Indignant Desert Birds

The thirteenth amendment reads in full:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

There’s an odd clause in there, seemingly allowing slavery to exist under certain circumstances. I don’t think it was the intention of the Abe Lincoln– or whoever wrote the actual text of the Amendment (possibly Lyman Trumbull)– intended to create a loophole allowing for slavery to exist. I’m not psychic, so I won’t pretend that I have time traveling mind reading powers, but it seems unlikely. Rather, I think it’s simply impossible to draw a bright line between prison and slavery.

Which is why this article about prison labor is so scary. There is nothing inherently wrong with prison labor, per se. The feeling of utter uselessness is perhaps the most depressing one in the world, and the ability to do something probably keeps at least a few people from going stir crazy.

So that’s one thing. Stacked against that you have “wet-suit-clad inmates repair[ing] leaky public water tanks”. I’m not sure how much it costs to hire someone to to put on a wet suit, re-breather, grab a welding torch and get to work, but I’ll bet it’s more than $29,000 a year.

This creates some awfully perverse incentives for society to create more prisoners than it otherwise might. It might sound like cartoonishly evil to imagine that a judge would accept payment in order to convict children, but such things happen.

If we’re using prison labor as free labor– if we’re selling that labor off to private companies (as is strongly implied by the article), that means that there are two people being deprived of the value of their labor: 1) the inmate and 2) the person who would otherwise be getting paid to do the job in lieu of the slave.

This is what we mean when we say that labor has dignity. The dignity of labor is one of the major differences between a slave society and a free one. It may not be the case that organized labor is the only force capable of standing up against the reimposition of slave labor– not even I will be that hyperbolic– but it is the case a well organized labor movement is capable and incentivized to stand up against the encroaching prison state.

This is what they are fighting for in Wisconsin. Not a particular wage and benefit package, but the right to stand up and say “we are worth more than slaves.” If they can’t do that, then who will?

Tags: human rights, liberal, pestilence, politics by Punning Pundit
1 Comment »

My lines had been empty all day. Those lines ought to have had tens of thousands of people in them, and they were empty. Field reports ought to have been reassuring, but Central Ohio has an ugly history of voter intimidation. Four years previously, the lines had been hundreds deep and hours long. Four years previously, thousands of (black) voters had been– illegally– turned away. One party stood up and said that voter intimidation wasn’t a big deal. One party, in fact, had said that they were going to solve the opposite problem– paperwork was going to be demanded of everyone before they would be granted the franchise.

That party wasn’t pushing for voter intimidation, not exactly. Just an extra bit of grit in gears of an election. Special grit that only effects people who don’t drive. You know– poor people. It was one more obstacle between citizens and the vote. Just one more thing preying on my mind as I saw empty lines.

The other party– my party– looked at those hours-long lines and shouted out “Never Again!” Well. Alright. Democrats never shout. Shouting is for socialists like Bernie Sanders. But we did sort of hint around the edges that we wouldn’t really like to see that sort of thing ever again. So we had some people sit down and draw up plans. My job was to implement those plans. But my lines were empty.

An hour before the polls closed and my lines were empty. That’s when the van showed up. 30 people in SEIU purple spilled out. Running. “Who’s in charge of this staging location” came the shouted question. I grabbed my crutches and hobbled over. I handed them some walk sheets, watch them work out logistics, grab sandwiches and hustle out to find voters to fill my lines.

There are a lot of lessons from that story. Perhaps most importantly: early voting wins elections. But the great moral lesson is this: whenever poor people need a hand, wherever working people are getting a raw deal, whenever you see someone who would like a job but is being denied, whenever money and power are being used as a tool of oppression, you will see a union fighting against that injustice. Because an injury to one is an injury to all.

Today I stand with the Dropkick Murphys (seriously, take a listen to that song!), Bruce Springsteen (He’s a fair boss), and Martin Luther King Jr. (who was murdered while helping organize an union),and the people of newly-freed Egypt in solidarity with the Workers of Wisconsin.

Without unions, the arc of history is bent less steadily towards justice. That’s everything you need to know.

Tags: Election 08, human rights, liberal, politics, war by Punning Pundit
5 Comments »

Jamelle Bouie has some thoughts on atheists in Congress. Specifically: why there are none. The whole thing is worth a read, but I’ll just yank a sample section:

For an “unaffiliated” House candidate, the landscape is a little less harsh. Since nonbelievers tend to live in urban areas, it’s conceivable that an openly atheist candidate could find a large enough base to support a primary or general election run against more religious competitors. Even still, given the relatively small number of unaffiliated, this isn’t very likely.

