My Party or Yours?

I regard David Brooks’ column today as manna from heaven, especially if you are an independent, undecided voter like me who is disgusted with the ideological partisans that dominate both political parties. It’s bad enough when both parties keep pushing preferred candidates that voters reject. It’s worse when these ideologues hijack the meaning of words like ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ and kick people out of the tent when they have the nerve to disagree with one of the party’s platforms. Are you pro-life and like smaller government, but don’t want to completely close the nation’s borders? Then the people who run the Republican Party don’t want you. Same with the Democrats if you are pro-choice and pro-labor, but have the nerve to support the death penalty.

When parties start pushing their choices on the public too hard, the tail will stop wagging the dog. This election is already drawing large voter turnout and huge public interest, and this country can ill afford to have the mediocre, divisive, party-anointed candidates as official nominees if they don’t want them or like them.

With no clear front-runner in either party, you can see both parties starting to get torn asunder from within. On the Democratic side, former President Clinton has been relegated to his wife’s attack dog, which has the potential of undermining his entire legacy among the wine-swillers who once loved him so much. While the public and the media wants Obama, the Clintons and the party elite want Hillary no matter how distasteful she is to the non-partisans who refuse to completely tow the party line, let alone the 500,000 independents in Florida and Ohio who will decide the election.

I’ve neglected the Republican side in all this lately, but it could be worse there than the Democratic side. Again, you can see the public surging behind McCain and Huckabee, while the self-appointed arbiters of conservatism push for Romney and Thompson (whose quixotic campaign came to a merciful end today) because of their self-adherence to the laundry list of what partisans think every GOP candidate must possess.

You’d think both parties would either want the public to determine who the best candidate is, or get behind the candidate that has the most appeal to the general public in November. But that would require people from Ann Coulter and Grover Norquist to Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi to make room in their tent for anyone who dares to have a differing opinion. Should Hillary or Romney get the nomination, these so-called leaders will be like Nero fiddling while what’s left of their party flees the burning city.

Karl Rove on Hillary's Victory

Just a few scattered comments for now. Who better to explain Hillary’s resurgence than Karl Rove? If you’re lucky enough to have a Wall Street Journal subscription you need to read this. If not, here are the best nuggets:

Sen. Hillary Clinton won working-class neighborhoods and less-affluent rural
areas. Sen. Barack Obama won the college towns and the gentrified neighborhoods
of more affluent communities. Put another way, Mrs. Clinton won the beer
drinkers, Mr. Obama the white wine crowd. And there are more beer drinkers than
wine swillers in the Democratic Party.

So could it be Obama is capturing the limousine liberal, Harvard Square, Upper West Side vote? And Clinton the true Democratic base which, if Rove is correct, is more receptive to the recent negative campaigning and race-baiting that are becoming her modus operandi? The Democrats remain a coalition party, and if Hillary is aiming to lose a few members of the coalition to win the wider war by any means necessary, that is actually not a bad strategy. Of course, she will remain above it all while everyone from aides like Bill Shaheen to associates like Robert Johnson and even her husband attack Obama from every angle.

Here’s Rove’s best observation:

While Mr. Obama can draw on the deep doubts of many Democrats about Mrs.
Clinton, he can't close out the argument. Mr. Obama is an inspiring figure
playing a historical role, but that's not enough to push aside the former First
Lady and senator from New York. She's an historic figure, too. When it comes to
making the case against Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama comes across as a
vitamin-starved Adlai Stevenson. His rhetoric, while eloquent and moving at
times, has been too often light as air.

Here in Massachusetts, we had a similar gubernatorial campaign last year when Deval Patrick won on a similar message of unification, hope and prosperity without offering a single concrete proposal. Patrick just finished what can charitably described as a difficult first year in office, where he was plagued by missteps and could not see eye to eye with an entrenched Massachusetts legislature, even though he is also a Democrat.

Obama is going to have to deliver a knockout punch in the next few weeks, either in South Carolina on the 26th or Florida on the 29th, hopefully both. Should he fail, there are going to be lots of disaffected and forlorn “wine swillers” and Independents who will never vote for her. McCain Democrats, anyone?

One last point other bloggers have mentioned. When George W. Bush first became president, his father said he was not going to interfere in any way. It’s safe to say that definitely happened. If Hillary is elected president, you KNOW that Bill Clinton will be involved in quite the opposite matter. Both of them are love ‘em or hate ‘em figures. But that’s just what this country needs to get the partisanship and gridlock out of politics, right?

New Hampshire Surprise

So you thought the voters wanted change, huh?

I think one thing everyone (including me) needs to acknowledge is that despite the front-loaded primary schedule this year, this is a marathon and not a sprint. Perhaps we were all a bit too eager to pin the nominee label on Obama – and it’s quite clear who the media is pushing in this race now. And as I thought, it’s also quite clear who the GOP wants to win. A quick look here reveals the telling quote – “We might get our chance at Hillary if Obama can’t do it.” Truer words have never been spoken. Vote for Hillary, and you’re ensuring another four years of Republicans in the White House.

So what happened? It was unseasonably warm in New Hampshire yesterday with highs in the 60s, which turned into a huge turnout. Also in New Hampshire independents can vote for either party, so that took some independent votes away from Obama and toward McCain, who also polls well with them. And we’ve all read Maureen Dowd this morning, but it could just be that Hillary’s emotional breakdown showed she actually may have a soul underneath all that plastic after all. Some have written about how that moment made women vote for her. I don’t even pretend to know enough about women to pontificate on how the female mind works, so I’m not even going there.

Some have cited “experience” as the reason for going with Hillary. I’m unconvinced by this explanation. If voters truly value experience, they would have voted for Joe Biden, Bill Richardson or Christopher Dodd, who each have more political experience than Hillary does. Funny how experience never emerges in GOP circles as an attribute.

Romney’s campaign is in serious trouble now. Massachusetts politicians have always done well in New Hampshire (Kerry won in 2004 and even Paul Tsongas won here in 1992), and he has been organized here long before any other candidate. And does anyone remember the former front runner, Rudy Giuliani? Whatever happened to him? Does he really expect to take the next month off and then emerge from nowhere to recapture the lead? Who is advising this guy, and why is he listening to them?

One last thought: I’ve previously mentioned the dangers of having two families dominate politics in America. We have a new intern at my real job that was born in 1989. That means that I am not only old, but during her entire life either a Bush or Clinton has run the country. She represents a new generation that will vote in its first election. Just how will voting for Hillary “change” America? If her name was Hillary Smith, would she have any consideration or be taken this seriously as a candidate?

