Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy

By Richard K. Barry

This weekend marks 25 years since Democratic vice presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen landed one of the most memorable knockout blows in political debate history. Republican VP candidate Dan Quayle set the chain of events in motion by comparing himself to Jack Kennedy as a way to describe why he felt he might be ready to assume the top job, should it come to that. 

Pick whatever metaphor you like. A commentator at the time said that if it had been a boxing match, the referee would have stopped the fight. 

One of the greatest skills in politics is to make it seem that your comments are off-the-cuff when in fact they are well rehearsed. My guess is that someone figured out that Quayle was going to go there and Bentsen was waiting for him to do it.

You almost feel sorry for Quayle.

The view from Massachusetts: An interview with Michael Dukakis

By Edward Copeland

(Ed. note: I would like to thank Governor Dukakis for graciously agreeing to have this post, much of it taken from a recent interview conducted by our co-blogger Edward, published at The Reaction. -- MJWS)

Working on a tribute to the groundbreaking TV series St. Elsewhere on its 30th anniversary (Part I posts on Press Play at the Indiewire website Friday), I had the opportunity to speak with one of the Boston-set series' many guest stars.

In this case, my interview subject had a lot in common with one of the candidates in this year's presidential election. He served as governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and also earned his party's nomination for president, although Michael Dukakis' party was and remains the Democratic Party.

The former governor graciously agreed to talk with me about the TV show, though other subjects came up as well. I told Gov. Dukakis that when I was in college I was a volunteer for his presidential campaign in his Oklahoma City office. "Bless you. Bless you. Sorry I didn't do better. I feel like I owe you an apology," he replied. I assured him that no Democratic presidential candidate has done well in Oklahoma since LBJ. "Democrats ought to be working those states a lot harder than we are because they're voting against their own interests," he said. Given that Dukakis' cameo on the 1980s medical series provided the impetus for the conversation, health care naturally came up:

The emergency room has become the primary physician for millions of Americans at unbelievable costs. One thing the Affordable Care Act would do, among other things, is stop that. We had an ER situation here in Massachusetts before we passed our health care bill, even though we had substantially fewer uninsured people. At first, there was no change, but now we're seeing a very significant decline in ER visits for people other than emergencies and it's got everything to do with the fact that everybody now has reasonably comprehensive health insurance.

Of course, the governor who enacted the Massachusetts plan, though he does his best to deny it now, was none other than Mitt Romney:

One of the mysteries to me about this presidential race is what Romney is doing on health care. It's crazy. He was eloquent on the subject of the individual mandate, eloquent. He talked about it. "No free riders. Everybody's got to be part of this thing. It's gonna work. Everyone's gonna be a part of it."

Then again, Romney's opinions remind me of the old joke about my home state's weather – if you don't like the weather in Oklahoma, just wait a few minutes:

Barney Frank says there are two Romneys running in this race. There is Mitt Romney and there is Myth Romney. When he suddenly started taking credit for Massachusetts having the best education system in the country, all of us fell off our chairs. That guy did nothing for public education. In fact, he tried to slash education budgets. It was news to us that he was even interested.

My interview with Gov. Dukakis took place last week, but Romney touted his record on education while governor again during Monday night's final debate with President Obama. The Republican nominee, despite the evening's designated topic being foreign policy, also pledged again to work wonders with job creation:

I keep telling the Obama people to get on this. His job creation record in Massachusetts was a disaster, you know. We were 47th out of 50 in job creation under Romney – fourth from the bottom. In fact, the number 47 seems to be following him around. Only Michigan, Ohio and Louisiana after Katrina had a worse job creation record than we had under Romney. For the life of me, I don't understand why Obama and Biden don't talk about that all the time. If every person in America knew that job record, the race would be over. I'm just baffled at why they're not using it.

While Romney trails Obama badly in Massachusetts polls, Dukakis discounts the idea that stems from his home state tending to always vote for the Democratic candidate:

There's a reason he's 25 points behind Obama in Massachusetts, I can tell you that. It's not that we're a down-the-line Democratic state. We voted for Reagan twice. We voted for three Republican governors after I left office. We voted for Scott Brown. This is not a deep blue state or whatever they want to call us. Romney is as unpopular as any political figure in the state these days.

