It's looking more and more like we've come to the start of the long downward slide of the incomparable huckster of the North, Madam Sarah Palin. Recently we saw the smashing failure of her most recent choice for the Idaho House seat in the GOP Primary, as her pick Vaughn Ward lost by double digits to a local guy whom he outspent six times over. This follows on the heels of her jumping on board with the NY 23rd Candidate, Doug Hoffman, and leading that ship to defeat despite the district being consistently conservative. And hell, if you can't push a winner in the state where you went to at least 60% of the public universities, what does that say? The woman was classmates with half the state for chrissakes.
Moreover, recent polling from Alaska showed that even the people up there have had enough of her that 50% view her unfavorably, with more "very unfavorably" (37%) than "very favorably" (31%). What makes this especially remarkable is the fact that not long ago she was touting herself as the most popular Governor in the Universe, let alone the country. Hell, frostbite has a lower percentage of "very unfavorable" votes.
One of the more interesting elements of this Idaho story is the fact that in general, the majority of the Tea Party crowd/local lunatic community sided with the other guy as opposed to the former flag bearer for the organization. I'm not sure what this means for her ongoing relationship with this crowd. Clearly, they're not all working with a full deck, as you can figure out from a recent situation in Maine where a group of them vandalized an 8th Grade classroom and stole items they deemed unpatriotic, including copies of--wait for it-- the Constitution--because they had been donated by the ACLU. And yet some of these nuts seem to at least be sniffing the never ending stream of bullshit she's tossing out as Americana. Granted, it's like wondering about a smoky smell when you're standing outside a coal plant, but it's a start. They sure can't smell anything when they still had their heads up their asses. Well, something, but it wasn't smoke.
I digress. In reality we really shouldn't be surprised that the start of the end has come right about now. It's been about 2 years since she became a recognizable persona (albeit mainly for hokey phrases and a patent disregard for reality), and that's the basic arc of these situations. It's the same as Ross Perot a few years ago (and he wasn't half as crazy as he's made out to be and knew the issues waaayy better than she does). He popped up on the radar about a year before the 1992 election as a 3rd Party candidate mainly in opposition of the Republicans of the time, and ended up rallying that crew to a 19% share of the election. By 1994 he had really drifted out of the limelight, and by 1996 he was only able to get about 7% of the vote, campaigning with his own funds. Keep in mind that if Britney Spears funded her own campaign she could get about 10%.
The point of it all is that there's a lifespan to all these types of firebrand "man of the people" candidates that don't appeal to a broad enough spectrum, and it's about 30 months. All this stuff about being an outsider sounds great in the campaign, but the functionality of these would-be world changers really goes to hell when they have to do things like "actually make decisions without easy answers" and "read stuff." It seemed like a good idea to elect Jesse Ventura as Governor because he wasn't part of the establishment, but the establishment looked a hell of a lot better once everyone realized that Minnesota's budget problems couldn't be solved with a steel chair and a hidden razor blade.
Palin's legacy looks likely to eventually go a different direction than the garden variety overwhelmed ideologue because of her apparent willingness to chase a buck at any point. You can look at Ron Paul's period as a national player (basically 2007-2008; please don't even make the argument that he's a legitimate candidate nationally. He's just not.) and recognize that even though his candidacies never really went anywhere, he was at least had a point to make with regard to being opposed to the central government. I think he's nuts, but at least you can respect the guy for taking his stance, making a cogent argument in support of it, and sticking to it.
With Palin, you can't even determine what she's supporting, other than a big budget of handlers. It's small government except for when she wants the government to get heavily involved. It's low taxes but no cuts in the big ticket government items. She's all for self-reliance yet supports the Washington State candidate who's taken $275K in government dollars in agriculture subsidies while running a farm made possible only with New Deal-funded dams and irrigation systems.
