Most of our focus, of late, has been on the differences and campaigning styles among the Democrats, but it pays to step back once in a while and take a look at the Republican race. It really is something to behold. I have noticed a recent upsurge, among Republicans (on cable, in columns and blogs, and in the administration and Congress), of what I can only call a disconnect from reality. Most of it is willful and self-conscious, but not all of it. Here’s one example:
McCain campaigned along the [South Carolina] coast, the more moderate area of this conservative state and the place he counts as his geographical base. In the final hours before the polls open, he focused on national security to generate last-minute support for his candidacy.
“The greatest challenge this nation faces is this implacable enemy,” he told an audience of a couple hundred supporters in Florence. “When it comes to Osama bin Laden,” he vowed, “I will follow him to the gates of hell if necessary, but I will get Osama bin Laden, and I will bring him to justice.”
I’m all for capturing Osama bin Laden, but this ‘implacable enemy’ is hardly the greatest challenge that the nation faces.
I watched Fred Thompson campaigning in South Carolina yesterday and some lady asked him for his position on global warming. His response was to make a joke out it and say that you can’t believe the consensus of scientists because that isn’t solid science. I saw Rep. Marsha Blackburn basically say the same thing at a hearing of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
Then I saw the president say that it isn’t his job to back up the assessment of the Intelligence Community on Iran’s nuclear intentions and capabilities and that he doesn’t believe them.
It’s all a reminder that the Republican Party, as currently constituted, has a dangerously estranged relationship with the truth. It’s what allows them to assert that ‘the surge’ in Iraq has been a success rather than a money pit.
There’s no question that the whole party needs a decade in the wilderness to reestablish some kind of raison d’etre. But that doesn’t mean that the battle among the Democrats isn’t vitally important.
If you are going to caucus in Nevada today, please take a good look at Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist Mark Penn and his wife.
Mark J. Penn is worldwide CEO of the PR firm Burson-Marsteller (B-M), a position he has held since December 2005. [1] He is also the president of the polling firm Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates (PSB), which he co-founded in 1975.
Penn is also U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton’s top presidential campaign strategist. A biographical note states that he “has worked with Mrs. Clinton for over six years, since he ran the polling and messaging for her successful election to the US Senate in 2000.” [2]
Penn also served as NPI Fellow at the New Politics Institute. He advised United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair “for his successful run for a third term.” Penn is “best known for serving as President Bill Clinton’s pollster and political adviser for the 1996 re-election campaign and throughout the second term of the administration. He also ran the polling and messaging and was part of the media team for the successful Senate campaign of Hillary Clinton, serving as her chief campaign adviser. He advises organizations and companies on a wide range of image, branding and competitive marketing assignments. Mark has been a key adviser to Bill Gates and Microsoft for the last 6 years.” [3] [4]
Penn is married to Nancy Jacobson, a longtime Democratic Party fundraiser who in addition to helping found Third Way serves as Senior Advisor to Senator Evan Bayh, National Finance Chair for the Democratic Leadership Council, and Founder and Executive Director of Next Generation, a political action committee devoted to supporting moderate, centrist Senate candidates…
In mid-2007, the dual role of Mark Penn as the CEO of the PR firm Busron-Marsteller and chief strategist for the Democratic Party’s Presidential aspirant Hilliary Clinton, irked some labor leaders. The New York Times reported that labor leaders Bruce Raynor of UniteHere, and James Hoffa of the Teamsters union, wrote to Clinton expressing their concern about B-M’s anti-labor work. “He cannot serve two masters, working for a pro-union candidate and working for anti-union companies,” Teamsters President Jim Hoffa said. [6]
Take a look at the Third Way:
The Third Way, according to New Democrats Online, the Democratic Leadership Council’s online community, is “a global movement dedicated to modernizing progressive politics for the information age. Third Way politics seeks a new balance of economic dynamism and social security, a new social compact based on individual rights and responsibilities, and a new model for governing that equips citizens and communities to solve their own problems.” [1]
“The core principles and ideas of this Third Way movement are set forth in The New Progressive Declaration: A Political Philosophy for the Information Age.” [2]
Here are their principles (with my explications in bold):
“The Third Way philosophy seeks to adapt enduring progressive values to the new challenges of he information age. It rests on three cornerstones: [6]
* the idea that government should promote equal opportunity for all while granting special privilege for none; [no more affirmative action]
* an ethic of mutual responsibility that equally rejects the politics of entitlement and the politics of social abandonment; and, [no more welfare]
* a new approach to governing that empowers citizens to act for themselves.[Bush’s ownership society and the privitization of Social Security]“The Third Way approach to economic opportunity and security stresses technological innovation, competitive enterprise, and education rather than top- down redistribution [high margin tax rates, capital gains taxes, dividends taxes, corporate taxes] or laissez faire. On questions of values, it embraces ‘tolerant traditionalism,’ honoring traditional moral and family values while resisting attempts to impose them on others. [no gays in the military, no gay marriage] It favors an enabling rather than a bureaucratic government [ending big government as we know it], expanding choices for citizens [privitizing entitlements and services], using market means to achieve public ends [subcontracting to Blackwater and Kellogg and Root] and encouraging civic and community institutions to play a larger role in public life [charity, not hand-outs]. The Third Way works to build inclusive, multiethnic societies based on common allegiance to democratic values.” [7]
This is the basic philosophy of Clintonism when the Clintons are not trying to court Democrats that largely believe in none of these things. These are the solutions favored by New Democrats, the Democratic Leadership Council, The New Republic, and the vast majority of the veterans of Bill Clinton’s administration. If you do not support these policies then, for the love of all that is Holy, do not caucus for Hillary Clinton.
And I haven’t even touched on foreign policy. Bill Clinton implemented the eastward expansion of NATO and the aggressive military basing strategy in the Middle East and Central Asia that has caused all this blowback from terrorism. There is no indication that Hillary Clinton will do anything but fight tenaciously to maintain this costly and risky strategy. Yes, she will not run the government like a neo-conservative. But she will not make the changes that need to be made for the simple reason that it would repudiate one of the cornerstones of her husband’s foreign policy.
Bushism needs to be tossed on the ash heap of history, but Clintonism needs to be rejected as well. Clintonism helped pave the way for Bushism in many ways, and in foreign policy, they both share huge amounts of blame for our current predicament. Both the Bushes and the Clintons desperately need to be rejected and repudiated. It’s absolutely vital that neither of them occupy the White House ever again.
