Keep Dick Morris, we don’t want him

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by political strategist Dick Morris. Having read and recommended his book Power Plays, I know he’s not a fundamentally stupid guy, least of all when it comes to winning elections. But how he didn’t foresee the inevitable flame-out of the 2000s’ Republican Party’s politically purist approach  is a mystery that will confound other pundits for decades. Now, it seems, his patience for that approach has flamed out as well, and he’s ready to be a moderate again. It’s a point to which most of the party itself has come, but most of the party, ideological as it was, hasn’t been half as ridiculous as the guy whose more recent books have had titles like this, this, this, this, this and this.

I can’t fault Morris for wanting to go with this flow. Now that even Fox News has had enough of him – even that old right mare ain’t what she used to be – he needs cash flow, and he needs it soon. But here’s the difference between Morris and the GOP/Fox: Neither of the latter is undergoing as dramatic a political conversion as he is. By most measures, they were fairly mainstream voices of American conservatism. In his pre-election writings, and even in the past month, Morris sounded like a comment section troll on the best days.

Also, you have to remember that Fox’s pollsters were much better at their job than Morris on Election Night, and they’d dumped Glenn Beck long before that happened. They’ve handled the transition from total right-wing insanity quite well (although dumping Karl Rove and Ben Shapiro would help further). Morris’s decision to try to “moderate” the Republican Party has a stronger tone of suddenness, as if he said to himself, “God, fine, I’ll do the triangulation thing again.” Speaking on behalf of those of us who saw the value in triangulation for its own sake, not for the sake of a paycheck, I say, we don’t want him in our company.

Nobody should buy it. If this guy thought kicking puppies in the face was a good way to win votes, that’s all his clients would do. He has only one principle: money is awesome. Why would any party, candidate, organization or media outlet want to be associated with someone as disingenuous as he? Having run his credibility into the ground on Election Night, how can anyone take his return to moderation seriously? He dumped his belief in moderate tactics once; what would stop him from doing it again four years from now?

If you want good advice on moderation, pick up a copy of Power Plays (but don’t tell anyone) and use that as your advice. It’s better for you, publicity-wise, than actually having a conversation with him.

The DGA Zucks it all up

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by the Democratic Governors Association (DGA). I don’t know how much involvement any actual Democratic governors had in the decision to do this, as civilian staffers are responsible for the DGA’s policy and communications, but they’re definitely close to it, and they’ll be the ones asked about it first. “It” is – or was, I should say – their petition demanding that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg cancel a campaign fundraiser he’s throwing for Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ). The petition went up on Thursday and has been taken offline, but you can see a screenshot here.

Christie and Zuckerberg’s bromance is well-known, dating back to 2010, when Zuckerberg – a native of New York – donated $100 million to Newark schools (a substantial amount of which, according to the Washington Post, went to pay fundraisers and consultants for a related non-profit set up by Newark Mayor Cory Booker, but that’s not Zuckerberg’s fault). Christie, an advocate of educational reform himself, later spoke at a Facebook town hall event. Of course, Zuckerberg has had similar exchanges with President Obama, which combined with his lack of party registration should reassure you that this Gen-Y/New York/Harvard/Silicon Valley denizen is not, in fact, a steadfast Republican.

Republicans may use that to call this fundraiser a black mark against Christie; after all, what the hell is he doing breaking bread with an Obama donor? (As if that never happens in Washington. Zuckerberg is just more obvious about it.) Here’s Christie:

When Mark Zuckerberg and [wife] Priscilla Chan offer to hold a fundraiser for you, you say, “Yes sir, what time should I come?” . . . They’re both wonderful people, have become very good friends to me and to Mary Pat . . . and I’m certainly happy to have their support in the election.

There you go. They like each other. It does happen in politics every now and then.

Failing to acknowledge this is one reason the DGA fails. Here’s the other: How did they think Zuckerberg would respond to their petition? He’s no more loyal to Democrats than he has been to Republicans; he raises money for whomever can accomplish something he supports. And what kind of counter-attack is “Please don’t do that thing it was your idea to do”?

Furthermore, Christie isn’t the “right-wing Republican darling” the petition claimed; he’s too politically unpredictable for that, which is why even I like him. His star is rising, and if the DGA wants to bring him down, they’ll have to go after what he actually says instead of whining about his high-profile fans.