I think this partially ignores– or forgets, or is ignores of– the mechanics of running for office. I don’t think Jamelle is wrong, but I think there’s something he fails to consider.

People don’t simply decide one day that they’d make a great politician. They see a problem, they talk about it, they fume about it, and eventually one of their friends and neighbors tells them to shut up and fix it already. But to get there, they need a network of friends and neighbors. Politicians are invariably the most connected members of their community. The major function of a religious organization? Connecting people. Churches are a major source of community building. Synagogues will hold singles mixers. Churches do charity dinners, and mosques will, um, do music nights*. Even most of the pagans and atheist I know will choose to get married in a Church (usually Universalists Unitarian) because the infrastructure is pre-existing.

It’s not that atheists and agnostics don’t have strong networks of friends, but campaigns- especially local ones- are won and lost by meeting people. If a church attender and a non-church attender square off for city council, the attender will have just a few more people to meet every week, one more avenue of attack, one more tie to the community. That adds up. And who tends to win congressional elections? People who hold local office. A small difference in community support can utterly demolish someone’s chance for higher office.

All of that, before we even mention the self-described anti-atheist bias of the American electorate.

*Yeah, I stretched that alliteration to the breaking point. Sorry.

Tags: free speech, human rights, liberal, politics by Punning Pundit
No Comments »

The full text of the first section of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That seems fairly straightforward, right? It defines American citizenship, and says that any right granted to citizens are granted to all citizens. In fact, given the language used (“persons”), I’m not sure that the US could refuse citizenship to sentient robots, vampires, or extra-terrestrial aliens.

Section 2 contradicts Section 1 a small bit, in that it specifically sets aside voting rights to males over the age of 21 and who haven’t “participat[ed] in rebellion, or other crime”

Sections 3 and 4 also stick it to the confederate veterans of the Civil War.

The 19th Amendment gives women the right to vote.

Both the 14th and 19th amendments have the following words as their final section “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

A plain reading of the basic text of the US Constitution would thus mandate that any law that demands employers treat employees a certain way applies to men and women. And straight people and gay people. And people of any color or ethnic background humanity cares to invent. If the Federal, or a State, government wants to allow a pair of people to form a union and become a single legal entity (marriage), then a plain reading of the Constitution demands that such a right is granted to all citizens.

Antonin Scalia doesn’t like this. He doesn’t like this at all. I won’t read his mind to state his motivations for not liking this, but Scalia reads the minds of voters 1868 and decides that “if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that.”

None of them, eh Scalia? That’s a big statement. It’s also irrelevant. Their minds are now dust, but their words are eternal. If they wanted to codify gender or orientation discrimination into the Constitution, they should have done so. They specifically outlawed religious*, ethnic, and racial discrimination. Our ancestors have had 235 years in which to do so. They didn’t, and now we’re finally realizing that they didn’t.

I’ll even perhaps agree with Scalia that this was an oversight on the part of centuries of voters. Their blindness left a huge breach in the firewall of bigotry. Americans of the 21st century have the choice now about how much to exploit that breach, and how quickly we may be able to burn the edifice of hate. Scalia has decided to throw himself against the oncoming surge of human happiness. Oddly, he seems to give his own fears more weight than the text of the Constitution.

*Good thing for Scalia that they did so. Many people feared that by not insisting on a religious test, we might end up with a Catholic (like Scalia) as a holder of high office.

Tags: conservative, politics by Punning Pundit
3 Comments »

I try not to post videos without any accompanying commentary. But I figure this video speaks for itself.

Ok, fine. Some commentary

Tags: politics by Punning Pundit
No Comments »

As you may have noticed, the economy sucks right now. Indeed, the nicest thing that that Obama administration can say is that the rate at which our economy is shedding jobs has plummeted. That, and they create some pretty compelling evidence that this is all Bush’s fault. So thank the gods for the stimulus bill.

