CE Volume 3

[chrisfan]

Continued from the now locked Volume 2 ...

JLLM, I disagree with you on a couple of points.

First, and largest, I disagree with your characterization that in the US, Clinton has suceeded into putting conservatives into a fit (forgive me, given that this had to be on a new thread, I cannot remember your exact words). Under Clinton's presidency, the Republicans took back control of the House of Representatives, which they had not done in decades. Their majorities there have only grown since then. In addition, the conservative voices who oppose Clinton, voices that had been VERY out of touch with the American public, and VERY disorganized pre-Clinton, re-organized, quieted the religious right to a level that could be respected by a larger portion of the American people, and have successfully grown their election success. Those voices have taken back the majority (albeit slim) in the Senate, control the majority of governorships in the country, and have a very strong presence in state legislatures as well (I believe a majority in more states there too, but I don't know that for absolute sure) In addition, please don't forget that Bush was elected to office, and is still in a dead-heat for re-election. Does he have it in the bag? Certainly not. But Kerry did not climb as far ahead as is often the case by announcing Edwards as his running mate. It's still yet to be seen what kind of a boost he'll get after this week, but I consider it telling that the DNC is trying to minimize those expectations. Additionally, if you look deeper into the polling numbers, Bush is getting much more favorable ratings in areas such as approaches to terrorism, and national security. AND, he is closing the gap, ahead slightly in ratings on the economy. If your definiton of conservatives struggling under the mastery of Clinton is taking back that much power, then I'm proud to struggle under the mastery of Clinton ... in matters of POLITICS ONLY.

My second disagreement with you is in the area of how these generalized "everyone feels good by saying it" statements still allow you to see where the person stands. I don't believe they do. In fact, I think that when you really listen to the message, and not just the single-sentence soundbite, they are directly contradicting themselves ... leaving their message even more foggy. Case in point -- last night, Clinton rattled off an entire list of "we want it this way, they do it that way" examples. He followed that up with lamenting the great dividesthat exsist in American politics, and blaming the Republicans for those divides. Honestly, answer me this question ... how do you have strong divides without BOTH sides contributing equally to those divides?

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

Regarding the gains of the Republicans under Clinton's Presidency, I think that's, as you say, the reorganisation of the right, the natural conservatism of the USA, and the tendency to check Presidential power in second terms by voting for the opposition party in other elections. None of which changes the fact that Clinton would have breezed a third term if not barred form doing so by your constitution. Every poll and all political commentators agree that Clinton would have seen off Bush very easily in 2000. Even the robot Gore nearly manged to win.

On the second point, I don't think the generalised soundbites allow you to see where the Third Way politician stands, so much as it doesn't necessarily obfuscate their ideology to any great extent. You have to separate what's intended to go out on the news bulletins from the areas where you can divine the overarching ideology that drives their agenda. Remember, I said these two areas where specifics could be deduced were an overall sense arrived at from the intuitive spaces created by the sum of an awful lot of vague messages, coupled with the track records of both the Clinton and Blair administrations.

But yeah, before Clinton's first administration, I agree that guessing his real policy agenda was little more than guesswork. The electoral success of Blair and Clinton initially stemmed from voter fatigue with long periods of right wing governance, and the ability of Blair and Clinton to master the political craft, with the help of some awfully clever backroom boys. Can't remember the name of Clinton's chaps (didn't one have a Greek sounding name?) but Blair had Peter Mandelsson and Alistair Campbell spinning like fury, and some of their soundbites were absolute genius. You're right, they didn't say much, and no one soundbite was that powerful on its own. But put together enough lines like "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" behind a charismatic, handsome politician and the public get the intended message: this guy is a moderate, and can be trusted. Centrist, but not stale. He'll bring some energy, but respect the establishment. This guy won't scare business. This guy is fresh, but no Dukakis or Kinnock. So there was a message of moderation there that the apparently vacuous speeches were intended to convey.

The lack of specifics is something you're quite right to point out, but that's an approach that can often work in opposition - you can win simply by making no gaffes, and by not being the governing administration.

