More On The Debate

I was actually falling asleep in my computer chair when I finished writing yesterday, so there were definitely some unfinished thoughts.  I'd like to attempt to finish them now. 

Touchstone, in this comment makes a good point:

Still, it feels like your opposition to Morrison is based on...intuition? A lot of the crit you offered against him was of physical impression -- hands, words -- and some emotional reaction to what he said. Tho' Morrison's comments on Mexicans and meth labs was pretty offensive, I admit. But then I think Tester's plan for illegals is impractical.

I agree that Tester's stand against amnesty is impractical, and indicated my disagreement with him on the issue in my summery of the debate.  Just clarifyin' is all.

As regards my opposition to Morrison, in the last post I was trying not to show overt opposition to anyone.  I wanted to present impressions more than a personal stand.  I hope that I accomplished that.  I prefer to think of myself as favoring Tester, rather than opposing Morrison or Richards.  However, the logic of the voting choice is clearly exclusory; favoring one over another is objectively opposing that other.  Which brings me to a comment that I heard from two different attendees to the debate:  "wouldn't it be great if we could press all of these men into one candidate?".  In some respects, of course it would.  That would be the super candidate for every Democrat in Montana; Tester's determination with Morrison's easy eloquence and Richards' popular idealism.  However, some of the qualities of these men would not mesh well with the others, and that is why I do objectively oppose Morrison, and to some smaller degree, Richards.

I strongly urge everyone to read Mike's terrific take on the campaign to unseat Burns.  I can't say that I agree with all of Mike's points, but I do agree with many of them.  My problem with Richards is the Utopian nature of his idealism.  As Mike indicates, it borders on closet socialism, and to that degree is unrealistic in any kind of practical setting.  I like Paul's idealism, and if I thought there was a ghost's chance in hell that we could implement perfect security of transport, absolutely free higher education, and a fully working socialist health care system without bankrupting the country or violating many of our civil rights, I'd probably be in the Richards camp with full throated support.  Unfortunately, perhaps, I don't believe in fairy tales, I don't believe the full blown socialist utopia is possible in America, and I cannot support a candidate who will go to Washington and be ineffective.

Morrison, on the other hand, offends because he is trying so damned hard not to offend.  We already have two Senators who tend to take the path of least resistance.  I won't trade one for one much of the same mold, just because the new-guy has a D behind his name.  Mike is absolutely correct, and I've said it before this debate:  if Morrison wins the primary, then Conrad Burns will eat his liver with some fava beans and a nice chiante in the general election.  And that will happen only partly because of Morrison's dalliance outside the marital vows.  Mostly it will be because Morrison talks  a hell of a lot, real pretty like, even, and yet he doesn't say anything.  Gwen Florio of the GF Trib noticed it, and so did I, in spades.  Morrison failed to answer many of the questions put to him, but yet he did so with the best of political speech.  That is a truly uninspired resume for failure.

Notice this, the primary attack being used by the Republicants takes two forms:  the Dems have no ideas, and the Dems won't take a stand.  Morrison might as well go hunting with Cheney as to take his current tact in this campaign.  He's going to get blasted in the face either way.  He has no ideas and he won't take a stand.  That may have worked for Baucus in the 70's, but it sure as hell won't work for Morrison in 2006.  If he doesn't come out boldly with issue statements and a clear agenda, he will lose, period.

And here's my thing, why should we, as Democrats, want him?  Yes, he's pretty, and yes he speaks very well.  But yet he does nothing to inspire my confidence that he will do jack to work for me.  His silence about stances and his evasion of things that might appear negative to some allows for intuitive judgement, as touchstone notes, but it also sends a clear message that this guy wants to be elected more than he wants the job that he will be elected to.  Add to that the fact that he is willing to play every hypocritical canard on the table and you have an unappealing candidate.  As I indicated previously, the only candidate to bring up family values, spousal support and fear-mongering in the debate was John Morrison.

(John, should you read this, please keep in mind that I found you to be a helluva nice guy.  I'd love to join you for beer, and I appreciate the work you've done as state auditor; but if this is your campaign strategy, I don't trust or want you to represent me in the US Senate.  I doubt you'll understand that, but I hope that you'll try.)

