The Local Crank

Musings & Sardonic Commentary on Politics, Religion, Culture & Native American Issues. Bringing you the finest in radioactive screeds since 2002! "The Local Crank" newspaper column is distributed by Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.

My Photo
Location: Cleburne, Texas, United States

Just a simple Cherokee trial lawyer, Barkman has been forcing his opinions on others in print since, for reasons that passeth understanding, he was an unsuccessful candidate for state representative in 2002. His philosophy: "If people had wanted me to be nice, they should've voted for me."

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Column for 17 May, 2008

“A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control.”
--Proverbs 29:11

Barring a miracle (or a catastrophe, depending on your point of view), the November presidential election will be between Barack Obama and John McCain. There will be some excitement, at least among the talking heads, over vice presidential picks, but keep two things in mind: first, vice presidential candidates have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the election. Don’t believe me? Two words: Dan Quayle. Second, both candidates’ choices will be driven by internal party politics. McCain will pick a running mate acceptable to the tele-Pharisees, Flat Earth Society members and tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy-theorists that comprise the shattered remnants of the Republic Party. Mike Huckabee? Maybe, though the Huck seems to be planning ahead for 2012 with the apocalyptic fringe that, according to Robert Novak, are resigned to an Obama presidency as God’s inevitable vengeance on a fallen nation. Yeah, drama much? Obama will pick someone acceptable to the Clinton wing of the party, though very likely not Hillary Clinton. Wesley Clark is a name that springs to mind. Obama may feel pressure to select a running mate with alleged appeal to ethnic Catholic and white rural Rust Belt voters, a constituency where he is notably weak. But, again: Dan Quayle. When Michael Dukakis selected Lloyd Bentsen in a bid for Southern votes, it was remarked that he could be running with Robert E. Lee and still lose everything south of the Mason-Dixon Line. As the real election season heats up, John McCain, who has done everything short of being adopted by George W. Bush in order to secure the nomination, will suddenly be stricken with a form of selective amnesia that obliterates any memory of the man who has been president for the last seven years. Instead, McCain will make a mad dash to the Left, or at least the Center, trying desperately to rekindle his largely media-fabricated image as a “maverick,” while Democrats attempt to hang the politically-toxic Bush around his neck like the proverbial albatross. We’re already seeing the first stages of this makeover, such as McCain’s condescending “whistle stop” tour through “poor America” and his rhetorical, if not actual, discovery of environmentalism. Be prepared for even more fawning, sycophantic “coverage” by the Mainstream Media claiming that McCain is “breaking with the Bush Administration.” Also, be prepared for this election to get real ugly, real fast. Your inboxes will be jammed to overflowing with anonymous emails claiming that Barack Obama is a Muslim or a communist or a homosexual or all of the above. Protestant Evangelical churches will be dutifully flooded with propaganda from James Dobson or other similar troglodytes, “non-partisan” “voting guides” that show in a “non-partisan” manner that Obama is a Muslim, communist homosexual. And also possibly French. Be prepared for repeated instances of minor Republican flunkies making outrageously offensive public pronouncements, only to provide McCain with the opportunity to righteously denounce them. No attempt will be spared to appeal to that nasty, hidden underground strain of our national life that equates “American” with “white.” Rush Limbaugh singing “Barack the Magic Negro” will seem subtle and understated by comparison. Trying to frighten voters with Obama and/or the feckless self-aggrandizing blowhard Jeremiah Wright has failed spectacularly in several recent special Congressional elections, but no matter. And woe be unto anyone who claims that such tactics are “racist”; they will be lambasted and denounced for their “divisiveness” from every television screen, computer and radio in the land, since in Bizarro world it is a far worse sin to accuse someone of racism than to actually be racist. Also, there’s no such thing as racism anymore. And it’s the blacks who are racist anyway. That’s what’s going to pass for political dialogue. That and seeing John McCain covered head-to-toe in American flag lapel pins at every photo op. The Democrats, meanwhile, in addition to pointing out that a McCain Presidency would be like a third term for George W. Bush only without the restraint or competence, will try to subtly suggest that McCain is as old as Methuselah or Dick Clark with the disposition of a cranky rhinoceros in the national china Shoppe. Obama enthusiasts have pushed the case that their man changes the entire electoral landscape, putting states like Virginia or even Texas in play. I remain respectfully skeptical. It could be potentially disastrous for Obama to spend time fighting for Red states in which he has polled reasonably well, such as North and South Carolina, Virginia and Nebraska, to the exclusion of more reliably blue states like Michigan and Wisconsin. Polling in Ohio is incredibly contradictory, with Obama tying McCain but Clinton trouncing him by ten percentage points. Given the fact that nearly every single Republican elected official in Ohio is currently under indictment, I have a hard time seeing those figures as too reliable. In Texas, two recent polls have put Democratic Senate candidate Rick Noriega within striking distance of John Cornyn, who remains only marginally more popular than heat rash. The Rasmussen poll (which tends to skew Republican) shows Obama within five percentage points of McCain. Does this mean Obama could be the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter to carry the state? Probably not, but the mere threat of it could force McCain to expend scarce resources here. I hate to make a habit of agreeing with Karl Rove, if only because his crystal ball has been seriously cracked since 2006, but I tend to think he’s right that the 2008 election will be fought mostly in the same battleground states as 2000 and 2004 (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa) with a possible expansion into Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. Now all we have to do is wait and see just how wrong I turn out to be.



