When events like Katrina, the Gulf Oil Spill, or phenomena like Global Warming get you down, remember, it could be worse-lot’s worse.
Consider the theoretically possible, and now certainly former, inhabitants of the planet depicted below, which is currently in the process of being eaten whole by what may have formerly been a beneficent Sun. Now, those were sinners in the hands of a very angry god.
Colin McEnroe sums up the disconnect between the Beltway crowd and the people of Connecticut on the Blumenthal issue. This is chronic with the insiders, the best example being their absolute astonishment that the majority of people in this country were sophisticated enough to realize that they had a pretty good president in Bill Clinton (especially considering the alternatives) despite his peccadillos. It galls them no end when the folks in the hinterland refuse to dance to their tune, a tune, as Bob Somerby points out, that usually involves bringing down a Democrat.
Not that the disconnect doesn’t flow in both directions. The overwhelming consensus in Washington is that Rand Paul hurt himself by retroactively opposing the Civil Rights Act. Don’t be so sure. There’s lots of folks down that way who miss those segregated lunch counters. Now, if the Democrats can smoke him out on issues those same folks care about, like Social Security, minimum wage, worker safety, etc., it might be a different story. Paul may be a little like David Duke, garnering more votes than the polls suggest because some people don’t want to admit, even to a pollster, that they’re racists.
The Republican Senators are all bragging about how they had Obama reeling when he came to lunch with them today. Of course, they insisted that it be closed door, so that no one can contradict them, but does anyone believe that the likes of John McCain or Bob Corker could shake Obama’s cool?
One can sympathize, at least in the abstract, with poor Rob, done in by big money. Then again, it’s his party that most definitely wouldn’t have it any other way. Democrats aren’t simon pure on the public financing issue, but at least they’re willing to talk about it.
The fact that he merely “suspended” his campaign is interesting. He’s basically giving Republicans the opportunity to register displeasure about McMahon’s blatant purchase of a Senate seat. It will be interesting to see how many accept the invitation; it might tell us a bit about what to expect in the general. I suspect that there are still Connecticut Republicans left who are offended by McMahon.
Speaking of McMahon, while surfing around today I found several mentions in national type blogs about her being the tea party candidate. (Example here) This seems, to me, to be a gross misreading of her campaign, which just goes to show that even national commentators with the best of intentions often misread things outside the beltway. My read, and I think this is widely shared around here, is that she has, so far, avoided committing herself to any agenda, right wing or otherwise.
Her website (to which I refuse to link) has an “issues” section, which contains standard Republican pablum, but it appears to avoid the more extreme tea party positions, though I suppose you are pretty much free to read anything in that you would like. I got a kick out of the section on abortion, where she rather apologetically confesses to being pro-choice, but points out that she is opposed to “partial birth abortions” and she sounds a few more anti-abortion platitudes. Still, not the straight up stuff that you get from the real tea party nuts.
Unless Schiff manages to smoke her out, which I doubt, she will sail through the primary season without having to tack right, so she will have an easy time presenting herself as a “moderate” in the fall. And, in fact, that’s just what she may be. If she wins, my guess is that she’ll go her own way, though we’ll have no idea on the day she’s sworn in exactly what that might mean. She has no particular loyalty to the Republican party, that’s clear. She’s a little like Bloomberg in that respect-the party is just a vehicle to get her where she wants to go. Had there been a vulnerable Republican in the seat, she’d be a Democrat right now.
She is going to be a formidable opponent for Blumenthal. Republicans have, in general, developed the ability to avoid talking about their political positions-exceptions like Rand Paul stand out, and he has now retreated to talking only to safe, soft ball throwing reporters. Linda will rely on her money, and a combination of warm and fuzzy commercials (about her) and vicious attacks on Blumenthal. It may well work.
This post by Matt Corley at ThinkProgress got me thinking. The subject is Rand Paul, the “libertarian” Republican candidate for Senate in Kentucky, and the fact that quite a few conservatives disagree with Sarah Palin’s view that Rachel Maddow was somehow unfair to him by asking about his opinions. Corley references a post by a conservative named Peter Wehner, who defended Maddow’s treatment of Paul, and then concludes:
Wehner’s post was linked without disagreement by both the FrumForum and National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru. Wehner’s Commentary colleague, Rick Richman added, “it is important for conservatives to be honest about Rand Paul and not to blame his unacceptable comments on the media that ferreted them out.”
