Look Fast, Before He's Gone

In my continuing series of reviewing first impressions and surface level qualifications of the 2008 field, I will stay with the Republicans for the moment, and look at one of the extreme dark horse candidates, Duncan Hunter.

If you have ever heard of Duncan Hunter, you are a political geek. If you thought "Duncan Hunter" was a phony porn star name I just made up, you probably have more company. The guy's been in the House for almost 27 years (California), and I can't think of a signature piece of legislation with his name on it. You have to work very hard to remain anonymous for that long. His innovative solution to the complex problems that face our great nation? Build a really big fence down south. OK, but in 27 years, perhaps some other issue might have captured his attention.

He also is selling his credentials on defense, having served as Chairperson of the Armed Services Committee. He was one of the first candidates during a Republican debate to give an enthusiastic "yes" to a question about the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran (maybe I should call him "Rep. Duck N. Cover"). I can understand leaving all options on the table in a public debate, but he was frankly a bit too giddy about the prospect of having an excuse to drop a nuclear weapon in the Middle East. He is clearly going for the "Pack of Marlboro Reds Rolled in My Sleeve" crowd.

Here's another fun fact about Duncan Hunter: he's an apologist for Ann Coulter. He was quoted on screen in an interview saying that Coulter was "closely approaching that level of being a great American". In fact, Coulter says that Hunter is her first choice for President. This is the same Ann Coulter who wrote " "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", and said that the 9-11 widows are happy about the deaths of their husbands, and that John Edwards is purposely exploiting the death of his oldest son for political gain. Yup, she really adds to the public discourse. Quite the role model, a regular Ted Kaczynski with a microphone.

I actually don't have much more to say about Hunter, except the odds of seeing him in NH are slim. I can't see how the money will hold up for him, considering he's paying for round trip tickets from southern CA every time he travels. And if Ann Coulter is his friend, I can't risk exposing Marra to that kind of ugly speech.

Next!

JS

Virginia's Contribution to Conservatives - You Can Have Him

Note: I drafted this before hearing that Jim Gilmore dropped out of the race for the Republican nomination on July 15th. I still needed to get this off my chest, though.

I have told Marra numerous times that we will review as many candidates as possible during the primary season with an open mind. I want us to listen, to watch, to read, to try to uncover what each candidate could contribute to our country as President. The good and the bad will be discussed, without Daddy whispering too much in her ear. I cannot keep this promise to her, however, when it comes to Jim Gilmore.

During what I recall was the second Republican debate in the spring (might have been in SC), Gimore was asked a question about his conservative credentials. He instantly touted his elimination of the car tax in Virginia as one of his signature accomplishments and proof of his bright red conservative colors. Really. On behalf of all Virginians who still write a car tax check to the government every October 5th, I must ask, "Can I get my money back?" If not, someone has some explaining to do, because those checks get cashed every October for a tax payment that Gilmore claims to have eliminated.

OK, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he doesn't know the meaning of the word "eliminate".

Here's the history of the issue, as I understand it: residents of Virginia pay a personal property tax annually, assessed against the current value of their cars (and maybe motorcycles and boats, too, but I can't afford such luxury conveyances). Everyone hates this tax, for a variety of reasons. First, the bill comes 2 months before Christmas, and that can get the holiday cheer off to a rocky start. Second, it is tax. Third, it is typically a big dollar amount tax. He campaigned with huge signs everywhere saying "No Car Tax". In fairness, he also ran on the issue that crime is scary and bad and coming to your homes, and that only he could stop criminals from raping your daughters and giving drugs to your babies. So he won, on the promise to Virginians that he would make the car tax go away. The legislature passed a phase-out plan for the tax, but it just shifted the revenue shortfall issue to the counties to figure out. What do you think the counties would do to make up for the shortfall? Raise taxes! Perhaps Jim didn't think this car tax thing through...or worse, he did, but figured he'd rather win by pandering rather than lose with the truth.

He will say anything to get elected, and did. I hope that is not what he means when he says he is the only "true conservative" in the race. Certainly, that would be bad for the conservative image.