As you can see, the biggest single item was tax cuts. Tax cuts are ok, and since Obama campaigned on a platform of giving a tax cut to 95% of Americans, it was nice to see him fulfill one less than a month into the job. Still, the stimulative effect of tax cuts are kind of mixed

One of the other major uses of the money was on unemployment benefits. This was a great use of federal dollars. I don’t just say that because absent my unemployment check I’d have to move back home. In that sense, both my parents and I are very happy. Other people who are happy that I get an unemployment check:
The fine people at Safeway who sell me food every week.
The employees at the coffee shop down the street where I occasionally buy a coffee or breakfast– or both!
The good people at Valve, from whom I buy the occasional video game.
The nice people at PG&E, who gleefully sell me power.
The bastards at AT&T who take my money in exchange for intermittent 3G service.
I could mention Target, Comcast, Petco, and many, many more.

Without the Unemployment Insurance check, I could figure out something. I might have to move in with my parents, borrow money, spend very, very little and hope that the economy picks up soon. And if it were just me, no big deal. But multiply my decreased expenditure by 14.8 million Americans, and the economy will start to look even worse. Valve would shut down*, Target would file for bankruptcy, the coffee shop near my house would have few or no customers, and thus close. Safeway would lay off a bunch of people… Instead of 14.8 million jobless people, we might be looking at 20 million.

The trick to government stimulus is getting money into the hands of people who would spend it– and quickly. It is a real irony that the rational individual response to a recession is to stop spending–while the best government policy is to spend. Good public policy will figure out how to make that happen. The best two things governments have in their tool kits are unemployment insurance and food stamps.

The stimulus package was too small, and contained a lot of things that didn’t do much.** But the heart of it was to put money in the hands of people who needed it– and would be able to keep their friends and neighbors afloat with it. That’s great return on investment.

*thus permanently delaying Episode 3…
** I’m looking at you, cuts to corporate tax rates!

Tags: liberal, politics by Punning Pundit
No Comments »

I got a text message yesterday morning from a friend of mine who is as much a political junkie as I am. It said, simply, “We lost Daschle.”

My heart sank. The red-bespectacled wonder had won redemption, something that comes along far too few times in American politics, only to piss it away over a car, a driver and one, admittedly galactically stupid, tax error. Daschle is one of the nation’s thought leaders on health care and how to fix our broken system. In fact, he may be THE thought leader on the subject. He basically singlehandedly wrote the new President’s health care policy during the campaign. If you ask people high up in the administration, they will tell you when the time came to select a health czar, the President had his man in Daschle.

Of course, he was so busy figuring out how to fix health care, he kinda sorta forgot to pay his taxes. A lot of them.

Oops.

The truth is, Daschle could have weathered the storm, but – and I actually believe this when I say it – Daschle so intimately knew the fight he and the President were going to have to wage on fixing our health care system that any distraction – a la the HillaryCare debacle in 1993 – would give the entrenched interests an opportunity to distract, delay and defuse the forces of Good and defeat any bill that would move us to a progressive health system.

We need real movement on this issue and we need it today. No distractions, no sideshows, no BS. People die every day because of lack of access to health care in this country, which is a fact that drives straight through cruelty before arriving at being a sin, a stain on all of us.

So, with this early setback, where do we go from here? Why not try the Pacific Northwest?

Allow me to introduce you to Governor John Kitzhaber. I am lucky enough to have a friend and political mentor in Joe Trippi, my former boss on the Dean campaign. To Joe’s credit, he has been out in front on Twitter since the Daschle retraction went down yesterday, introducing his legions of followers to the work Kitzhaber’s Archimedes Project has been doing. And as I’ve read more about Kitzhaber, himself a medical doctor, and his project, I have been thoroughly impressed with his chops.

The Archimedes Project has been working since 2006 under three key notions on how to reshape the health care debate in this country. Instead of working to fix medicare or other barely functional existing institutions, we must ask ourselves a simple question: What would the optimal system look like that could improve population health, reduce per capita cost and improve the patient’s experience regardless of their category, how care is financed, a person’s age, income, race or gender? It is a more holistic look back at where we’ve been with health care, where we’ve succeeded, more notably where we have failed, and, most importantly a look forward to what American inginuity on this idea can bring us.

Kitzhaber understands, as well, that change like this does not come swiftly, but rather with the steady drumbeat of leadership and forward thinking coupled with legislative initiatives to back it up. And, more importantly, the Project understands that being a thought leader on such an important topic is great, but without the support of the grassroots, the people who will benefit directly from these ideas, the Project won’t go anywhere.

