A DA (Not Really) and a Democrat (Not Really) Address the Republican Convention

Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman addressed the Republican National Convention tonight.

Thompson was a Senator a decade ago, but he's best known for more recently playing a New York District Attorney on Law and Order. He did dismally in the Republican presidential primaries earlier this year. He gave a good biographical speech for McCain tonight, but what sticks most in my mind is his swipe at Obama for giving speeches from teleprompters (this comes from an actor) to please America's critics overseas. So much for not attacking an opponent's patriotism, Fred.

Next, we have the strange case of Joe Lieberman. He actually won the popular vote for Vice President, along with Gore for President, as a Democrat in that election of 2000. Had not the Supreme Court unconstitutionally stopped the recount in Florida, Lieberman might well have become Vice President then.

As a science fiction writer, I couldn't have a written a better alternate history than what we saw at the Republican convention tonight. Lieberman, who according to most accounts was McCain's original first choice as VP running mate, addresses the crowd and praises not only McCain, but Sarah Palin, who is indeed the Republican VP candidate. Lieberman says he's doing this as Democrat, based on his long association with McCain - ok, but has Lieberman also had a long association of working with Palin?

Lieberman also lied - saying that he knows of no time that Obama reached across the aisles and worked with Republicans on anything important. Could Lieberman have forgotten about The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (which requires full disclosure of all organization receiving federal funds), of which Obama and McCain were primary sponsors, along with numerous other Senators of both parties, including ... Joe Lieberman?

But politicians often exaggerate to the point of deception. What strikes me most about this evening is the other-worldly quality of Lieberman up there on that Republican stage. I wonder - if he taken office as VP in 2001, and if he was finishing his second term as Democrat in that office now, would he have also addressed the Republican convention tonight as a long time friend of McCain?

Stranger than fiction ... a night of impostors at the Republican convention.

And I'll be make with more tomorrow ...




See also: Republicans Bash Media for Covering Palin, Who Gives Sarcastic Speech at Convention

And Coverage of Democratic Convention:

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day Four: Obama Deliver's New Kind of Speech: Calls McCain on "Temperament" ... Al Gore: The Two Lines of History Converge

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day Three: America Moves Up - Obama Nominated! ... Biden Hits McCain on Everything from Afghanistan to Amtrak

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day Two: Patrick Buchanan on MSNBC: Hillary Will Campaign Hard for Obama, But Won't Shed Tears If He Loses ... Hillary Speaks Powerfully at Democratic Convention, in a Scene for the Ages

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day One: Olbermann to Scarborough on MSNBC: "Jesus, Joe, Get a Shovel!" ... Ted Kennedy at 2008 Democratic Convention: JFK Would Be Smiling ... Michelle Obama's Speech: Bringing Home America

Spirited Republican Debate on Fox in South Carolina Tonight: Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul Come Out Best

A crisp, spirited Republican debate in South Carolina earlier tonight - one of the best so far, as good the Republican debate on ABC on Saturday - and Fox included Ron Paul, which it didn't do on Sunday.

Fred Thompson was the best he's been so far, responding with a sharp mix of passion, clarity, and humor. He took Mike Huckabee to task for being a Democrat in Republican clothing. Even though I agree with Huckabee's "Democratic" positions about education, etc., I had to admire Thompson's performance.

Huckabee, for his part, however, was also excellent. He came through again as likable and sincere, as well as vivid and saber-rattling in his response to the Iranian gunboat incident - warning Iranians and anyone that if they attack American boats, the next thing they'll be seeing are the gates of hell. (Thompson got in a good line about the Iranians being close to seeing the virgins they think await their heroes in the afterlife.) Again, I don't agree at all with this jingoism, but it was good Republican television.

As for what I do agree with, Ron Paul was incisive and right on target in his comparison of the Iranian gunboat incident with the Gulf on Tonkin incident off the coast of North Vietnam in the 1960s. Lyndon Johnson used it to push the US into an escalated (undeclared) war in Vietnam. But, as Ron Paul correctly alluded to, it turned out later that this incident had been set up and provoked by Johnson precisely for the purpose of increasing US military action in Vietnam - or, starting up a full-fledged (undeclared) war.

Ron Paul was also clear in disassociating himself and his candidacy from the 9/11 "truthers" - those who think that the U.S. brought down the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.

Likely Ron Paul was so effective tonight because he was finally given some time to speak and make his points.

But the Southern weather agreed with all of the candidates. Guiliani was forceful in his defense of his immigration policy in NYC - how can you question the immigration status, he asked, of someone who is giving the police information a rape or a murder? You don't need a green card to commit those crimes, he added.

Romney sparred well, but once again came up with a science fictional, computational metaphor - making some point about three-dimensional chess (the first I ever saw of three-dimensional chess was when Spock was playing it on Star Trek). I don't know, it's a different series, but I'm still thinking Cylon...

And McCain was pretty good, too - though, in general, he seemed to assume the position as the most tired candidate, held until tonight by Fred Thompson.