I don't think that'll suffice for Kerry, partly because Bush's support hasn't dipped below the 40% mark as far as I know (last poll I saw put him, at 43%), and partlyu because Kerry simply isn't that charismatic. I think he needs something positive that the electorate can latch onto. (Which is why I disagree with Drum's last post. This election is there for the winning, but only if the Democrat challenger can capture the imgination. Making this a referendum on Bush simply won't suffice, especially given the nature of the electoral college).

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

Guess I just got a little sidetracked in my last paragraph, but yeah, I don't see Kerry winning at all.

Which leads me onto the question of Cheney. Is Bush going to run with Cheney again? I'm wondering if that'll hand an advantage to Hillary for 2008, as there'll be no VP incumbent groomed for power, whereas Ms Clinton will have huge recognition factor, and the love and loyalty of huge sections of her party and the Democrat voter base.

Or would it help the Reublican candidate in '08 (assuming Bush wins in '04) to have been distanced slightly from Dubya over the preceding 8 years?

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

Apologies for all the typos. Too tired to fix 'em all.

[chrisfan]

I still disagree with you on the point of the Clinton managing to make the Republicans flounder, but we can agree to disagree there.

On the point of what problems, if any, Republicans will face in 2008, I honestly don't see it as a problem. First, 4 years is a long time for Hillary to fall out of favor ... or to build on her support. You think Bush is a polarizing figure? He's got NOTHING on Hillary. I certainly think that Hillary has the strength right now for 2008, but she' got just as many detractors as she's got supporters, and I don't think it's an automatic assumption that she's the chosen one for 2008. AFter all, I don't think many people wree looking to Kerry in 2000 as the guy for 2004. There are certain names on either side that will ALWAYS be floated, and will ALWAYS poll well. Those hypotheticals often don't mean squat when put into practice.

But enough about Hillary. How does it effect the Republicans? They have the advantage of knowing NOW that Cheney will not run in 2008. There is no doubt in my mind that he'll remain on the ticket this year, for two basic reasons ... first (and most importantly) Bush views him as a crucial advisor, and one that he does not want to lose. Second (and not nearly as important), the Democrats are the ones truly pushing for Cheney to be removed. Why? So they can spin it as "Bush is in trouble. You'd better not vote for him". It does not make sense to drop him from a personell standpoint, and there's no gain from a political standpoint. So why do it? The people who want to see him gone are the people who wouldn't vote for Bush no matter what. So why not keep him there, and let the criticism deflect to him, rather tahn all piling on Bush. AFter all, isn't that a key political role for a VP?

Side tracked again on the what about '08. Let's see if I can stick to it this time. Knowing that he won't run, the Republicans have 4 years to put the "incumbant" in place to be groomed. I've speculated that in a second Bush term, Ashcroft could very likely be sent back to Missouri, and Guilianni could be put into the AG office, in order to groom him for a federal role. Republicans have also had better success in getting governors elected than Washington insiders, so there is that option as well. Look, Al Gore proved that the "incumbant" factor doesn't play all that well for a VP. Voters know that the VP doesn't reflect ALL the views of the President. So they don't think thye have a real taste of what they'll be getting. A governor, stating all the things he agrees with Bush on (or disagrees, whichever is the case) can set him up in just as strong a position as a guy who'd been VP for 4 years could. And whoever it is, he'll be competing against someone who isn't an incumbant, so there's really nothing to lose. Just because the VP has traditinally gotten the nod does not mean it must be that way.

[chrisfan]

I forgot to mention that I disagree, to some degree, with your assumption that Clinton would have had no problem being elected to a third term. It's certainly possible, and I don't deny his popularity. However, a poll that says something like that is based purely on hypotheticals. The biggest of which is that the race is happening as a person IMAGINES it will, rather than as it actually would be. Remember, Gore was working hard to run AWAY from the Clinton record. So there wasn't a great deal of need for Bush to really challenge that record. It would have made no sense to do so -- he'd say "Clinton screwed up that" and Gore would say "YEs, which is why that's an area where I differ from him". (remember the whole "I stand here as my own man"?) A great deal of the negative perception about a candidate is formed by his opponet. In the hypothetical Bush/Clinton race, you had none of the negative. I campaigned for Bush in 2000, and heard a lot of people who said that they'd vote for him because "it was time for a change". Do I believe I talked to enough people to get a fair sampling? Absolutely not! But people are much more likely to support a feel-good hypothetical than they are to support an actualy candidate ... which is why the hypotheticals almost ALWAYS beat the actual candidate in polls like that.