The values that Paul Richards appealed to were the values of the liberal.  I like those values.  The values that Jon Tester appealed to were the values of the land, the values of freedom and the values of the American pioneer ... the values of Montana.  I like those values even more.  If Montana is going to send a man to the Senate to represent Montana, then that one had better damned well share those values, the values our state was built on, and shares to this day.  Yep, there's some ideological ugliness there; but that's our history and will be our future.  That's why  I support Jon Tester, and oppose Paul Richards and John Morrison.

Which brings me to the final point I wish to make.  The debate on Monday left me somewhat afraid for Jon Tester, because of Paul Richards.  It is a simple fact of politics that split votes favor the less appealing candidate.  To this day, the Repugs blame Ross Perot for the 8 years of prosperity that they suffered under Clinton's penis.  I still blame the 98,000 morons in Florida who voted  Nader for electing the President most diametrically opposed to their agenda in the history of this country.  Split votes hurt, and accomplish bad things.  It's the nature of the game.  At this moment, I am very concerned that those who follow Richards down the path of Utopia will defeat Tester in the primary, far more than Morrison ever could or ever would.  I make this prediction, not because I find it appealing, but because I am a realist of cynical bent.  The future convict Conman Burns will be re-elected because many Montanans are smart enough to know that Burns is bad, but not smart enough to realize that money and purty speech doesn't win elections, and neither does supporting la-la land rhetoric.  Jon Tester should beat Conrad Burns.  Jon Tester can beat Conrad Burns.

The only question is, are Montanans willing to put on the gloves, go to work, and help him do it?

Comments

[Eric Coobs]

I agree with most of your analysis.

We'll see what happens during the next month.

[Mark]

I wish just once that you Nader bashers would address one thing: Gore could have had the Nader vote if he had simply taken leadership on any of the multitude of issues Nader put up. Instead, Gore was arrogant - you vote for me as I am, I give you nothing.

Gore beat Gore. God this gets old. Blame your guy. Be a man.

[Wulfgar]

That's kinda humorous, Mark, but I'm pretty certain that Gore voted for himself, so it seems pointless to blame him for beating himself. I've already adressed the Nader thing, dozens of times. Ultimately, Nader has proven himself to be a self-promoting jackass, and his supporters continue to congratulate themselves for helping to elect the very guy who stands against everything that they profess to believe in. Real smart, huh?

"Boy, I sure am glad I voted for Nader! As bad as Bush is for the environment, it could have been worse; holy shit, we could have had Gore ...")

The arrogance that you ascribe to Gore is simply a projection of your own arrogant cover-up for being boneheaded enough to vote in a self-defeating manner. Certainly, it can't be your fault that Bush is in the White House. No, no, it must be Gore.

As tired as you may think you are for having to point out how much smarter you are for voting Nader than the idjits who voted for Gore, I am way over being tired of reading lame illogical defenses for the 98,000 stupid Floridians who still pat themselves on the back for shooting themselves in the foot.

There, is that man enough for you, Mark?

[touchstone]

Hey, wait a minute! Ease up, pardner! I admit: I voted for Nader in 2000, too. (Of course, I was in California, so I didn't have to worry about a close race in the state.)

This is one of those arguments where both sides are right. Nader is a self-promoting moron. Gore would have won the election if he had not abandoned the left. (H*ll, Gore would have won the election if he had won his HOME STATE.)

Personally I decided to cast my vote for Nader when Gore and Bush got into a debate on who was the more Christian candidate. *Brrrrr*

Anybody who voted for Nader in a swing state was a moron. Anybody who voted for Nader in a solidly blue or red state was casting a protest vote against the shift right of the Democratic party.

[Wulfgar]

touchstone, you are correct. I'd be willing to bet that both Mark and I are just fraustrated at having the same damned argument for probably the 100th time.

If anything, though, it does claerly highlight how devisive split votes and spoilers can be.

[touchstone]

PS - I'm glad my comment sparked a whole new post. I just wanted to point out that your reaction to Morrison was different -- substantively -- than it was to Tester and Richards. The issues and ideas of the other two candidates played a large part in your judgement, whereas your reaction to Morrison was personal.

Not a critique. From your posts, it appears that Morrison really didn't address issues. He talked a lot without saying anything. (I'd love to see a transcript! Was it taped? Anyone have the bandwidth to post the video?)

I'm holding off on my endorsement until I see and hear the candidates myself and get a clear idea of who stands for what. I will say, just based on the few videos and stories I have seen (the typical voter!), I'd say Tester was the more "electable" candidate in terms of charisma and Montana-ness and that he projects forthrightedness in an era of doublespeak and corruption.

