John McCain just can't catch a break.
Rarely has a presidential candidate traveled the campaign trail facing such bleak odds of victory, what with his party's unpopular wars, unpopular economy and even more unpopular president. Add to that McCain's unpopularity within his own party, and one wonders what gets him going in the morning.
But his party happens to be shrinking, so McCain has gone hunting where he hopes the ducks are: among independents. As the Washington Post summarized his now familiar position: "Since clinching the nomination he has often reminded voters of his more moderate stances while professing his fealty to conservative positions."
His other hope, of course, is that those hidebound conservatives to whom he professes may yet come home in November. It's hard to say at this point if they will, but McCain can only naturally assume that they're not so suicidally reckless as to help install in the Oval Office a liberal Democrat over the candidate who is, after all, a conservative Republican. Surely, only the pettiest of the petty would be so foolish.
But, praise their little activist hearts, that's precisely what they intend to do, at least for the summer's balance. Reports the Post piece quoted above: "Conservative activists are preparing to do battle with allies of Sen. John McCain in advance of September's Republican National Convention, hoping to prevent his views on global warming, immigration, stem cell research and campaign finance from becoming enshrined in the party's official declaration of principles" -- that anachronism of modern politics known as the party platform.
Said, for instance, Jessica Echard, executive director of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum: "Our job is to make sure that the grassroots continue to have a say" -- even, I guess, if that means the conservative grassroots will have absolutely no say in the next government.
It's a puzzler. A real puzzler. And McCain must be stumped more than anyone.
Why, he is most certainly asking himself, can't my own party's base see the same electoral realities that everyone else sees? My only hope is to barely eke out a victory through some combination of a reasonably respectable turnout among the base, plus some marginal support by independents in the purple states, which I'll secure only by straying from the official party line.
Yet the Eagle Forum and its ideological ilk just won't leave well enough alone. They intend, it appears, to pester McCain right into defeat. They'd rather be right than in power. Many may still turn out for him, but with far lesser enthusiasm and all its overall number-depressing consequences.
Even more stunning, however, is the flipside to all this -- the side on which Phyllis Schlafly's counterparts seem determined to rob its own candidate of a massive victory and therefore solid mandate.
Here we are, finally, with a virtually in-the-bag election. So what must Barack Obama suffer from his base? Why, sniper fire, of course -- just like McCain.
And frankly, I'm beginning to think that a few among the progressive grassroots would -- much like the Schlaflyites -- rather be absolutely right than in power. I'm beginning to think power -- the actual means to accomplish something -- scares the bejesus out of them. For they'd then have to perform and deal with all the problematic compromises that political reality serves up daily, rather than carp with self-satisfied superiority from the ineffectual sidelines.
They may, in fact, be quite few indeed. It may well be that much of the progressive unrest we read and hear about is largely a ghost of this week's media narrative -- spooky and exciting as hell, but not really all that real.
And there's no doubt, or at least I strongly suspect, that much of the vocal unrest comes merely from the scattered but intensely malcontented windbags of Clintonland, still fighting the last battle and still trying their best to be as obnoxious as politically and humanly possible. But those particular dead-enders are fewer and fewer by the day indeed; so let them be, if such behavior amuses.
What worries are those progressives -- small in numbers, perhaps, but destructively vocal -- who prefer to dwell exclusively in the uncorrupted light of the political empyrean; who much prefer, that is, to throw tomatoes from the bleachers rather than wield power, because deep down they're frightened to death of what actual power implies. It's so damn messy.





Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
drprodny hit it out of the partk
Should be a cakewalk, right PM?
1) Bush's approval ratings are at record low levels
2) The party identification numbers are hugely favoring Dems over Repubs, and Dems are highly motivated while Repubs remain dispirited and divided
3) The Iraq War is immensely unpopular, and a sizeable majority (unlike McCain) want it to end ASAP.
4) The generic vote numbers are at record levels favoring Dems.
5) As PM points out, many of the conservative base - including evangelical voters - are not supporting McCain.
6) Gas prices are at record highs with no end in sight, and the economy is in the tank, both of which hurt Repubs.
7) Obama has raised (and continues to raise) money at unbelievable levels, giving him a huge money advantage over McCain in the GE.
The list goes on, but you get the point. PM points to only a couple of minor problems, and even minimizes those. First, the pollyanna, purist progressives who are unhappy with Obama's sudden shift to the center/right. According to PM, these progs would rather "carp with self-satisfied superiority from the ineffectual sidelines" than make pragmatic compromises because, in actuality, they're too scared to govern. But hey .... it's okay, because PM thinks there are only a few of them. In fact they're not even real .... just a ghost of this week's media creation. So no problem.