More Info: Complete NH polling results

Viva la Revolucion!

Wow! It’s only the first step but exciting things can even happen in Iowa. What we saw last night was extremely encouraging – a complete renunciation of both parties’ preferred candidates and the overall establishment. Obama and Huckabee are outsiders in their own parties who had the nerve – the nerve, I say! – to combat uninspiring and unpopular front-runners pushed by the insiders. And both of them pulled it off. Kudos to both, and I do wish them continued success.

Just like you, I believed Hillary’s nomination was inevitable and was already counting the Democrats out. She is now in a truly difficult situation (wipe that smile off your face). The only way to bring him down now is to go negative and attack. Unfortunately, voters are less convinced when a female candidate fights dirty, and it has a very strong potential to further backfire. If she finishes second in New Hampshire, you can drive the stake in. If she pulls it off, prepare for a long and ugly road ahead.

And Mike Huckabee? I’m with Andrew Sullivan on this: He is the perfect candidate for today’s GOP. If you build a theocratic base, you will get a theocratic candidate. Huckabee is a Baptist preacher who thinks the world is 6,000 years old. He seems to have no clue about current events. He knows nothing about foreign policy. He is pushing a populist tax scheme that sounds deceptively easy and, if enacted, would lead this country to a very deep recession, and longtime Republican supporters in the business world know it. But as long as he wants to ban abortion and homosexuality, then the GOP base doesn’t care. And unlike our current “compassionate conservative” leader, Huckabee really does seem to be compassionate about the less fortunate. As Arkansas governor, he continually raised taxes to help improve social services for poor families. He’ll be trounced in a general election and I’d never vote for him, but I do wish Huckabee the best. It’s a pleasure to see blowhards like Limbaugh stew over this because voters have the unmitigated gall to not do what he tells them to. And did you notice Ron Paul got 10% of the vote? There’s definitely a revolution brewing here, even more than in the Democratic Party.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I was whining to my wife about the potential of having Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, the two most plastic, unlikable, polarizing, lying flip floppers in the race today being the candidates. This time next month, that could be just a very bad dream the entire country had at once.

On to New Hampshire, a state I know pretty well. The state is dominated by classic New England Independents – socially liberal, fiscally conservative and deeply distrustful of evangelicals or anyone else telling them what to do. Ron Paul and John McCain will do better here. Stay tuned.

As Iowa Caucuses...

Happy New Year and hope you’re ready for 366 days of presidential campaign overload. First up: The people who don’t understand how the Iowa caucus works. I’d like to see a poll of how many people in Iowa don’t understand it. Warren Buffet said if you don’t understand what a company does, don’t buy its stock. How many people blogging and bloviating about the Iowa caucus understand it?

I don’t know, but I’m heartened by the latest polls that show integrity may be making a comeback. Obama appears to be the Democratic frontrunner, and also appears to be ahead in New Hampshire, whose primary is a much easier process to comprehend. Should Clinton lose, watch for Bill to be permanently attached to her side for the next week in a desperate attempt to prop her up. It has been fascinating and entertaining to watch this terrible candidacy lurch from bad to worse. Whether it’s been race-baiting, smearing Obama as a Muslim, Bill falsely saying he never approved of the Iraq War and Hillary campaigning with her mother and daughter in a dire attempt to combat her huge negative ratings with women, Democrats will be doing their party a huge favor if she fails.

Future campaign managers should study Hillary and the equally vapid and virulent Mitt Romney as future textbook examples in how not to run. Much has been written about the Boston Herald’s, Concord Monitor’s and the New Hampshire Union-Leader’s anti-endorsement of Romney. These are three conservative papers in blue state country. All three know Romney very well from his time in Massachusetts. Their knowledge and experience speak volumes. To paraphrase myself, Republicans will be doing their party a huge favor if he fails.

Finally, read this fascinating editorial on John Edwards from an editor at Boomer Market Advisor, a financial publication aimed at financial advisors and planners.

The populist rhetoric of John Edwards kills me. "The gap between rich and poor is widening at a frightening pace," he trumpets. "We must do more to ensure income equality." Never mind that he lives in a 25,000 square foot house, gets $90,000 to give a speech about poverty and is an associate at hedge fund Fortis Investments (advocates for the poor peg hedge funds as a major contributor to wealth disparity)...I find it ironic that he calls for greater retirement saving while at the same time doing all he can to ensure more regulation and lower returns within retirement accounts. His proposal reads like a textbook case for class action tort lawyers. Knowing Edwards, what else could we expect?

Obviously the editor is biased toward his audience, but these are points worth mentioning. Also, guess who have been Edwards’ biggest supporters?

More Info: Here’s how the Iowa caucus works. I’ve seen legal contracts that are easier to understand.

Death of the Dapper, and More

If you don’t live in Boston, today’s death of Albert “Dapper” O’Neil at 87 means nothing to you. I’ll address more on Dapper himself in a moment, but no matter where you live there is a Dapper O’Neil in your city or town.

Your version of Dapper is someone who has been involved with city or town politics his or her entire life. They are correctly labeled as “old school” and often espouse personal and political views that may have been fashionable when your parents or grandparents were young, yet are now hopelessly outdated. While time and politics have evolved, your Dapper O’Neil continues to act as if nothing has changed and is often excoriated for his or her beliefs, and is often labeled a nuisance at best or a roadblock to progress (to be polite) at worst. Yet despite their firebrand and polarizing personalities, your Dapper O’Neil has legions of devoted fans and constituents. These people see your Dapper O’Neil as a throwback to what they consider the golden days and are fiercely loyal, knowing that without their beloved representative (who is often everyone else’s headache) there would be no bastion of decency or contact in City Hall, the town meeting or even Capitol Hill.

Dapper O’Neil, whose obituary is here, served on the Boston City Council from 1971 to 1999. Nobody typified the old Irish Catholic Boston political stereotype better. On one hand if you approached O’Neil for help with a problem, or you happened to be a blue collar Caucasian, you had a friend for life. If you were anybody else, God help you. There was no bigger foe of school integration or gays marching in Southie’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade. If you thought hippies, liberals and abortion were ruining America, Dapper was your man. If you hated political correctness and didn’t think it was inappropriate to say “Nice gams!” to a woman as she walked by, Dapper would like you. Think of Archie Bunker as a city councilor, and you’ve got Dapper in a nutshell.