Moving forward, these are the paradoxes that will become both more apparent and less defensible. Whether the economy picks up and Obama's riding high or if it slows and the Tea Party types push harder, she seems destined for the ice floe treatment from both sides. There's an Eskimo saying that goes, "You never really know your friends from your enemies until the ice breaks." For Palin, I suspect the cracks are sneaking up all too quickly.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
It's Time Again To Disgrace the American Legal System
This morning President Obama opened up America's newest seasonal pastime, the embarrassing farce that is the Supreme Court hearings. This year it's current US Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the eminent scholar and attorney who will of course be made out by the GOP to be some sort of illiterate Bolshevik. It seemed like only yesterday we were trying to figure out what the hell "Wise Latina" meant and why Jeff Sessions was such an insufferable prick (Is it hemorrhoids, Jeff? E.D.? Wife and the gardener? Actually, it's probably because the Senate denied his appointment as a Federal Judge for making racist statements to other government lawyers. ).
Even for the normal Republican, though, they've jumped on the woman early, probably hoping to poison the well just enough to win a little public sympathy. We've already seen Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) announce that he's absolutely not voting for her, even though the confirmation hearings are weeks away. John Kyl (R-AZ) has already voiced his concerns over her "thin" experience in the biz. No doubt she would have gained more experience as a lobbyist and lawyer for giant landowners, such as Mr. Kyl. Because nothing says complex legal analysis quite like getting payoffs from condo developers and shady land schemes.
And no less a legal mind than Michael Steele is stirring up the disgruntled fringe by ranting about Kagan's statements years ago about the Constitution being defective at its origins. Of course he and the cronies will probably overlook the fact that she was discussing the fact that under the original Constitution African-Americans only counted as 3/5 of a human and remained property under the Constitution for about the first 80 years, but that's understandable. It's Original Constructionism baby! (That being said, if we could fine a way to take away suffrage from a few people I don't think I'd mind. That means you, Susan Collins.)
Perhaps the greatest irony of the process this time around is the fact that she's already come out and dismissed what the process has become as a "vapid and hollow charade," an observation even more spot-on than when she said it 15 years ago. What could be an enlightening and useful discussion about the role of the court and legal theory has unfortunately become nothing more than a sad joke. We're hearing and seeing supposedly incriminating pictures of her--wait for it--wearing a judicial style robe in the 8th grade! And talking about wanting to be a Supreme Court Justice! Sweet Jesus NO! If there's anything we can't have floating around the youth of America, it's aspiration. We need to stomp that shit out ASAP and get those kids back into Mickey Dees.
When it comes down to it, there really aren't many people who should be remotely challenged. We have to keep in mind that the hearings process isn't an election-style process where you get to pick your favorite. It's just an process to decide whether or not the appointment is qualified, not whether you'll like the way they would rule on your legislation. Senators have a vote on whether the person is qualified, not whether they like the viewpoints. There is an enormous difference, yet we're going to hear endless jabbering about why Congressmen can't vote for her on account of their differing views.
On a nauseating but serious note, this actually has a chance to get really ugly in the streets amongst the lowest of the Right's hate machine. The woman's 50, still single, and--gasp!--has a short haircut. You can see where this is going. It's not going to take much to push a few of the Tea Party loons and Bible thumpers into the streets rallying behind the argument that she (a) is gay; (b) is going to throw her gayness all over my America; and (c) doesn't like Jesus. Of course, the GOP, Fox News and talk radio will do nothing but froth up the venom or justify it in some deranged way, all the while claiming to be nothing more than passive bystanders to public sentiment. Keep in mind that at no point has she ever indicated that she was gay, and even if she was, it has zero relevance to the abilities of a qualified jurist. But, of course, you're dealing with the proto-humans who still eat that vile garbage up. I'm not saying it absolutely will happen this way, but I'll put it at 75%. When it does, let's hope the backlash is fast and carries some serious weight.
Looking forward, there's the way this should play out and the way that it actually will. It should be a open and shut matter, and she should be stamped on through without a hassle. And yet it won't. It's going to be a drawn out harassment of an enormously qualified woman who happens to be on the wrong side of some political hacks drumming up campaign dollars. We're hearing some talk of a filibuster, and while I wouldn't expect it, it could happen if only to bog down the Obama administration's attempts to actually conduct government business. In the end, we have only the public to blame for allowing it to happen. We've allowed it to trend this way for years and it's going to keep happening as long as people keep voting in these clowns to pull this crap or letting them do it when they're in office. Even if it involves a complete restructuring of the way Justices are confirmed, there needs to be some form of change. If and when it does, the process can transcend the useless and cynical character assassination it has become and reaffirm itself as a unifying and critically important part of the American judicial system.
