The Zelig candidate

I realized I didn't do a great job explaining what I think the key is to Romney's appeal to the right wing noise machine: he makes them feel they are being heard.

Access to power is the dream of most pundits. Actually having influence is almost too much to ask for.

Take a look at Romney's platform. This platform could almost have been written by the reactionary pundits that pose as conservatives. By that, I mean Rush, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and such.

So while Romney seems to listen to them and take their positions, McCain and Huckabee stick to their own philosophies.

It would be one thing if I felt that Romney was sincere, but I do not. YouTube has allowed me to watch too many Romney speeches from his past career to buy what he is selling now. He is like Zelig from the old Woody Allen movie. He morphs into whatever he needs to be in order to fit the situation.

He has packaged himself to be the candidate of the right leaning pundits and got them to spread the word. And even better, they act as his attack dogs.

McCain and Huckabee don't follow all of the orthodoxies, so the pundits don't like them.

I wonder how Romney will govern once he no longer needs them.

Romney as Clinton?

I think I've finally figured out why Rush, Sean, Ann and the rest are pushing so hard for Romney versus McCain.

I took some time to look at Romney's website. If only he would have chosen to be born again, he would be the perfect dittohead. His platform is a tailored fit to what the most popular conservative pundits have been asking for.

Why do I say "Romney as Clinton"? All through the '90's, we got to hear how poll driven Clinton was. This was normally part of an attack on Clinton. This was to make us see how Bill had no big vision, but would just deal with problems as they appeared, after consulting his poll data.

In some ways, that was Bush's 41 style as well. If you remember, GHWB struggled with the vision thing.

It appears that Romney is the same type of character. In Massachusetts, he needed to be a liberal on almost all social issues, so he was. For the presidential primaries, he needed to tack way to the right, so he did.

He would probably make a great Cabinet Secretary since someone else would provide him the vision, but I'm not sure he has what it takes to be the president.

Why Rush, Sean and the rest have decided to believe this current edition of Romney is real is a topic for another day.

Scorched Hillary

I think the term is "blowback". The Clintons' fired their almost Rovian message at Obama and hurt themselves instead.

Hillary is too tough and too organized to be destroyed by South Carolina's vote, but a loss this big can't just be ignored. And it will be the lead topic of discussion on all of the Sunday shows. The spin should be interesting to watch.

It's great to see the divide and conquer approach didn't work. In fact it did more than not work. Their strategy resulted in a unity of revulsion.

Maybe now Hillary will put a muzzle on Bill.

For a moment in New Hampshire (depending on your personal view), Hillary revealed a human side that connected with people. She got choked up about her fight to help America. That's the Hillary that needs to get out on the campaign trail right now. Of course, if you didn't like Hillary from the start, then you would believe Hillary acted like she was overwhelmed with her struggle to save America. And perhaps she only got choked up because she couldn't believe she was really being challenged and may not get the office she feels she deserves.

I like to think it was the former and not the latter. A genuine Hillary is a much more interesting and compelling candidate. I think America is tired of cynical manipulators and fear baiters.

Obama has the chance to be the transcendent figure he hopes to be. His speech tonight was the message that will help him became that hope.

Hillary's Scorched Earth Tendencies

Hillary's scorched earth tendencies.

Many have known that Hillary has that unique ability to heal the fractures in the GOP. David Frum made that point in the NYT's today. We've seen the poll data that shows how close a general election would be between Hillary and McCain or Romney.

What I never realized until recently is how Hillary is able to divide the Democrats. Over this last week, she and Bill have done a tremendous job of polarizing the Democrats' primary.

We've watched her and Bill lie about Obama's positions, lie about his past associations and so forth. This act has alienated many Democrats and Independents and is red meat for the Republicans.

So the key question is: can Hillary actually win in November with a divided Democrat Party up against a united Republican Party?

If she was running against W, I'd say she could win, but I don't think she can beat McCain or Romney if she continues to destroy her own party.

She needs to get Bill to be an advocate for her and not an attack dog. The former president doesn't need to be playing the role of James Carville. They have James Carville and others for that job. He needs to keep the message positive.

