The Weakly Joyce
ArchPundit
Calling Dr. Johnny Fever, Calling Dr. Johnny Fever, the phone cops are on the way.
August 2004
Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Go to the videos to see Alan Keyes singing Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Make sure it’s in full screen mode for the full effect.
I’m going to stop myself before making showtune jokes.
But he has never lost in November in Illinois, has he? Well, has he?
BUT LOOP FANS CAN HELP! Yes, it’s the first Loop Carpetbagger Deflection contest.
Keyes needs a sound-bite explanation for his gracious assent to move to the Land of Lincoln. Something like: “I’ve always been a Cubs fan; I decided to come clean now because I could no longer pretend to like the O’s.” Or: “Lake Michigan has no jellyfish.” Or, you can go negative: “Why, we’re practically neighbors. That joker was raised in Hawaii. You know how far Honolulu is from Chicago?” (About 6,400 miles.)
This is a two-day contest. So it’s e-mail only. Entries — to intheloop@washpost.com — must be in by 10 a.m. Friday. And you must put home, work and/or cell phone numbers on your entry. As usual, Hill and administration folks can enter on “background” or even “deep background.”
The 10 best entries will receive one of our highly coveted In the Loop T-shirts and, who knows, maybe even an invite to Keyes’s swearing-in.
Best Editorial To Date
The whole thing is good, but this is the kicker:
We are often called upon to wonder whether politicians are cynical or stupid. The Illinois Republican leaders, in their case, have made that choice unnecessary.
registration required.
On the Debates
I think there is a simpler explanation. Everyone has built up Obama as a paragon of virtue that the second he acts like a politician they take him to task. Part of it is a sense of fairness where they want to criticize each candidate also. I don’t mind the questioning of Obama, it’s just a bit over the top given we are still looking at 3-4 debates. My view is the Obama campaign ought to turn it around and have a two hour debate tomorrow over transportation. Lipinski can prep Obama on the more arcane subjects. Proft and Pascoe can try and teach Keyes what the Dan Ryan and the Skyway are.
From the Inbox
A doozy from the National Review Online. In a fairly thoughtful piece on the norms of democracy that could have been written by George Will (except he’s a better writer), Jonah Goldberg offers reasons why Keyes candidacy is bad for democracy. Fair enough, until he drops this bombshell
In fact, Keyes wants to repeal the 17th Amendment, which empowers voters rather than state legislatures to elect senators.
To which my inbox commentator has a new slogan idea:
“Keyes – The last vote you’ll ever need to cast.”
The Editorials of the Day
But to compare Obama to a “slaveholder” is pushing the envelope for, we trust, most Illinoisans. We won’t even get into Keyes’ contention that a vote for him is a “victory . . . for God,” as he concluded in his acceptance speech last Sunday.
So far, we haven’t seen much in the way of stimulating ideas from Keyes. The “God is on my side” assertions, and accusations that Barack Obama is aligned with slaveholders are the kind of off-the-wall rhetoric that will turn away reasonable people. It may fire up some of those on the extremes of the political spectrum, and that might stimulate some fundraising. But it won’t win an election, and it might leave the Illinois Republican Party in even worse shape than it already is ? if that’s possible.
More Inside Baseball
Michael responds to my post on the issues surrounding Keyes. He also asks if Obama is misrepresenting himself to the people of Illinois.
A couple things on the specifics–the New Democrat thing is an internal fight. You can find times when I called myself a DLC kind of guy in the archives. I wouldn’t anymore and I have a post detailing why. That said, you’ll notice I do link to the New Democratic Network which is a competing Democratic organization that seeks ‘third way solutions’ (I hate that phrase, but it’s good shorthand). Repudiating the DLC is good sport even for moderate Democrats right now.
That said, is Obama a typical liberal? In some ways yes. I’ll grant the free trade issue as the best example. I think the view is shortsighted and wrong that we need to reduce free trade. In other ways I think he breaks from the typical orthodoxy including on issues like welfare reform and emphasis on EITC and job training. I don’t see a whole lot different there than Jim Edgar’s plan which I thought was a fairly thoughtful way to approach the issue.