Even for the normal Republican, though, they've jumped on the woman early, probably hoping to poison the well just enough to win a little public sympathy. We've already seen Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) announce that he's absolutely not voting for her, even though the confirmation hearings are weeks away. John Kyl (R-AZ) has already voiced his concerns over her "thin" experience in the biz. No doubt she would have gained more experience as a lobbyist and lawyer for giant landowners, such as Mr. Kyl. Because nothing says complex legal analysis quite like getting payoffs from condo developers and shady land schemes.
And no less a legal mind than Michael Steele is stirring up the disgruntled fringe by ranting about Kagan's statements years ago about the Constitution being defective at its origins. Of course he and the cronies will probably overlook the fact that she was discussing the fact that under the original Constitution African-Americans only counted as 3/5 of a human and remained property under the Constitution for about the first 80 years, but that's understandable. It's Original Constructionism baby! (That being said, if we could fine a way to take away suffrage from a few people I don't think I'd mind. That means you, Susan Collins.)
Perhaps the greatest irony of the process this time around is the fact that she's already come out and dismissed what the process has become as a "vapid and hollow charade," an observation even more spot-on than when she said it 15 years ago. What could be an enlightening and useful discussion about the role of the court and legal theory has unfortunately become nothing more than a sad joke. We're hearing and seeing supposedly incriminating pictures of her--wait for it--wearing a judicial style robe in the 8th grade! And talking about wanting to be a Supreme Court Justice! Sweet Jesus NO! If there's anything we can't have floating around the youth of America, it's aspiration. We need to stomp that shit out ASAP and get those kids back into Mickey Dees.
When it comes down to it, there really aren't many people who should be remotely challenged. We have to keep in mind that the hearings process isn't an election-style process where you get to pick your favorite. It's just an process to decide whether or not the appointment is qualified, not whether you'll like the way they would rule on your legislation. Senators have a vote on whether the person is qualified, not whether they like the viewpoints. There is an enormous difference, yet we're going to hear endless jabbering about why Congressmen can't vote for her on account of their differing views.
On a nauseating but serious note, this actually has a chance to get really ugly in the streets amongst the lowest of the Right's hate machine. The woman's 50, still single, and--gasp!--has a short haircut. You can see where this is going. It's not going to take much to push a few of the Tea Party loons and Bible thumpers into the streets rallying behind the argument that she (a) is gay; (b) is going to throw her gayness all over my America; and (c) doesn't like Jesus. Of course, the GOP, Fox News and talk radio will do nothing but froth up the venom or justify it in some deranged way, all the while claiming to be nothing more than passive bystanders to public sentiment. Keep in mind that at no point has she ever indicated that she was gay, and even if she was, it has zero relevance to the abilities of a qualified jurist. But, of course, you're dealing with the proto-humans who still eat that vile garbage up. I'm not saying it absolutely will happen this way, but I'll put it at 75%. When it does, let's hope the backlash is fast and carries some serious weight.
Looking forward, there's the way this should play out and the way that it actually will. It should be a open and shut matter, and she should be stamped on through without a hassle. And yet it won't. It's going to be a drawn out harassment of an enormously qualified woman who happens to be on the wrong side of some political hacks drumming up campaign dollars. We're hearing some talk of a filibuster, and while I wouldn't expect it, it could happen if only to bog down the Obama administration's attempts to actually conduct government business. In the end, we have only the public to blame for allowing it to happen. We've allowed it to trend this way for years and it's going to keep happening as long as people keep voting in these clowns to pull this crap or letting them do it when they're in office. Even if it involves a complete restructuring of the way Justices are confirmed, there needs to be some form of change. If and when it does, the process can transcend the useless and cynical character assassination it has become and reaffirm itself as a unifying and critically important part of the American judicial system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)