Political opportunism vs. Political courage

Robert Byrd, an animal loving democratic member of congress (apparently a former official in the KKK, no less) has said
he would be OK if Michael Vick were assasinated over Vick's alleged involvement in the dog fighting venture based out of one of Vick's houses. John Kerry asked the NFL to suspend Vick until the case comes to a close.

Both instances are great examples of political oppportunism disguised as political leadership. Vick has few meaningful political ties and therefore has no congressional advocate. This means that he is an easy target to attack for political profit as there will be no political backlash.

Byrd appeals to both his racist and animal loving constituents and Kerry scores points with Animal lovers accross the US and gets some publicity to keep the doors open for another presidential run in 2012 or 2016.

I hate that politicians are not called on the carpet for this stuff; Instead we reward politicians for this chickenshit behavior.

Politicians who have actual principles and take stances on what they hold to be worth fighting for are rarely rewarded. Dog and Pony show politicians are constantly rewarded with election and re-election.

Don't believe me? Take a look at our current election.

====================================================

How is John McCain doing in the polls? For all the questions you may have about John McCain, no one can question his love of America or dedication to this country. You may disagree with his politics, but can you say McCain is not a true patroit? He is a national hero who served our country with extreme valor and who takes whatever path he firmly beleives in, regardless of the political outfall. He is running as a member of a party the claims to value patroitism; to love national heroes; and to want a consistent and dedicated conservative candidate. And yet he has dropped to what 15%? 12%?

For all the lip service the Republicans pay to valuing those attributes, you'd think he would rank a lot higher than a distant 4th. This is a candidate who has enough of a national reputation that he would stand a very good chance vs. a democratic opponent, but the rank and file of the republican base has turned on him because he doesn't suck the teat of the Republcan Party.

You look at the people ahead of him in the polls. Rudy Guliani. A democrat in republican clothes. His views on issues are democratic views. He came up through the Republican Party in NY. America under Bush uses our victimization on 9/11 as a justification for a slew of immoral activities. Likewise Guiliani personally used that 9/11 victimization to become a Presidential candidate. He doesn't embrace extreme Republican conservative values on abortion and other lightning rod issues, but instead suggests he will appoint judges who will vote for the conservative base's agenda --- over his own beliefs. He basically is saying he will sell out his own beleifs to be President. My own impression of him is greatly shaped by seeing him appearing in terrorism fear ads supporting the republican candidate for an Alaskan conressional seat in the last election (I repeat that was for a seat representing ALASKA!!!!) and seeing him proclaiming George Bush ran away with one of the debates with Kerry. That I can see, he is a republican party shill with very little honesty and integrety. That is the republican front runner.

Fred Thompson. As I understand it, Thompson's voting record was eirily similar to McCain's. Not all too suprising really as they are apparently friends. Thompson reportedly endorsed McCain before the conservative base of the party begged Thompson to run. Thompson's candidacy effectively undercut McCain's. All the financial issues affecting the McCain camp are probably due to Thompson's decision to run. Thompson is seen as McCain without the baggage. He is a hollywood face the Republicans think they can turn into another Regan. Thompson's advisors have him stalling officially getting into the race so they can thwart the attacks of other republicans on him as long as possible. Thompson has a lot more skeletons in the closet that most of his conservative fans would think. His marital status/history and his role in the Nixon scandal will probably hurt his candidacy (as I understand it he spied for Nixon the Watergate fiasco) if he wins the nomination. There is a perception that he may not have the stomach for the race and I have seen nothing to indicate that perception is wrong.

Mitt Romney. Another liberal democrat in Republican clothing. I wouldn't have thought it, but between Guliani's lack of clothes, Thompson's clay feet, and McCain's struggling campaign, and Romney has a real shot to win the republican nomination which is hugely supring to me as he is effeminate, throwing out the gay vibe big time. Additonally he is contradicting just about every political stance he took and value he expressed as a lower level politician. He seems perfectly willing to tell the Republican faithful what they want to hear to get himself elected. In essence, he is running a brilliant Republican campaign. He is sinking gobs of money to flood the airwaves in the early primary states with his newfound conservative beleifs and is actually the frontrunner in a few of those states now. (Although I resent what he is doing, I'd be on board with a Romney Presidency. I think in the white house he would revert to a Dem in Republican clothing and frankly is brilliantly effective as a politician and a manager.)