Vote Gary Johnson, because fuck you, that’s why

Until right about now, I had a few reasons to endorse either President Obama or former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA). While Obama fell drastically short of expectations in most areas, anemic economic growth and a draw-down of troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan are better than economic contraction and a continuation of both wars. On the other hand, there is a chance that “Moderate Romney” will be president, as opposed to “Severely Conservative Romney,” but no one can be sure, not even Romney himself. He probably hasn’t decided yet.

But this is the first presidential election in my memory that truly does feel like a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. (Remember, I was a hardcore Democrat in 2004, but the 22-year-old me would have felt very differently from the 14-year-old me.) So I decided to give the two most prominent third-party candidates a look. After deciding that the platform from the Green Party’s Jill Stein was excessively costly and federalist, I’m going with the Libertarian candidate, former Gov. Gary Johnson (R-NM).

Is he an improvement over the giant douche and the turd sandwich? Well, he was re-elected governor, he left the state with a budget surplus, and his handling of the Cerro Grande Fire of 2000 was widely praised. He has a lot of ideas that make sense, or at least principles – immigration reform for work visa holders, decriminalizing marijuana, decentralizing education policy, scaling back nation-building efforts. And he’s a third-party candidate, which in itself is kind of a plus.

I don’t believe he would be much good at working with political opponents or putting his ideology aside, but it’s not a horrible ideology. In many ways he’s even less specific than Obama or Romney, although I suppose you can afford to be when so few people ask. His foreign policy platform is particularly lacking; non-interventionism is a good thought, but you need to be realistic about maintaining existing global partnerships. And if this guy were a third-party candidate, I would have endorsed him months ago. (Oh, wait.)

So why endorse him, especially when the chances of him becoming president are next to zip? Because in today’s politics, the measure of a candidate is how little they make you want to kill yourself, and Johnson wins that contest. Besides that, Obama shouldn’t be rewarded for his inability to work with Congress or his decision to prioritize Obamacare over jobs and the deficit, and Romney shouldn’t be rewarded for his vagueness and corelessness.

I know a lot of you are disappointed with Obama and Romney, even if you’re leaning toward one of them. Before voting, look at the others. It might not make a mathematical difference, but it’s worth avoiding the suicidal urge.

Disposal Day #146: Because endorsements matter

STORY #1: The high-profilers

For former Secretary of State Colin Powell to have endorsed President Obama in 2008 had been enough of a surprise. Now it’s 2012 and Powell is endorsing Obama again. Some yahoos on Twitter have suspected that this is because they’re both black – now there’s something unexpected. (Not.) Others who believe the simplest explanation is always the correct one might say that Powell genuinely liked Obama’s performance in his first term. But as he said it, he thought Obama had done a solid job of turning the economy around and former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) was a man to be distrusted on foreign policy. Ouch.

Personally, I think it comes down to what a lot of less-enchanted Obama supporters have already concluded: We know what we’re getting with this guy. We don’t know what we’re getting with Romney, because of his multiple persona disorder. When he’s not making shit up for the sake of the administration of the day – which, to be fair, he regrets doing – he has a reputation as a fairly straight-shooting guy. Compared to Romney, outside of Benghazi-gate, that’s what Obama is, even if you don’t like what he’s shooting at you.

STORY #2: Not what it looks like

This one’s for the ladies: By now you have heard Senate candidate Richard Mourdock’s (R-IN) opposition to rape exceptions for abortion and are probably, rightfully, disgusted. Initially, you may also be disgusted by the fact that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) demanded an apology from Mourdock last night before, which he gave, and is now cheerfully renewing his support for him as if it never happened. But he has a reason to do that, albeit not a very good one.

If only four more Republicans are elected to the Senate this year over 2008, they will have a majority, the opposite of which has often been a thorn in the side of House Republicans who have passed a lot of bills that haven’t gone anywhere. So, disgusted as they are by certain Republican candidates for Senate, they have to maintain a united front in the hopes that rank-and-file Republicans actually will go to the polls. I’d be surprised if it turned out that way, but that’s the reason; unless you think McCain is salivating over legislation that would defund Planned Parenthood, there’s nothing sinister behind it.