John Kitzhaber is a perfect intermediary to work between the President and the Congress and the People on this issue. He and the Archimedes Project leaders understand the need to work collectively on an issue that will mean greater prosperity for us all. And, though I haven’t checked his tax returns as yet, Kitzhaber showed leadership as a two-term Governor in Oregon, expanding access to health care and building economic prosperity throughout the state. I encourage you to read more about and get involved with Kitzhaber’s current work with the Archimedes Project at WeCanDoBetter.org, and join in the growing chorus of support, reminding President Obama that real change comes from the people, and that leadership on this issue means working across all boundaries to get the job done for the American people.

*As always, this is crossposted on my personal blog, Theory In Practice; Also, the views expressed are mine and mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the other contributors here at IDB…but they should.

Tags: liberal, politics by Pink Polo
No Comments »

(Hi everyone, I’m the new guy, Pink Polo. The Pundit should adding my bio shortly. Below is my first post here at IDB, which is also crossposted on my blog, Theory in Practice. To get a sense of what you can expect from me, check that out – or my travelogue from 2006, the Pink Polo Goes to Africa. Anyway, here beginneth my first post. Hope you like it! – The Polo)

Amidst the media-driven furore surrounding the rollout of Pres.-Elect Obama’s cabinet, and the “One President at a Time” message that has become a press meme over the last weeks of economic consternation in this country, there is a real, no-foolin’, honest-to-goodness street fight for the governmental leadership of a major Western power: Canada.

Yup, America’s Hat decided that what’s good for those of us below the 49th Parallel might make sense for them too.

You might remember (though no one would blame you if you didn’t) that Canada held a federal election less than 45 days ago. That election, despite some close polling just days before the election spurred on by the horrendous economic news that hit in October, was won handily by the Conservative Party, and the incumbent Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. There has been, however, no honeymoon period for the new government. As you’ve no doubt seen from the news in this country, the economic news has gone from “Holy Crap” to “Stockbroker Suicide Watch” to its current state, “China’s Redheaded Stepchild” in a matter of what seemed like hours. Leading the charge to ignominy has been the automotive industry, especially General Motors, which has very quietly become one of the most unfathomably awfully run companies in the history of modern economics. Adam Smith himself, were he to come back from the dead, would take a look at GM’s books and “future plans” and quietly cry himself to sleep reading a copy of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.

Would care to hazard a guess as to what one of Canada’s largest employers is?

Anyone?

Yup. General Motors. Ford too, for that matter. Windsor, Ontario – just a Sarah Palin glance away from the rusting former automotive capital of Detroit – became a hub for car production over the last few decades thanks to Canada’s national health care scheme, which helped (wait for it…wait for it) shave overhead costs while getting essentially the same quality of work.

Now, back to today’s issues for our neighbours to the, uh, Nourth. As Pres.-Elect Obama has already begun tackling the severe economic crisis that he will face as President beginning the 20th of next January by touting his new team of advisers, promoting economic stimulus and infrastructural redevelopment across sectors, so too has Mr. Harper, the Canadian Premier set to work on a new budget that will drastically and directly affect the lives of ordinary Canadians who seek assurances that their government, as ever a world leader in the welfare of its citizens, will once again provide the safety net they need to survive this deep, globally interconnected recession.

So, as Mr. Harper presented his budget to the Parliament last week, what schemes might his Conservative government concoct to see Canada through rough seas? Increased unemployment benefits? Job retraining programs to keep workers at pace with global trends? An Obamaesque commitment to reinvestment in infrastructure?

The answer they got was very simple. Nothing.

The Harper government provided no economic stimulus in the new budget, not even one of his good buddy George W. Bush’s ridiculous tax rebate debacles.

And that brings us to the extraordinary situation we see unfolding right above us as we speak. Almost immediately, the opposition parties saw their moment, and thus was born one of the oddest political marriages in Western political history. The three major players in this new arrangement – Canada has never had a formal coalition government since the end of the Dominion – come from very distinct political paths. First, the leader of the opposition, Stephane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party. Quebecois, and with a political mindset forged from the rule of his predecessor, Jean Chretien, Dion led his Liberal Party since defeat in the 2006 election, after the disgraced Paul Martin was forced out by a Conservative non-confidence vote, through this latest round of voting, which saw the worst Liberal defeats in the history of the Party. He was so reviled within his own party that he began the leadership fight to succeed him even before ballots were cast. At this moment, three men are lined up behind him, fighting it out for the position of Liberal leader from May 2009. His political obituary was written, in stone, over the last month, as he seemed bound and determined to leave his party in disarray.