Here's another Gilmore "signature" - he likes to say the same thing over and over, regardless of its basis in fact or truth, because he subscribes to the theory that if it's repeated enough, it's just got to be true. Don't you think after 8 years of that theory in practice in the White House, that we try a different approach? Just because Gilmore says that he did a great job managing the finances of Virginia during his 4 years (1997 to 2001 - a boom time for Virginia, especially with the explosion of high tech industry in the state, AOL the highest profile example), this doesn't erase the reality that he ran the treasury into the ground. He did such a terrible job that Red state Virginia went for a Democratic governor to succeed him.

Gimore's so-called qualifications: 4 years as Virginia governor (state law limits the governor to one term only); head of Republican National Committee a couple years; stint as Attorney General; coattail rider of George Allen's. That's about it. Pretty thin stuff.

So, Marra, I apologize. We won't be visiting Gilmore headquarters to stuff envelopes or meet the handful of staff members who might be hanging on. We might go to a Gilmore event, however, and hand him our 2007 car tax bill. Maybe he could "eliminate" it for us, preferably with cash. I wouldn't accept a check from him.

JS

The Right (or Left) Stuff

I am trying to prepare Marra for our conversations with the parade of presidential hopefuls (or their staff members/volunteers) in NH by focusing her on the issues. What are the pressing debates of the day, and how will a president's plans and actions impact her life and the lives of other Americans? Policy positions - I realize that this is only part of the equation, but I am purposely avoiding conversations with her on candidate electability. But what does it really take to win the White House?

My List:

1. "Folksy"-ness: The winning candidate has to make us believe that he/she is one of us, a regular American you might meet at a PTA meeting or the grocery store checkout line. He/she needs to use folksy cliches (i.e. sayings that being with "Well, like my Poppa always used to say..."), be photographed doing folksy things (i.e. eating barbecue or fried chicken, preferably at a State Fair), and occasionally wearing folksy clothing (i.e. jeans with boots - but a flannel shirt doesn't always work, right Lamar Alexander?). This formula explains George Bush's rise to power. Unfortunately for us, these could be the only qualifications he had for the top spot in the free world.
2. Gravitas: This became a popular buzz word during the 2000 campaign, with pundits questioning whether or not W had too much folksiness, at the expense of sufficient gravitas to lead. Gravitas can be demonstrated by a complete resume, or appearing angry during a debate.
3. Sense of humor: Who can forget Ronald Reagan throwing the age issue right back at Mondale during their Presidential debate ("I will not use my opponent's youth and inexperience against him"). Al Sharpton is a bad recent example of taking the sense of humor quality to an extreme, by making himself the joke. This is a good companion quality to folksiness. A candidate with a sense of humor can avoid having controversy stick to him/her, by skillfully deflecting the impact of bad personal revelations with a slick self-deprecating remark.
4. Issue Luck: Luck can be defined as the place where opportunity and preparedness meet. John McCain is suffering from Issue Bad Luck, with immigration and the Iraq surge working in tandem to sink his prospects, seemingly by the hour. Jimmy Carter had Issue Good Luck, being an honest farmer running in the post-Nixonian quagmire of government corruption. He also had the good fortune to run against a guy who didn't think Eastern Europe was under Soviet domination.
5. Plausible Deniability: The winning candidate needs attack personnel that shield him/her from accusations of being "negative". Let everyone else around you be negative, while you are sunshine and blue sky optimism. Having a team of believers around you ready to take the fall for you can save you from ever accepting blame for anything.
6. A Defining Unscripted Moment: I give credit to Joe Klein for this one. In Politics Lost, Klein writes about how candidates in past nomination battles have had singular moments that have helped to define their characters for the public. Remember Ronald Reagan's "I paid for this microphone?" line in 1980, or John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it"? Both moments were pounded into the memories of voters by a media starving to reduce every candidate down to a few manageable clips. Look out, unscripted defining moments cut both ways, but every winner will have a good one we'll all remember.
7. The Most Votes: This one used to be valid, but now you need either the most votes or a better legal team. (Sorry, that was a cheap shot, for laughs and audible groans only)

All this being said, while Marra focuses on position statements, I will be looking for someone who is not only the best on the issues, but has demonstrated either the experience or potential (see "Obama") to implement their programs and lofty strategies. I will be looking for the elusive "leadership" quality that we will hopefully glimpse within one of the candidates in an "unscripted moment" - live and in person, on the streets of New Hampshire October 2007.