And yet, despite all this, Dapper also had a heart. He openly acknowledged he could not and would not change with the times. Here is Kevin Cullen’s tribute, which also mentions the Archie Bunker angle. It seems that everyone has two memories of Dapper, and they tend to be one of him screaming at blacks during the busing riots of the 1970s and the other one of his admiration of fellow city councilor David Scondras, who happened to be openly gay.

Dapper’s hero was legendary Boston Mayor James Curley, another Irish Catholic who served time as mayor and in jail (including part of one mayoral stint in jail). Like other legendary Boston politicians – including Billy Bulger, Ray Flynn and Kevin White – he was Catholic first and was extremely socially conservative. And as the 90s went on, Dapper was seen more as an anachronism and throwback. When he finally lost his election in 1999, it was seen as a sign of progress and moving the deadwood out of City Hall. You could hear liberals and immigrants alike sigh with relief.

Dapper’s death, of course, has set off well-intentioned tributes and some additional longing for the good old days when councilors knew all their constituents by name. It’s easy to remember Dapper’s faults. For every chuckle (O’Neil once rented a truck in the early 1970s and threw soap at hippies) there’s a worse embarrassment (the crack about Vietnamese immigrants in Dorchester was disgraceful). But then you also read Cullen’s story about O’Neil helping a Haitian immigrant navigate through Boston zoning laws, and you start changing your mind. You also get the feeling by now that if you had asked City Hall to fill the pothole on your street for a month with no avail, you could get fed up and call Dapper. And you know that Dapper would not only have the crews out there in an hour, but he would also show up, apologize profusely to you and then scream at the crew for your amusement the entire time.

So the reality about these old school politicians, especially as the tributes pile up, is a bit more complicated. Consider the Dapper in your neighborhood. You probably wish he or she would just go away. But if they did, what would happen to the interests of the middle class town residents they champion? And who would you call to get your street plowed or pothole filled?

More Info: How Dapper Got Out the (Female) Vote

Comments on Howie Carr's Tribute: Far better than the tribute itself

GOP Desperation

Frank Luntz said the Democrats were in trouble when they became known as the angry party. They were way too serious, ran dour campaigns on gloom and doom platforms, and just never, ever smiled. The media still doesn’t get that likeability is a huge issue in any election – people won’t vote for someone they don’t like or who talks down to them, and that probably explains why Huckabee is starting to make inroads. He’s the only Republican candidate that seems like a legitimately nice guy.

But how times have changed! The GOP is now the party of hate. They hate immigrants. They hate homosexuals. They hate Mormons. They hate the poor. They hate the environment. In short, they seem to hate everyone who thinks differently from them. The one thing they all seem to like is war, whether it’s in Iraq or against Iran or elsewhere. No wonder the GOP electorate is undecided and the leading candidates are having trouble breaking away from the pact.

I’m not a Republican but watching this has been like watching a has-been athlete trying to make an ill-advised comeback. For years the GOP has been so good on messaging and communicating with voters. When you can get George W. Bush elected president twice and a Republican Congress in power for 12 years, you don’t have a superior product as much as you have good messaging. And it’s amazing how fast it has all come to an end.

I never thought I would see Rudy Giuliani, a man who I greatly respected and admired this time last year shaking hands with Pat Robertson, a virulent demagogue who said America deserved what it got on 9/11 because of its support of homosexuality and abortion. I knew three people who were murdered that day, and for Giuliani to shake hands with someone like that destroyed any credibility he once had with me. It doesn’t matter if he did it to pander to evangelicals who have assumed control of the GOP base. Anyone with integrity who lived through that day like Giuliani did would never stoop so low. That was beyond the realm of decency and a deal breaker for me.

And did you catch Mitt Romney’s appearance on Today this morning? While I watched it, all I could think of was the following: Romney ran Bain Capital for years. Then he ran for Senate in 1994, guided the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, successfully ran for governor in Massachusetts in 2002 and stayed for one term. Not once in that entire time was his religion a problem. Nobody brought it up his entire tenure – not one Democratic opponent. But once he moved onto the larger GOP stage it suddenly became an issue, and he is increasingly forced to defend his religious beliefs right here in America. He’s not being attacked on his politics or the issues. And yesterday a poll reported that 33% of Republican voters said most people would not vote for a Mormon candidate. What do you think that figure would be among Democratic or Independent voters?

Karl Rove originally tapped evangelical Christians because they would deliver a solid voting block. But somehow over the last two years the nonstop spending, a mismanaged war and an unpopular president have erased the GOP’s traditional voting base. A new batch of candidates all trying to out-hate the others and run on a gloom and doom platform isn’t driving in new voters or doing Frank Luntz any favors. And the new base now appears to be rejecting one of its leading candidates on religious grounds and making another sell his soul in a shameless display of pandering that independent voters will see right through. The GOP had a nice run, but it has now reaped what it has sown.

Words of Wisdom from David Gergen

I was fortunate enough to hear David Gergen speak this week at the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. Gergen was an advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, and is currently a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. This guy knows what he’s talking about, and what he talked about this week was leadership. Specifically, what kind of leader do we need to elect in 2008?

Gergen firmly believes that our next president will face the most challenging and troubling world any new president has faced since 1932. For foreign policy, there is the question of what to do in Iraq. Pull out or stay the course, and what is the timetable? Next, what will be done about Iran and the potential for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East? How about Pakistan, an increasingly unstable region in the midst of a leadership crisis? These issues, which are also intertwined with the ongoing War on Terror, must be dealt with.

Problems on the home front are no less pressing, although Gergen’s experience has shown that presidents spend about 75% of their time on foreign issues. We are also entering a critical time period in regards to energy policy and global warming. Even though the U.S. never signed the Kyoto Treaty (which, Gergen noted, was rejected by a 95-0 vote in the Senate) it will expire for the countries that did sign it soon. There are also critical questions that must be dealt with concerning the tax codes (Bush’s tax cuts, which include the estate tax, are due to expire in 2011). Health care costs and Social Security, both compounded by the upcoming demographic shift in retiring Baby Boomers over the next 10-20 years, are also dealt with.

While every new president has challenges, Gergen noted that the timing and urgency of all of these challenges are what makes this situation dire. All of these issues, without exception, must be dealt with in the next four years. Furthermore, Gergen noted that nothing proactive gets accomplished in the first year of any president because they are always busy cleaning up the mess left by the president who came before them.