STORY #3: He got the chair

And Clint Eastwood officially endorses Romney, as if the fact that he appeared at the Republican National Convention and compared Obama to an empty chair wasn’t enough of a spoiler. The amount of time it took to type these three sentences are 60 seconds of my life that I will never get back. Thanks for bothering, Clint.

Disposal Day #115: Romney wins, BITCH

STORY #1: The “Robin” vote

If former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) is like so many others in that he is unable to accept Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) refusal to run for vice-president, he has probably already imagined Rubio as the Robin to his Batman countless times. Wouldn’t it have been embarrassing if Robin had endorsed someone other than Batman? (Of course it would, regardless of Rubio’s stature. Look at Romney’s competition.) Thankfully, he no longer has to worry about that, as Rubio has accepted the inevitable like everyone else.

I don’t mean that sarcastically. Just read the above article and point to one flattering thing Rubio has to say about Romney. This endorsement, such as it is, can be summed up as “Romney’s going to win anyway, so shut up and leave me alone.” It’s essentially a very hyped-up rubber stamp. Granted, since Rubio is the hero of the Tea Party, they have little natural affinity to begin with. Being stuck with an option like this is probably giving the poor guy an ulcer.

STORY #2: In more flattering news . . .

On the other hand, while giving his endorsement, former President George H.W. Bush went so far as to say that Romney would make a “great president.” (Of what? Wal-Mart?) This is on the heels of an endorsement from former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL), no doubt the most respected of the members of the Bush clan whose name people know, other than Barbara. (Or Laura. Or Jenna. Or the other Barbara.) Thanks in no small part to Obama’s star fading, an endorsement from someone named Bush is no longer a portal to electoral hell. Besides, Romney is as far from George W. Bush in terms of personality and speech as possible.

If not for the establishment already having rallied behind him, I would wonder if a Bush 41 endorsement might look bad to older Republicans who look back in disgust on “the squish years.” But of the living former presidents, he is easily the least threatening to Romney’s reputation. So I don’t think he’ll distance himself too far from this one.

STORY #3: Newt 2012′s Flying Circus

This doesn’t have a whole lot to do with Romney, but The Economist‘s devastating attack on former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s (R-GA) delusions of hope is just fabulous. J.F. in Atlanta, you are brilliant. There is only one thing about this piece that I disagree with: If we’re going to make a Monty Python analogy, Newt Gingrich’s candidacy is bereft of life. It rests in peace. Its metabolic processes are now history. It’s off the twig. It’s kicked the bucket. It’s shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. It is an ex-campaign.

Disposal Day #114: Mitt wants to be loved by you

STORY #1: Sketchy situation

For those who know only that recent coverage of former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) has had something to do with Etch A Sketch, here’s the full quote from one of his strategists, Eric Fehrnstrom, on how Romney will approach the general election as opposed to the primaries: “I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch a Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.” Granted, you kind of have to change your approach depending on the election type, but that’s not the sort of simile you want to make when it’s more likely that people will compare the candidate to an Etch A Sketch.

Other somewhat antiquated objects that people will inevitably compare to Romney include correction tape (you can white out the stuff you don’t want and write over it); a pay phone (you drop in some money and hope to make a connection); a View-Master (a series of pretty images that are really just little plastic squares); and this face-changing action figure fromStar Wars Episode II (if you have to ask why, you’re dumb).

STORY #2: Entering the fold

Remember when anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist predicted that, as president, Romney would do whatever Republican leadership (official and on K Street) told him to do? At the time I thought, “Grover, you fool! You’ve given away the master plan!” (No, I don’t have any affiliations with top Republicans. Shut your conspiracist mouth and learn to take a joke.) In any event, Romney has been meeting with the brass this week, so we should find out soon how right Norquist was. That should be amusing.

The above-linked article seems to insinuate that Romney has gone endorsement-fishing, as opposed to discussing a tangible legislative agenda that he might pursue as president. But, really, one comes with the other. “Can we count on you to sign this one?” “Yes, sir, Mr. Speaker!” “Good. I’ll join you in Louisiana at your earliest convenience.”