Now, here’s what struck me. What were Paul’s “unacceptable comments” according to Mr. Richman? Answer: the view that private property rights trump civil rights. This was the conservative position back when the Civil Rights Act was passed. It was not just overt racists that opposed the legislation, it was “principled” conservatives like Barry Goldwater, the Republican 1964 standard bearer and William F. Buckley, who believed exactly what Rand Paul believes today. It continues to be the case, by the way, that conservatives reflexively oppose the extension of statutory protections to any needful group not already protected.
The liberal position is now the universal position, as it is on pretty much all of the progressive legislative victories of the past 100 years. Child Labor laws, Social Security, Medicare, the Family Leave Act, laws against age and sex discrimination, etc. Progressive legislation, once passed, becomes part of the fabric of our society, and anyone advocating repeal is committing political suicide. That’s why they do try to repeal, they do it by stealth, or attempt it in increments. For the fact is, they still cherish hopes of reversing the progressive legislation of the past 100 years. I still believe, for instance, that Bush’s privatization scheme, was born of his desire to get the ultimate conservative feather in his cap. But even Bush, at the height of his arrogance and power, couldn’t touch social security. The only progressive legislation that is truly vulnerable is legislation the public can’t understand; that’s why Glass-Steagel was repealed, and we see where that brought us.
Now, quick: Can you think of a piece of conservative legislation that has become similarly embedded in the American way of life? The glorious Bush tax cuts are about to become history, or will if the Democrats keep their spines, and the country will yawn, though the Republicans will pout. Doesn’t it say something about the relative merits of the opposing political philosophies that, very shortly after progressive legislation is enacted, it is embraced by its former opponents? Witness, for example, the hypocritical attacks on the Health Care Act alleging that it would harm Medicare. They may not really like progressive legislation, but none are as foolish as Rand Paul and care to admit it. It’s why they fight legislation like the Health Care bill-not because they think it will fail, but are afraid it will succeed.
I was doing what I do best on Sundays-reading a book on the patio-when I heard some squawking from the vicinity of an Alberta Spruce about 10 feet from the chaise on which I was reclining. I glanced over and there were two robins making a rather determined effort to take down a chipmunk, who only saved himself by running in my direction and taking refuge, at least initially, under the chaise.
The robins retreated to the branches of a nearby tree, looking for all the world like they hadn’t forgotten or forgiven whatever transgression the chipmunk had committed.
The only thing that occurred to me as a reason for this little drama is a possible theft, attempted or successful, of the robins’ eggs, but I’ve never heard of that sort of thing before. Any bird experts out there?
This piece from the New York Daily News admirably illustrates the sloppiness of the press these days
There was a special election in Hawaii yesterday, and the Republican won-with 39.4% of the vote; the balance split between two Democrats, neither one of whom had the grace to withdraw and give the other a clear field. Perhaps that’s because each figures they can come back in the fall, when there will be a single Democratic candidate, and take the seat back. The percentages of votes are set forth in the article, as is the Democratic confidence. But how explain this:
Republicans see the victory as a powerful statement about their momentum heading into November. They already sent a Republican to the U.S. Senate to replace the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts — a place that was once thought to be the most hostile of territories for the GOP. Now Republicans can say they won a congressional seat in the former backyard of the president and in a state that gave Obama 72 percent of the vote two years ago.
Yes, they can say that, but shouldn’t it also be pointed out that they won’t say that this particular victory is pretty meaningless, and that it is their first House special election victory this cycle, including a recent loss in Pennsylvania that they had high hopes of winning? If you are going to pass on someone’s spin, oughtn’t you place it in some sort of context?
We are now back, weary to the bone, from the 2010 Connecticut Democratic Convention, a convention that will surely go down in history because-well, because it just will, that’s why.
I am still somewhat piqued at the fact that I did not have access to wireless at the convention hall. I could have pecked stuff onto my Iphone, but I confess to having no patience for that.
So, everything that happened is now old news, so I’ll confine myself to some pictures and a little inside baseball stuff.
This picture of Blumenthal is a bit grainy, as it was taken Friday night with a wide angle lens on my little Lumix, and it’s severely cropped.
I brought my Canon with a telephone lens today, so the pictures from today should be better.