[Kensterberg]

Polls taken in 2000 showed that Clinton would have wiped the floor with either Bush or Gore. A poll from late 2003 or early 2004 showed the same thing now. Bill Clinton is simply the most effective political animal since FDR. This is a fact, and it's part of what the right-wing finds so infuriating about Clinton (just like we on the left were frustrated by Reagan's seeming immunity from any meaningful criticism).

As to what effect Cheney will have on Bush now and on the 2008 election ... I think that Cheney will be a net negative in 2004, but Bush won't have the good sense to eject him from the ticket. Cheney has been exposed as a hot-head, and not the "reasonable" voice in the administration. He's likely to have at least a couple more blow-ups, erm, frank exchange of views during the fall campaign ... and if one of those happens with the affable and extremely likeable John Edwards in a debate, well, it's all over.

But IMO it's too soon to say what's gonna happen in 2008. For that matter, it's too soon to predict what's gonna happen this fall. IMO Kerry is more likely to win, but there's just too many variables in play now. If Bush does win, it's gonna be the closest margin of victory for an incumbent since Truman edged Dewey.

[chrisfan]

KenHolzman said:

Polls taken in 2000 showed that Clinton would have wiped the floor with either Bush or Gore. A poll from late 2003 or early 2004 showed the same thing now. Bill Clinton is simply the most effective political animal since FDR. This is a fact, and it's part of what the right-wing finds so infuriating about Clinton (just like we on the left were frustrated by Reagan's seeming immunity from any meaningful criticism)..

Ken, do not confuse the use of Clinton's name in my comments with the point. There are hypothetical candidates on BOTH sides who consistently wipe the floor with whoever they're put up against. Collin Powell is one of those for the Republican side. You can have all the confidence in yourself that you wish that you understand the mind of the conservative. But in your confidence that Clinton would win no matter what, please realize that I'm expressing my skepticism in the reliability of hypothetical polls ... whether Clinton is in one or not!

KenHolzman said:

As to what effect Cheney will have on Bush now and on the 2008 election ... I think that Cheney will be a net negative in 2004, but Bush won't have the good sense to eject him from the ticket. Cheney has been exposed as a hot-head, and not the "reasonable" voice in the administration. He's likely to have at least a couple more blow-ups, erm, frank exchange of views during the fall campaign ... and if one of those happens with the affable and extremely likeable John Edwards in a debate, well, it's all over.

But Ken, WHO is it that sees Cheney has the hot-headed unreasonable voice of the administration? The people who see it the most, are the ones who wouldn't vote for Bush regardless ... even if he replaced Cheney. Dick Cheney is one of those men who says exactly what he thinks. When he says what he thinks, and you're one who agrees with it, your reaction is MUCH different to him than when you disagree with what he's said ... trust me. When it comes time to push the button on the ballot, the name at the top of the ticket means FAR more to the average voter than the second name. Cheney will ADD to the strength of support from conservatives. He'd NEVER gain the support of liberals. He may run off SOME moderates. But most moderates don't see him as "Dr Evil" anyway. So I beleive you are vastly overestimating that vulnerability.

[chrisfan]

not to mention that when it comes to the "often talked about, not very often voted on" social issues, such as gay marriage, it is CHENEY who is pulling back Bush and lending the more moderate voice to the issue. Over the next few months, expect to see Cheney speaking more and more about issues such as that, and less and less about the war, which will be held off for Bush to talk about.