Is he running to the middle for the general after staking out progressive territory in the primary? Yes. Is that hypocritical? Maybe, but then every politician except Keyes is guilty of shooting for the median voter. The big question to me is whether he is changing positions, and I haven’t seen that.
The other thing to remember is that many, if not most people don’t vote on issues in the strict sense that many politically obsessive folks think they should (I’m in this category), but instead vote on how they view a candidate’s values and how close are those values to the voter’s own. In that case, framing is an important part of the process and Obama shapes the issues in question to fit the values he thinks he represents. There is nothing wrong with offering competing values in critiquing that.
One of the real problems in claiming individuals support one set of values or the other and then by extension certain types of policies, is that people have competing values and limited time. Thus, when you talk about American values, the best summation of it to me is that the American people are ideologically conservative and operationally liberal. They will rant how they hate government in their lives, but the first case of salmonella in Idaho and everyone wants to know where the federal government was (Mark Russell).
So politicians identify their policies in the values they think will most appeal to voters, but also in where those views come from in themselves. I don’t have a huge problem with that. In fact, that is what the debate should be about. Obama connects most of his positions to values and voters can choose whether to accept or reject those values and positions. No, I don’t think Obama is fooling Illinois citizens. I think he is persuading them by framing the debate. I think Alan Keyes is trying to frame the debate and failing in a spectacular manner that is one of the most amusing political spectacles I’ve ever seen.
So that went a bit longer, the second specific is that, apparently (I haven’t read it yet) in the introduction to his book Obama is clear about what he is doing. I’m okay with that as long as it was made clear to the reader.
Michael asks some good questions which seem to be coming up with some regularity in relation to how I view myself as a web log author.
First, I reject that I don’t talk about issues. With the volume it might not be apparent, but I think many of my recent post have been issue based.
Ultimately, I expect readers to understand that I am a Democrat who is somewhat of an activist and that my views come from that position. If you look at the blogs I link to as blogfathers (a dorky blog term to be sure) they are Democrats who do election analysis from the left of center. I make no bones about that. I don’t attempt to be impartial, but I do attempt to be fair. When I see Democrats acting contrary to Democratic principles as I see them–or even against good policy, I take them to task. I’m pretty sure if Rod Blagojevich had any idea this site existed, he wouldn’t like me much. Or Jack Franks. I also try and point out when Republicans are behaving in a way where coalitions can be built–I’ve issued a fair amount of praise for Tom Cross who I think is a good public servant and is ideologically closer to me than many labor Democrats. I also have sung the praises of Steve Rauschenberger even though on many, many issues I disagree. He’s an excellent public servant regardless of where he stands.
I believe all those issues have an underlying policy basis to them. While that may be lost in a particular example, I believe I do explore those issues frequently.
As to pundit versus public intellectual? I have lower standards for what my blog is. It’s ultimately a vanity site that lets me write about what I like. I do that in a flip way much of the time and it’s for fun. That people read it, surprises me quite often, but that’s fun.
Seldom will I write on bureaucratic oversight which I consider my real work and my work that has some level of seriousness to it. ArchPundit was a corny pseudonym I invented because I wanted to be pseudonomous when I first started and I thought it had the appropriate cheekiness to it. I’ve kept it on because it is a sort of device that adds to the cheekiness I hope the site has.
Bean – Crane Debate
It’s hard to characterize the debate from a news story, but two things stuck out:
1) Bean biffed the O’Hare question which matters in that area of Cook–bad debate prep on the campaigns behalf, though that can be fixed. The reason it matters is that she is running as the intouch person and that takes away from that aura of competence that is key.
2) Crane read from his notes during his opening and closing which many people take as rudeness–being unprepared to discuss the reasons for your candidacy.
Meanwhile, Crane, a former university professor, read his opening and closing comments dispassionately and monotone, rarely glancing at the audience.