STORY #3: They’ve been tread on

There may be no greater indicator of the desperation of the American right than the endorsement of Romney by the tea party group FreedomWorks. How bizarre is that? Romney is essentially a corporate version of everything Tea Partiers tend to loathe, much like tax-and-spend Democrats who are the government version of everything Occupiers tend to loathe. One wonders how many rank-and-file Tea Partiers secretly look at him and see the guy who announced the plant’s restructuring in 2007. Don’t be surprised if they start rebelling against their own elite very quickly.

Why you couldn’t pay me to support Santorum

I had a feeling that the soul of the Republican Party, having come back to life after admitting that its last president was an embarrassment to lesser embarrassments, was en route to flaming death when former Gov. Jon Huntsman (R-UT) found himself unable to rise above the mid-single digits in national polling. That was proven beyond reasonable doubt when he dropped out and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) didn’t. If this week’s polls are to be believed, this is the stage at which someone should be performing an exorcism.

Santorum is ahead of former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) in the latter’s home state of Michigan, of which his (far superior) father was governor, and has achieved two-thirds favorability among nationwide Republicans. In addition, in hypothetical match-ups, President Obama beats Santorum by only five, while Romney loses by seven. No doubt last week’s contraceptive rule debate (which seems to have died down, thank GAWD) improved Santorum’s standing among the social conservative wing.

The one thing for which I will give Santorum credit is that it’s very easy to decide about him. He has appeal in blue-collar states; he’s a fairly good talker; his personal life is unblemished. (I’m sure he made out with a dude once. Come on, he did.) You know exactly what he stands for, unlike Romney. Unfortunately, that includes these:

• Women in the military turn men into sopping messes.
• Pregnancy due to rape is as much a gift as pregnancy due to consensual sex.
• States should be able to outlaw contraception.
• And sodomy.
• He can’t decide if education and careers are good for women or not.
• Abortion is to blame for Social Security problems.
• The Constitution doesn’t guarantee privacy.

I tend to follow the position taken by The West Wing when it comes to that last one, but it’s up for much more debate than the others. The reason I would never support him is this: I can’t trust him to place objective ideals of personal freedom and limited government (state or federal) above his own view of what society should be. That view is almost entirely derived from a doctrinaire approach to Catholicism that not even most Catholics take. He wants to be the first American Pope? Fine. But he doesn’t deserve to be president.

But they should nominate him anyway. I rather relish the idea of seeing him squirm at the knowledge that his ridiculousness will only carry him so far.

Disposal Day #107: The Ms. Rights

STORY #1: Ann-sane?

Ann Coulter was the second figure in American politics I ever really, truly loathed. (The first was the late Charlton Heston, about whom I’ve calmed down. R.I.P., good sir.) Later, I was able to articulate my biggest problem with her: She spent more time attacking liberals as people than attacking liberalism as a philosophy or list of policy recommendations, not to mention making a case for conservatism. I think her latest column merits a big “I get results.”

I have had my criticisms of Romneycare, although constitutionality was not one of them, as it was a state-based program. Having learned about the success other countries, namely Germany, have had with individual private insurance mandates, I have concluded that they really are the best way to go about it (assuming it remains state-based and applies to the most necessary coverage). But why is Coulter talking about this? And why is she endorsing Romney? Is she that desperate for a GOP victory? What the hell has happened to this woman?

STORY #2: #blech

Apparently we can’t chalk it up to a trend among right-wing women, because her partner in crime, Michelle Malkin, isn’t quite so impressed. Observe a recent tweet of hers, which bizarrely includes Donald Trump in a very short list of Republicans she finds disagreeable. (I should correct myself. Trump isn’t a Republican so much as a card-carrying member of the Himself Party.) Malkin isn’t satisfied at all with the remaining candidates. There are two other ones she didn’t even bother to name!

Did the conservative punditocracy ever have a candidate to call its own? The likeliest choices would probably have been Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), maybe Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) and perhaps, possibly, former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain (R-GA). If they did, I’m left to conclude that nobody’s listening to them the way they once did, and all the fighters are currently holding office or running PACs. Shame. They certainly had a good run, though.

STORY #3: The right stuff

This is kind of random, but I thought I’d share it as the writer’s description reminds me of a lot of the right-wing women I’ve met in my work. Granted, I haven’t had a window into their family lives, and this guy really doesn’t seem to know a lot about women’s spare time except that many of us enjoy shopping for shoes. (I don’t. You put them on your feet. Big deal.) I will say this: A conversation between a woman with a right-wing position and a man with a left-wing position is hilarious.