[Mark]

I've followed Nader - I have a sense of the man. He is not "self-promoting" and is certainly not a moron. His record of public service outshines that of either Gore or Bush. His runs for presidency opened him up for abuse from the likes of you and those mainstream Democrats who would vote for a Democratic monkey - he has better ways to spend his time.

Nader's strategy was simply this: Use what leverage you have to get what you want. Don't give them anything until they give you something. What's wrong with that? It's standard negotiating strategy. Nader had 5% of the polls, and said to Gore that if he were to support him on certain progressive issues, that 5% would likely vote for him. Gore, being a moderate Republican domestically, a phony environmentally, and a right wing hawk in foreign policy, had nothing to offer him. He wouldn't budge, and it cost him. He lost - Al's bad. Al thought he could ignore Nader. He was wrong.

I'm not bought into the idea that we are much worse off with Bush than we would have been with Gore - keep in mind that Gore was quite hostile towards Iraq during the campaign. Given the opportunity provided by 9/11, would he had behaved differently? I doubt it. Given Clinton's plan, foiled only by the Monica scandal, to privatize Social Security, would Gore have behaved differently? I doubt it. This idea that Gore is some sort of progressive is a self-induced illusion on the part of Democrats. Were he so, he might have influenced Clinton towards us. He did not.

Until the Democrats get beyond the DLC types, they'll not inspire enough of the electorate to reach that fabled 50% of the vote that they haven't seen since 1976.

[Matt Singer]

I'm a big fan of Gore circa 2006. Along with Mark, I was an ardent Nader supporter in 2000. After the election, Gore found himself, returned to his environmental roots, spoke out against Iraq 2, endorsed single-payer. He started endorsing inconvenient and uncomfortable truths that most in Washington won't.

Pulled a Senator Bullworth on us, if you will.

[Mark]

Just a final word on who caused Gore to lose:

"The Department of Silly Talk is still hearing whining form some Democrats that Ralph Nader made them lose the election. So it may be useful to note that while Nader got only 3% of the vote, exit polls show that the following percentages of various others constituencies voted for Bush: 9% of blacks; 46% of those under 30; 49% of the college educated; 37% of the poor; 39% of working mothers; 11% of Democrats; 34% of union members; 13% of self-described liberals; 25% of gays and lesbians; 15% of Clinton voters in 1996; 25% of those supporting abortion … The Clinton Administration also moved the political center deliberately and consistently to the right, adding weight to conservative arguments over privatization, welfare, and so forth, while making traditional Democratic positions seem oddball and even extremist. This stab in the back of his own party by Clinton led eventually to a contest between a real conservative and a Democrat trying to learn how to become one. The real one won."
Sam Smith

[touchstone]

Still, Nader's 2004 run was moronic. What was he thinking?

I wrote a post on Nader recently under the title of "creep": check it out.

Then you can call me an idiot or whatever you like.

[Wulfgar]

Mark, I realize that you have self-decreed Sam's quote to be the "final word", but you and Mr. Smith would be better served in any argument with me about the 2000 election to acknowledge this fact: I do not, nor have I ever, blamed Ralph Nader for Gore's loss. I believe in one person - one vote. Ralph Nader didn't cast 98,000 votes for himself in Florida, thereby damning the nation to the whims of an incompetant. Anyone who payed a modicum of attention in 2000 should have seen that, regardless of how distastful Gore may have appeared, he was infinitely better than a spoiled and petulant brat-child and serial failure.

Keep this in mind while quoting Sam Smith as he hangs a badge of honor on those wise enough to reject politics-as-usual. Those folks, voting as they did, are no different than the republican voters, the we-want-a-cowboy-who-shoot-'em-all-up voter or the hold-me-daddy-I'm-scared voter. The underlying lie, and pressing arrogance, is that at least the people who voted for Bush were duped into thinking he was a capable and compassionate conservative. There isn't a damn thing conservative about that man, and many of us knew that for a blatant fact. All the Floridian Nader voters have is the hollow message that they voted for a better America. Every time I look at the White House, I say "'Got your better 'Merica right heah!"

Ralph Nader didn't take America one giant leap towards a failed empire; George Bush did. And I hope you'll forgive me if I hold a softly burning antagonism towards those who would arrogantly defend the nobility of those who helped him do it.

[Mark]

You've still got a ways to go to convince me that we're worse off under Bush than Gore. That's the point you avoid. You presume ... that's all.