Obama is Dangerous

AMERICABlog’s Robert Arena wrote a stirring review of Barack Obama’s acceptance speech, and it turns out we reacted to some of the same lines, notably the following:

“For over two decades, [McCain has] subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy – give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is – you’re on your own… Well it’s time for them to own their failure. It’s time for us to change America.”

In 1980, Ronald Reagan brought a change of philosophy to the Republican Party and government as a whole. Reagan famously argued that “Government is not a solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

Reagan not only gave Republicans a philosophy to rally around, he set the gorverning agenda for three decades – so much so that the only Democratic president to be elected since Reagan was elected, Bill Clinton, campaigned on “re-inventing government.” That’s why, after the 2002 and 2004 elections, pundits claimed the Democratic party was out of ideas and existed only as the Bluto to the Republicans’ Popeye.

The Republicans have at least paid lip service to limited government but not put their money where their mouth is – or taken credit for the things that have gone well, such as President Bush’s tax cuts. And they certainly haven’t done a good job pointing out that Clinton-era policies that opened up the real estate market was the air that inflated the housing bubble that popped so dramatically last year.

Now Obama and his campaign apparatus are putting forth a new ideology: Government can work for the people. As Arena wrote, Obama “made the argument for government.”
And it’s working. Like Reagan, Obama combines charisma with a clearly defined ideology. The liberal base of the Democratic party is excited. There’s a real chance that a Obama could be elected President on the back of this philosophy, despite its repeated failures every time it has been tried.

Worse, if Obama is as successful at Reagan in setting the agenda, America could be looking in vain to government for decades, searching for solutions as the problems get worse.

Post-partisanship

The Democratic National Convention ends tonight, and the Republican Convention begins Monday. Every time I’ve tuned in over the past four days, I have heard a different politician encourage bipartisanship and cooperation in one breath before bashing Republicans as wrong-headed and uncaring in the next. (I’m picking on the Democrats because their convention was first; these hypocritical tirades are not isolated to either party.)

So it was nice to see this commercial from John McCain praising Barack Obama – with no strings or caveats attached:

Did race play a role in the Biden pick?

There are many reasons to like Joe Biden on the Democrats’ ticket. But a particular question nags at me:

Would Joe Biden be the nominee if he was black?

Oh, sure, you’d like to say “yes.” You’d like to point to his compelling story, his potential pull in Pennsylvania, his ability to be a savvy political attack dog, and say, “of course, Barack Obama has plenty of reasons to pick Biden.” And that is true.

But look at the “short list” of Vice Presidential contenders: Evan Bayh. Tim Kaine. Before Enquiring minds wanted to know how to sneak out of the Beverly Hilton at 2 a.m., John Edwards. Kathleen Sebelius.

All white.

I’m not saying there’s any funny business going on – at least not overtly. I’m just saying that I heard nothing about Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick – and that one-term as a Massachusetts Governor is enough to put you in a major party’s Veepstakes.

So the question remains: If Joe Biden was black, would he be accepting his party’s nomination for Vice President tonight?

Biden my time…

Obama has tapped Joe Biden as his running mate. Apparently, flattery will get you everywhere.

In some ways, last weekend’s much-ballyhooed announcement did not go quite as Team Obama had planned; the text messages that were supposed to make grassroots activists the first to know was short-circuited by the good old Washington, D.C. insider leaks, and the mainstream media knew hours before the official announcement to ObamaNation.

But overall, the announcement must be considered a success. The Veepstakes dragged on for days as anticipation built. University of Virginia professor/political commentator Larry Sabato called the pick “acceptable,” but not a “game-changer.” In other words, it would have been a boring pick without the hype machine.

Veepstakes

Barack Obama is expected to announce his Vice Presidential pick any day now, and John McCain won’t be far behind. And, as usual, the discussion turns to which member of each candidate’s short list best complements the ticket best by shoring up the top candidate’s weaknesses. But is that the best strategy? I’m not so sure.

In 1992, Bill Clinton – a younger, southern politician – tapped then-Senator Al Gore – a younger southern politician – as his running mate. Despite questions about experience (particularly in international affairs) and regional appeal, Clinton picked Gore instead of balancing out a ticket with an “elder statesman” figure.

It worked because Gore helped establish the tickets political brand identity – the youthful Clinton was the first “Baby Boomer” president, coming into office with promises of change. Both Obama and McCain would be wise to keep this example in mind.

A “safe” pick for Obama might look good on paper, but if the junior Senator from Illinois is serious about selling “new politics” then the Democrats’ usual suspects may not help. A “safe” Vice Presidential nominee concedes that Obama’s inexperience makes him an unsafe Presidential nominee. An offbeat, non-traditional, or historic pick underscores the message of change Obama and his campaign have been parroting since the primaries.

John McCain must also consider his brand and that of his party and pick someone off-beat and historic. The GOP torch McCain carries has dimmed since its brightest days in the elections of 2002 and 2004. Win or lose, the Democrat’s rhetoric of change threatens to reverberate beyond this election and position both parties for 2010 and 2012. A young, vibrant and/or historic Republican Vice Presidential pick would establish revolutionary politics as a force without party or ideology. More importantly, it would give grassroots Republican activists a new and exciting face to rally behind.

If I was advising the candidates, I’d suggest two women Governors: Democrat Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Republican Sarah Palin of Alaska. They may not help electorally (neither Kansas nor Alaska figures to be in play), but they would eachfoster excitement among the core activists each candidate will need for victory in November.