JS

A Working Vacation

This week, I shared a harsh truth with Marra about our trip to NH. It was a risk to share this truth with Marra some 10 weeks before we leave, but I needed her to come to grips with the reality now. There are no amusement parks on the itinerary. She might not see the hotel pool. We won't have soft ice cream every night. We are going to New Hampshire to work.

Here's the nebulous plan - meals at all the candidate "drop in" hot spots, like the Red Arrow Diner and the Merrimack Restaurant. Some days working in someone's campaign headquarters, stuffing envelopes, distributing signs, whatever is needed. Visiting campaign stops to hear speeches and mix with the hard core activists. A day volunteering with the One.org crew get their message out to the voters. Lots of explaining to Marra the issues, positions, hypocrisies and contradictions (of which there will be many, no doubt) of the various campaigns. Oh, and she'll have to do her school homework in the evenings.

This might seem to the misinformed that I am just using my innocent daughter as an excuse to participate in what could be the last great retail political campaign for the Presidency in my lifetime. I mean, there are 18 major party candidates declared this cycle (and Fred Thompson would make 19). New Hampshire is already beginning to lose its unique place in the front of the primary line, with every state pressing their primary elections closer and closer to February to remain relevant. This is history in the making, and we can be right (or left) in the middle of it. But, as I say, you would be misinformed to think my intentions are anything but altruistic. This is an educational journey for her, a bonding experience for the both of us, and a gift from us to the democratic process. Nothing but unselfish intentions.

Yeah, right. And we probably will have soft ice cream every night. After all, I'm not a Communist.

JS

Debate Debrief - Part Two

When I began reviewing my daughter's careful notes from the Monday night Democratic debate/conversation/reality TV show, I quickly realized that at this point in her political education, this was merely a beauty contest on likability and telegenic appeal for her. Perhaps her use of smiley/frowny faces and physical comments ("His ears are really big") as notes should have been my first clue. I also realized that her point of view on candidates is in lock step with the majority of Americans in this early stage of the nominating season. My goal will be to raise her level of awareness about the issues and the challenges facing the presidency by October - not to an adult conversational level on matters of national interest, but at least to a level of understanding of a few key issues. Taxes, the war, education, Social Security, health care...you know, easy concepts to grasp for an 11 year old who has memorized the details of every Brady Bunch episode.

Here are some of my observations and musings post-debate:

Richardson looked bad. He got slapped down pretty hard after his comments that all troops could be moved out of Iraq in 6 months. I believe it was Clinton who told him that a troop movement of that size was physically impossible in 6 months. Richardson never responded. Opps. Hard to believe his poll numbers are climbing in NH after that performance.
John Edwards should not have made the "pink jacket" comment to Clinton. It made him look shallow at best, and with a poor sense of comic timing to boot. It was just dumb.
Joe Biden? Thank goodness he's there to point out to the listening audience when a question posed is plain stupid and inconsequential to determining one's qualifications for the Oval Office. He did the same thing in an earlier debate, too. This time, the question was about saying something nice about the person to your left, and something you don't like about him/her. Keep it up, Joe. When the press asks stupid questions, please remind us all how the posing of the question demeans the entire process.
Gravel is the Admiral Stockdale of the 2008 cycle for the Dems. Is his 15 minutes of fame over yet? Who is he? Why is he here?
The You Tube style videos prepared by each candidate looked terrible, like a poor substitute for a closing statement by the candidate. Are we doing this to improve ratings? Why do I feel like more and more I am watching a game show gone wild?
Obama was wrong to respond so quickly that he would meet with any world leader in his first year in office without conditions. As Clinton pointed out, and has continued to point out post-debate, that answer does demonstrate a naivete on international posturing and international leadership. Obama's clarifications since the debate have been effective, but his instincts in answering the question on the spot were troubling for me.
The Dems look unified as a whole. Bad news for the GOP. At this stage, the Dems are usually eating their young. Maybe that will happen later.
Dodd looked great. I felt his presence as a factor in the discussions, I thought his responses to questions were thoughtful, forceful, and specific. Good outing for Dodd. I do not agree with some of his positions, but I'd like to hear more. That's a victory for any candidate at this stage of the game.
The viewer-submitted questions, screened in advance by CNN, were no different than the general questions raised in the other debates I've watched this cycle...except for the fact that some were put to music and some involved the questioner wearing a funny outfit. Innovative? Ground breaking? If that's true, the bar for "ground breaking" must be very low these days.

