Strategery

A Test of Toughness

E.J. Dionne, Jr., raises excellent points in this column about how John Kerry should be hammering away at Bush about his hidden-in-plain-sight belief that the tax system should favor millionaires. Dionne also notes that the Bush campaign has now resorted to calling Kerry a flip-flopper for standing by his vote on the war, which hardly makes sense.

Kerry isn't playing the game the way Dionne would like him to, which raises questions about what he plans to do between now and November. Thus far, it appears his strategy is to stand to the side and watch Bush's death spiral. Can this work? Can Kerry just wait for Bush to self-destruct and make plans for his inauguration between campaign stops?

I'd like to believe that anti-Bush sentiment is fevered enough to ensure a Kerry victory even if he remains silent from now to Election Day, but it's apparent to me that he'll have to climb down from his lofty perch and actually engage Bush again before this campaign is over. When he does, I hope Kerry is wise enough to take Dionne's advice and explain why his tax plan is better than the one Bush has been sneaking through since he came into office. When Kerry gets into office, he needs to have a mandate to start fixing things.

All Idea, No Execution

Nicholson Baker, Checkpoint

Nicholson Baker's latest book is likely to be one of the most-discussed tomes of the season because he has chosen a subject sure to attract attention: killing the president. The short novel (it weighs in at only 115 pages) is a transcript of a hotel-room discussion between two people, Ben and Jay, about the wisdom of assassinating George W. Bush. Jay contends that Bush deserves to die for what he has done in Iraq, among other things; Ben, called by Jay to help him with an undescribed situation, finds himself fending off these arguments with the notion that this violence will only beget more violence.

Baker's book is, it should be said, not terribly good. The writing is smooth and the characters and their relationship to one another are revealed through their dialogue, and Baker has brought together an interesting hodgepodge of facts to create Jay's argument for his plan. But Baker has also taken the easy way out by making Jay clearly deranged. Ben's task in the novel is not to argue that Bush deserves to live but to argue instead that his death would do no good, and while that may provide a fleeting thrill to Bush-bashers everywhere--"You can't even argue against the idea that he deserves it!"--it's actually a disservice to the reader. No one even tries to defend Bush, making the book as unbalanced as its main character, and even I can see that this is a flaw. I may disagree with everything Bush has ever done, but I'd still give him a lawyer if he were on trial for his life. Baker doesn't.

King For A Day

Kerry's Blue Blood a Winner, Say Royal Researchers

Well, here's as good a reason as any other to believe this is Kerry's race to lose, as many pundits have decided of late. According to the article, every winner of the presidency has been the man whose blood is more blue. Whlie this is both stunning and somehow plausible, I have to question it: What about rematches? John Adams and Thomas Jefferson ran against one another twice, with different results in 1796 than in 1800; Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland also waged two battles, with Harrison ousting the incumbent in the first (despite losing the popular vote) and Cleveland returning for a second stint in office after besting Harrison in their second electoral duel. Maybe the study counts only the first winner?

In any case, I find it particularly interesting--albeit completely irrelevant to anything important in the election--that researcher Harold Brooks-Baker says, "Every maternal blood line of Kerry makes him more royal than any previous American president." Also that he's a distant relative of Richard the Lionhearted. Does this mean that Sean Connery (who played Richard in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) will join Kerry on the campaign trail?

Tough Day

The Closet Case, Left Without a Room of His Own

Yesterday was an interesting day to be gay. The morning brought the expected bad news from California that 4,000 couples were no longer married as the California Supreme Court invalidated all the licenses given by San Francisco to same-sex couples during February and March. That, it seemed, was enough to chew on for one day, but around 2:30 Wonkette suddenly had a post about Governor McGreevey in New Jersey that seemed to indicate things were about to get hairy.

