Chess Games and Survival
April 21st, 2006Politics are are the art of surviving, and mastering that art is essential in politics. Regardless of your power, eventually you decline. Lyndon Johnson was annihilated as a leader despite winning by the largest margin in American history. Franklin Roosevelt was crippled by his failed and corrupt plan to pack the Supreme Court with sleazy justices. Ronald Reagan, too, fell flat on his face. Bush, Clinton and Bush — the same thing applies. In today’s White House, as the President tries to save his Republican Party from being decimated in the mid-term elections, and the job is being given to Karl Rove. While I buy the idea that Rove has been made a political advisor because that, particularly, is where he’s needed, I firmly believe that Josh Bolten has clipped him and sent him to where he belongs: the political part of the West Wing.
For Rove, this year’s elections are personal: with a loss of either House, the President’s policies are dead and I don’t believe Karl Rove can survive. Add to that possible legal action by Patrick Fitzgerald and the prospect of Rove testifying in a Court of Law and you’ve got yourself a dead man walking. Republicans don’t seem to understand that there are no wars in Belgium unless the Germans start them, bubba. And the War in Washington wouldn’t be if not for the GOP.
In Iraq, where survival is particularly key and in a literal sense, their Prime Minister is stepping down, and it’s about time. Perhaps if he leaves a new leader can take over, someone better able to lead the country. I won’t discount the Prime Minister’s courage in taking the position but I loathe his inability to govern.
Now we move to politics, where Hillary Clinton seeks survival on the road to the White House in 2008. Specifically, this article is about Evan Bayh’s chasing of Hillary Clinton, and the first thing that came to mind was this:
At this stage of the 2008 race, Bayh’s biggest hurdle is that most Democrats with a proven ability to round up $50,000 or more in contributions are already in the camps of other candidates, mostly Hillary Rodham Clinton’s. Another segment of the Democratic donor world remains faithful to 2004 presidential standard-bearer John Kerry or to one of his competitors for the 2004 nomination. Through his donor and e-mail lists, Sen. Kerry can communicate with 3 million Democrats in an instant.
The boldened part is true but false at once and is an example of lying with statistics. John Kerry can communicate with children and fake email addresses in an instant with his email list. I’m not sure how many of his email addresses are false, but I know that I don’t particularly care for messages from Senator Kerry, and so I gave his website fake email accounts oh-so-long ago. And now that he’s just a candidate with an L next to his name in races, his emails don’t mean much to me. I would imagine that at least a fourth of his emails are false, and that half of those that remain don’t particularly care of his message or root him for President. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but email mailing lists can be quite deceptive.
As to the rest of the article, I’d urge reading it to get a better understanding of primary politics and the battle for nominations. I’d say that Governor Tom Vilsack, Senator Evan Bayh and Al Gore are the most dangerous candidates to the Republicans and strongest in the Primaries, should they run, with Mark Warner bringing up the rear.
Rounding out this post is an op-ed about Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania’s favorite son, asking if he can win and then analyzing the issue. In my view, they’re giving Santorum needless false hope. My two favorite points:
1. Incumbency–He is the incumbent, and incumbents win in Pennsylvania–not sometimes or mostly, but virtually all of the time. Only one incumbent U.S. senator, governor or, for that matter, any other state constitutional officer has lost a re-election bid in modern times, and he lost to Rick Santorum.
3. Resources–He has never lost an election before. Moreover, he has access to virtually unlimited resources, both money and surrogates to run his campaign. Santorum’s story has so far been mainly mediated through a wary, if not critical press. Advertising can change that and it will.
As to incumbency, the point is true but inaccurate at the same time. Rick Santorum may have been the only one in modern times, but, in times past, incumbents in Pennsylvania have been loveable figures like John Heinz. Rick Santorum doesn’t have that sort of popularity, as can clearly be seen. Regarding his third point, that’s quite silly. Bob Casey hasn’t lost a general election before, either, and he’s got access to just as much money as Rick Santorum. At the moment he’s not as loaded, but given Pennsylvania’s love of legacy, the regard for Bob Casey Sr. and the strength of Bob Casey in PA in the past (he won his last election garnering more votes than were ever garnered in a state race in PA), Rick Santorum is just about done.
It’s hunting season this election cycle, and the old guard is being mowed down by the winds of change. I fully expect Rick Santorum to be one of those left behind by destiny.