***
After the debate: Ron Paul won the telephone poll, and of course Hannity didn't believe it. At least, this time, he knew better than to come up some story about Ron Paul's supporters voting multiple times.

A lot more debates in both parties coming up this month. It's good to see that they're getting sharper and more focused as the campaigns progress.

Hillary Edges Out Obama in NH: Why, As An Obama Supporter, I'm Not Too Unhappy

Well, Hillary Clinton edged out Barack Obama in the New Hampshire Democratic primary tonight. Although I'm an Obama supporter, I'm not really too unhappy about this, because:

1. I was moved by Hillary's emotional moment yesterday - I like seeing humanity in our Presidential candidates - and I was infuriated by the small-hearted, soulless response of some conservatives such as Bill Kristol on Fox News.

2. I think a woman in the White House would be almost as powerful a correction of an historic American injustice as an African-American President.

3. I like seeing pollsters and pundits proven wrong in their confident predictions - it shows that, in the end, the American people not the media decide who will serve in our public offices.

Meanwhile, Obama can hold his head up high. He won in Iowa and came in a close second in New Hampshire. He gave another great, inspiring speech tonight. I would be very happy with an Obama-Clinton ticket, and almost as happy with a Clinton-Obama combination.

As for the Republicans, I was disappointed that Ron Paul did not best Giuliani for 4th place, but Ron Paul did come close - which shows, once again, the dangerous folly of Fox News in excluding Ron Paul from Sunday's debate, and including Fred Thompson, who came a distant sixth in New Hampshire's Republican primary tonight.

Fox made this decision based on the national polls ....

Hmmm ... polls ... not worth all that much as valid measurements of voters, are they...

See also

Hillary's Tears

I'm Voting for Barack Obama

High Point of Fox Republican Debate Without Ron Paul: Ron Paul Supporters Carrying Signs Outside the Window

Well, I broke down and took a look at the Fox Rump Republican Presidential debate tonight - without Ron Paul, who got 10% of the Iowa vote - and I thought by far the most significant moment came when Ron Paul supporters walked by with nice big signs of protest outside the window, and Brit Hume and company analyzed what had happened during the 90-minute debate in New Hampshire.

I also kept an eye on the CNN replay of the excellent ABC debate from last night, so first a little comparison of the Republicans on the two nights:

1. The ABC (on CNN tonight) debate was obviously more fair and representative, since it included Ron Paul.

2. It was also far livelier, and therefore better in giving the American people a good idea of what the candidates think.

3. It also just looked better - the lightning, the seating, the general kinaesthetics of yesterday's debate was easier, more enjoyable and instructive, to look at.

As was the case last night, I thought Romney did the best in the Republican debate tonight. He was the most informative and on-point.

One interlude between Thompson and Huckabee struck me as worthy of a little attention. Thompson jumped on Huckabee for Huckabee's statement last week that Musharrif should not "continue" martial law. Huckabee has been attacked for this statement as showing ignorance that martial law had already been lifted in Pakistan.
Well, although it's true that "reinstated" might have been a better word than "continued," it's also the case that reinstatement is really a form of continuation, so Huckabee's statement is not as ignorant as Thompson and Huckabee's critics like to pretend.

***
Back to the replaying of yesterday's ABC debate on CNN tonight. I again want to congratulate ABC for that great moment in which candidates from both parties met on stage, and CNN for the daring move of rebroadcasting this debate.

Many commentators have pointed out that Obama may not have been feisty last night, but he was Presidential. Seeing some of Obama's responses again - such as his joke about watching the Redskins game along with the Republican debate - I would have to agree....

I predict that history will continue to be made on Tuesday in New Hampshire, with Obama amassing an even more impressive victory than in Iowa.

---

The Plot to Save Socrates

"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

more about The Plot to Save Socrates...





Read the first chapter of The Plot to Save Socrates .... FREE!

ABC Presidential Debates in NH: Analysis

I thought tonight's Presidential debates on ABC were excellent - right up there with the YouTube debates, and in many ways the best we have seen so far. The candidates seated, the lack of strict time limits, the savvy questions all contributed in their own ways to fine discussions. Good for ABC News for putting all of this into motion (though I still strongly disagree with ABC's exclusion of Kucinich and Gravel).

In many ways, the single most extraordinary part of the debate came when the Republicans and Democrats exchanged greetings in between the two debates. As I indicated in my last blog post, this was an enjoyable, precedent-breaking piece of television debate history.

Here are some thoughts about the candidates and their performances:

1. With all my joking about Romney being a Cylon, I thought he came through as the most relaxed and natural in the Republican debate. True, he did talk about a patient going in for "repairs," but he handled the attacks from McCain and Thompson with ease and style.

2. Ron Paul, as usual, made by far the best points in substance. His response to the question about Barack Obama was especially good: Obama and I (Ron Paul), Paul said, are similar in our longstanding opposition to the war. Ron Paul also was good in his continuing emphasis on the unconstitutionality of the war - I would have been interested in what the other Republicans would have had to say about that point.