Gov. Dukakis also added another nugget of information about Romney's time as governor that I hadn't read or heard before.

In point of fact, he was an absentee governor for much of the time. He was out of the office for 420 days or something.

Here's hoping that the one-time absentee GOP governor shall be absent from the national scene in a little less than two weeks.

Romney's Santa routine may hurt him long term

Guest post by Frank Moraes

Ed. note: This is Frank's fourth guest spot for us (in addition to live-blogging the debate with us last night). You can find his first, on the recent 60 Minutes interviews with Obama and Romney, here; his second, on European monetary policy and Spanish austerity, here; and his third, on conservative desperation, here. -- MJWS 

Frank Moraes is a freelance writer and editor with much too much education. He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where it is really hard to be a liberal, and writes the blog Frankly Curious.

********** 

I spent the debate "live blogging" here at The Reaction. Check out our live-blogging post to see my reactions as they occurred in real time. My initial thinking was that Romney did better than I had expected -- and I expected him to do fairly well. But I didn't think that Romney necessarily "won" the debate, whatever that might mean. He did, however, dominate it.

What surprised me was just how hostile the liberal reaction was to the debate. I guess this makes sense, though. They want the president to be a fighter. I feel the same way. For example, I couldn't believe some of the things that Romney was able to get away with. In particular, I hate his claim that he can't give specifics about his policies because that's not how you negotiate. Never has a bigger pile of bullshit excreted from a politician.

Regardless of how the debate went for the pundits, my overall reaction was that Romney was even worse than I had thought. For a while, I've been pushing this line that Romney's tax plan is, " Trust me." But now I see that this is his plan for everything. Education reform? Trust me. Financial reform? Trust me. Health-care reform? Trust me. It reminds me of Nixon's secret plan to end the war in Vietnam. You may remember that the war didn't actually end until he was out of office.

The more substantive point regarding the debate was that Romney's policy ideas changed radically. Now he's not giving a tax break to the wealthy! Now he's going to cover pre-existing conditions by -- wait for it! -- magic! He'll increase funding for education. And the military. And anything else that you might like. It reminded me of the Michael Dukakis line from 1988: Mitt Romney is the Joe Isuzu of politicians. Or if you're too young to get the reference: Mitt Romney claims to be Santa Claus.

President Obama has always been an "eat your broccoli" kind of guy. So we shouldn't be too surprised that he used the debate to talk to the American people like they were adults. (As my friend Andrea would say, "That's a mistake!") But in the end, I think there is much fodder for the Obama campaign. Romney will get a bump from this, but over time, I think it reinforces the Romney nobody likes: the guy who will say anything to get elected.

 

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Zing! went the strings of my heart

By Mustang Bobby

Debate prep is going ahead at both campaigns:

Mr. Romney's team has concluded that debates are about creating moments and has equipped him with a series of zingers that he has memorized and has been practicing on aides since August. His strategy includes luring the president into appearing smug or evasive about his responsibility for the economy.

Mr. Obama is not particularly fluid in sound bites, so his team is aiming for a workmanlike performance like his speech at the Democratic convention. He is looking to show that Mr. Romney would drive the country in an extreme ideological direction at odds with the interests of the middle class.

If a presidential candidate is spending time memorizing witty ripostes as opposed to coming up with cogent but brief descriptions of policy ideas and plans, then there's something wrong.

In the first place, a rehearsed zinger is an oxymoron; in order to really work and not sound like something planned out, it has to be spontaneous. Otherwise, it sounds like it was rehearsed thereby loses its punch.

It also leaves the candidate vulnerable to not being ready just in case his opponent comes back with a spontaneous zinger of their own. The most famous of those in real life was the debate between Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen in 1988 when Sen. Bentsen floored Mr. Quayle with the "you're no Jack Kennedy" line that has entered popular culture.


If these debates are going to mean anything — and that itself is debatable — they have to do more than give us rehearsed zingers and massaged messages that are watered down to nothing more than talking points written by staffers aimed at focus groups, the only difference being that they're delivered by the candidates themselves instead of via Twitter.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Morning Joe on yet another embarrassing Romney moment: "Sweet Jesus."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Mustang Bobby put this up at his place yesterday. If you missed it, it's well worth watching, not just for the pathetic Romney embarrassing himself yet again but for Joe Scarborough's telling reaction of incredulity and resignation.