And hairy they got, as you no doubt know by now. I thought McGreevey's speech was a good one under the circumstances, perhaps better on video than on paper. And while the pundits on Hardball were anxious last night to contemplate whether Republicans should demand an earlier resignation and an election rather than standing by and letting McGreevey pass his office on to another Democrat for the remaining year of his term, I don't think that's the most important issue this morning. (He did the right thing, though; in such a moment of shock, the last thing New Jersey needs is a rapid-fire election that would surely create quite a furor.) What I couldn't stop thinking about was his poor wife, who stood by his side but will surely be facing him in a courtroom proceeding, hopefully a friendly one, very soon. She had to have known this about her husband, right? There must have been some sort of understanding, right? They have a young child; how will they handle this new reality in light of their parental responsibilities?

For all of that, I must confess that I'm impressed by what McGreevey did. Yes, he did it because the threat of a lawsuit pushed him forward, but he managed to keep it under wraps until an hour before he made his announcement, and while his motives are questionable, he certainly did what he thought was best for the state; he could have stuck it out in office and dragged the state through the mud. And McGreevey looked so relieved as he stood there, telling the world the truth about what he had done and who he is. The look on his face and the seeming weight lifted from his shoulders as he owned up to reality was the best advertisement for coming out I've seen in years. Were it not for all the other corruption and scandal surrounding his administration, I'd be sad to see him resign; as it stands, I hope he finds peace in his future and happiness in his late start on a new life.

Right Full Rudder

'West Wing': Is It Facing a Struggle to Survive?

I feel mixed emotions as I read about the ratings and creative difficulties that have NBC execs thinking about pulling one of my favorite shows from the air after this year. Part of me wants to say "I told you so" because I knew losing Aaron Sorkin would hurt the show. Another part of me wants to cheer this possibility because I could reclaim another free hour on Wednesday nights during a time when I'll probably be busy with grad school. Yet another part of me could care less because I've been spoiled by the quality programming on HBO and no longer live or die by this old standby.

Still, there is a tiny part of me that hates the idea that The West Wing might die, even if the sentiments of this paragraph from the article linked above are true:

In Mr. Wells's first year the ratings dropped even further. Instead of the stylized rapid-fire dialogue created by Mr. Sorkin for White House figures on the edge of personal or political crises, the series turned contrived and convoluted, critics said. Some White House staff members, already smug in the Sorkin years, turned insufferable. The series, which had confined itself almost entirely to the White House in its early years, branched out into plots involving terrorism and foreign intrigue.

True, true, all too true. C.J. was obnoxious this year, Leo's behavior made me want to throw John Wells out a window, and Josh became, as the Times notes, insufferable. Abby annoyed me, Bartlet annoyed me, Toby annoyed me. The whole Will working for the VP thing was silly. And sending Donna to Gaza, nearly killing her, letting a beloved character like Fitzwallace die in service of a stupid plot development--all of these are reasons to rejoice that WW might bite the dust.

Still, I hold out meager hope that this season will bring back all that was good about this once-mighty show, even as the producers pledge a swing to the right and a focus on the upcoming fictional election (the one on the show, not the one in November). And if that doesn't happen, there are more terrible things I can imagine than another free hour on Wednesday evening. Like waiting until 2006 for The Sorpanos to come back.

It's a Start

Amazon.com : The Best Music of the Year... So Far

I've been thinking lately about what albums from 2004 might earn a spot on the site's sidebar at year's end. So has Amazon.com, apparently. The link above leads to the 30 albums they've enjoyed so far this year. I've got five of them, and I'd say three or four are a good bet to make the top 10. There are a lot of new releases yet to come, and my list will change, as will Amazon's. But it's fun to start thinking about this...

Abandonment

Keyes makes Thompson 'uncomfortable'

OK, this will be the last day--probably--that I rail against Alan Keyes. Jim Thompson, former Republican governor of Illinois, said of Keyes, "His views are very conservative. Some of his positions would make me uncomfortable as a voter." Thompson declined to endorse Keyes.