In short, our next president needs to be a visionary – someone with big ideas and the charisma to convince both a skeptical public and other countries to step up and meet the challenges. A partisan and polarizing leader (like the one we have now, or quite a few who are trying to be president) will accomplish nothing and is not what the U.S. needs to maintain its superiority.

Compare these issues to what was discussed in last night's debate – gun control, immigration, abortion and The Bible – and suddenly things don’t look too promising for one party anymore.

More Presidential Musings

It’s getting even worse for the now-not-quite-predetermined front runner, which is good news for the Democratic Party. Hillary now polls behind every GOP frontrunner, and they didn’t even compare her to Mike Huckabee, who is gaining fast in Iowa. Huckabee may think the world is just 6,000 years old, but don’t discount his likeability and aw-shucks manner that work well in rural states. Plus he definitely has the coolest ad so far.

In more bad news for Clinton, both Obama and Edwards polled far better than her among GOP leaders. Plus her latest endorsement isn’t going to impress many undecideds and independents, let alone Democrats.

You can sense the hostility building between Obama and Clinton as the debates go on, the race tightens and the primaries edge closer. My personal feeling is that Romney and Clinton are very much alike. Both will shift their positions to whichever way the polls tell them. Both have no trouble changing their ideologies and flip-flopping their viewpoints in a flash if they think it will get them elected. And both have a respectable chance of being their parties’ nominees. Good grief.

So far, I’ve actually been most impressed with people like Ron Paul, John McCain and Barack Obama, all of whom have stuck to their ideological guns and are appealing to the voters with new ideas for what promises to be an increasingly dangerous world and very challenging times for America. Not all of their solutions are correct, but none of them will sink to the levels of a Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney to win. Can you picture Ron Paul planting questions at a press conference like Clinton’s team did?

One last thing: Should Clinton win the election, two families will have run our country for 24 years. This is a democracy, not a monarchy or even Dynasty. It should be stopped.

Why (Independent) Media Matters

I am a capitalist by religion and believe unnecessary government interference or regulation can burden businesses with often gratuitous costs and delay innovation. But when a business operates in a monopoly-like setting with a small set of large players stifling competition and making it impossible for independent, middle-market players to survive, then the government should step in. One of these examples was Major League Baseball, where a luxury tax has helped level the playing field so smaller budget teams like Cleveland, Colorado and Arizona can compete (OK, so it wasn’t the government, but you get the idea).

But one market that is indeed being squeezed by larger players is the media. In fact, thanks to some boneheaded FCC decisions (that were championed by both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush), the media in this country is now dominated by four players – GE, Disney, News Corp., and Viacom. Virtually every major TV broadcast, cable network, top Internet information site and radio show is owned by one of these four players. The result has been a homogenization of the airwaves from a disparate choice of independent choices and voices to an industry dominated by the four big companies of today. While there is an undercurrent of underground and alternative newspapers and web sites, they largely represent extreme political viewpoints that would not find a widespread audience or are constricted to local audiences.

The real trouble began with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 when the large media companies won an FCC ruling deregulating the industry. Media companies were now allowed to own any number of stations and outlets in a market provided their reach did not exceed 35% of the available audience. What followed was consolidation on an enormous pace. Radio companies like Clear Channel and Infinity Broadcasting gobbled up independent stations, who were then given set playlists (for music) and syndicated DJs who could not contribute on local issues (if you tune into an R&B or rock station in Boston, Atlanta and Los Angeles, all three will probably be playing the exact same songs). It also erased the line between the broadcast networks and their syndication partners, meaning the networks were not obligated to work with independent production studios. This finally set off alarm bells when Viacom – CBS’ syndication partner – bought CBS in 2000.

Besides the public, the losers have been independent, local outlets who are best equipped to provide their local communities with the information they need. Local media outlets are a disappearing breed. The four players will say there are plenty of choices for viewers on cable, satellite radio and the Internet. But the majority of large choices on these mediums are also owned by the big four. For example, News Corp. owns everything named Fox, FX Network, DirecTV, TV Guide, Dow Jones and scores of other newspapers, Harper Collins, myspace.com, and a slew of other highly-trafficked web sites. Disney, Viacom and GE’s lists of holdings are equally vast. In fact the top 20 Internet news sites are owned by one of these four companies. They don’t care if their broadcast networks are losing audiences when they’re only going to the cable or Internet sites they also own.

In 2003, with the blessing of former FCC Bonehead Michael Powell, the FCC raised the audience reach-cap to 45%. The backlash was huge. Lobbying (by everyone from the NRA to NOW) was almost unnecessary due to the bipartisan pushback, spurred by grassroots efforts to the FCC. Powell ended up with a compromise and raised the cap to 39%. Now new FCC head Kevin Martin, who appears just as bright as Powell, is now considering removing the longstanding cross-ownership rules. This would permit a media company to own a newspaper and a radio or TV station in the same market. Martin wanted to ram these rules through before the end of the year, but now a bipartisan group of senators (including Byron Dorgan and Trent Lott) are pushing for a 90-day delay to amass opposition.

When an issue unites people as diverse as Ted Turner and William Safire, let alone the senators we mentioned, it means it has widespread support and the FCC is in the minority. If you care about independent, minority and local freedom of expression in this country, please write your senators and congressmen and ask them to stop this new FCC proposal. It is bad for capitalism and worse for democracy.

More Info: A timeline of FCC mismanagement

Scarier than President Romney

You think The Shining is scary? How about dressing as Hillary Clinton for Halloween? Thirty-seven percent voted her the scariest candidate. Giuliani was a distant second at 14%, with nobody else higher than 6%.

Here’s the kicker:

Clinton was the choice of four in 10 men and one-third of women. While a
predictable two-thirds of Republicans picked her, she also was the choice of 18
percent of Democrats. Among members of her own party, that made her second only to Giuliani as the scariest costume. About one-third of independents, nearly
half of whites and just over half of conservatives and white evangelicals
selected her.