Words that have died

For several years now I've mourned the death of a word. This word used to have meaning but now it has been thrown aside and left to die. Only a few of us have noticed its passing. The word is "infamous".

The American Heritage Dictionary (via Answers.com) defined the word as:

adj.
Having an exceedingly bad reputation; notorious.
Causing or deserving infamy; heinous: an infamous deed

But now, you are either "famous" or you are "not famous". It's that simple.

There is no shame.

People do the ridiculous, the embarrassing, the mean, the petty and put their video on YouTube. Many think Paris put her porn tape on the net to boost her celebrity.

People shoot up malls just so they can have their name said on the news, whether they are still alive to hear it or not.

So take a moment today to mourn the passing of a once useful word that is no more.

CNN Debate

Last night's debate was a lot of fun for pundits and conservatives, but it really was a bad night for Democrats.

I left that debate thinking Clinton was petty, Obama was defensive and Edwards was irrelevant. I did not feel pleased that I was probably watching the next president of the United States.

Clinton's attacks on Obama were mostly nitpicking. They made her appear small since she was the one bringing them up. Watching her try to defend misrepresenting Obama's past statements was just painful.

Obama's ability to bring soaring and uplifting rhetoric is wonderful, but he can't do that while having to defend himself against attacks, no matter how silly the attack. This debate made him look much more like a regular politician which is a victory for Clinton. Obama needs to handle himself better in situations like this.

Edwards ended up as the third wheel. When you have to fight with the moderator to get some air time, you don't look very presidential.

I also thought CNN let the debate degenerate to the level of a bad high school debate. I'm also getting so tired of panelist asking questions that are just silly, like asking Obama to respond to Toni Morrison's quote. His response was okay, but the question was just dumb.

Why must Clinton lie?

We all like to joke about the lying nature of politicians, but I still get angry when they lie to me.

I didn't like Clinton when he ran in 1992 because I did believe there was some truth to the rumors of his infidelities. I felt that if someone would risk his career, lie to his family and get others to cover up his lies for him, then there was no way I should be surprised he would lie to me.

I was right.

But I will say that the Clinton lies we are aware of pale in comparison to the lies the current administration tells. We're looking at misdemeanors versus felonies. Lies yes, but the scale is very different.

If I need to start to list Bush's lies for you, chances are you are a Bush supporter and have been able to dodge reality so far so I'm not going to waste time right now trying to enlighten you.

But what got me riled up of late is Clinton is back in the news with his lying ways. The man should realize that we have the Internet available to us. I don't need his smarmy misstatements to tell me about what Obama said about Reagan. I watched what Obama said and it is very different than what Clinton was trying to tell us.

It's strange enough to have a former president campaigning heavily for a candidate in the party's primary, but no one would expect him to do otherwise in this election. But why does he feel the need to lie to us about Obama?

I watched Obama and can see the large gap between reality and what Clinton said, so I'm supposed to believe anything else that Clinton says? He has a history of being a liar. He has a history of manipulating language to be deceitful. But this in your face lie that anyone can see for themselves is over the top.

Clinton is making it hard for me to even consider Hillary. She says he is an asset to her campaign and I think he has been at times, but right now he is doing nothing but reminding voters like me about what I didn't like about the Clintons during the '90's.

McCain and Obama might not be perfect, but they don't seem to be so shameless in their behavior.

The Big Tent

The Conservative Movement is a overarching title that people think means something but it really doesn't. Too many groups or schools of thought that are in direct conflict with each other think the descriptive applies to them.

The Republicans try to keep both religious conservatives and libertarians under the same tent but they couldn't be more separate in how they view the role of government. We are seeing that difference being drawn much sharper of late.

Huckabee's paternalistic view of government means a government that takes responsibility for its citizens' morality. That is an expansion of government that more than just Ron Paul supporters oppose. Many of the Founding Fathers would be against such a view as well.

I know that laws do in someway infringe on our freedoms, but that they are necessary for a society to function. So I'm not looking at this from a strict philosophical outlook but I'm looking at it more practically.

For example:

I've never understood the big fear of gay marriage. If a gay couple gets married, how in the world does that hurt my marriage? I don't see why people start foaming at the mouth at the thought that gays who love each other should be allowed to get married.