This is yet more proof that the Illinois G.O.P. has been hijacked by a small fringe element that is obsessed with fighting a culture war to enshrine their notions of Biblical law into the laws of the United States. So I implore Illinois voters: if you can't stomach a vote for Obama, who's going to win no matter what you do, please, at least vote for the Libertarian and show the Republican Party that you won't stand for extremism. (Yes, Dad, I'm talking to you.) His name is Jerry Kohn (an odd Spoonerism of John Kerry) and you can learn more about him at www.Kohn2004.org, but I think all you need to know is that a vote for Kohn will send a message to the Republican Party that it can't field candidates like Alan Keyes and expect the support of mainstream Illinoisans.

Laughing At Us

The Unsuitable Mr. Keyes

The eyes of the nation are upon Illinois, and it's not for any good reason: They're watching Alan Keyes make a fool of himself. Witness the final paragraph of the LA Times editorial today: "We are often called upon to wonder whether politicians are cynical or stupid. The Illinois Republican leaders, in their case, have made that choice unnecessary."

The Times also calls Keyes a "wildly inappropriate candidate" who "has a tendency to follow any idea right off the cliff of logical consistency" and whose "zealous speaking style" hints at an "emotional turmoil that might lead a job counselor to try to direct him away from a career in politics."

And that's just what they'll say about him in print. The Illinois Republican Party has broken faith with the people of the state by making us the laughingstock of the nation. I didn't expect much from them, but I expected better than this.

Unmandated Funding

Bush says national sales tax worth considering

We're finally starting to hear whispers about what George W. Bush might do with a second term as president, and it's kind of scary. Yesterday he suggested that replacing the income tax system with a national sales tax would be a possibility.

To be sure, there are some who think this is a good idea. They also supported tax cuts for the wealthy and tax cuts on stock dividends that reward wealth over work.

Sales taxes are, by their nature, regressive. Proponents argue that they tax consumption rather than earnings, suggesting that because we choose to consume a certain amount of goods and services, we can also control our level of taxation. But some purchases cannot be avoided: even the poor must buy food and clothing, for instance. Unlike our system today, intended to draw more upon the disposable income, however much that may be, of each household and less upon money the household requires for necessities, a national sales tax would siphon off money from precisely the people and places that need it most.

It would be easy to dismiss Bush's suggestion; after all, it doesn't have the kind of widespread support that such a major overhaul of our entire tax code would appear to require. But Bush has managed, in three and a half years, to begin a fundamental shift in the tax code away from taxing wealth and toward taxing work instead--a move that is not in the best interests of the great majority of people in the United States and that does not have broad-based appeal at any but the least contemplative level. If he wins this election, he might consider a national sales tax his due...

That's All It Takes

The Onion: Kerry Unveils One-Point Plan For Better America

The latest top story from The Onion sounds so real it's hard to remember it's (sort-of) fiction. You can guess, I assume, that Kerry's one-point plan is "the removal of George W. Bush from the White House." Observe this gem:

"Politicians make a lot of campaign promises," Lance Radda said. "Sure, this not-being-Bush policy sounds good now. But how can we be sure that Kerry will deliver on that promise once in office?"

Kerry addressed Radda's question.

"I promise you, here and now, that I will enact my one-point plan on the day I enter the Oval Office," Kerry said. "For the last three and a half years, we've had George W. Bush, and today I have this to say: We can do better!"

We sure can, John. We sure can. We can, and we will. We can, and we must.

Animal Instinct

Plan B for Illinois

It comes as little surprise that the choice of Alan Keyes to run against Barack Obama is being greeted by jeers nationally and at home. He's just not a suitable candidate for office in a state that isn't in the thrall of the far right. His choices in his first day of campaigning made that clear: he called Obama's vote against a ban on partial-borth abortion "the slaveholder's position" and, arguing against gay marriage, said, "We as human beings cannot assert that our sexual desires cannot be controlled." Keyes said doing so would "consign us to the realm of instinctual animal nature--and we are not there."

