Waiting for Joe Biden’s speech to a joint session of Congress to begin this week, I observed at New York that Republicans were struggling to define him consistently, which felt like a familiar problem for them:
When Bill Clinton was at the pre-Lewinsky peak of his powers, he drove Republicans nuts. They alternated between accusing him of “stealing our issues” with his triangulating pitches on welfare reform and crime and the size of government, and of being “liberal, liberal, liberal!” — a sort of boomer love child of George McGovern and Janis Joplin in a deceptive deep-fried southern packaging. Eventually the opportunity to depict him as a lying sexual predator solved the conservative dilemma, though you could argue he never stopped throwing them off-balance.
Republicans are similarly having problems getting a clear focus on Joe Biden, as the Los Angeles Times’ Noah Bierman observes:
“Alex Conant, a Republican consultant who has advised Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, [says] that his party’s two main messages about Biden are at odds with each other, blunting their impact. ‘The thing you hear Republicans say most is that he’s too old for the job, which isn’t consistent with saying he’s doing too much,’ Conant said. ‘You can’t effectively argue that he’s incompetent and that he’s too effective.'”
This dual framing of Biden was evident during the 2020 campaign, when Trump called him “Sleepy Joe” and with his usual lack of subtlety suggested his opponent was senile, even as he assailed Biden’s party of radical socialist aims. The 45th president and his surrogates squared the circle by treating Biden as the half-there puppet of the real powers, particularly the “communist” Kamala Harris.
But now, 100 days into the Biden-Harris administration, even though the new president has kept an unusually low profile, there are no signs of Harris or anyone else manipulating him. Indeed, so far his White House has been remarkably free of the factionalism that often undermines clear presidential leadership. With Clinton as president you had a White House staff famously divided (ironically, given the later reputations of the First Lady and the veep) into progressive “Rodhams” and centrist “Gores” who jockeyed for position and placed their varying stamps on administration policies. George W. Bush’s presidency was also marked by competing power centers (e.g., his terrifying vice-president and the “Boy Genius” Karl Rove); to a lesser extent, so was Obama’s. As for Donald Trump, hardly a week passed without someone — particularly his rotating cast of chiefs-of-staff — being described by “insiders” as the real power behind the throne or perhaps as the wild man’s lion-tamer.
Trump, of course, created some of the same problems for Democrats that Clinton — and now Biden — posed for Republicans. Was he the “toddler president” who ran a hollowed-out administration with no real core of convictions or goals? Or was he a putative Il Duce craftily planning an authoritarian takeover of the country? Up until the day he left office there was evidence for both descriptions. Indeed, the coda of his presidency, the January 6 Capitol riot, was variously regarded as a fascist coup attempt and a clown show.
Trump’s successor will have an opportunity in his first address to a joint session of Congress to add to the impression that he is quietly but firmly in charge of the executive branch, and has imposed order on his fractious party as he unveils yet another massive proposal. Kamala Harris will be sitting (and often standing and applauding) behind him, likely looking more like an adoring protégée than any sort of puppet-master. But if he stumbles at all, or looks tired, or says things that supposedly centrist Democrats like him don’t believe, the knees of many elephants will jerk and out will come the mockery of the old man who is a reassuring front for the Marxists actually running the country.
Such confusion if it continues will be of great service to Biden, much like the current Republican tendency to focus on irrelevant culture-war themes while a mostly united Democratic Party enacts legislative initiatives of a magnitude we haven’t seen since Ronald Reagan’s first year in office. For all their political gifts, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — who, lest we forget, both had a much more firmly Democratic Senate and House the first two years of their presidencies — couldn’t come close to the mastery of Congress Biden has exhibited up until now. As Republicans watch Biden’s speech, they should soberly realize that before long it may not matter that much if they bust up the Democratic trifecta in 2022. The damage to GOP policies and priorities wrought by “Uncle Joe” and his “senile socialist regime” could be too large to reverse by then. While Republicans fret about Trump and rage about “cancel culture,” Biden is eating their lunch.
The McCain campaign is shameless. Consider this idea; it may be over the top, but so is the Republican commerical about sex education:
——————
A few video clips of John McCain in ill health. A newspaper headline about his melanoma.
A clip of Sarah Palin saying something silly. A headline of her election as mayor of Wasillia, population 6000 [or whatever].
Voiceover: John McCain says he has the judgment and experience to be president. But despite his health history, he chooses an inexperienced new governor as his running mate. Why? To try to win over Hillary Clinton supporters.
Country First?
————————
I suggest this because I think the Republican willingness to put inexperienced mediocrities like Dan Quayle, Clarence Thomas, Harriet Miers, Heckuvajob Brownie, et al., into high office is unpatriotic. They select on the basis of tactical advantage and ideological submission rather than merit.
“MILF” and “bimbo” — those are sexist terms when applied toward any woman. When you imply that Palin’s success is based primarily on her looks (“failed beauty queen” “second-rate beauty queen”), that’s sexist. She did legitimately win election to mayor and governor. It’s fair to question her qualifications for the vice presidency; it’s not fair to label her a “bimbo.”
When did Bill Clinton call voters “lazy, short sighted, shiny object watching dullards”? When did Bill Clinton express contempt and hatred toward his opponents? When did Bill Clinton call Pat Robertson a “Jew-hating Nazi he-devil”? You may have thought those things yourself, but Bill Clinton never uttered those words (or anything close to them). Bill Clinton did, however, stick to his core message “It’s the economy, stupid.”
You mistake lack of contempt and vitriol as weakness. You accuse people who don’t share your aggressive, denigrating tone as “lacking a spine.” I read Naomi Foner’s article; she’s arguing that we go after Palin’s positions. Hit her hard with her hypocrisy. Absolutely. But your language is way beyond Foner’s.
