Some Things Never Change

It seems that some battles have to be fought, some lessons learned, over and over again. Carl Schurz (1829-1906) was a German revolutionary who at 19 fled Germany after the unsuccessful Revolution of 1848. He wound up in America and threw himself into anti-slavery politics. During the Civil War he served in the Union Army, rising to the rank of major general, fighting in the Second Battle of Bull Run, and the battles of Gettysburg and Chattanooga.

After the war he was elected Senator from Missouri, served as Secretary of the Interior for Rutherford B. Hayes, and then retired to New York to write. He always had very strong opinions and no reluctance in expressing them, in letters, speeches, and articles that were forceful (if you agreed with him) or vitriolic (if you didn't).

Two things of his I've stumbled across seem worth quoting. The first is from remarks he made during debate in the Senate on February 29, 1872

The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, 'My country, right or wrong.' In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.

The second is from the article, "About Patriotism" that he published in Harper's Weekly on April 16, 1898:

The man who in times of popular excitement boldly and unflinchingly resists hot-tempered clamor for an unnecessary war, and thus exposes himself to the opprobrious imputation of a lack of patriotism or of courage, to the end of saving his country from a great calamity, is, as to "loving and faithfully serving his country," at least as good a patriot as the hero of the most daring feat of arms, and a far better one than those who, with an ostentatious pretense of superior patriotism, cry for war before it is needed, especially if then they let others do the fighting.

Some things never change.

Truth Revealed

Do you remember the State of the Union speech President Bush gave in 2003 to justify his planned attack on Iraq? Actually you don't. My GP covert ops team has uncovered incontrovertible evidence that this supposedly live broadcast speech was a sophisticated media hoax, pulling the wool over all our eyes. Fortunately GPCO was able to recover a copy of the actual speech, though we lost two guys in the process. (Not sure how. They tell me it's best not to ask about such things.) Compared to the dummy speech it's surprisingly short. Revise history accordingly.

History tells

There's been talk about whether Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal might be under consideration as a running mate for John McCain. He's a very conservative Republican, an up and coming politico, and the first elected Indian-American state governor. That's Indian as Punjabi, not Comanche.

I don't think it will happen, as I think Jindal's far too smart a guy to fall for this. Why? Aaaaaand that gives me my lead to mention a really interesting site: My History Can Beat Up Your Politics.

Bruce Carlson is a history buff whose passion is taking current political issues and looking at American history to see if it will give us any insights. He then makes a podcast about each issue, talking it all through taking anywhere from 10 to 40 minutes. His thesis, which he supports with a lot of evidence, is that you'd do better to look at historical trends than current polling, if you want to know what's going to happen. It's very wonky, as he'll methodically go through, say, every single presidential election in light of his current question, but if you like that stuff (and I do) it's great.

About McCain, two of the podcasts I've listened to seem relevant. In Running From the President, Carlson notes that no candidate trying to succeed a president of his own party has ever done so without the enthusiastic support of his predecessor, which he cannot get if he repudiates or even just distances himself from his predecessor's policies. McCain has already tied himself to Bush's policies.

But in Presidential Pass-offs, he notes that nobody, starting with John Adams following George Washington, has gotten elected to succeed a president of his own party unless the outgoing president was very popular. Bush now is officially the most unpopular president since modern polling was invented around 1935.

That puts McCain between a rock and a hard place. He's handcuffed to Bush's hideously unpopular person and policies, which indicates he's sunk, according to history. But if he were to break away from Bush, Mr. Straight Talk Patriot Hero would look like a disloyal little fuck of a weasel, and history says he's sunk again.

This is why I think Jindal will pass. Think what you may of his policies, nobody thinks Jindal is stupid, and he's certainly not stupid enough to chain his Louisiana shrimp boat to a sinking ship called the USS John McCain.

Spitzer: Isn't this what porn's for?

Oh, jeez, here we go again. Another high-flying politician, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, with presidential ambitions yet, a crusader for right and justice, the scourge of sleaze and crime, gets caught bumping a pricey hooker when he's out of town away from his wife. Worse, he actually imported her into DC for a little fun between daytime business. (Google the "Mann Act" please.) The only novelty is that for a change he's a Democrat.

This stuff is so unnecessary. It's not uncommon for middle aged men to desire some exciting sexual variety after years of marriage, even in a happy marriage. No, scratch "not uncommon." It's damn near universal. The question is what you do about it.

Cummon, despite its disrepute, this is where porn does a lot of good. If a guy can look at what turns him on in private when he can scratch that itch but good, it may not be quite as fucktastic as banging in person what you're looking at, male, female, or in between. But it can take the edge off, make the urge for in-person banging less urgent, more manageable, and has probably kept a lot of marriages sailing smoothly on an even keel. And okay, yes, me too. Been there, done that, cleaned up afterwards.

