Edgy Growls
Edgy Growls
Three Big Strikes for Republicans . . . Are They Already "OUT" in November?
by Jim Anderson
14 May 08
Campaign 2008's loudest chatter, blather, and spin has been about the Presidential races—and national crises like how many bullets did Hillary really dodge in Bosnia, should Obama be penalized minus 15 delegates for Rev. Wright's words, and does John McCain even know know a Sunni from Shiite. (Wait a minute—that last one IS revealing and relevant!)
But, the loudest political news of 2008 screams quietly from the results of three special elections already held in highly-red, predictably-Republican districts: (1) Illinois, (2) Louisiana, and (3) Mississippi.
Amazingly, despite huge RNCC campaign spending and heavy efforts, the Republicans lost all three. It's a very bad harbinger for their upcoming House and Senate elections in November 2008.
STRIKE ONE, Illinois: On March 8, in District 14 of northern Illinois, a Democratic nuclear physicist named Bill Foster (who had never run for public office) defeated a Republican businessman named Jim Oberweis. Why is this big news? Because the seat had been held by Dennis Hastert, former Republican Speaker of the House, in a very-red district that had voted strongly Republican for over 20 years.
STRIKE TWO, Louisiana: On May 3, in District 6 of Louisiana (near Baton Rouge), a Democratic state legislator with a funny name, Don Cazayoux, beat a Republican former representative and newspaper publisher, Woody Jenkin. Cazayoux won by 49% to 46%, in a super-red district that has belonged to Republicans for over 33 years. In 2004, George W. Bush got 59% of the vote there.
STRIKE THREE, Mississippi: Yesterday (May 13), in District 1 of Mississippi, a Democratic court official named Travis Childers beat a popular, experienced Republican mayor, Greg Davis, by 53% to 47%. This seat—again in a very-red district—belonged earlier to Republican Majority Leader, Trent Lott, before he resigned.
Anyone who is seriously interested in Campaign 2008 should read—daily—the highly-reliable and insightful website created by "The Votemaster" (who is really Dr. Andrew A. Tanenbaum, a renowned professor of computer science at Vrije Universiteit in Amstedam): VoteFromAbroad.org. I highly recommend it.
The Votemaster's comments today on the Mississippi loss are telling. He writes:
"The MS-01 loss is especially painful to the GOP for three reasons.
"First, the Republicans tried very, very hard here, pouring in huge amounts of money and having Gov. Haley Barbour and Vice President Dick Cheney campaign for Davis.
"Second, in IL-14 and LA-06 they could argue they had flawed candidates. That doesn't hold here. Greg Davis is a popular mayor who has done a good job and has never been involved in any scandals.
"Third, this election was the second field test of the Republicans' November strategy, which they rolled out against Cazayoux and refined here. They ran ads bitterly attacking Childers as a close associate and fellow traveler of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. They called him a LIBERAL (them's fightin' words in Mississippi). They said he didn't represent Mississippi values. They tried everything. It didn't work."
The Votemaster also says: "The implication of LA-06 and MS-01 is that tying a Democratic House candidate to Obama (the Republicans assume he will be the nominee; they don't even mention Clinton) doesn't seem to hurt, not even in overwhelmingly Republican districts in the deep South. It certainly isn't going to hurt in New Jersey and Minnesota. And Obama may have de facto coattails by getting many young voters to register and vote this year, and most of these will vote a straight Democratic ticket."
So, EDGYBEAR GROWLS: the Republicans have now been up to bat three times—in highly favorable Republican districts, against opponents who looked easy. Three times, they swung hard, and three times, they completely missed the ball. Strike One; Strike Two; Strike Three.
With the national election less than six months away, isn't it sensible to project that—come November—Republicans in the shaky Senate and House may be "OUT," big time—out of their power, out of Washington, and out of the ballgame, off to the showers?
Clinton, Obama, and Race in the Race
by Jim Anderson
14 Jan 08
The Democratic campaign for President has been dancing on a high-road, in an exciting battle between the top two candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, towards a historic national choice for U.S. President—between a woman and a man of color.
This week, though—on the eve of a Democratic debate Tuesday night in Nevada, prior to important Democratic primaries in Nevada (January 19) and South Carolina (January 26)--things got hotter and uglier.
As Don Williams wrote here on EdgyBear a few days ago, the issue of race always festers beneath the slimy undergrowth in American society. As a divisive weapon, race never dies—like a relentless slasher-film beast dripping in blood who can't be stopped, keeps on coming, and can never be killed, race in America is a monster, still undead.