Blogger dmarks said...

You made many points, and yes, some of them are non-partisan and objective seeming!

I'll stick to commenting on one thing right now:

Obama decided to keep his name off the ballot in Michigan's primary. McCain campaigned heavily in the state. It is really not that important, but the McCain campaign can rightfully make hay for Obama's poor judgement in flipping Michigan's Democratic primary voters the bird. Or the donkey as the case may be.

If Michigan is a battleground state, the margins are thin, Obama's blunder could come back to haunt him.

5/17/2008 3:17 PM  
Blogger The Local Crank said...

"If Michigan is a battleground state, the margins are thin, Obama's blunder could come back to haunt him."

I would agree to the extent that Obama is behind schedule on campaigning there. This was a really dumb year for Michigan and Florida to decide they didn't like the rules.

5/17/2008 11:43 PM  
Blogger dmarks said...

The two states are not the ones who really deserve the blame. The DNC (Howard Dean, ringleader?) did. The rules were like the silly Soup Nazi rules, and Dean said "No soup for you!" when these states did not march up to the soup counter and step aside exactly like the silly rules said.

I agree that it won't matter much in the end, but the Michigan primary ballot decision is one of those few examples where Hillary acted prudently and appeared to act out of experience, and Obama seemed to lack any sort of leadership abilities.

5/18/2008 6:44 AM  
Anonymous dave said...

The "it's Howard Dean's/the DNC's/Barack Obama's fault" meme about Florida and Michigan is starting to get old. The rules have been substantially the same for many years, and Terry McAuliffe (yes, that Terry McAuliffe) threatened not to seat Michigan's delegates in 2004 when he was party chair and Michigan threatened to do the same damn thing back then.

5/19/2008 4:34 PM  
Blogger dmarks said...

Well, it is the fault of Howard Dean's DNC for threatening to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan's Democrats. Obama's blame is different: he can be faulted for blowing off the states' voters. It may be old, but it is a real issue, and it is a current issue until the party nominee is 100% true.

Just because silly "soup-nazi" style rules are old doesn't mean they are worth sticking to, especially when they come up against millions of voters.

The solution is pretty clear in Michigan: seat the delegates chosen in the primary, as if there was no pointless disenfrnachising DNC "soup-nazi" threats. So what if Obama gets no delegates from it. He made it clear during the primary that he didn't want their votes anyway.

5/19/2008 5:59 PM  
Anonymous dave said...

The rules are worth sticking to until they're changed, and they haven't been changed yet. That's like saying at the end of a baseball game, "Well sure, the score's 5-3, but we had more runners left in scoring position. Those runners got on base didn't they? Why are you disenfranchising those runners?" Ridiculous? Of course. So is changing the rules in the middle of the game. Six months ago, Hillary was saying that of course Michigan and Florida wouldn't count. That was until she thought she was desperately going to need them.

5/20/2008 10:00 AM  
Blogger Eric said...

<< Six months ago, Hillary was saying that of course Michigan and Florida wouldn't count. That was until she thought she was desperately going to need them. >>

I would never have voted for Hillary anyway, but this issue more than any other has convinced me I was right. After agreeing with the original DNC position only to flip-flop later when she needed the votes--even going so far as to repeatedly play the "disenfranchised voter" card, as if there were some sinister conspiracy afoot--I honestly don't know how any voter could take her seriously. It's almost as nauseating as the idea that she's a feminist trailblazer who made it this far on her own merit, rather than the coattails of her husband.

5/21/2008 7:11 PM  
Blogger dmarks said...

Dave: You mentioned a baseball game. A nice analogy, until you compare the scale. In a baseball game, an unruly pitcher gets ejected from the game for breaking rules. In the primary process, millions of voters get disenfranchised.

5/22/2008 5:30 AM  
Anonymous dave said...

But that's just the thing. Nobody's being disenfranchised here, strictly speaking. We're selecting the Democratic Party nominee; we're not electing an actual president. This is an internal Democratic Party process, subject to Democratic Party rules. You're right about the scale part, in that it affects a lot more people, but I'm afraid the whole "disenfranchisement" cardjust doesn't play.

To keep going with the sports analogies, it would be like the sprinters who cheated using steroids being allowed to keep their medals.

5/22/2008 10:00 AM  
Blogger dmarks said...

The actual definition of disenfranchising refers to voting. Not the types of voting, or who is being voted for.

The "disenfranchisement card" was played by Howard Dean and the DNC, and is still being played.

As for the sports analogies, when you mention the steroid cheaters, it looks like you are equating Michigan and Florida Democrats (who merely wanted the same chance to vote as others in other states)with cheaters.

This is the first such argument I've seen anywhere where voting is equated with cheating.

5/26/2008 5:45 AM  
Anonymous dave said...

I'm obviously not going to come up with an analogy that will meet your exacting standards. I will say this though: in every arena I can think of, without doing, you know, actual research, breaking the rules is considered cheating. Florida and Michigan knowingly and flagrantly broke the rules.

5/27/2008 9:08 AM  
Blogger dmarks said...

And denying votes due to silly technicalities is disenfranchisement. In every arena that I can think of.

Why not just go ahead and seat the delegates and move on?

5/27/2008 9:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home