Which raises the question: Romney is the worst major-party presidential candidate since _______ ?

Is it Dukakis? (I think Romney's worse, but it's close.) Mondale? (At least he had some gravitas.) McGovern? (Maybe, but at least he had a ton of progressive credibility.)

So how far back do we have to go?

After all, the only thing keeping this race even somewhat close is the struggling economy, and that has nothing to do with Romney. Imagine how far ahead Obama would be if the economy were even just a tiny bit stronger at the moment.

So maybe Willkie in 1940, a business-oriented moderate who had to secure the support of right-wing isolationists in the GOP (yup, sounds a bit like Romney). But no. He, at least, was respectable out on the campaign trail, even if he stood little chance against FDR.

I'll go with Landon in 1936, another business-oriented type and by all accounts a terrible campaigner and generally inept politician. But even then, he didn't constantly embarrass himself, unlike Romney. He just didn't campaign for long stretches at a time, including for two months after he won the Republican nomination, and FDR crushed him in the election. He won only Maine and Vermont, losing the Electoral College vote 523 to 8.

Perhaps he was worse than Romney. Perhaps.

New poll: Obama's historic September lead

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Pew:

At this stage in the campaign, Barack Obama is in a strong position compared with past victorious presidential candidates. With an eight-point lead over Mitt Romney among likely voters, Obama holds a bigger September lead than the last three candidates who went on to win in November, including Obama four years ago. In elections since 1988, only Bill Clinton, in 1992 and 1996, entered the fall with a larger advantage.

Not only does Obama enjoy a substantial lead in the horserace, he tops Romney on a number of key dimensions. His support is stronger than his rival's, and is positive rather than negative. Mitt Romney's backers are more ardent than they were pre-convention, but are still not as enthusiastic as Obama's. Roughly half of Romney's supporters say they are voting against Obama rather than for the Republican nominee. With the exception of Bill Clinton in 1992, candidates lacking mostly positive backing have lost in November.

And Mitt Romney, if I may venture out on a limb, is no Bill Clinton.

As Ed Kilgore writes, pretty much stating the obvious, this is really bad news for Mitt.

Turning point

By Mustang Bobby

It seems that in every presidential campaign there comes a moment when it becomes very clear that we have reached a turning point. The choice becomes clear, and from that point on, it becomes a matter of running out the clock until the election. It's essentially over. Usually it's a gaffe or a mistake on the part of one of the candidates rather than a decisive move: Gerald Ford saying that there was no Soviet domination of Poland in 1976; Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan's "there you go again" in 1980; Michael Dukakis's bland response to a question about capital punishment in 1988, and John McCain's panic-stricken call to cancel the debates to deal with the financial crisis in 2008. Each of those snapshots, fair or not, went a long way to close the deal -- and the door -- on the choice in November

It may be too early to judge whether or not Mitt Romney shut the door on his presidential bid yesterday with his kneejerk and blatantly political response to the killing of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya and the riots in Cairo. Clearly his campaign saw the events in Libya and Egypt as nothing other than a chance to make political hay, going so far as to release statements bashing the Obama administration before all the facts were known. And when the facts and the timeline became known, including the fact that a senior American diplomat had been killed, Mr. Romney and his staff not only did not back off from their first response, they doubled down on it.

As a lot of people from every aspect of the political spectrum have noted, Mr. Romney's response raises a lot of questions about his judgment and temperament, not just as a candidate in at tight race, but as a potential leader of the nation. Turning a tragedy into a series of campaign talking points is bad enough, but the failure or unwillingness to retract or temper the remarks as the facts become known reveals a character flaw that should raise a lot of questions. Ironically, Mr. Romney's reputation as an Etch-A-Sketch on the issues may have come into play; for once he was going to stand his ground even if it was crumbling away underneath his feet.

If Mr. Romney truly believes that President Obama and the White House actually sympathized with the mob that stormed the embassy in Cairo and murdered our ambassador in Libya even though the facts prove otherwise, then he's showing a serious lack of judgment for someone who wants to be president. If Mr. Romney doesn't believe that but still goes ahead with it anyway for the sake of his campaign, then he's showing a degree of cynicism and opportunism that clearly disqualifies him as a leader of all Americans, not just the people who voted for him. In either case it shows us the true measure of his character and trustworthiness, not to mention crisis management and the ability to address a complex and evolving event.

