I read a Thomas Friedman column this week that really required a smackdown. So I supplied one at New York:
How much political capital should Democrats invest in a probably doomed effort to save the political career of Liz Cheney? Earlier this week, Never Trump Republican Linda Chavez penned a column urging Wyoming Democrats to take a dive this November in order to give the incumbent a chance to survive as an independent, assuming (as it safe) that Cheney will be purged in her own party’s primary. And now, in an apparent coincidence, in comes New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman suggesting a far more radical step by Democrats to align themselves with the small slice of Republicans who follow Cheney’s example in repudiating Donald Trump. He wrote:
“Is that what America needs in 2024 — a ticket of Joe Biden and Liz Cheney? Or Joe Biden and Lisa Murkowski, or Kamala Harris and Mitt Romney, or Stacey Abrams and Liz Cheney, or Amy Klobuchar and Liz Cheney? Or any other such combination.”
Friedman phrases this as a question, but clearly he thinks it’s a good idea given the “existential moment” America would face if Trump is allowed to regain the presidency in 2024. It’s a bit of a loaded question, too, since it postulates that nothing short of a previously unimaginable “sacrifice” by Democrats and Never Trump Republicans alike can stop Trump — and that it would, in fact, succeed in stopping Trump.
I certainly agree that Democrats dumping Kamala Harris to give their vice-presidential nomination to a conservative Republican who opposes legalized abortion and is a militarist by conviction and heredity would be a “sacrifice,” to put it very mildly. It would also be very, very weird. Friedman cites the recent establishment of a mind-bending coalition government in Israel to thwart Bibi Netanyahu as a development comparable to what he is suggesting. But as he acknowledges, Israel has a parliamentary system in which multiparty coalitions are the rule rather than the exception. A presidential system in which parties invariably run separate tickets for the top job is another thing altogether.
The U.S. has had exactly one example of multiparty fusionism in a presidential election. In 1864, in the midst of the Civil War, Republicans nominated Democrat Andrew Johnson of Tennessee — then serving as U.S. military governor of Tennessee — to run with Lincoln on a “Union” ticket. The experiment did not turn out well, beginning with Johnson’s drunken inaugural address in 1865 and continuing with the racist solidarity he exhibited toward ex-Confederates after Lincoln’s assassination, culminating in his impeachment and near removal from office. There are important reasons politicians sort themselves out into major parties, which should be apparent in an era of polarization over issues other than the scofflaw behavior of Donald Trump.
Is the threat of Trump’s return to the White House the equivalent of the U.S. Civil War? Not in itself, I would contend, though that horrific development could lead eventually to grave conditions comparable if not equal to a civil war. The premise that a Biden-Cheney fusion ticket would uniquely doom Trump to failure is even more dubious. There has never been much evidence of a mass following for Never Trump Republicans, and such as it is, it is mostly composed of people who would (and did in 2020) gladly vote for Biden and Harris. The baleful effect that replacing Harris with Cheney on the ticket would have on Democratic turnout could easily offset or exceed the alleged benefits of bipartisan and trans-ideological fusion.
So Democrats should say thanks, but no thanks, to Friedman for the idea of submitting their party to some sort of unwieldy and unnatural coalition of national salvation, so long as there is the slightest possibility of beating Trump the old-fashioned way. Liz Cheney deserves great respect for the courage she has shown in defying Trump at the expense of her own career, and if Biden is reelected with her support, perhaps she deserves an ambassadorship, a minor Cabinet post, or a major sub-Cabinet position. But she has no business being at the top of the line of succession to a Democratic president.
???
it’s WTFSJFKD.
With Kerry only down by 2% in Virginia, Edwards is a great choice. Virginians up and down the state are really down on Bush and with Max Cleland leading the charge at the recent convention, Kerry has a great strategy to appeal to veterans in Virginia.
I was shocked to find a great deal of Democratic support when I went to Roanoke a few weeks ago. Everwhere we stopped along Rt. 11 there were Democrats.
Speaking of Congressmen, we also have a great candidate running against long-term incumbent Frank Wolf in the 10th District. James Socas is a viable candidate raising lots of money and running a great campaign.
He is a “sunshine populist” who excites the base as well as moderates.
In a word, he is Clintonian.
Now we need to start concentrating on winning back congress. One place that we can win is Virginia’s 5th district, currently represented by a vulnerable fanatic, Virgil Goode (thegoodereport.com), who’s being challenged by Al Weed (alweed2004.com), a progressive veteran and farmer. The House is within our grasp, check out Al Weed!
It’s Edwards baby!!!
WOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
Edwards is a great choice. Edwards helps a little in many states simultaneously. He is a great campaigner and will take it to the enemy.
Gephardt would’ve been the wrong choice. In this field of candidates, Edwards has the most “shine” and that virtue makes him the best underside of the ticket.
> Looks like it’s Edwards
And I think Kerry has made a fairly good choice too, after thinking about it for a while! Yes — Edwards doesn’t exactly bring a lot of military/foreign policy/antiterrorism experience to the table. But he will make a great cheerleader on the campaign trail. He is a “sunshine populist” who excites the base as well as moderates. It’s bound to be an asset as Kerry tries to define himself as a positive alternative to the current President; not merely the anti-Bush.
—
Dick Gephardt would have been less risky, but I think Kerry needed to take risks and pick someone who symbolizes change and the future rather than the past.
MARCU$
Looks like it’s Edwards
The link does work. But it’s only in the “an” portion of the highlighted phrase. “Excellent article in the Sunday New York Times” is not uncluded in the URL.
The link doesn’t seem to work currently. Here’s the correct line:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/04/business/yourmoney/04carrie.html
So should Kerry add Louis Uchitelle to his speech-writing staff?