Eighteen percent of Democrats and 33% of women and independents picked Hillary?! Only 10% of evangelicals picked Giuliani as frightening. Sheesh.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. Nobody will unite the disorganized, disaffected and demoralized right-wingers faster than Hillary Clinton. She will even accomplish the impossible: Get Southern Baptists to vote for a Mormon. Not even the most hardened right-wing radical is this polarizing. If the Democrats nominate someone this unfavorable they will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Hey Joe

In all the writings and musings about Joe Torre’s dismissal from the Yankees, the one word that keeps coming up is class. Few have mentioned Torre’s four World Series victories (and two additional trips there) or his inevitable and well-deserved trip to Cooperstown. Most people today are talking about Torre’s character and people skills, which speak volumes about the respect he has earned as a manager. It also leaves quite a bit unsaid about the class and character of the Yankee front office that made him an offer he could, and should have, refused.

Even here in Boston, the heart of blind and knee-jerk Yankee hating, people are actually upset for Torre and wish him well. That speaks volumes to the kind of competitor he is. While he didn’t quite leave on his own terms, it always looks good when you’re able to leave a job with your dignity intact and character uncompromised. What he said in his press conference today says it best: “It’s not the money that’s going to be the determining factor,” Mr. Torre said. “It’s the commitment and trust. You can’t have one without the other.”

A year from now, after invaluable longtime Yankees like Jorge Posada are gone and the Yankees still have that overpaid and over-the-hill payroll they seem to always end up with, whichever Steinbrenner is running the team will then realize – too late – how valuable Torre was. They will see how he always managed to get a high-ego team focused and productive. They’ll understand how he was able to coax wins out of teams that were not as good as their record, either by forcing high pitch counts from opponents or loading up on runs because he knew the Yankees could only win by scores like 9-7. Can you see Don Mattingly, Joe Girardi or Larry Bowa simultaneously juggle the Yankee roster, front office, media pressure and rabid fan base and deliver 12 straight playoff appearances?

It’s been said people don’t appreciate the best things in life until they’re taken away. The Steinbrenner family is about to discover that the hard way. The Bronx will soon be burning again.

Base of Extremists

There are Democratic and Republican partisans who will always vote the party line but will admit it when their party or party’s candidates screw up. But there are also people who partisans also loathe – party extremists, who often comprise the “base” or core of the party’s faithful. Extremists on both sides often represent the very top of a party leadership or the very grassroots – but both believe they represent the views of the entire party, and woe to the Republican or Democrat who dares to have a different opinion.

Because these extremists are very loud and crass, the mass media gives them way more attention than they deserve. Because they claim to represent the party, people who don’t follow politics get a warped view of how the whole process works. And because the extremists can’t open their mouths without sticking their entire feet inside, ordinary people with normal views get disgusted and turned off by politics. And the media keeps giving us more and more, whether we want it or not.

There’s been a few extremists making fools of themselves and discrediting both the parties they claim to represent today. I am going to give the first, Ann Coulter, as little time as possible because she really is the most virulent sort of extremist around. It also shows the media keep falling for what I scientifically call, “The Hot Famous White Chick Syndrome.” This means that if anybody else did what a hot famous white chick does (think Britney, Anna Nicole, Ann C., plus others) we would have banished that person from our subconscious and the airwaves long ago. Her anti-Semitic diatribe can be read here. My favorite line isn’t even the “Jews need to be perfected” but “You have to obey.” So far the extremists – many who fall under the guise of fundamentalists – have alienated African Americans, homosexuals, Hispanics and now Jews from the GOP.

It wasn’t just right-wing radicals today. Barney Frank, the only openly gay member of Congress and head of the House Finance Committee, is also receiving scorn from left-wing extremists because he has removed “gender identity” language from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The bill would protect homosexuals from discrimination in the workplace, but extremists and some gay rights advocates say the bill is unacceptable because it does not cover transsexuals and transgender individuals. They now regard Frank as a Benedict Arnold.

What extremists do not understand is that compromise is the way things get done, not just in Washington but in life. I’ve met some of these extremists on both sides and they tend to have pretty poor people skills and just don’t understand that sometimes 80%, or even 51% of what you want is the best you’re going to get. Extremists have no ability to grasp this – anything else is a sell-out.

Most politicians are smart and reasonable people who understand this. But they need to continually balance keeping their so-called “base” happy with actually getting things done for all Americans. The real danger is when some of these “base” people become politicians and then become leaders of the party. George McGovern was one of them, but was so extreme even Nixon trounced him. But some of them – like Tom DeLay or Dick Cheney – have attained power, and it is only then that we see how far away from the mainstream they really are.

All's Fair in Baseball?

Don’t look now but parity might be returning to Major League Baseball. Seven of the eight teams that qualified for the postseason this year didn’t make the playoffs in 2006, and I even see signs of life in perennial cellar dwellers like Milwaukee (with baseball’s best infield) and Seattle.

Looking at payroll, it’s unbelievable to see the rank of underachievers at the top and the surprising surge of good teams closer to the bottom. It’s also interesting to see something else in the payroll stats – a middle class. Are owners finally ponying up for good free agents or is the luxury tax finally evening the spread across the board? Or is good scouting and the new trend of small-market teams not trading emerging stars when they can’t afford them finally paying off? Perhaps the answer is all of the above.

The end result is a better, fairer game for all involved. I’m genuinely excited to watch Arizona and Colorado, two teams I know nothing about, fight hard to get to the World Series. It’s almost like politics. The folks with more money usually win, but money alone does not guarantee victory. Sometime money can reach a saturation point, and that’s where the intangibles tend to kick in. It’s the intangibles that make other sports like football more exciting, and baseball might finally be learning its lesson.

More Presidential Musings

Things are not looking good for the GOP right now. With Alan Greenspan jumping on the anti-Bush bandwagon, 60% of Republicans now opposing free trade, social conservatives threatening to leave if Giuliani is the nominee, and the leading candidates pledging to continue with an unpopular war, you could certainly handicap the race against the Republican Party right now. What could possibly stop the Democrats from winning next year?

Two words: Hillary Clinton. Clinton continues to have tremendously high negative and unfavorable ratings, with over 40% of all respondents claiming they would never vote for her. With Clinton appearing to be the likely nominee at this point, you can just see the Rove-tutored GOP strategists tapping kegs in glee. They probably can’t believe their good luck. Already Clinton is providing GOP fundraisers with fodder for cash. Despite any upcoming schism in the Republican ranks, nothing will bring them all together faster than another Clinton presidency. Especially a Clinton who has little of the talent or charisma of her husband.