Republicans want people who suck the teat of the Republican Party. They don't want people with principles.

I look at the rest of the feild and see a number of conclusions:

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas - a political shill with nothing to offer. Guiliani without 9/11 to back him up.
Jim Gilmore former Governor of Virginia - Loudly proclaimed himself "the conservative in the race", but when the conservative base selected Thompson as their choice, Gilmore saw tht writing on the wall and got out of the race.
Tommy Thompson, former Governor of Wisconsin - Very similar to Gilmore, but hasn't dropped out yet.
Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado - An odd duck and honestly one of the Republican candidates I admire. He seems conservative but sensible. Taking a different course to the presidency than the other candidates by calling out Bush. Too early to put a fork in his candidacy with the Thompson factor out there.
Representative Ron Paul of Texas - He is the Pat Buchanon of this race. He seems to think just being in the race is going to force the party to adopt his beleifs. He doesn't seem to get that a guy with less than 5% of the vote doesn't have that power.
Representative Duncan Hunter of California - This guy scares me, quite honestly. MY impression of him is very unfavorable. He seems like a nutjob to me, who shouldn't be trusted with nuclear weapons, and I am glad there are so many other conservative candidates trying to get traction that this guy cannot get going. I think if the conservative base had embraced him instead of Thompson, he would be a George W. Busheque nightmare of 8 years of poor decision-making adored by the rich.
Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas - the preacher is a man of principle. I admire him a great deal. He has ironclad christian beliefs that he applies in sensible ways in his political dealing. He does not unneccessarily alienate people and is a very effective politician.

So Brownback, Paul, Hunter, and (I'll grudgingly admit) Tancredo are political opportunists. Gilmore & T. Thompson are conservatives who appear not to have the knack for running a national campaign. And then there is Huckabee, who along with McCain are the only republican candidates I see who have potitical guts and don't survive off political opportunism.

====================================================

The Dems are not much better.

Hillary Clnton. Frankly, she is running away with this race. There was a thought that Clinton, with her high negative numbers would only be able to sew up say 40% of the vote as solidly for her and a small fraction leaning democrat in principle --- That you eaither like her or hate her --- and the other 55% would vote against her. That may still come into play in the general election, but there is mounting evidence that the Obama camp has waited too long and that perception will not help them. Clinton has more or less had the freedom to run unopposed as a dominant frontrunner and to instead focus on looking and acting presidential and warm and motherly. Months ago, the Clinton camp wisely threw out some guidelines for Iraq that she could walk away from. They got a bump from that, that helped them build their lead. There is no lasting cost from that, because she can brush it away as something that the changing conditions in Iraq made moot. She running a smart campaign that isn't taking any unneccessary chances. She doesn't have to be a leader to win the nomination so she isn't going to take the lead on issues like immigration reform or Iraq, she just has to avoid missteps and look presidential and kind.

Obama is also avoiding taking a stance on aything. His campaign in comfortable with the status quo and beleives they can launch a media ad blitz ala Mitt Romney's and sell Obama the rockstar to overtake Hillary. It is possible, but frankly Obama has a credibility issue with me at this point and I am probably not alone. Where is the substance? He is an intelligent guy, but he hasn't shown any leadership to me in months. I think he has political courage, but is saving it like it is his last card to play.

John Edwards. The Mitt Romney of the Democratic feild. Many of the same opinions I have of Romney apply to Edwards. I think he says a lot of things he doesn't beleive in to play to his base (although I genuinely beleive in his committment to universal health insurance coverage). He also puts out a gay vibe, although I have come to beleive Edwards is in fact, not gay, and is a devoted family man who just happens to merely be effiminate. (Not that being gay is even a negative in the Democratic party!) Edwards dropped out of office to prepare for this presdiential campaign and right now you'd have to say things are looking pretty good for him. Edwards dropped out so he could criticise Obama and Hillary without having a running voting record that others can call him on. I think it stinks of political opportunism, but it has worked well for him. Hillary has to present herself as a moderate by effectively campaigning as a conservative. Obama has to do the same to distance himself from the joke african American candidates of the past and present himself as a viable candidate for white America too. That left the liberal wing of the party uncatered to. Edwards can attack and attack and his two main competitors are pretty limited on how much they can defend. Edwards has also really been aggressively campaigning in the early primary races and seems to be turning those states into 3 man races. If he wins a couple of those states, the dynamic of the nomination could quickly change. Obama and Hillary are soft front runners who are effectively splitting the northern democratic base. Edwards is a white southerner (a good combo for the south and midwest) making inroads in liberal areas in the north. There is room for his candidacy upsurge to become a national movement after the first few primaries. (Do want to put out some love for his wife. She is maybe not supermodel hot like Dennis Kucinich's wife, but she puts out the good person vibe and you never see her on TV and question her sincerity in beleiving in her husband. I think a lot of the success Edwards is having is fueled by his wife's efforts. Top notch lady who I'd be pretty happy to see as America's first lady.)

Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. Unlike Edwards, Biden didn't get out of politics so he had the freedom to henpeck from the outside. Unlike Hillary and Obama, Biden is still making his opinion known on issues and taking stances. His political courage has his share of the vote growing, but time is not on his side and Edward's campaigning may end up successfully blunting his charge.

Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. Kucinich is an odd combination of acceptable insider and firebrand reformer. No question he is a man of conscience who has admirable beliefs. His main drawback in terms of getting elected is that he doesn't look presidential. He is a short man who favors Mad Magazine's Alfred E Newman. He too is blocked from getting into position for a run by the presence of John Edwards.

====================================================

I think you can see how there appears to be a direct correlation between America's willingness to get behind a political opportunistic candidate over a politcally courageous candidate.

Which brings me to David Vitter. Vitter was one of the Republican's driving the impeach clinton bus for Bill's extramarital affair. Here's a short video of Vitter's political history.

Despite Vitter's role in the Clinton effort, and yet there is scarcely a word from other members of congress about this --- perhaps they are scared that they might be the next person outed by Larry Flint's money. I think it is far more likely that (at least for the time being) they have learned from the lesson of David Vitter. If you make your career off another's private failings, your private failing will come out more often and will be reported with much more vigor.

I think this gets back to the peer advocacy issue. There is a pretty good chance that if a Democrat really threw it on Vitter, a republican friend of Vitter's would throw it on them in the future given the chance. I suspect politicans on the Hill have decided to reverse the process that began with the clinton witchhunts and have evolved into Flint's scandal buying venture that threatens them all. I think as a group they are probably trying despirately to put the failings of their personal relationships back into pandora's box.

(Obviously, Republicans despite their loudly proclaimed ownership of all Morality, are not going to call for Vitter's resignation. Morality is after all only a tool for them to get votes --- not actually anything they live by.)

It is a shame. When you are a politician who has made your political capital feeding off someone else's maritial infidelity, someone really should take you to task on your own. You shouldn't be able to throw a press conference, admit it was shameful, then tell everyone to stop reporting on it and announce you are on your way back to work. Someone should take these people to task.

And Vitter should not go down alone in this. His wife is equally worthy of derision. In 2000, his wife, Wendy Vitter, commenting on the Clinton scandal, said, "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he [Vitter] does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me."

Yes, she essentially looked down her nose at Mrs. Clinton, claiming Mrs. Clinton lacked spine and assured all the world that she, Wendy Vitter, was made of sterner stuff. She would never be the quiet doting wife as her husband rolled into bed with someone else.


REALLY?...

Apparently, Wendy has learned that sometimes being a good mother involves swallowing very bitter pills in public. Today, Wendy vitter seems like a MUCH MORE PATHETIC version of Hillary Clinton as she sheepishly begs the media to leave the vitter family alone---in fact, going so far as to open her speech bemoaning the fact that vitter's infidelity is not a private issue between her and her husband--- and let David go back to his job.

When I say more pathetic, I mean that Hillary, for all the pressure she was under, was very strong when she faced the media and said she forgave her husband. Mrs. Vitter on the other hand basically aknowledged she was broken by the news and then asked everyone to stop talking about it as she hid behind her kids and her church.

Perhaps even worse for Mrs. Vitter are the still unacknowleged claims of infidelity; Those from Louisiana. Those claims of Louisianna prostitutes state vitter came to see them mostly TO TALK --- strongly implying Mrs. Vitter is every bit the judgemental harpy she seems to be.

"To forgive is not always the easy choice." Perhaps Mrs. Vitter might consider issueing a public apology to Mrs. Clinton now that she has spent a few short days seeing life from Hillary's point of view.

Anyway, I am going to wrap up my condemnation of political opportunists with a semi-amusing video appeal to Wendy Vitter to spare her husband's penis. Click here and enjoy.