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.
Why does Bush say the country would be better off if he is re-elected. Maybe he didn’t remember that 9-11 happened on his watch.?????
Jeff, yes. The future is now.
So what John?
I see VoteHillary.org which pushed a 2004 Hillary Rodham Clinton Draft presidency is now pushing her for president in 2008. The site is http://www.votehillary.org I have heard it will be launched as early as next week.
…Continued from above
Case in point:
No matter how the question is asked:
Do you believe it is time for a change?
Does Bush Deserve to be reelected?
Is America on the Right or Wrong track?
etc.
Consistently, 52 to 54% vote that it is time to change the leadership of the country.
That is why Bush never exceeds 44 to 46%. Because the remainder of people disagree with him.
If you look at it historically, this number is very important in the final outcome of the election.
The approval rating (Bush typically in the mid-40s) vs those who think it is time for a change (typically in the low 50s).
This poll doesn’t do anything to undermine that argument.
So no worries. We’re still doing okay.
Kerry has to do a better job defining this election. I told you all it was a mistake to focus so much on foreign affairs and his Vietnam record. Because those who vote on that subject will vote for Bush regardless of what is happening in Iraq or his own record in the military.
Kerry’s statement to the effect that he wouldn’t have changed his vote for the IWR was just stupid.
It isn’t too late. But Kerry definitely has to define this election about the economy – the haves vs the have nots.
That’s how he will win.
He needs a consistent confident message that people understand and resonates.
This poll, and other recent polls, is about Kerry – not Bush.
This CBS poll has gotten a lot of attention these past couple of days but here is why I am less concerned about it than others.
Asides from the veterans, which the polls shows is going for Bush by about 15% (incidently, Bush won the veterans vote in 2000 by about 35% – which means that in overall total number this is still a 20% gain for the Dems – considering that veterans make up about 10% of population, that means this is a total pick up of about 2% total for Dems and a loss of 2% overall for Bush).
Anyway, you’ll notice that Bush’s numbers still hover at the 44 to 45% mark, which is essentially where he is always at.
Bush will not win anything with 45% of the vote.
Thus, the dynamics are unchanged. If you think that Nader will get 2% of the vote. Bush 44% to 46%, that means that Kerry will win 52% to 54% of the vote.
So despite the bruhaha, this poll still shows Bush in trouble.
I suppose with the lead up to the Republican convention, the media has to talk about something.
But I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
When polls come out (not counting Gallup which always over-counts republicans by about 8%) that show Bush consistently getting 48% to 50% and Kerry getting about the same, then I will start to worry.
But when the polls demonstrate a close race at 44% or 45%, then this is just as bad as Bush getting 44% to 45% and Kerry getting 52 to 54%.
Because the undecideds always go to the challenger.
Remember 1980. The race was always “close” between Reagan and Carter – about 42% or so. This went on all the way to election day. Then Carter stayed at 42% and Reagan got the rest.