Here’s a completely unscientific but true story that speaks volumes to me. I know several young, liberal die-hard Democrats who are currently doing grassroots work for Obama in New Hampshire. I asked how their work was going and why they decided to help Obama instead of Clinton. Their answer was unanimous – they know making Clinton the nominee will be throwing red meat to the lions. They consider her unelectable, but will reluctantly support her if she wins. If a candidate can’t inspire the people in her own party, how on earth will she win the support of the undecided voters in Florida and Ohio that decide the election?

Mission for Burma

The mainstream media has, of course, moved on from the democracy crackdown in Burma to more important news like Britney Spears’ custody battle. But the Internet is still humming with plenty of sites and bloggers despite the military dictatorship’s attempts to black out the country. The sites urging everyone to do more in Burma are on the political left and the right, and I’ve listed some of the best-known blog sites below. Please check them out and drop them a line to let them know they are not forgotten.

You can really see how much technology has changed our lives since the last Burmese uprising against its ruling military junta 20 years ago. With the advent of everything from blogs to cell phone cameras, news about these types of revolutions and abuse can be seen by all. While small citizen uprisings might go unnoticed, it is now impossible to keep a mass revolt or upheaval suppressed by the state any longer. Imagine how much faster the Iron Curtain could have fallen with today’s technology.

It’s also startling to see just how brutal the military dictators are in Burma, and how much they have set their country back. A generation ago, Burma was pretty much on par with its neighbors. Now the countries surrounding Burma – China, India and Thailand, plus neighboring countries like Singapore and Vietnam – are booming, with thriving economies and a much higher standard of living for their citizens. Burma remains as it was – possibly the second least advanced and poorest country in Asia after North Korea.

Here's some smuggled video of protesters being beaten. Here's to one Burmese blog that includes links to some others, including photos that are quite gruesome. Here's the blog of Ko Htike, who is very good and also writes in English. In line with how technology is aiding Burmese monks and dissidents, here's a story about how satellite technology (similar to Google Earth) is going around the military's blackout.

Finally, here's an online petition you can sign to protest what is happening. I don't know if it will actually accomplish anything, but it's better than doing nothing and it will send you periodic updates if you wish.

2007 NFL Predictions, Determined by Dave (and My Magic 8 Ball)

This looks like another great football season. In the AFC you have the Patriots, the Colts, the Ravens, the Chargers, the Broncos, the Jaguars and a couple of surprises as top-notch teams and Super Bowl contenders. In the NFC you have the Saints and, uh, well, maybe the Bears and, uuuuhhhhhhh…I guess the Eagles are OK if McNabb stays healthy. Errr…did I mention the Saints already?

It’s not easy making picks when free agency and salary caps give every team a fighting chance. It’s even tougher when you look at the super-talented AFC North (except Cleveland) and the talent-challenged NFC South (except New Orleans) and try to determine who’s going to be on top in 17 weeks. But that’s what makes the NFL so great and the office pools so maddening.

Here goes nothing, including my playoff picks along with two Dark Horses for surprising and most improved teams in each conference (that would have been the Saints last year, if I knew what I was doing).

NFC EAST

1) Philadelphia – If McNabb stays healthy, the Eagles are a lock. What is not a lock is McNabb staying healthy. Some good additions (Takeo Spikes) and weird subtractions (Jeremiah Trotter) should shore up the defense as well.

2) Dallas – Wild Card Team. If the Eagles falter, nothing should stop Dallas from taking the division as well. Tony Romo was the spark Dallas needed last year, and new coach Wade Phillips can only improve a porous defense. In the AFC, Dallas would be lucky to go .500, but in the NFC they’re a shoo-in for the wild card.

3) NY Giants – Boy Eli has talent but lacks his brother’s accuracy and eye of the tiger. Tiki Barber’s retirement will put even more pressure on Eli, and the Giants’ horrendous secondary will squash their third consecutive playoff bid.

4) Washington – I see flashes of hope with QB Jason Campbell, but the Redskins’ defense has toast written all over it. Somewhere, Darrell Green weeps. But everyone will see Joe Gibbs weeping soon.

NFC NORTH

1) Chicago – This division is so putrid that the Bears’ practice squad could tap dance all over it. The 2007 Bears’ defense isn’t as good as the Ravens, but it’s not half bad either. Lance Briggs, Brian Urlacher and Tommie Harris are rocks. The big question is QB Rex Grossman. He stunk last year, but the NFC competition was so bad it wasn’t a factor. Will he get past the Saints and Eagles this year?

2) Green Bay – Brett Farve’s last hurrah. The Packers surprised everyone last year by going 8-8, but management did nothing to improve the team and lead RB Ahman Green left town. The Packers should get 7 or 8 wins with a decent defense, and that will be more than enough to contend in the NFC North.

3) Detroit – Here’s my annual shoutout to GM Matt Millen, HERO OF THE STUPID. Since hiring Millen, Detroit has gone 24-72. He has drafted three receivers in the last four years with the first pick, two of whom are warming the bench. Guess what he did this year? He drafted ANOTHER RECEIVER! Perhaps he could have paid attention to the offensive line, which will not keep QB John Kitna off injured reserve, or the defense that has been consistently among the league’s worst? As long as Millen has a job, your employment future is gonna be OK.

4) Minnesota – Battling Detroit for the basement will be the once-mighty Vikings, who will be led by mighty QB Tavaris Jackson. The starting RB is a rookie. I can’t name anyone on defense. That just about wraps up the team.

NFC SOUTH

1) New Orleans – Goodbye Aints! Believe it – the Saints are the best team in the NFC. Last year new coach Sean Payton, QB Drew Brees and RBs Reggie Bush and Deuce McAllister led the best offense in football. And, in a brilliant move, New Orleans spent its free agency money on defense, signing a new secondary including CB Jason David from the Colts. Defensive ends Charles Grant and Will Smith are angry and hungry. There may just be a new NFC Super Bowl representative this year.

2) Carolina – The challenge with the rest of the NFC North is deciding which team sucks least. I’ll take the Panthers who, despite WR Steve Smith, have a pretty lame offense. The defense is reliable but apart from Julius Peppers lacks big names and is getting near my age. It won’t be hard to go .500 in the NFC South, but the Panthers won’t do much better than that.

3) Tampa Bay – Were you asked to try out for QB in Tampa this summer? The Bucs will start with four quarterbacks, with Jeff Garcia throwing to, uh, somebody. Cadillac Williams tailed off last year, and long-starting DE Simeon Rice was cut after failing his physical.

4) Atlanta – The good news is Michael Vick won’t be a distraction. The bad news is Joey Harrington is the new starting quarterback. Things kind of go downhill from there.