Does any of this matter to the average voter? It may not, but it's hard to tell immediately. Unlike the Romney campaign, voters take a while to react to events like this. We will know in a few weeks if this moment is the one that marks the end of the Romney campaign, but as I noted previously, there have already been signs that the campaign is in trouble. This may have been the one we'll all look back on and know that's when the door slammed shut on Mr. Romney's run for the White House. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Bad teachers: The Republican politics of vilification

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Republicans like to call themselves patriots, but they're the party of discord and division, among other things vilifying entire regions, entire states, entire cities. (E pluribus unum is their anti-motto.)

In '88, it was Massachusetts, whence hailed Michael Dukakis and, worse, liberalism. In '08, it was the coasts, home to Sarah Palin's detested elites, in contrast to the all-American heartland of her fantasies.

This year, it's Chicago, Obama's degraded hometown, and Romney-surrogate Republicans are going all-out trying to connect the president to its supposed political and union thuggery.

You know, to political bosses like Rahm Emanuel, his ex-chief of staff, and to public-school teachers behaving like the Khmer Rouge.

Except, of course, that they're not. The Chicago Teachers Union went on strike not because it's made up of a bunch of thugs, or a bunch of layabouts being manipulated by a bunch of thugs, but because it wants fair pay, reasonable working conditions, and the best educational environment for students -- all perfectly reasonable demands that are being blocked by the city, led by Emanuel.

I'll let others debate the details, but here's where Republicans are contradicting themselves:

They vilify Chicago because of people like Emanuel, but here they're siding with Emanuel, even if they won't admit it, against the teachers. So what is it? Do they like Big Bad Chicago or not?

It hardly matters. Consistency is not their aim, just cheap political points. Besides, it's not Chicago they loathe, it's "Chicago," the nightmare they concoct in their propaganda.

And now, of course, they're trying desperately to connect Obama to the teachers, led by Mitt himself:

Obama has not taken sides in the standoff between Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the president's former chief of staff, and the city’s teachers union.

But Romney, who routinely slams teachers unions as an obstacle to education reform, is trying to break that silence by accusing Obama of cozying up too close to labor in general.

"President Obama has chosen his side in this fight, sending his vice president last year to assure the nation's largest teachers union that 'you should have no doubt about my affection for you and the president’s commitment to you,'" Romney said in a statement. "I choose to side with the parents and students depending on public schools to give them the skills to succeed, and my plan for education reform will do exactly that."

Again, Romney lies. Obama may have affection for teachers -- who doesn't? oh, right, Romney and the Republicans -- but that doesn't mean he necessarily supports this strike action.

Furthermore, he and his party do not support public education in any meaningful way. Rather, they support bleeding the public-school system to benefit private education that itself benefits the select few, and mostly the rich, leaving everyone else behind, American public schools in ruins, teachers underpaid, infrastructure collapsing, education next to impossible.

This is not to say the strike isn't bad news for Obama and that Romney won't be able to, and make every effort to, take advantage of it.

But here again there is that contradiction. The president's own education policies suggest that he is indeed in line with Emanuel. And so once again Romney is trying to have it both ways, vilifying both Chicago and the teachers union and then both Obama and the teachers union. Obviously, he's hoping something sticks, but it's the usual nonsense of someone who prefers the politics of vilification to the politics of principle, and whose entire campaign is based on contradiction and dishonesty.

Barack Obama is no Michael Dukakis or Jimmy Carter

By Richard K. Barry 

I have been thinking about the "bump" that President Obama received in his popularity numbers after it was reported that Osama bin Laden had been killed. I know some people don't think that we should even talk about the impact of such things on political popularity. They are wrong. Politics is, in great part, about how the public judges the actions of its leaders. We determine our support for them based on the things they do or even choose not to do and we consider every nuance of their behaviour in these decision making processes as we make our judgements. I'm not sure I see how it can be any other way.