But Spitzer? No. It wasn't because he was horny. Anyone can take care of horny in five minutes in the bathroom. This is about arrogance, and entitlement, and an ego that thinks he's climbed so high nothing can bring him down. One blogger, the Rude Pundit, consulted a hooker friend of his about why anyone would pay so much for a hooker, up to $5,500. She said, "The same reason people buy ugly paintings by famous artists or stay in penthouse hotel rooms for a night. Because they can. Status, you know."

Status. I think Spitzer's lost a lot of that in the past 48 hours. I think he's lost all that he had.

Another [yawn] Election

OK, this time it's Mississippi, just next door. It looks like Obama's winning this one too, which is fine with me.

But the relentless, nonstop, breathless coverage is getting damn exhausting, especially as it's covering what is more and more a non-story. ("This just in! Dog bites man, Obama wins primary. Film at eleven.")

The New Yorker ran a cartoon last week showing a team of these newsstars sitting behind their mockup desk, saying to the camera: "And now for three hours of meaningless speculation about a race we've already acknowledged is too close to call."

Damn straight. And getting so tiresome. HOW many months left to go??

We Are Lost

Oh, shit. When these two guys start teaming up, you know we're in trouble.

At least we know who his running mate will be.

Super Fat Tuesday

Well here in New Orleans it's not Super Tuesday, and all those elections are not even a blip on the screen. It's what you see above. Fat Tuesday. Mardi Gras, ya know. Our primary will be Saturday, and I'll be a poll worker. It's likely to be a minuscule turnout, as the primary is unlikely to make much of a difference. Louisiana is one of those states who get to sit and watch every four years as other states decide who the nominees will be.

Democrats and independents can vote in the Democratic race, but the Republican race is Republicans only. The interesting twist is that in addition to the primary, the Republican party held a series of caucuses also about a month ago and didn't tell anybody. Even the paper just noticed it today. Those caucuses selected delegates who are not bound to vote for the candidate they promised to vote for, and the final delegate count may or may not be bound by the results of the Saturday primary. Those clever little Republicans, they're so cute when they get this way.

Too clever by half. The paper says the La. Republican party did this in a rather desperate bid to get a piece of the action before Super Tuesday. But their pitiful inability to publicize the caucuses to either the public or the candidates made it a wasted effort. Of course, if the candidates slug it out to the point of a brokered Republican Convention, all those uncommitted Louisiana delegates could find themselves very popular.

And how am I spending my Mardi Gras? At home, nursing a cold. Boo. [Photo is from 2002.]

That Tears It

One of the more ridiculous little memes of this election is the one about Hillary Clinton's tears. You know the story. During a campaign stop at a coffee shop in Portsmouth, N.H., she got a little emotional after being asked why she was running and how she stood the pressure. She got a catch in her voice as she told how very personal it was to her, how strongly she felt about moving the nation forward.

The reactions were predictable. In Maureen Dowd's widely criticized op-ed she quoted her male colleagues saying snarky things like, "Is this how she’ll talk to Kim Jong-il?” or "That crying really seemed genuine. I’ll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand."

Back and forth it went. “If she is breaking down now, before winning her party’s nomination, then how would she act under pressure as president?” “[This is] the oldest, dumbest canard about women: they’re too emotional to hold power.”

Isn't a huge point being missed here? Just look at that photo, for one thing. She was in a coffee shop, surrounded by women who were either committed supporters or sympathetic. It was "safe" emotionally, as much as any public appearance could be. I think something inside her knew that, and knew that if there was ever going to be a time and place to let a little out, this was it.

Note that I am not saying that this was all planned and calculated. How could it be? She didn't know she would be asked that question. What I'm saying is that emotions have multiple components, including what we feel inside and how much of it we let show openly. Every person with a normal emotional intelligence knows how to regulate the second part, knows from the moment and the context, from where you are and who you're talking to, how much of your feelings you can let show. It's not something you calculate, you know it instinctively.

We can never know how many times Hillary has felt strong emotions during this campaign and kept them in check. I doubt that anyone knows, not even Bill. But in this place, at a relatively low pressure event surrounded by sympathetic women, she could let a little show. She knew it instinctively. It wouldn't surprise me if she needed to let a little steam off -- I would, in her position -- but she didn't do it until she was in a place safe to do so. I think we can take it for granted that if she HAD been facing down Kim Jong-Il she would have been quite a bit different, pure Ice Queen, as she should be.

What this event says to me is not that she has no control over her emotions, but that she does. Perfectly.