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.
All four polls on 2.004 show a trend, unfortunately, of Kerry peaking, and now the momentum shifting to Bush. I just don’t see how you are getting a “Kerry won” out of the third debate. It lookslike after the second debate Bush bottomed out and then it’s turned and now Bush has the upward momentum. I’m not happy about it but the figures are there. in the Zogby poll, but parallel in the others.
Interesting, then, that the blaring headline on CNN this morning is that Bush has a five point lead, which seems to come from the Zogby/Reuters poll- and actually says the exact opposite of DCorps. Zogby is claiming that Kerry is stuck at 44% while Bush is the one persuading the undecideds.
The only reason I watched these debates was to see whether independents and those on the left of center would be energized by Kerry. To me, understandably biased, it looks like Kerry has done well in clarifying his message, and stood up well to a lot of bashing by the broken-record we have as president.
I’d also like to plug the volunteer page of Kerry’s website, http://calls.johnkerry.com, which lists phone numbers of like-minded folks in swing states. They’re encouraging people to call them and tell them about volunteer opportunities in their areas.
Correy
My pet theory — Kerry won the pre-debate “expectations game” because of the GOP’s massive, months-long negative campaign against him. Even though I was planning to for Kerry, I had never seen him in action before. And I was surprised by how strong, calm, and “presidential” he looked. I had not expected to be impressed, and that’s because the Republicans did such an effective job of attacking him before the debates.
There were probably millions of people watching the debates who had never seen Kerry for an extended period of time — all we knew were soundbites, media impressions, and Republican attacks.
I think the next week will be The Moment of Truth.
*If* Kerry takes the lead, I think even the ‘Wingers will start to worry a lot about this election. On the other hand, I would be perplexed and disappointed if “Shrub” actually gains.
The media reaction to the third debate was interesting. THE WEEKLY STANDARD, NATIONAL REVIEW etc. claim “Shrub” won hands down whereas the rest (including all the opinion polls) felt Kerry was better. I suspect both assessments are honest, since they indicate “Shrub” is great at firing up his base but Democrats and a majority of independents favor Kerry.
MARCU$