I did think, in perhaps what is a somewhat roundabout way, that one of the reasons Obama benefited from the decision to order the mission is that it helped to address the concern that some people have that Obama is a bit too cool, a bit too emotionally detached from events around him. We have heard the "no drama Obama" thing and may have thought it was mostly a good thing that our president was in such control of his emotions. Some, however, might have been thinking that a bit more drama would be okay too, that it would be alright if our president showed that he was emotionally engaged and, let's call it what it is, pretty cold-blooded if the need arose, tough enough to get the job done.

Then I thought of Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential debate with George H.W. Bush when Dukakis was asked if he would support the death penalty for someone who, hypothetically speaking, had raped and murdered his wife. His answer, which even he later regretted, helped to ensure that he would not win the presidency (his polling numbers actually dipped significantly after the debate). Rather than say that he would be out of his mind with anger and at least at first wish revenge, he immediately struck a professorial pose. Rather than react in any real way at all he launched immediately into his set speech about opposing capital punishment. No show of emotion. No proof that a human being resided therein. The question was obviously completely unfair. It was a set up, but it may have ended his campaign.

As for Obama, having the courage to send those Navy SEALS into that compound knowing that a failed mission would have been disastrous not just for the country but perhaps also for his own political career took some balls. In a political sense, a failed mission would have paired him with Jimmy Carter forever as a "failed president," not that we are supposed to think of things in such terms.

Anyway, something about the whole constellation of events that ended in the death of bin Laden showed Obama in an emotionally accessible way that had not previously been evident to a lot of people and it has perhaps made some of those people trust him a bit more. People can be funny that way. Ask Michael Dukakis.

For the sake of history, here is the clip of Dukakis dropping the ball:

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Elephant Dung #2: Tea Party seeks priority of economic over social/cultural issues in GOP

Tracking the GOP Civil War

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The CSM reports on a significant divide opening up in the Republican Party:

Representatives of the loosely organized tea party movement urged GOP leaders in a letter released Monday to abandon their fronts in the culture wars – issues such as gay marriage, school prayer, and abortion – and instead focus their new electoral power on individual liberties and "economic freedoms."

The letter, signed by 16 tea party groups and a conservative gay organization, points to an emerging rift between the tea party movement and the GOP, which still counts social conservatives seeking "moral government" as a key constituency.

The signatories, ranging from conservative commentator Tammy Bruce to local tea party group leaders, say the key lesson the GOP should draw from the election is that Americans are concerned chiefly about taxes and the size of government, not their neighbors' lifestyle choices or personal decisions.

Actually, I think that's largely right. The midterms were mostly about the economy (that is, about the lousy state of the economy and about widespread anti-incumbent sentiment resulting from the lousy economy, boletered by effective Republican propaganda and the lack of a defining narrative from Democrats) and not at all about "culture war" issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. And I applaud these Teabaggers for trying to move the Republican Party beyond the divisive wedge issues that it has long exploited for electoral gain.

But that's the thing. Republicans have relied on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, flag burning, and the pledge of allegiance to arouse and incite their base -- and to get these manipulated voters to the polls to vote out of fear and anger. Over the past several decades, Republicans have succeeded largely because they've been able to manufacture this fear and anger, to convince enough voters that "liberals" and "progressives" are destroying America with their newfangled ideas about things like civil rights.

Sure, Republicans have focused consistently on tax cuts for the wealthy, for example, and some have been, or at least claimed to be, "fiscally responsible," but economic issues alone don't win elections. Think back to '88. Bush famously said "read my lip, no new taxes," but his campaign relied on race-based fearmongering, as in the notorious Willie Horton ad, to beat Dukakis. Lee Atwater knew then what was needed and knew how to win. So does Karl Rove today, and anti-tax and anti-government rhetoric is only part of the equation.

In other words, whatever the protestations of Teabaggers, or of extremist libertarians in Congress like Rand Paul, Republicans are not about to abandon social/cultural issues, to cede that ground to Democrats, to give Democrats high-profile victories. And why? Because Republicans -- or at least those few like Rove who are realistic about the party's electoral prospects -- know what's good for them, what works for them, and what scares their base into outraged submission. (It's not about giving the social conservatives and theocrats what they want, it's about duping them into voting Republican by continuing to promise change that likely won't be implemented.)

And while the Teabaggers may think they have the country behind them on economic issues, they don't. Just try making permanent the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, privatizing Social Security, slashing entitlement programs, and cutting police and other essential local services -- all in the name of "economic freedom."