[Proud]

i heard the clinton speech the other day, and i know a bazillion republicans are going to fry him, but for the first time in forever, it was a political speech that made me feel emotional inside. i've always held onto my slightly-more-left-than-a-moderate values, and lately i've felt so unrepresented, except for at times by ted kennedy. but then i heard that speech, and i was so happy that i wanted to tear up or something. bill clinton is the only politican, only president in the last half a century that i will stand up for and think of as a president that represented ME. i know he screwed up on a couple things, but when i think of balancing the budget... employment... him and al and the environment...

i know how people felt when the reagan funeral happened. whenever clinton gets one (and i hope to god it's a long time from now), i'm going to feel the same way. i haven't felt like a presidential candidate is a true friend of mine for so long, not counting bill... the last one for me was robert kennedy, and he was long before my time.

i guess i'm going to get flamed for this, but i had to get this out. i respect the beliefs of those who're far to the right here...

[chrisfan]

ProudIllness said:

i heard the clinton speech the other day, and i know a bazillion republicans are going to fry him, but for the first time in forever, it was a political speech that made me feel emotional inside. i've always held onto my slightly-more-left-than-a-moderate values, and lately i've felt so unrepresented, except for at times by ted kennedy. but then i heard that speech, and i was so happy that i wanted to tear up or something. bill clinton is the only politican, only president in the last half a century that i will stand up for and think of as a president that represented ME. i know he screwed up on a couple things, but when i think of balancing the budget... employment... him and al and the environment...

i know how people felt when the reagan funeral happened. whenever clinton gets one (and i hope to god it's a long time from now), i'm going to feel the same way. i haven't felt like a presidential candidate is a true friend of mine for so long, not counting bill... the last one for me was robert kennedy, and he was long before my time.

i guess i'm going to get flamed for this, but i had to get this out. i respect the beliefs of those who're far to the right here...

Let me say off the bat that I'm merely asking a question to better understand your views here Proud ... NOT trying to flame you, and NOT trying to fry you. I'm merely asking a question, because I think your statement was very broad, and I'm curious about the specifics.

That being said, what specifically did Clinton say that made you say "YES"

[Kensterberg]

Cheney is known to be a hothead by political insiders of all stripes. He pissed off a few moderates with his Fuck Yourself comment recently ... and if he does something like that on the campaign trail, it would likely be enough to tilt the election away from the Republicans (when you're talking about an election that is likely to be decided by a couple of percent in a couple of key states, this would be plenty). As things sit now, I think he's a net drag on the ticket, but it also depends on who he would be replaced with. Put Anne Coulter on the ticket instead, and Cheney looks like a golden boy! Compared with Powell or McCain, and Cheney looks like a boat anchor. I think the reality is that he's gonna push away more people than he attracts, but it's a small number.

As for Clinton himself ... I can say with no reservations that I voted twice for the man, and would vote for him again if I legally could. His villification by the extreme right wing mystifies me to no end, but IMHO he has been far and away my favorite President of my own lifetime (1964 -- ?). Just like Proud, when the day comes that William Jefferson Clinton is given a state funeral, there will be tears on my face. The man makes me feel good about being an American, about what we are capable of, and that's something I'm not at all ashamed of.

[Proud]

the three major things i pointed out in that post. i also believe clinton cares about the middle class, and i liked the words he had to say about it.

it's true that they're all politicians, but i trust some more than others.

[chrisfan]

KenHolzman said:

Cheney is known to be a hothead by political insiders of all stripes. He pissed off a few moderates with his Fuck Yourself comment recently ... and if he does something like that on the campaign trail, it would likely be enough to tilt the election away from the Republicans (when you're talking about an election that is likely to be decided by a couple of percent in a couple of key states, this would be plenty).

Ken, this is about as logical as saying that Kerry is hurt by having a wife that tells reporters to shove it. That is trivial fodder than gives Katie Couric something to talk about, but means nothing when it comes to voting.

KenHolzman said:

As for Clinton himself ... I can say with no reservations that I voted twice for the man, and would vote for him again if I legally could. His villification by the extreme right wing mystifies me to no end, but IMHO he has been far and away my favorite President of my own lifetime (1964 -- ?). Just like Proud, when the day comes that William Jefferson Clinton is given a state funeral, there will be tears on my face. The man makes me feel good about being an American, about what we are capable of, and that's something I'm not at all ashamed of.

So Ken and Proud ... you happy with how Clinton handled Kyoto and the ICC? Given that he brought both of them up in his speech last night?

[PC]

Man, this country is polarized.

Gary Coleman for President! <-- For Proud