With a mixed-race man running for President, race was bound to show its face in American politics again in 2008. Right now, it's just a sad and sorry disappointment that the dicey arguments over race are between the camps of the two leading progressive Democrats.
This Presidential race is close, and both Clinton and Obama camps are feeling ultra-tense. Every small off-center comment, every prickly nuance resonates and reverberates. Questionable words get finely parsed, over-analyzed, and hotly challenged. Sadly, this week's biggest campaign flashpoints were about questions of race.
Despite denials, there is some evidence that some people in the Clinton campaign have tossed political jabs at Obama that landed below the decency-belt. EdgyBear will resist repeating all the back-and-forth comments by both the Clinton and Obama camps. If you want a good factual summary, see Andrew Romano's piece, The Race War, Newsweek (January 14, 2008).
Prominent folks from Hillary Clinton's camp have raised strong issues against Obama, hinting at drug-dealing (Bill Shaheen), cocaine (Mark Penn), and Muslim kinship (Bill Kerrey). Kerrey repeated a claim (already discredited) about Obama's religion, saying Obama had attended a "secular madrassa." The word "madrassa" is highly-charged because it defines a fanatical school set up by radical anti-American Islamists. The truth: As a child in Indonesia, Obama did attend a public school which was Muslim—because Indonesia is a Muslim country—but not a madrassa. Obama is a Christian.
It's easy, and true, to say things like: "That's politics. It ain't beanbag. It's a contact sport. What seems like a negative attack is just a 'contrast' statement." And blah-blah-blah. But in a hotly-contested campaign, where sensitive issues get raised, all words matter.
Some Clinton folks have said things about Barack Obama like: "a roll of the dice" and "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen" (Bill Clinton); "shuck and jive" (Andrew Cuomo); and that the Clintons were deeply involved in black issues while "Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood that . . . I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book" (Robert Johnson).
Full disclosure: I've personally been an Obama supporter since at least January 2007. But readers of EdgyBear also know that, last week, I rethought Hillary Clinton, and spoke up for her authenticity in her well-publicized "moment of emotion" in New Hamphire. See my column, "Voices from the Wilderness: Authenticity Opens the Door for Change."
Hillary Clinton could make an outstanding President (if Bill stays out of her way). If she gets the nomination, I will work hard for her election and vote for her. I just regret that Clinton's campaign seems to be tilting from "Why to Vote for Hillary" towards "Why Not to Vote for Obama."
I do not believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton are racists. They have fought too hard, too long for the cause. The charge is unjust and inaccurate. But, this is a high-tension campaign where race is a volatile phantom, lurking in the corner. If candidates appear to use race for political advantage, they tip-toe on the edge of mutual destruction.
Now, we're approaching Martin Luther King Day (Monday, January 21st), when we honor the birthdate of the one man whose life most altered the racist legacy of America. Next Monday, many will attend local events to honor the legacy of Dr. King. People will speak sincerely in joyful celebration of progress made and work still undone. It is a glorious moment.
Still, change comes slowly. In 1968, the year of Dr. King's assassination, Rep. John Conyers introduced a bill in Congress to make Dr. King's birthday a national holiday. But for 15 years, the measure stalled, held up by resistant, intrenched politicians living the old ways. President Ronald Reagan himself opposed the holiday. Finally, the bill was successfully passed with veto-proof majorities, and Reagan signed it into law on November 2, 1983.
The first official celebration of the holiday honoring Dr. King was on January 20, 1986. Even then, it was not embraced nor celebrated by all U.S. communities. On this coming Monday, for example, my own Tennessee mountain community will celebrate Martin Luther King Day for only the third consecutive year. But, year by year, step by step, MLK Day's power has grown. My friends and neighbors will attend joyfully, in a spirit of hope, with an urgency to rekindle "The Dream" that Dr. King spread.
On August 23, 1963, in his "I Have a Dream Speech," Dr. King proclaimed on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial: "This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day."
The legacy of American racism, which Dr. King sacrificed his own life to fight against, lives on.
But Dr. King's Dream lives on, too—brighter, stronger, and truer than residual appeals to darker instincts. The Dream, as he said, is "deeply rooted in the American dream." It is a dream of freedom, justice, and hope. It is a dream that can be, must be, will be fulfilled. The Dream is immortal and indestructible: it is a dream that lives deep inside the human spirit.