NFC WEST

1) Seattle – I’m less sure about this pick than any other. Seattle seems good, as long as QB Tim Hasselbeck and RB Shaun Alexander stay healthy and the defense is decent, but I don’t sense a passion or urgency behind them. Even if I’m wrong, they lack the talent to get past Chicago or New Orleans if they make the playoffs.

2) San Francisco – Wild Card and my NFC Dark Horse. When you’re as bad as the 49ers are for a long time, you accumulate a lot of high draft choices. Unless your team is run by Matt Millen, eventually this should make you good. San Francisco now has enough talent accumulated to make a run at the Wild Card. Last year they went 7-9 and QB Alex Smith and RB Frank Gore showed improvement. This year they spent money like drunken sailors on free agency and signed four good defensive starters (including LB Tully Banta-Cain and CB Nate Clements) and had two first round picks. Next year they could be really good, but this year they should be good enough.

3) St. Louis – I love RB Steven Jackson (who put Marshall Faulk on the bench) and QB Mark Bulger, and acknowledge the Rams are an offensive machine. But there wasn’t much upgrade to the defense, which is last against the run. Unless there’s a lot of 35-31 victories, they’re stuck at .500 again.

4) Arizona – I’m getting tired of being burned by these guys. On paper they’re great and have good players but fall apart at game time. If they ever get an offensive line I’ll take another look.

AFC EAST

1) New England – Well, duh. Not sure what made the Patriots change their character image, but Randy Moss should be well-behaved for most of the year. But the real steal was LB Adalius Thomas who anchored the Ravens’ mighty defense. The absences of CB Rodney Harrison and DE extraordinaire Richard Seymour might make the first month tough, but the Patriots bench is mighty deep and they will be sitting on top by the end of the year.

2) NY Jets – Last year’s Cinderella becomes this year’s wannabes. The Jets have a better rushing game with Thomas Jones and two good WRs with Jerricho Cotchery and Lavarneus Coles and two new defensive draft picks will contribute, but it’s gonna take more than that to knock the Pats off their perch. Also, will QB Chad Pennington stay healthy all season?

3) Buffalo – I am slowly gaining respect for QB JP Losman, but losing the best three defensive players in free agency (London Fletcher, Nate Clements and Takeo Spikes) won’t help stop the run anytime soon. Looks like the Bills remain stalled at 7-9.

4) Miami – New coach Cam Cameron has his work cut out for him trying to make a Swiss Cheese offensive line protect 37-year-old QB Trent Green, who has never been especially mobile. Anyone know who’s starting at RB?

AFC NORTH

1) Baltimore – The Ravens played better than I thought last year as the defense was banging and QB Steve “Air” McNair proved he still had gas in the tank. The Ravens’ D-line is the NFL’s best, their secondary is the league’s best and the LBs are at least the second-best. If RB Willis McGahee does what he used to do in Buffalo, the Ravens will take off.

2) Cincinnati – I never thought that Marvin Lewis, the original architect of the Ravens defense, would run a team that played so loosy goosey on defense. Nobody doubts Lewis, QB Carson Palmer, WR Chad Johnson and the TE whose name I’m not even going to try and spell. But what’s with the defense? You’re never going to beat the Patriots and Colts without some upgrades there.

3) Pittsburgh – I’m sure new coach Mike Tomlin will be here for a while, and he’ll need a year or two to get Pittsburgh set straight. Pittsburgh is not a bad team but made too many mistakes (Roethlisberger had 23 interceptions last year). CB Troy Polamalu is still my man.

4) Cleveland – The Browns finally got the QB they wanted and their top draft picks got through the preseason without ending on IR. There’s too many gaps on defense and the Browns will probably win around six games, but this could be next year’s dark horse.

AFC SOUTH

1) Indianapolis – Well, duh take II. No Super Jinx here as the Colts should have no trouble repeating as division champs. Peyton, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark are the best throwing/receiving team in the NFL. But trouble may lurk as the Colts lost six starters to free agency or injury so far, none more telling than LT Tarik Glenn. A second-year player will now be protecting Peyton’s blind side. Look out!

2) Jacksonville – Wild Card Team and my AFC Dark Horse. I’m taking a chance here, like coach Jack Del Rio is taking by dumping Byron Leftwich for David Garrard. If Garrard works out, he’s the last piece in the puzzle as Jacksonville has a ferocious defense and a great RB in Maurice Jones-Drew. The receivers are iffy, but a good QB is all that’s holding this team back from greatness.

3) Tennessee – QB Vince Young was exciting last year but he can’t do it all, especially when the team lost its starting RB and both starting WRs to free agency and its best defensive player was Pacman Jones.

4) Houston – Dumping David Carr and signing QB Matt Schaub and RB Ahman Green were good steps. The defense has potential but is young. The Texans are still in a holding pattern.

AFC WEST

1) San Diego – Many people are anointing the Chargers as the next Super Bowl champs. I have two words for you – Norv Turner. This guy is the Matt Millen of head coaches, with a 58-82-1 record despite inheriting teams with great talent. It would be tough to mess up San Diego with names like Philip Rivers, LaDanian Tomlinson, Shawn Merriman and Antonio Gates, but I’m fully confident Norv can do it right around playoff time. San Diego also has a truly punishing schedule.

2) Denver – Wild Card Team. Now that Jake the Fake Plummer has been banished again, Jay Cutler will get a chance to shine. Should he do so, the Broncos will do well. Good signings like CB Dre Bly (a killer secondary combo with Champ Bailey), TE Daniel Graham and RB Travis Henry should bring normalcy back to Mile High again, where the Broncos were oddly 4-4 last year.

3) Kansas City – The Chiefs made the playoffs last year but will stay home in 2008. Running the show will QB Damon Huard, who will make way for rookie Brodie Croyle, who will have a very long season.

4) Oakland – The Raiders actually have a good defense and I toyed with making them my Dark Horse team because they could double their win total from last year. But that would still make them 4-12. Note to Al Davis: If you take the top pick in the draft and name him the future of your franchise, try to have him signed by Opening Day.

Moral Values: Larry Craig vs. Paris Hilton

“I believe he (Larry Craig) should resign because I believe character is an
extremely important qualification for public service," said Bryan Fischer of the
Idaho Values Alliance. "And I believe the senator, by his own admission, has
acknowledged that he has fallen short of the standard that we should expect from
public servants."