Are the voters of Illinois, as a whole, really against abortion--even in the case of rape or incest, even if giving birth endangers the life of the mother? Do they really think gays and lesbians are acting like animals by loving people in accordance with their innate desires? And, more importantly, do they really care about these questions more than they care about creating jobs, having a stronger foreign policy, and building a better America that includes everyone rather than only those whose behavior and beliefs conform to some ultra-right party line? Keyes is angry that Obama won't have six debates with him because three of the debates he was supposed to have with Ryan were to be held during August. He should be glad Obama doesn't refuse to debate him at all. Alan Keyes, for all his eloquence, clearly has nothing to say that's worth hearing.

Hometown Blues

Mr. Keyes the Carpetbagger

While Alan Keyes presents no real worries for Barack Obama, the Illinois Republican Party should be very worried about becoming the laughingstock of the nation and turning off moderate voters for years to come. Bill Maher joked on Friday that the same party that couldn't find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has now proven its incompetence at a far easier task--they couldn't find a black man in Chicago.

And that's a sad fact for the party to face--that it sought a black man to run against Obama because...well, it's hard to say what Republican leaders were thinking. Already it appears that many party leaders, former contender Kirk Dillard among them, are distancing themselves from Keyes, letting on that they realize his positions are deeply polarizing and, at least in Illinois, very unpopular. You can bet the ever-popular Jim Edgar won't be out campaigning for this right-wing nut job.

Keyes is a man without a place, which makes it almost appropriate that he swoop into a state three months before an election to run for office: His "conservative" views put him firmly in the mainstream among white men in Mississippi, while the color of his skin would make him unelectable there; meanwhile, anyplace populated by people who would elect a black man to the Senate has, in reaching that state of enlightenment, also soundly rejected Keyes' bombastic pronouncements about the rule of law being the rule of God. And yes, that's what he says--take a look:



By nominating Keyes, the Illinois G.O.P. has revealed itself as a cynical and desperate institution, uninterested in appealing to the voters of the state of Illinois and incapable of adapting to a world that has grown beyond the tired and outmoded platitudes of its new standard-bearer. The resounding defeat to which Keyes will be treated this fall will be a well-deserved thumping for a party that, in this state, should already have learned its lesson.

At Last, My Love Has Come Along...

Early 'Seinfeld' episodes coming to DVD

The first three seasons of Seinfeld? I guess now we know what I'll be asking for at Christmas. If I can wait that long...

Thanks to Brian for the link.

Place Your Bets

N.M. GOP to Continue Asking for Pledge

You'll have to scroll deep into the article above to find this gem:

The Republican National Committee chairman says the party's national convention later this month will have its most diverse delegation ever--but he won't release the identities of the delegates.

While Republican Chairman Ed Gillespie was boasting about the gains the GOP is making among blacks, Hispanics and Asian-Americans, he said the national party has left it up to individual states to decide whether to publicize delegates' identities.

His reason: Web sites that invite protesters to "show them the kind of welcome they can expect in New York."

Of the 4,788 delegates and alternates to the convention, Republicans said 171 delegates are Hispanic (297 including alternates), 165 delegates are black (290 with alternates) and 76 delegates are Asian-Americans or Pacific Islanders (104 with alternates).

Any guess how many of the delegates are gay? Better yet, any guess how many of them are honest about it?

Second Term Agenda?

A new 'Bushism': We're gonna get us

Malapropism or Freudian slip? You decide. Today President Bush had this to say: “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”

And here I thought the sign on John Ashcroft's door that says "Secretary of Screwing Over the American People" was just an honorary thing.

Fatal Flaw?

Looking Backward - On the stump, Bush sells his first term, not his second

I think Chris Suellentrop nails the trouble with the Bush campaign this time around in this article: rather than talking about what he wants to do, Bush spends all his time talking about the things he's so proud of doing--or, more to the point, saying--during his first term. He won't lay out a second-term plan. And this is scary, Suellentrop says:

After the 2002 midterm elections, when Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill objected to another round of tax cuts for the rich, Vice President Cheney told O'Neill to discard his worries. We won the midterm elections, Cheney said. "This is our due." As much as liberals dislike President Bush's record over the past four years, it's the prospect of another four years that terrifies them. What they want to know--what keeps them awake at night--is what President Bush hasn't answered yet: What are you going to do next? This time, what will be your due?