I bet McCain doesn’t really like Romney

Do you remember then-Vice President Dick Cheney endorsing Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for president in 2008? According to the wonderful Game Change, page 423: “When Cheney’s friends learned about the endorsement, they laughed. . . . That was him flipping the senator the bird.” That was my reaction to McCain’s endorsement of former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) for the 2012 Republican nomination.

The two appeared together on the same stage for what may be the first time since they were debating each other, where McCain told the crowd that Romney was the best choice for the GOP standard-bearer. As Game Change also notes, on page 294, “McCain routinely called Romney an ‘asshole’ and a ‘fucking phony’” during the 2008 primaries. Current coverage has made no small mention of the shared antipathy between the two of four years ago, as well as McCain’s “snub” of former Gov. Jon Huntsman (R-UT), one of his earliest backers.

This may be wishful thinking on my part, but McCain may have given Huntsman a major in. Despite today’s events, can you honestly imagine McCain endorsing Romney? People have endorsed him because of his poll numbers and his personal life, but never his record. He’s in the lead, he was once a governor and there’s no chance of him screwing around on his charming wife. That’s as far as Romney’s appeal goes. And McCain would endorse a good Democrat before a bad Republican.

Beyond that, McCain’s highly developed knowledge of his own public image automatically means his knowledge of his ex-opponent’s public image is a no-brainer. Solid conservatives don’t trust Romney. They didn’t trust McCain, either. The difference is that McCain sticks to beliefs that make sense for him while Romney scrambles to find beliefs that make sense for the conservative party line. By making an association between himself and Romney, McCain has helped Republican warriors do the same.

While such psychological warfare is far from McCain’s stock-in-trade, he’s not inexperienced in strategic politics, and I’m sure he learned something from the Cheney endorsement of yore. (His choice of running mate didn’t help him much last election, but that seemed like a good idea at the time.) Romney is too polite and too much of an attention whore not to appear on stage with McCain. But he’s not a dumb guy. I’m sure this possibility crossed his mind.

This gives Huntsman even more breathing room to establish his solidity in comparison to Romney, who may now be painted as a “McCain moderate.” Holistically, he may still be more moderate than his opponents, but apparently Americans dig that.

Obama and the Sharpton effect

When he begins his re-election efforts, President Obama will have two types of people to attract: the left-wingers who make up the Democratic Party’s base, and the independent voters who were enamored with him in 2008 and have gotten annoyed with him since. Can you guess which of these two groups is more important? Apparently Obama can’t; otherwise he’d choose a different figurehead in American politics to woo first than Rev. Al Sharpton.

Ron Scherer at The Christian Science Monitor puts it this way: “Many Americans may remember the Rev. Al Sharpton for his confrontational marches and his booming oratory, demanding – yes, demanding – corrective action for a perceived injustice.” He goes on to point out that as of late, Sharpton has been acting more like a behind-the-scenes wonk, focusing his efforts on raising money for his National Action Network, meeting with Cabinet members and only marching “occasionally.”

Some of Scherer’s sources wonder if Obama’s outreach to Sharpton might be specifically intended to build up African-American support. If he’s losing them, it would be in his best interests to find out first if it’s because he hasn’t done enough for the black community in particular, or if they simply disagree with his policies in general. Sharpton’s support could smooth things over with them a little if the first, but not so much if the second.

My guess is, to most Americans, Sharpton has been invisible since the last major march. That’s probably how a lot of people would prefer it. But his attempts to promote himself on the basis of his current work haven’t exactly been front-page news lately. How many average Joes do you suppose know anything about his current work, and still think of him like this, “the radical known for interjecting race into every issue”?

Today, that description would not be entirely justified. It appears that Sharpton has learned from his more reactionary past and moderated accordingly. But Obama has put the onus on himself to teach others that. If you’re the betting type, I’d advise you not to put any money on the majority of Sharpton’s opponents listening to him. It’s more likely that they’ll react like this loser, who has accused Obama of being driven by “black rage” of the earlier Sharpton variety.

Obviously it’s very early in the campaigning stage for Obama, and there’s much he could do to attract and repel both hard left-wingers and moderates. But going to someone as polarizing as Sharpton will have both of them asking for some ‘splainin’.