Yesterday, I talked about the hypocrisy of using moral values as a platform when you are living either an immoral life, or engage in activities that do not conform to what you preach (and the triumph many of us feel when people who want to impose their “ideal” lifestyles on others are caught doing what they claim to despise).

But “moral values” is one of those nebulous terms that mean different things to different folks. Nobody can truly say they are against moral values, but whose moral values should be held as a model?

We live in a society that follows every move of someone like Paris Hilton, who can hardly be described as having moral values, yet we scorn and despise people like Larry Craig and Bill Clinton for their indiscretions. Clinton and Craig’s immorality caused them to lose respect and (almost) their jobs. But when celebrities like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears or tomorrow’s petulant teen musician is caught on video or breaking the law, they tend to get additional exposure, a higher Q score and new fans. Why is this?

Moreover, if an ordinary person with an ordinary job like you or I were caught doing what Larry Craig had done, we would obviously not make the papers but an arrest would probably not cause us to lose our jobs. We would certainly have to answer to our families and friends, but we would not have to find a new career. Ditto for celebrities.

So if the public has such little regard for politicians, why are they held to the highest of ethical standards? It seems that if you are considering running for public office, anything in your past can be held against you, no matter how long ago it was or how irrelevant it currently is. Somewhere in America, a bunch of 30-something people who would make excellent senators or presidents have opted not to run for office because there is a picture of him or her drinking a beer in college before they turned 21. Any whiff of a scandal can produce an unprovoked media feeding frenzy that can overwhelm the most thick-skinned candidate. Except for places like Louisiana and Rhode Island where corruption and politics are synonymous, the days when politicians like Ted Kennedy could openly flout his drinking, womanizing and ability to be above the law are long over.

And maybe that’s the answer. People have a low opinion of politics and politicians, but they expect a lot from them and do hold them to a higher standard. While celebrities are worshipped and followed, people do not consider them very important. And while many celebrities should not be role models, at least they are not moralizing to others or advocating their values as a moral compass. Maybe politicians can learn something from celebrities after all.

More Info: Here's three people to look at for moral values

Socrates

Jesus

David Hume

And a politician without too many moral values:

News Flash: Another Gay Male Exposed as Family Values Republican

Yes, I ripped off the headline from The Onion. But the long list of GOP scandals tramples on and on, from financial scandals like Jack Abramoff (and folks under investigation like Ted Stevens and Rick Renzi) to a growing line of sexual scandals. Mark Foley, David Vitter, once-trusty ally Ted Haggard and now men’s room denizen Larry Craig are digging the hole deeper.

What the Republicans really need now is some kind of leader who can unite them and set them straight, similar to the tough love “coach” approach John Feehery discusses in this story. With an unpopular president, an equally unpopular war and religious firebrands as a base, it’s getting increasingly difficult for the GOP to defend its position and relevance to mainstream America. It’s been distressing and fascinating at the same time to watch the once-disciplined party unwind.

At the same time, there’s a schadenfreude aspect to watching Bible-toting, homosexual-hating and moralizing firebrands like Foley and Craig get their just desserts as we learn what their real family values are. The same people who denigrated both Bill Clinton and gays for their sexual exploits are now ironically caught in their own moral web. Americans are aware they are imperfect people, and tend to resent anyone from Kathie Lee Gifford to Martha Stewart and Larry Craig who presents themselves as perfect and infallible. Resentment at these so-called perfect people can quickly turn to glee when they suffer misfortune, often by their own doing.

Perhaps it’s because I’ve lived my entire life in the Northeast, but I also believe Americans do not want to be told how to live their lives and will rebel against anyone who tries to limit or take away their freedoms. If someone in Washington starts railing about family values and morality, their own house had better be in order. Nothing will ruin a public figure faster than exposing them as a straw man, especially if their now-phony platform threatened a liberty that people cherish.

Karl Rove's Legacy

What shall be The Architect’s legacy? Depends on where you look.

Rove’s skill and genius as a campaign manager cannot be denied. When you can get George W. Bush elected governor twice and the president twice – especially given the circumstances surrounding the latter – you are a genius. An evil genius perhaps, but still a genius.

It’s surprising so little has been said in the press about Rove’s incredible transformation of the Texas Republican Party. When he arrived in Texas, Democrats had long controlled state government. In two decades, the GOP owned the entire state government, and Rove helped get Kay Bailey Hutchinson elected senator and also helped numerous Republican judges win election as well. It was in Texas that Rove honed his legendary campaign skills of appealing to the base, get out the vote drives and attacking the core strengths of the opponent (seen later in the “Swift Boating” of John Kerry), not to mention the numerous times he raised homosexual rumors and anti-gay prejudice to help win elections.

You may be saying that the Rove-based approach has denigrated political campaigning and made negative attack ads standard today, and you certainly have a good point. But when you are a campaign manager, your job is to win the campaign at any cost short of breaking the law or telling outright lies. You do not worry about votes you can’t possibly win. Your only concern is to get that 50% plus 1 vote total to ensure victory. James Carville has repeatedly said this, and Rove’s campaign tactics will be studied and used by candidates and their teams on both sides of the aisle for years to come.

But what tainted Rove’s legacy – and where he got into serious trouble – is when he left the partisan campaign manager role and entered the White House. The president and his team should put politics aside to determine what is best for the country. It seems that Rove never checked his partisanship at the door and remained on a pro-GOP vendetta, regardless of how that may affect the White House or the country in the end. This has caused serious internal conflict within the party and has alienated millions of moderate Republicans and independents who once backed the war and the president, and now back neither. If anything, they are considering the opposition.

In political campaigns there are “wedge issues.” These are black and white issues that tend to divide the electorate into for-it or against-it camps, such as abortion, gay marriage, civil rights, war, etc. Rove, who had been so successful at studying polls to find what wedge issues would win campaigns in the past, turned the Bush White House into a series of never-ending wedge issues. They cumulatively divided most of the population against the president, and have now divided the GOP against itself. It’s amazing that the Democrats, a loosely-banded coalition party with no identity or central platform, are now in a better position than ever. The 2006 elections could be the first step on a long road for Republicans, and Rove’s tactics as presidential advisor is largely to blame.

So what will be Karl Rove’s legacy? The successful campaign manager who continually delivered victory for the party he loved, or the White House advisor who did everything possible to continue serving the party at the expense of the country? History will have to answer that.

More Info: Dave Frum's opinion