I don't think gays getting married threaten my children either. I don't want to live in a world where gays are forced underground and are persecuted, so if I want to live in a world where gays can live in the open, I need to discuss homosexuality with my kids. I have discussed it and we will continue to discuss it. It is not that scary to do. I don't think that my kids are going to become gay just because gays aren't being hung in the town square.

I think a lot of social conservatives are really driven by fear. They fear those who are different. Knowledge can often chase away that kind of fear but that takes effort. Just reacting to fear is so much easier.

The Law of the Unintended

The catchphrase now is "change". The big three Democratic candidates (really big two, but I'll be more inclusive for now) can't stop talking about how they are the most pro-change candidate out there. The Republicans have to play the "change" game a little more carefully, but they still try to get the "change" word out there whenever possible.

Apparently voters feel things are so bad now, any change must be for the better.

I don't think that way. How many times have people sat in corporate meetings to hear about the latest and greatest new program? How many times have the new programs been wonderful changes for the better? Sure, sometimes they are, but too often, they just create a bunch of new problems to deal with.

I'm being pretty preachy here, but I just want people to dig just a little bit into what the changes are a candidate is proposing. The internet is great since you can go to their websites for particulars.

And remember one the the most fundamental laws of government at any level: the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Don't we learn?

Following politics is proving to be a great way to increase my stress levels.

If nothing else, these last 7 years should have taught Americans that who we elect to office does matter. I think if something matters, then you should give your decision some thought. I feel like I'm in the minority.

In 2000, we kept hearing that people liked Bush (and were therefore going to vote for him) because he seemed more likable than Al Gore. The phrase tossed around at the time was that W was the guy you would want to invite to your backyard cookout for a beer.

I have lots of friends I like having over to the house for a beer, but I don't want them in the White House so I'm not sure why that became a real reason to vote for someone.

Now people are talking about how Hillary's tearing up played a pivotal role in NH. Are you kidding me? People really changed their opinion on whether or not to vote for Hillary based on that? Clinton has been in the spotlight for 15 years. She's been running for the presidency for 2 years. How can people's opinion of her be changed by a tear?

I certainly understand why people would vote for Hillary, but I don't understand deciding to vote for her because she can get emotional.

The tearing up moment was supposed to be a window into her humanity. What does that really mean? If you didn't like her before, how the heck did that change it?

Inertia

Inertia should be the first law of psychology. Why is it so hard for people to change behaviors they know are self-destructive? Inertia.

Our minds resist change like a physical object resists change. It takes a lot of force to get something moving, but with physical objects, the force comes from outside the object. With people, outside forces can have an impact, but the bulk of the energy must come from inside.

That is hard for people to do.

I'm watching some people very close to me wrestling with this. Change is causing stress and under stress, people want to fall back onto those habits/behaviors that are most familiar to them. It's painful to watch and it makes it worse knowing that I can't do much to help.

I wish people could focus on the new behaviors as achieving a goal they really want, and get the energy to push through the stress, but that doesn't seem to work in the long run. They have setbacks and get down on themselves. Hopelessness or self-hatred take over. It's hard to get the energy for making positive changes when in the grip of that.

I know all I can really do is be there for them, and offer encouragement. I just have to hope that that is enough. It doesn't feel that way right now, but I can't let that stop me.

Lionizing

Since Bhutto's assassination, I've been seeing the lionization of Bhutto. She is being portrayed as the brave, self-sacrificing defender of Pakistan who died fighting for democracy and the poor.

Why can't she be remembered as she really was?

She did some good and she did some bad. You can admire her for her achievements as a woman in a Muslim country. But you shouldn't just ignore or brush away the stench of corruption that enveloped her during both runs as the Prime Minister.

Lionizing distorts truth.

In the US, we have lionized JFK, RFK and Martin Luther King. We turn them into saints and use them as such in debates.

There is no denying JFK and MLK did great things during their all-to-short lives, but we shouldn't put them on some great pedestal and pretend they were something other than just people.

I don't need to pretend that those I admire were faultless demigods. I don't need to put them at a level above humanity to appreciate what they have done. I think doing so cheapens them and and their legacy.