And now, Stephane Dion is the clubhouse leader for Prime Minister in a new government that could be formed within days. Talk about zero to hero…

Also in the mix is the man who has very quietly risen to prominence as one of the most Progressive political leaders in the Western world, Jack Layton. Layton, an Ontarioan and leader of the New Democratic Party has very quickly made himself into a kingmaker of sorts in federal politics. By providing the roadmap back to governance for the Liberal Party, Layton was able to secure six cabinet positions in the proposed new government, as well as a number of lower-level bureaucratic positions of importance for his party. Layton, and the NDP’s, influence will thus have much more of a broad impact under this arrangement, particularly given the leadership struggle in what would be the ruling party. Thus, while Layton’s gamble does not necessarily cement the NDP as a force to be reckoned with on the federal stage, it does better serve his constituency than Ed Broadbent’s fool’s errand during the Trudeau period in the 1970s. This, then, is truly the exciting part of the story for progressives on both sides of the border, as Canada looks towards a more progressive stance as America’s staunchest ally. Now, that’s change you can believe in!

But here’s where the story gets really, really (are you even still reading), and I mean, really interesting. Given the disastrous results for the Liberals in the October poll, the combined NDP/Liberal Alliance would represent only 44% of Canadian support and only 114 seats in the Parliament, as opposed to the Conservatives 37% and 143 seats, respectively. So, how do we get this idea off the ground? Mais oui! Le Bloc!

The Bloc Quebecois’ 50 seats, and 10% of federal support would push the coalition government to a majority government, of sorts. So, done deal, right? Well…geh…okay, does anyone know the Bloc’s single, solitary issue?

Health care? No. The economy? No.

Reinstituting the Quebec Nordiques’ hockey franchise? No…well, okay, maybe that too?

Yeah, Le Bloc is the separatist party of Quebec. So now, this coalition Canadian government will be held up by a party whose sole purpose is to work for the “rightful” independence of one of its provinces. However, of all three men who entered into this compact in Ottawa this morning, Gilles Duceppe may be the one who made the critical misstep. First of all, he is now going to have problems at home with the hardcore separatists who will only see him ganging up with a Federalist Quebecois and the Anti-Conservative (BQ voters tend to be issue matched with the Conservative Party) Layton. And second, perhaps more critically, Duceppe has promised to not push a non-confidence motion of his own for eighteen months, effectively declawing Duceppe to hold his former rivals to the fire on issues of import to Quebecois voters. At the first sign of trouble, he should expect a leadership fight bubbling up from the PQ (the provincial wing of the party), especially given Duceppe’s own inability to secure more seats in the Federal Parliament or push a referendum on independence in his nearly ten years as party leader.

Now, these three men sit at the same table, a partnership forged from practicality, not politics, putting country before party. This team of rivals can look forward only to uncharted waters and stormy seas, but, if they can make this almost farcical arrangement work, it may cement prosperity for Canadians for decades to come. And, hey, it’s fun to watch for us Americans. (Okay, maybe just us political geeks…)

Tags: liberal, politics by Pink Polo
No Comments »

By Ara Rubyan (cross posted at E Pluribus Unum)

I like Chuck Todd (and his posse of deputies Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro) but I think they’re off in the tall grass on this:

[...[D]oes this entire episode remind anyone else of John Kerry’s botched joke before the 2006 midterms — when Kerry’s mangled swipe at President Bush got twisted into a slap at US troops?

That’s a misreading of what’s happening here because Clark’s point was made with far more intelligence and articulation than Kerry’s (despite Obama calling it “inartful” but that’s another story).

Here’s how I see it:

McCain, trailing badly by most meaningful metrics, wants the Obama camp to hit him hard. Why? Three reasons:

1. So that he can get as much free media as possible, but more importantly…
2. So he can play the aggrieved victim, which leads to…
3. Drawing the Republican base closer to him (McCain) in his defense.

That’s it. So how’s he doing? Not so good.

Obama is not the candidate that will lash out at his opponents. McCain should know this by now — Obama is preternaturally cool (for a national politician) — it is McCain who is the hothead. Instead of lashing out, Obama has repeatedly stated how much he honors McCain’s sacrifice, but…that isn’t enough to qualify McCain to be president. The longer McCain strikes back, the weaker and more petty he looks.