“Leave the political commentary to those who are not afraid of a bloody nose.” Tough talk. There’s a big difference between a solid right hook and a sucker punch, head butt or knee to the groin. My problem with your approach isn’t the fight itself; it’s how you fight. This isn’t some ultimate fighting cage match. It’s not a silly playground game of one-upmanship. It’s a fight to get more people on your side. And there are lots of ways to do that.
Stop panicking. You’re like the soldier who can’t hold his fire and gives away his position. Have some confidence in a candidate and a campaign that has done pretty damn well so far. So McCain is getting a good bump in the polls. If you thought that the country was just going to reject McCain out of hand and lovingly embrace Obama, then you completely misunderstand Americans (but of course you do, because you hold them in such contempt).
And by the way, though I do not expect anyone to believe what I or anyone says simply because we say it, I’d like to point out this article..written by a WOMAN…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-foner/were-in-big-trouble_b_124686.html
She does not seem to have a whole lot of trouble hitting Palin where it should hurt either. And she is just one of many women who undoubtedly feel the same way.
And she, unlike me, actually gets paid to say this stuff.
I’m no frothing lunatic from the woods, people. I am someone who, like many many others, is beginning to see how much Obama is in trouble. Very serious trouble….owing a lot to what I have been talking about…not enough attacks, and too much cerebral dancing.
That is the second time you have accused me of sexism..either grow a spine and come after what I say with an actual argument, or leave the political commentary to those who are not afraid of a bloody nose. But I am not about to give the MILF a pass simply because she happens to be a woman..anymore than black candidates should get a pass because they are black, or anyone should get a pass simply because of race or gender.
If wanting to hit Palin hard, because she deserves to be hit hard because of her extremism, her lies, and her positions makes me a sexist, you have a warped definition of the word. There are plenty of able women out there…Palin is not one of them, and if I see her weakness as the fact that she is a failed beauty queen with an empty head, i will say so, just as much as I will come after McCain for being a foul tempered old fool.
And you want a name? Bill Clinton. For all his many many faults, he was not afraid to hit back dirty and often during campaigns, and he is the only Democrat elected to the White House twice in the last 30 years.
I am not sure what polls or studies you are reading my friend, but we are losing this race, and the Democratic Congress that we control has the lowest aggregate approval rating in the history of Congress. The reason? They are all being led be milquetoast diplomats like yourself afraid of getting scratched in a real, honest to God fight with Republicans…the ones who actually know how to attack and..say it with me…WIN.
ThinkingGuy:
Just who do you think is going to be persuaded by your sexism, contempt and hatred? The “John Q. American” you mock? Women (who just LOVE the term “MILF”)? Independents?
Please show me one Democrat who has won an election using your suggested tactics. Democrats have won, and are continuing to win, local, state and Congressional elections because they’re finally begin to understand the “lazy, short sighted, shiny object watching dullards” that most us more reasonably — and correctly — call our neighbors, co-workers and friends. Sorry all those folks aren’t up to your standards. But they’re the ones you have to win over if you want to be elected to national office.
Not sexy enough.
We Democrats are getting skinned alive in this election, despite all of history and all of the numbers a mere six months ago giving us a free ride to take the biggest electoral vistory in a generation. And the reason why? Sexiness.
You got a gone toting MILF and a lying mean spirited POW on the other ticket. You think ads that talk about issues and graft from Wasilla are going to speak to John Q. American, (aka. John Q. Redneck) no.
The voting public, as it proved by the re-election of Bush, are lazy, short sighted, shiny object watching dullards. If we do not hit back with as much venom, we will lose, as we always do.
How about an ad showing Palin as the second rate Beauty Queen, Jew Hating nazi she-devil that she is? This is what we need to do, because everyone else is doing it.
Define her as the evil that she is.
Spot on. And here’s the ad I would propose:
The idea is to mimic the MasterCard “priceless” ads in tone, structure and imagery. [All claims and figures need to be rigorously fact-checked.]
Opens with an establishing shot of Wasilla, Alaska, cut to interior shot of an ice hockey rink with kids playing on the ice. Ends with graphic overlay with sound and visual FX: WSJ headline “Palin’s Hockey Rink Leads to Legal Troubles: Misstep leads to years of litigation and at least $1.3 million in extra costs”
VO: “Cost overruns caused by Mayor Sarah Palin’s mismanagement of a major city project: $1.3 million dollars.”
Still shots of “Washington lobbyists” shaking hands (ideal would be a picture showing Palin shaking hands with one of the lobbyists she hired). Ends with graphic overlay with sound and visual FX: Washington Post headline: “Palin’s Small Alaska Town Secured Big Federal Funds” $26.9 Million Dollars for a town of 6,700 people.
VO: “Amount that lobbyists, hired by Mayor Palin, secured in federal earmarks for her town of 6,700: $26.9 million dollars.”
Moving overhead shot of Ketchikan, Alaska airport, zooming in to proposed location of “bridge to nowhere.” Ends with graphic overlay with sound and visual FX: headline from Anchorage Daily News: “Palin touts stance on ‘bridge to nowhere,’ doesn’t note flip-flop”
“Amount of taxpayer dollars Gov. Palin kept for the ‘bridge to nowhere’ she initially supported and was never built: $223 million dollars.”
Clip of Gov. Palin from Republican Convention “In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.” Ends with graphic overlay with sound and visual FX: universal “no” sign (red circle with diagonal line) stamped over still image of Palin at podium.
VO: “A candidate who says one thing and does another: absolutely unaffordable.”
VO and graphic: “Barack Obama and Joe Biden: Change We Can Trust.”
Can do a companion version for John McCain.