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Angle in the gutter

Guest post by R.K. Barry

Ed. note: R.K. Barry is the real name of T.W. Wilson, recent guest blogger here at The Reaction. He has decided that he no longer wishes to be pseudonymous. I support his decision, though I realize that decisions involving one's identity are deeply personal and that many bloggers, for reasons both personal and professional, prefer not to reveal who they really are. Clearly, many of my editors, co-bloggers, and contributors do not go by their real names, and I understand why, and I support their decisions as well.

**********

George H.W. Bush got to be President of the United States based in part on one of the worst race-baiting ads in American political history -- the infamous Willie Horton spot. Whether or not he has ever had the integrity to be ashamed of himself, we'll likely never know.

Would anyone be surprised to hear that Roger Ailes, current president of Fox News, was one of the masterminds behind the senior Bush's run for the White House?

Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle just released her own disgusting race-baiting ad. Gee, I wonder if she agonized at all over stooping so low?

Do these people have any idea how hateful they appear to others? And more to the point, if they did know, would they care?

The answer to all the questions above is "no," in case you thought this was some kind of test.

Check out Angle's ad.

(Ed. note: And, for more, see Think Progress, which finds that Angle and Louisiana Republican and fellow race-baiter David Vitter use the same photo of "illegal aliens" / "illegals" in their respective attack ads.

The young people poll

By Jim Arkedis

Jim Arkedis runs the All Our Might blog at the Progressive Policy Institute.

Democracy Corps conducted a poll of 606 voters between the ages of 18-29 -- in other words, the voters who will determine attitudes and election results for the next several decades. As pertains to foreign policy and national security issues, there is an undeniable trend towards the Democratic Party.

A few sample numbers:

Q: Is the Republican Party patriotic?
63 yes / 27 no

Q: Is the Democratic Party patriotic?
67 yes / 22 no

Q: Who is better in the "war on terrorism"?
D: 42/ R: 35

Q: Are you "warm" or "cool" on the war in Iraq?
Warm: 19/ Cool: 64

Q: Are you "warm" or "cool" on the war in Afghanistan?
Warm: 24/ Cool: 55

I'll briefly focus in on the "patriotic" question, because the Republican Party has done a great job strangling this issue for all it's worth. According to a CBS News story from 2007:

According to the Roper Center iPoll database at the University of Connecticut, pollsters have rarely asked Americans whether specific candidates or individuals were patriotic. But when they do, Republicans have the upper hand. In early 2004, according to a Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll, more Americans said being patriotic applied more to Republican George W. Bush than to Democrat John Kerry. In 1988, more voters thought the current President's father George Bush was very patriotic than thought Democrat Michael Dukakis was. Twenty years ago, in the middle of the Iran-Contra scandal, 73 percent of Americans agreed that Oliver North was a "real patriot."

That this issue is now trending Democratic among young voters can't be emphasized enough. In my mind, there's a correlation (though not exactly a direct one) between the public's perception of the parties' "patriotism" and the president's connections to the military and willingness to use force.

Obama has done a better job of passing this "Commander-in-Chief test" during his short time in office than Bill Clinton did in eight years. (Clinton tried, but was thrown off initially by "gays in the military" and then Monica Lewinsky.) Obama has coupled his objections to the Iraq War's premise with a desire to withdraw while keeping America's national security interests intact. At the same time, he has emphasized Afghanistan's importance and shown no hesitation in deploying more American troops. Obama has supported measures to care for America's uniformed personnel in ways the Bush administration objected to (GI Bill; PTSD). And, finally, his steady resolve has been expressly or tacitly endorsed by the likes of Colin Powell, Adm. Mike Mullen, and Gen. David Petraeus.

Since America's youth aren't tied to older perceptions/portrayals of weak-kneed Democrats trying to show muscle (ahem, Dukakis in the tank), they are giving credit where it's due. You might say Democracts have Bush's legacy to thank for such a good showing.

(Cross-posted from All Our Might.)

Palin as Quayle (or, why Palin is nothing like Obama)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In an article posted at TNR yesterday, Jon Chait draws stark and disturbing parallels between Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle. With Palin's record, her alleged "experience," revealed as the facade of lies and deceptions it really is -- as governor of Alaska, "[s]he appointed unqualified cronies, abused her power to punish personal enemies, and has displayed a Cheney-esque passion for government secrecy -- what remains is, in essense, a right-wing tabula rasa open to further right-wing indoctrination.