All in all, this debate produced very little drama, very little confrontation, and very little that will make the history books. But I enjoyed it, and Marra watched the whole thing. That makes MY history book.

JS

Debate Debrief - Part I

Tonight, my 11 year old daughter and I watched the first "official" Democratic Candidate Debate together. Only a political geek like myself would get goose bumps from such a moment. I invited her to watch the debate with me (I did not force her), and asked her to take notes on the candidates as part of our NH travel prep. She lasted until the very last question, and provided me with some interesting feedback:

"Daddy, why do all the candidates call her 'Hillary', but they call the man candidates by their last names?" My cup runeth over - she already recognizes the subtle, condescending cues in the discussions. Bravo, Marra!

"Obama has really big ears." OK, that was an easy one.

She rated the candidates' performances with either a smiley face (she liked and agreed with an answer) or a frowny face (She thought the answer was dumb or mean). Her overall debate winner - John Edwards, with a dominant 10 smiley faces and no frowny faces. According to Marra, she "liked all his answers." Runner up went to Obama with 8 smileys and one frowny face. She agreed with his position that women should serve in the army.

"Chuck Hagel has my same birthday!" On that point, I was stunned. First I was stunned that she knew the name of Chuck Hagel. Second, that she knew that his birthday was the same as hers. I know I've talked politics with her over the past few months, but I was astonished that she remembered that one name. My chest puffed with pride...until she clarified for me, "He's a fighter pilot, right?" "Do you mean Chuck Yeager, sweetheart?" "Yeah, that's him."

Oh, well. Her political education continues. At least she's thinking about it. That is a victory for me.

JS

Quit While You're Ahead?

Can we stop the romance with Rudy Guiliani? The man cannot win the Republican nomination. That is a reality. Any time spent on this guy is a waste. I don't care how many contributions he scares out of people. Why do I feel so strongly? Because I'm right.

First, the Republican party is not in a position to nominate a pro-choice candidate. Splitting the vote of the reliable Christian constituency is untenable for them. The GOP barely won the White House in 2004 with most of the pro-life voters, and you think they can win without them?

Second, NYC was ready to run Rudy out of the city on September 10, 2001. He was going to official mayoral functions WITH A DATE. His wife still lived in Gracie Mansion, and he was taking his girlfriend to official functions. Let me say that again - he was openly dating while still married. OK, Republican primary voters, is this your values candidate? He would be crushed in the general election on this single point. At least Clinton tried to hide his infidelity. Guiliani flaunted it.

Third, his candidacy is based on his heroic leadership after 9-11. Let's be honest, his leadership looks great compared to W's leadership at that time. Rudy was out front talking to the people, and W was telling Americans to go shopping. Cheney was in hiding. Colin Powell was on the outs. Not too tough for Rudy to look good in comparison.

Fourth, his competition for the nomination is flat out better. All you people counting out McCain, just remember that Kerry was in the same spot in 2003, and McCain has more going for him.

Now I am not endorsing or rejecting anyone personally at this point in the process. I am sticking to my open-minded policy for the sake of my daughter. I want her to see all the candidates and decide who could best lead the country. But, let's be real, Guiliani has no chance. No chance.

JS

Post Script: I have to give him credit for one thing: in the SC debate, he was asked to define the difference between the Sunnis and the Shiites. He nailed the answer cold. That's certainly a forgotten moment now, but had he missed it, his campaign would be over already. Congratulations. I hope everyone on the stage could have also answered the question, but we'll never know now...