Can you imagine what four more years might be like? Fortunately, we probably won't have to, if the crowds turning out for Kerry and Edwards are any indication. When you're a Democrat getting mobbed in a hotel parking lot in rural Missouri--the part where they pronounce the "A" at the end--you've got to believe your message is reaching people.

Blogiversary

First Read

Congratulations to Paul Allen, who correctly guessed that the upcoming event referenced last week was this site's first birthday. A lot has changed since that fateful day, both in my understanding of HTML and in my life. I got a job, applied for graduate school, switched presidential candidates, and gave away a lot of hard-earned money to causes I believe in and habits I should probably curtail.

I'm pretty sure that all of this has made me a better person; I'm certainly calmer and happier than I was back then. A year ago I was at the start of what was still, at that point, an experiment in living together; today I'm in what can only be called a stable long-term relationship. My political convictions have grown even as my rage about them has subsided. And, over 87,000 words later, I'm still enjoying this self-appointed task of filtering the world through my mind and spilling out the results for public consumption. I hope you're enjoying reading it.

Bounce This, Dowd

BC04: Setting the Bar Low

Sometimes I just want to give the finger to the Bush-Cheney campaign. Here's Matthew Dowd's kindly pre-emptive response to the inevitable questions about what kind of bounce Bush will get from his convention, courtesy of Wonkette:

"I know this is a question that will come up, about what kind of bounce do we expect at our convention. Looking at it historically, incumbents usually get a bounce that's equal to about two-thirds of what the challenger's bounce is. So if you want to put that in your calculus: Incumbents get two-thirds of what the challenger got as their bounce. So two-thirds of zero is -- and my math is pretty simple here -- is zero. So, that's our expectation on our bounce."

To see why Dowd is full of it, take a look at the electoral vote counter to your right. 328-210 doesn't look like zero to me. You've got to hand it to Dowd, though: he made any bounce Kerry might have gotten look puny by (cunningly, and with full knowledge that his prediction wouldn't come true) forecasting a 15-point jump after the convention; now I'm sure he'll get front page coverage for his stunningly self-effacing, and conveniently expectations-lowering, prediction about his own convention. Here's hoping he turns out to be right, and Bush really doesn't get a boost...not that it matters either way. Kerry's gonna blow Bush out of the water in the debates.

Dry Manhattan

I spent most of my time in New York feeling like I was trapped in either Seinfeld, Friends, or Sex and the City. This proved a fun exercise. I walked through Central Park and imagined Phoebe running with flailing arms, passed several pizza joints with varying Ray's-related names and recalled Kramer getting lost at First and First and calling it "the nexus of the universe," and thought of Carrie Bradshaw whenever I saw a woman wearing Manolo Blahniks. I got to see Madison Square Garden, the Chrysler Building, the lions at the New York Public Library, and Times Square. It wasn't a comprehensive visit, in other words, but I saw enough to feel like I've at least been there.

I also saw Peter Krause on the second night of the revival of Arthur Miller's After the Fall. The play is very interesting, with flashbacks within the main character's mind taking place on stage and a single set used throughout despite multiple location changes. The way these effects were handled alone made the experience worthwhile. Carla Gugino--TV's short-lived Karen Sisco--stole the show as Maggie, a Marilyn-esque character, and Jessica Hecht--Carol's lover Susan on Friends--was excellent as Krause's first wife. Krause himself was shaky at the start, and generally delivered stilted soliloquies, but amid the action of the play his dialogue was convincing and compelling, despite--or perhaps because of--several moments that seemed to channel his work as Nate on Six Feet Under. This wasn't the best play I've ever seen, but it was definitely worth seeing. Next time I'm in New York, though, I'll get tickets to one of the big, popular, rousing shows; the fact that I didn't see Aida or Wicked or even The Lion King will probably eat at me a bit when I look back on this trip, even if I did feel compelled to watch the convention my first two nights in town.