I think I know what McCain is trying to do: he (consciously or otherwise) is trying to take a page out of Richard Nixon’s campaign playbook circa 1967. Back then, Nixon was perceived as a has-been, a loser that no one in their right mind would listen to. But Nixon figured out that if he could goad LBJ into lashing out at him personally, he could elevate his stature to that of the sitting president. And (more importantly) he could paint himself as a victim/outsider being picked on by the bully/insider. Nixon understood the simmering resentment against Johnson and knew that as soon as Johnson struck back it would draw the Republican base closer to him. It worked for Nixon back then.

But it won’t work for McCain today because Obama isn’t a bully and McCain isn’t an outsider. Oh, he’ll draw the Republican base closer to him because these are the same people that give Bush a 60% approval rating and they’ll believe just about anything. But as far as getting the independents and disaffected Democrats…not so much.

Furthermore, the free media thing isn’t working out so well either. For one thing, Wesley Clark has made his point with clarity … and humility: Clark honors McCain’s sacrifice, but will not concede that it automatically makes McCain the superior candidate for president. In my book, this makes him a decent candidate for Secretary of Defense or Chariman of the Armed Services Committee … but not Chief Executive of the United States. Of course, McCain’s camp simply won’t accept that and continues to play the “sacrifice card” and the “military experience” card. But that misses the point and gives Clark yet another chance to repeat his point.

And you know what? Every day that this story stays alive cuts against McCain by allowing Clark’s argument to be discussed in greater detail. It gives Sen. Webb a chance to weigh in. It gives McCain another opportunity to screw up by bringing in the bad actors from the Swiftboats for Slime — the guys who trashed Kerry by trashing his military career.

Bad move Senator McCain: now YOU look like the bully. Can’t you see? No one is trashing your military career. Not Clark, not Webb, not Obama. They are simply making a simple case: Being a hero yesterday does not punch your ticket to the Presidency…tomorrow.

Everyday that this issue is discussed AGAIN is another day where we get to consider whether we elect a president based on his judgment instead of his sacrifice. Hillary tried to frame her fight with Obama in a similar way — experience versus judgment. She lost. If McCain wants to fight that battle again, he’s going to lose just like Hillary did.

Elections are about the future, not the past. If McCain doesn’t know that by now, he’s doomed.

Tags: Election 08, liberal, politics by arubyan
No Comments »

By Ara Rubyan
Cross posted at E Pluribus Unum

“Even if you never met him, you know this guy. 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.”

— Karl Rove, describing Barack Obama

When I first read about this comment, my immediate reaction was that I couldn’t think of a single country club that would admit a black man named Barack Hussein Obama. Then I thought Rove was doing his usual shtick, i.e., take his greatest weakness and ascribe it to his opponent. In other words, I felt that he was describing George W. Bush at the club, not Obama. Makes much more sense that way, given Bush’s history with alcohol — and his smart mouth. It was much the same technique Rove used to destroy John Kerry’s Vietnam war record in 2004, all but accusing the nominee of being a liar and a coward. All this while Bush was hiding his “war record” in plain sight.

But a commenter at Talking Points Memo unpacked Rove’s comments differently than me and I think he nails it:

The key to the statement is that (in the image) he is with “a beautiful date.” Not Michelle Obama or, in the abstract, his wife, i.e. a wife like Michelle Obama. When you think of a “beautiful date” specifically at a country club, do you picture an African-American woman? Would Rove’s target audience?

Or do you picture him there, a black man, smoking a cigarette indoors at a country club, with a white woman on his arm?

When I thought of this, I got a chill. When you think of Obama’s vulnerability, I think the primaries showed that race remains a real and very serious obstacle, particularly with white Americans over 50. When you think of where we are with racism in this country, I think its a pretty safe bet that the final freak-out factor to overcome may be black men dating white women, in particular, one’s daughter.

If I were a completely amoral Republican operative, I’d try to find some white women that Obama dated before Michelle and get them into the public’s stream of consciousness anyway I could. Its a tactic so vile I don’t even like speculating about it, but if you want to be ready for the worst, I think Rove just tipped his hand at where they plan to go.

In all fairness, I have to ask if there is (or isn’t) the analogous scenario that an “amoral Democratic operative” could spring on McCain? Remember, in order for it to work, it has to resonate at the emotional level and be absolutely radioactive in the extreme. It has to address a fundamental fear that the electorate has about McCain.

Tags: conservative, Election 08, Games, human rights, politics by arubyan
4 Comments »