Quayle, lest we forget, had significantly more experience than Palin, however, notably on the national stage, both in the House and Senate, at the time he was tapped by Bush I as his 1988 running mate. Still, as Chait points out, what Palin's defenders are saying about her now sounds a lot like what Quayle's defenders were saying about him back then. What's more, Quayle, like Palin now, played the all-American populist card against so-called elites on the other side:

Questions about Quayle's readiness remained, but he did his best to turn them into elite condescension toward small town America. Quayle, in his acceptance speech, spoke movingly about the small towns in Indiana where he had grown up, and later disparaged Dukakis for "sneer[ing] at common sense advice, Midwestern advice."

And, also like Palin now, the Quayle pick was celebrated by the right:

Conservatives received Quayle's selection rapturously. L. Brent Bozell pronounced himself "ecstatic," and Jerry Falwell called the surprise pick "a stroke of genius." After a media frenzy, Quayle's speech was well-received. The convention hall burst into cheers of "We want Dan!" NBC anchor Tom Brokaw said that Quayle executed "flawlessly," and CBS's Bruce Morton called it "a good speech."

Sound familiar? It's like 1988 all over again. To a point.

While Biden is very much like Lloyd Bentsen -- both elder statesmen of the Democratic Party -- Biden is by far the better and more accomplished pick. Furthermore, while McCain, like Bush I before him, has a good deal of experience, particularly in terms of foreign policy and national security, the Republican brand is not what it was in 1988, when two Reagan terms and Reagan's own personal popularity created a fertile climate for Bush I's run for the presidency. He was Reagan's vice president, after all. For his part, McCain, also a decorated veteran, enjoys a long history of delusionally positive coverage by the national media, along with the unearned reputation for being some sort of moderate maverick, but, with two wars going on, and with the economy already melting down, and with McCain-Palin running on an extremist social conservative (domestic policy) and neoconservative (foreign policy) platform, and with two Bush II terms creating not a fertile climate but a huge obstacle for McCain's run, the differences between 1988 and 2008 are stark.

And there is another enormous difference: Obama is no Dukakis. Enough said.

**********

But back to Chait's article:

Palin is like Quayle but unlike Obama. Actually, she is worse than Quayle, who had been in the Senate for almost eight years by the time he was elected vice president in 1988. Obama has been in the Senate, too, of course, for less time, but Chait makes the excellent point that it is engagement, not experience, that matters:

The main complaint against Palin has been her lack of experience. That's fortunate for her, since "experience" -- especially measured in a linear way -- fails to capture exactly what Palin lacks. Yes, two years as governor is less than you'd like, as is four years as senator. The real problem, though, is that Palin has no record of thinking about national or international policy. Bobby Jindal, another Republican veep contender, has barely more experience than Palin, but he is a respected policy intellectual. Pat Buchanan ran for president without ever having served in elective office, but he had engaged more deeply than most presidential candidates in policy questions.

Engagement, not experience, is the difference between Palin's qualifications and Obama's. Obama has a longstanding interest in national and (to a lesser extent) international issues, and has answered questions on all those issues in extensive detail. Palin has dealt almost exclusively with parochial issues in a wildly atypical state. (Her fiscal experience, which consists of divvying up oil lucre, offers better preparation to serve as president of Saudi Arabia than the United States.) It's possible Palin has harbored a long-standing, secret passion for policy wonkery, but the few signs available thus far -- her convention speech that spelled out "new-clear weapons," her evident lack of familiarity with the term "Bush Doctrine" -- suggest otherwise. The Republican intelligentsia is frantically tutoring her while they run out the clock until November 4.

What Obama has shown throughout this long campaign is that he has not just multifaceted experience -- lawyer, community activist, state legislator, senator -- but a long history of engagement with the major issues of the day, with the challenges facing America and the world. He has proven that he has the temperament and judgement to be president, and, on the issues, he is the right candidate at the right time, the man both America and the world need in the White House.

Palin is a lot like Quayle, and 2008 is a lot like 1988, but it is Obama who makes all the difference.