Unconventional

I really wished I could write about the convention in real-time last week. Since my last post, two more days of fine rhetoric have further strengthened the Democrats' case. Rather than a full recap, here are my thoughts on the highlights:

• This may sound perverse to some, but the best speaker of the convention may well have been Al Sharpton. The man knows how to make a point and deliver a line. After delivering a stirring address of principles, he responded to George W. Bush's questions about black voting patterns with one of the best lines of the convention. "You said the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. It is true that Mr. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, after which there was a commitment to give [freed slaves] 40 acres and a mule. That's where the argument, to this day, of reparations starts. We never got the 40 acres. We went all the way to Herbert Hoover, and we never got the 40 acres. We didn't get the mule. So we decided we'd ride this donkey as far as it would take us." As he pointed out, this has been an effective strategy thus far: "It was those that earned our vote that got our vote. We got the Civil Rights Act under a Democrat. We got the Voting Rights Act under a Democrat. We got the right to organize under Democrats."
• John Edwards was, of course, one of the highlights of the convention, but it was sad to see his buoyant energy trapped behind a podium. His normal walking around and gesturing was missing, and it made this speech less exciting and energizing than the ones he delivered in Iowa. Still, he laid out a compelling case.
• While the long Kerry introduction was a bit much--there were too many layers--his daughters were wonderful. I hope America saw them, because they made him seem more human. And Kerry himself delivered exactly the address he needed to deliver. He addressed the concerns voters have expressed about him:

1. Is he strong enough? Yes. He explained his stance on military action and showed that he understands the new realities of the war on terror.
2. Does he believe? Yes. He put forward a wonderful explanation of his feelings on faith, proclaiming that his religion isn't on his sleeve but in his heart, guiding his actions. If that's not enough for a voter, he or she is already lost to Kerry (and to science, and the teaching of evolution, and the idea that church and state should be separate).
3. What will he do? I think we now know what Kerry would like to do in office: middle-class tax cuts, a roll-back of the Bush cuts for the top 1%, chopping the deficit in half, and expanding health care coverage to almost every American while helping those who already have insurance to obtain lower premiums and drug prices. It's going to be tough to do--maybe impossible with a Republican Congress. But it's a vision for a better America that should resonate with many Americans, catching a kitchen table issue that Bush and the Republicans have ignored.

And he addressed all of these issues forcefully. Kerry did rush toward the end--Bill Maher called his race to finish on time for the networks on of the most shameful spectacles ever seen in American politics. As he said, and this is paraphrase because the show transcript isn't up yet, "The man is laying out a plan to rule the globe. He shouldn't have to rush so people don't miss the first two minutes of Elimidate!"

Speaking of Maher, his return to HBO for the remainder of the election season was excellent. He talked to OutKast's Andre 3000, who is working to get young people to vote for the first time in this election; Andre talked with Al Sharpton about this at the convention to great effect.

Bill's guests included Republican representative David Dreir, former Canadian prime minister Kim Campbell, and Michael Moore. It was a shoutfest, to be sure, but Moore's film was used to make some good points about our military recruiting, and especially about Bush's response--dazed and confused--to 9/11 when he found out and sat stunned in a classroom.

The most stirring event of the night, though, was Ralph Nader's appearance at the end. Moore and Maher got down on their knees and begged Nader not to run; when that didn't work, Campbell outlined a strategy by which Nader could have more influence, by proclaiming himself an evaluator of the two candidates on his issues and giving his appraisal and endorsement before Election Day. When Nader demurred from this, Maher nailed him: he produced a photo of O.J. Simpson and told Nader he could learn a lot from him. A man who was a beloved legend his whole life destroyed his legacy with a single terrible act. Such is the fate that awaits Nader if we get four more years of Bush on his account.