One suggestion for Blumenthal, something he might consider incorporating into his speeches, should the necessity arise: “The New York Times isn’t going to choose the next Senator from Connecticut, the people of Connecticut are going to decide that for themselves” or something along those lines. I’m convinced the Times has every intention of taking his scalp, if they can get it.
We Grotonites lucked out. We had front row seats, consequently I was able to get fairly close to the podium and could get some good shots of the eventual nominees, only one of which I actually voted for. They will be depicted in the order of their coming, starting with State Treasurer and fellow HPHS alumni, Denise Nappier.
Dan Malloy and his running mate.
Unfortunately, I missed George Jepsen.
Now we come to the most inexplicable event of the day, at least from my point of view. Maybe someone with a better appreciation for political strategy can help me out. Right about the time balloting started for Secretary of State, a rumor swept the hall (or at least made it’s way to our backwater) that Jonathan Harris had cut a deal with Gerry Garcia. Harris had, purportedly, agreed to pad Garcia’s vote count with his own delegates on the first ballot, thereby assuring Garcia would get to the primary, in return for which Garcia would drop out of the second ballot and throw all his delegates (Harris transfers and non-Harris transfers) to Harris, thereby giving Harris the endorsement. After the first ballot, Denise Merrill had, if memory serves, about 45% of the vote, Harris about 30%, and Garcia 25%. Garcia did, in fact, withdraw from the second ballot, urging all his supporters to back Harris as the second best candidate, as a result of which we see here the endorsed nominee:
Just to be clear, this is not Jonathan Harris. Here’s what I can’t understand. Why would Harris want to guarantee that there would be a three way primary? It appears to this weak minded individual that he stands to lose more votes to Garcia than Merrill. In any event, if the purported deal was made, it appears to have backfired on Harris. It happens that I voted for Garcia on the first ballot. Like, as it turned out, a great number of Garcia’s delegates, I wasn’t about to take orders from anyone about how I should vote on the second ballot, and switched to Merrill as did quite a few others, apparently.
There are, however, some people who are more than willing to take orders. The lock step voting of some towns, New Haven in particular, was, to me, appalling. That delegation unanimously turned on a dime on this vote, and voted unanimously on all other votes. It was heartening to see that these mass conversions weren’t enough to give the endorsement to Harris. It appears that the politicians are the last people to learn that the days of back room deals are pretty much over. The whole episode soured me on Garcia to the point where I’m now pretty certain I’ll vote for Merrill in the primary.
Anyway, if anyone can explain the logic of this deal to me, I’d love to hear it. If true, it was a great deal for Garcia, but what was in it for Harris?
The only first ballot vote I cast for a winner was for Kevin Lembo, who managed to please pretty much everyone by getting more that 50% of the vote in a four person race, thereby avoiding a second ballot. We got out of the place fairly early, hours before the Republicans finished.
So, here are my predictions, for what they’re worth. Lembo and Merrill win their primaries. As to the top of the ticket, in November we’ll be pulling for the Lamont-Wyman ticket.
I always loved this song, which has been covered by quite a few people, but it was written by this fellow, Jerry Jeff Walker:
I’m not crazy about this performance, but it’s the best of his I could find on youtube.
Here, by the way, is the real Mr. Bojangles, a fellow named Bill Robinson, who was paired many a time with Shirley Temple. This particular clip is from Stormy Weather, so that makes two weeks in a row for that film:
He was 65 when he performed this number.
Well, my hopes that I could “live blog” the convention have been dashed. The convention was held at the Expo Center in Hartford. That would be the poor man’s convention center; the Republicans having scored the good one. In any event, my Ipad detected at least three wireless networks in the area, to which I was able to connect, but which were not themselves connected to the net. No pop up box appeared to log on. My wife talked to CtBob, who told her that only the media gets Internet, and it wasn’t not really working for them.
By now all political junkies know that Alpert withdrew shortly after his former home town (Colchester) gave him zero votes and just before his current home town, Groton, was about to do the same thing.
As I write this, the Republican convention is still up in the air, though it looks like McMahon will get it.
It’s going to be a tough race. Blumenthal can expect to be slimed from beginning to end. If this bizarre “news” article in the Times is any indication, the paper of record will pursue its vendetta throughout (it is on the news page, but is nothing more than an anti-Blumenthal screed), while leaving Linda’s sordid past uncovered. It will be up to Dick to to that, so we can only hope he’s up to the task.