Then there's the Clinton "Deadender" problem. But don't worry about them, right PM?. After all, there's fewer and fewer of them by the day, right? Only that's only true in PM's mind. In fact, there's of them. The number of Clinton supporters who say they will vote for Obama has dropped since early June, from 60% to 54%. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/04/clinton.poll/index.html But hey, it's not like we're talking about half the Democratic voter base, right PM? In fact, go ahead ... just continue to insult HC and her "fewer and fewer" "deadenders" and "malcontented windbags". It's not like Obama really needs them anyway. Look at all the conditions favoring Dems this year! Hell .... he was even ahead of McCain in the latest GE poll ....
..................................... by 2 points. http://www.gallup.com/poll/108700/Gallup-Daily-Obama-46-McCain-44.aspx
Looks like PM and the other Clinton haters are the ones who prefer to "throw tomatoes from the bleachers rather than wield power".
And I Reiterate - What Are We Fighting FOR, Anyway?
MartyrCandidate, thank you all the same....R2D2 makes an excellent point below - the Republicans took loss after loss in the beginning of their Permanent Republican Majority Long-Term Plan, but never wavered from their stances - and the result is they've shifted the debate onto their ground. The Dems are so busy market-testing and focus-grouping stances that they never notice just about everybody, including their allies, consider them spineless sellouts. I had hopes that Obama would use his ability to inspire the disaffected to start the shift back - but his caving on FISA, more than anything else, shows that at bottom he lacks his own "Audacity of Hope".
This is what I've been trying to say all along to you, PM, and you, Will B - and all either of you can come back w/is the Dem equivalent of "Why Do You Hate America?" The moment you start snarling at your own Progressive base "Oh, Grow UP!", you've lost - and worse, so have we.
Pity - I used to like your columns, PM. When did you go all Dennis Miller on us, and why?
Fear Of Success Or Fear Of A Sell Out?
2008 is About One Word...
....POWER.
Unlike ideologues on the far Right, some of their counterparts on the far Left don't get it and apparently don't want it. They may fear it as you suggest, but I think it’s simply a case of childish derangement. They cannot get their way and so, cry, cry, cry. Maybe I’m too harsh, perhaps it’s just that they are teenagers who don’t quite get the concept of reality – you know, seeing things as they actually are; instead of demanding that the perfect good be done on all accounts at all times.
Thankfully, there remains plenty of grown up Democrats that know how to engage as adults; so perhaps in 2008 if we actually WIN we get a real chance to DO good.
Thanks for the insight PM, prescient article.
"Power", Comrade Will B. O'Brien of the Inner Party...?
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. (III.3)
"Power is not a means; it is an end. (III.3)"
Maybe you want to rethink your stance, Will B - unless, of course, this is exactly what you mean...?
It all becomes clear to me...
Thinking Long Term
Forces aligned against Unity
Just a Guess - not a Prediction
Here kitty kitty...
Rove and his machine had a simple plan in 2000, sell Bush as a "compassionate conservative", steal the election, and then when elected do as you please and corrupt the government to ensure your hegemony.
Bush/Rove had a very coordinated army to use - they came pre-organized from countless churches where Bronze Age literalism is confused for spirituality. Those troops understand how to take orders, a paradigm under which they've organized their lives. The left has nothing like it. At best, we are consigned to our secular cafes and blog sites! Our model is just the opposite – herding cats vs. sheep. Existential self-identity stymies that herding instinct.
But Rove's plan in 2004 was even simpler, combine two 3rd-rail issues, the fear of domestic terrorism and dismay over gay marriage, while smearing your hapless but self-righteous opponent as unpatriotic – and - Vuala - you've got the recipe to consolidate your willing base and a healthy number of semi-conscious 'undecideds' to win; 62 million of which voted for their scoundrel.
However, in 2008 Rove’s boys aren’t so lucky. They’re still working with a credulous public, but this time they’re tired – and more importantly, BROKE; and looking for a change. Then there is Barack, who like the basketball playing - poker veteran he is, see’s their bluff and is calling it. He simply won’t let them tie him down in smears – so in a phrase, Barack is taking their game….poor sods!
Democrats? Who cares
McSame or O'Same or Billary - they're all war-mongering anti-American Cheney-wannabees.