged to negotiate. By picking Palin as his VP choice he ruined any credibility he had for sound judgment. In addition when he suspended his campaign to deal with the economic crisis the only thing he succeeded in doing was showing how weak and ineffectual he actually is. The other Republican leaders are also off the scene or are too compromised. Bush has tactfully retired to his ranch and said little or nothing. Cheney is busy fighting to salvage his legacy. Everyone else is too out of touch with the current generation of Republicans to matter.

So with no adult supervision, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh call the shots. These people have no vested interest in governance. They can stir up town hall meetings by pandering to the dark fears of a small segment of society because they have no responsibly beyond bringing in the ratings for their sponsors. Without Rove and Bush telling them what to say, they are now out of control. The media infrastructure that Rove, Gingrich created to shill the conservative message is like the monster who broke out of the laboratory and is running wild through the village.

So if Clinton is right, and Health Care reform passes, and none of the dire predictions come true, and good things actually start to happen, the Republicans are in a bind.

Their legislators, programmed for blind obedience and partisanship won’t be able to admit they were wrong. And after getting it wrong on virtually every major issue in the last 1 years from Iraq, the economy, social issues, and deregulation, the Party will loose its remaining credibility. Like the boy who cried wolf the Republicans will simply not be believed by voters.

The only way to save themselves is to come up with new ideas. But after the lobotomy of the Gingrich and Rove years, the party simply doesn’t have the ability to do that. This failure will lock them into minority status for the next generation. In the mean time, America looses out on all the good things that can happen when both parties function and can work together to solve our nation’s problems.

Oh Really? The Cultural Wars are Over?

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:06:30 -0400

The cultural climate is far different today, besides. Now, roughly 75 percent of Americans support an end to Don’t Ask, and gay issues are no longer a third rail in American politics. – Frank Rich New York Times 06/28/2009

The cultural wars are over, or at least quiet. We know this is true because the New York Times tells us so. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/weekinreview/28tanenhaus.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=The%20Sounds%20of%20Silence&st=cse). Also in today’s Times, Frank Rich writes about the Stonewall riots and how far gay rights have come. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/opinion/28rich.html?scp=2&sq=Frank%20Rich&st=cse).

Rich writes:

Gay civil rights history is moving faster in the country, including on the once-theoretical front of same-sex marriage, than it is in Washington. If the country needs any Defense of Marriage Act at this point, it would be to defend heterosexual marriage from the right-wing “family values” trinity of Sanford, Ensign and Vitter.

But the President Obama’s administration filed a brief supporting the continuance of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This has angered activists all over the country as candidate Obama campaigned on a platform to repeal DOMA. Once again a portion of the population has been told to wait until the time is right while they are actively discriminated against.

Whereas the Justice Department has a brief to defend laws from constitutional challenges the Obama administration laid out arguments supporting DOMA that were a roadmap of all the arguments that can be used to support DOMA in a Supreme Court challenge.

In part the brief argued that DOMA prevented states that did not support marriage equality from being burdened with its costs. Precedents of states not recognizing marriages from another state include an instance where someone had married their niece, the marriage of a 16 year old girl from Indiana, and the marriage of first cousins from Arizona.

The Justice Department also argued that DOMA applied equally to all married couples. In short the Justice Department says the same sex marriages of heterosexual couples also wouldn’t be recognized. (There are two excellent analysis of the Administration’s position on Findlaw.com, Defense of Marriage Act Defended by Obama DOJ http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2009/06/defense-of-marriage-act-defended-by-obama-doj.html; and The Obama Administration Defends the Defense of Marriage Act http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20090617.html).

Yes, there are advances. Five states have enacted marriage equality laws. New York would do so if its Senate had not descended into utter chaos. Since November nationwide support of marriage equality has grown.

And yet…

An enormously popular President, a Democrat, uses flawed and somewhat bigoted arguments to defend a law supported by no more than 25% of voters. The same President has made no effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” another unpopular act of discrimination.

The reasons and excuses are many. Obama’s administration is staffed with veterans of the Clinton administration who saw the first year of Clinton’s first term consumed by “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” This, in their eyes, weakened Clinton for the fight over Health Care reform. They are determined to not to make the same mistake twice.

Frank Rich argues that with popular support for repeal of DOMA and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell the political climate has changed. As far as poll numbers goes he is right. But unfortunately the cultural wars are not over. Out in the countryside the fighting may have subsided but not in the DC-NYC urban centers where it continues in full force.

Obama knows that if he makes any move to repeal Don’t Ask, or DOMA that the forces that govern most of the media – Fox News, Rush, Glenn Beck et al will go wild and dominate the airwaves. They will set the dialog and the liberal media like MSNBC will fight back. Any discussions for other initiatives like Health Care reform will be drowned out. This reform legislation will simply stall out and disappear.

Sad but true.

Sorry New York Times, just because there was no uproar over the nomination of Jim Leach to head the NIH doesn’t mean the cultural wars are in truce. Sorry Frank Rich, President Obama’s fear of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and DOMA indicate that Gay issues are still the Third Rail of national politics.

For now, on Gay Pride Day, and Forty Years after Stonewall, a large portion of Americans can be actively discriminated against and that discrimination is set in law. The marchers in Sunday’s parade will not be able to enjoy the rights, responsibilities and protections of a legal marriage. They will not be allowed to put their hearts and bravery in service of their country. They can be mocked by stereotypes in the media in a way that is not permissible with any other group.

At some point President Obama will have to shuck off his pragmatic nature and take a stronger stand for people’s rights regardless of who they love or bed. He cannot always seek the safe center road. Obama tells gay activists to wait, that there are things that he want to accomplish first. In the end they will be happy with what he will do for them. But Obama must not forget what Martin Luther King once said:

A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.