What's worth Discussing

The Gov. Sanford scandal provides perfect fodder, but in some ways is just too easy. A strident critic of President Clinton a decade ago, it is a partisan pleasure to witness Sanford's fall from grace. Exposed as a hypocrite and a liar, another of the stable of "rising GOP stars" finds his national career over before it had a chance to truly develop. Yippee, skippee fiddle-dee-dee!

Referring to what he characterized as the "myth of Republican moral superiority, Paul Begala writes

The problem with Sanford... is that he's been "incredibly judgmental about other people's sex lives." As examples, Begala cites Sanford's opposition to same-sex marriages and civil unions, and his vote in the House of Representatives to impeach Clinton.

At the time, Sanford said, "The issue of lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of democratic government ... because it undermines trust. And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything.

"http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/25/sanford.fallout/index.html?iref=newssearch

Now some in the political chattering class believe that Sanford is being unfairly criticized - give me a break! He is a hypocrite, and if the GOP keeps serving up helpings of such as their standard-bearers for 2012, I predict an easy victory for President Obama. And while I am on the subject of the President, I wish he would heed the advice of my favorite economist, Paul Krugman, who politely suggests in the New York Times today that the President abandon his desire for bipartisanship and govern as he campaigned. The GOP offers nothing of substance to unite a true opposition. And the party fails the test of a "loyal" opposition as well.

I am a bit less polite: I implore the President to grow a pair.

Cheney should shut the hell up

President Obama gave a thoughtful address yesterday at the National Archives. Press accounts today suggest that he did so because he knew that a former vice-president was scheduled to give a speech on the topic of terrorism.

In the immediate aftermath of Al Gore's stunning defeat in 2000, the former vice-president disappeared from the national scene. It was if there was something unseemly about a defeated candidate for the nation's highest office continuing as the face of the opposition. In doing so, he joined the legions of defeated former veeps who vanished from the scene in order to re-invent themselves: Nixon in 1960 also comes to mind.

So what to make of the current former VP? He shows no interest in vanishing from the scene. And he certainly feels no need to re-invent himself. To the ever-dwindling ranks of GOP true believers, of course, he is a hero. It is hardly surprising that the American Enterprise Institute would give him a platform. But why must the national press pay him any attention at all? As the principal author of the web of deception that led us into Iraq, his take on foreign policy was twice repudiated at the ballot box. He has officially "jumped the shark".

“The auto industry’s refusal to act for so long has left it mired in a predicament for which there is no easy way out,” Mr. Obama said.

In announcing new mileage guidelines, the President has decisively moved to resolve a long-simmering debate about the nature of American federalism. During the hell that was the Bush years, California and 13 other states wanted to increase the mileage standard. Bush and Detroit automakers did not. Now that two of the former Big Three are on life-support and have become virtual wards of the United States, real change just might be realized.

Conservatives, of course, will be apoplectic. "How dare the Government meddle in the market", they will shriek. "Socialism", they will scream. It is worth remembering that since the days of Henry Clay's "American Plan" the national government has often taken a stake in our transportation policy-making. Was 19th Century transfer of western lands to the rail roads socialism? How about the space program? Interstate highways?

photo source: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/080603_hummer.jpg

Ed Rollins weighs in

Ed Rollins was one of the smartest political operatives in the Reagan White House. I remember wishing that the 1980's Democratic Party had someone like him. In an article on CNN.com today, Rollins suggests why it is too early to consider the GOP dead and gone. His take on Cheney's future in the party is well worth considering.

In his suggestion that the party return to its core principles, however, I do detect just a whiff of hypocrisy. To return to its historic beliefs it would have to eschew its tilt toward the religious right, a path it took during his years as a GOP operative.

A terrific take on the hypocrisy of GOP leadership

While I don't reflexively agree with all that Maureen Dowd has to say, I enjoy her columns. At times, her humor rivals that of the late great Molly Ivens. An expert observor of the peculiar world of the Bush family and it's many retainers, she has lately aimed her wit at 43's dark alter ego, Dick Cheney (by the way, if Cheney had come of age in a populous state like Rhode Island, would he ever have achieved prominence in American politics?).

Cheney and his aid Scooter Libby are the great Americans who outed a CIA agent in an act of political revenge. And for this act of treason Cheney was allowed to skate away into lucrative retirement.

A schandenfreude exemplar

The news that "Manny being Manny" now includes a suspension for doping comes as no surprise to the traditionalists of Red Sox Nation. A batting idiot savant, Ramirez is capable of wonderful moments at the plate, but those moments are often sandwiched around incidents of laziness and sheer lunacy. For those of us who grew up admiring the exploits of Yaz, Rice, Fisk et.al., Manny was not a favorite. When he actually quit on his team several times in the last few years, the legions of his enablers began to shrink. He represents everything I dislike about modern baseball.

Currrent events drives the questions we ask of the past

As I think about the state of party politics in America I am preparing my final lecture for my U.S. History I course. The two-party system of the 1850's devolved into a competion between sectional parties, as southern Whigs and southern Democrats began to seek common goals. In the north, the pattern was replicated, as northern Whigs and northern Democrats did the same. The outcome was not pretty. I will ask my students today to consider if we can find any similarity in the modern GOP's headlong dash to regional specialization. They may villify Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, but is history on the march?