3. Hillary did very well in the Democratic debate, in tone and substance. Her best line was when she pointed out that she embodies change, given that her election would be the first time a woman was President. Very true and important. (She and Obama both, literally, embody change - unlike any of the Republicans.)

4. Edwards was good, too, especially in his attack on Hillary. But she handled that attack very well.

5. Obama, given his victory in Iowa, had to get through this debate without any gaffes. He did that. He also made the important point - in response to Hillary's point about actions counting more than words - that words are important, too. Words inspire change.

In general, though, I'd say that these debates are not Obama's strongest medium - just as they are not Ron Paul's. In the case of Obama, his speeches are more inspiring. In the case of Ron Paul, his positions have always been stronger than his presentation.

The New Hampshire primary is Tuesday. We'll see, then, what the voters think.

Republican YouTube/CNN Debate in Florida

I didn't find tonight's Republican YouTube/CNN debate as refreshing and provocative as the first YouTube debate among the Democratic contenders for President a few months ago. Possibly the YouTube bloom is off the rose. More likely the questions weren't as humorous or provocative tonight as those received via YouTube for the Democrats.

Otherwise, it was a good, punchy debate which showed most of the candidates off to their best advantage. McCain, in particular, was more eloquent and forceful than usual in his support of the war and his denunciation of torture. Romney was on the receiving end of McCain's torture lecture - Romney falling back on his all-too-typical letting the experts decide - but Ron Paul had a fine moment in his cogent explanation, back to McCain, on the difference between being an isolationist and a non-interventionist (Ron Paul is the latter). And Ron Paul also spoke truth about why violence has decreased in southern Iraq - that has happened because the British have left.

But Romney was excellent in knocking down Giuliani's attack on Romney's alleged employment of illegal aliens - Romney reasonably replied that he contracted with a company to work on his home, he did not directly hire illegal aliens.

I should note here, however, that although I admired Romney's rhetoric in this exchange - a rarity - I think most of the Republicans and many of the Democrats are making too big a deal about illegal aliens (which, not that terminology matters all that much, but I can't help thinking of people from outer space whenever I hear that phrase). One of America's greatest strengths has always been its openness to people from other countries and cultures.

Huckabee was probably the best on stage about this issue, refusing to back down from his funding of education for children of illegal immigrants.

Giuliani, other the exchange with Romney on the employment of illegal immigrants, was pretty much on top of his game, and Fred Thompson was a little more animated than usual tonight, too.

So where do we stand: Huckabee is personable and gaining in the polls and could conceivably pull an upset in Iowa. Even if he comes close, he could be a good running mate for Giuliani. I'd say it's too late for McCain and Thompson, whatever they do or say from now on. Romney is still Giuliani's major competition.

And Ron Paul still has by far the best positions. He alone among the Republican candidates continues to speak to truth to authority about war. We'll soon find out how many votes this translates into in the primaries.

Republicans on Economics and More on CNBC: Thompson, Romney, Giuliani and Ron Paul

Here are some of the highlights and lowlights that struck me in the Republican Presidential debate which concluded a few minutes ago in Michigan. It was on CNBC, and will be repeated tonight at 9pm on MSNBC:

Fred Thompson: started out almost comatose, and then settled in. But he's fuzzy on most of the issues, and looks like Dwight David Eisenhower on a bad day. His best moment was responding to a pretty good crack by Romney, about the Republican debates being like Law and Order - a big cast, goes on forever, and Fred Thompson comes in at the end. Thompson smiled and said, not bad, and I thought I was going to be the best actor up here.

Mitt Romney: his response to whether the President needs to consult Congress before going to war - Romney said he'd leave that to the attorneys - was one of the lowest points, not only in this debate, but in American history, period. (See Ron Paul's response to this, below.)

Rudy Giuliani: his response about whether the Internet required FCC-like cultural policing was troubling, to say the least. He's not in favor of creating new government agencies, but he might look into it, if the problem doesn't subside. But, what's the problem? No one disputes the need of police to go after predators, on and off line. The question was about the "cultural" problems of the Internet (porn?) and what should be done about that. A better answer would have been: "The FCC is unconstitutional even as a regulator of broadcasters. The last thing I would do is extend its violation of the First Amendment to the Internet." Too bad Ron Paul didn't get a chance to answer that question. Fortunately, Ron Paul did get a chance to respond about the President going to war...

Ron Paul: his finest moment was his outrage over Romney's gibberish about consulting attorneys. Read the Constitution, Ron Paul said - it clearly says that Congress, not the President, has the power to declare war.

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that. You need to be just minimally literate.

Also admirable was Ron Paul's unwillingness to blindly support whoever gets the Republican nomination - that nominee would need to stop following Bush's disastrous and unconstitutional foreign policy.

It's rare indeed to hear a political candidate in either party speak such plain truth to the American people, and to the world.

Fred Thompson Declares Candidacy on the Tonight Show

And here's a clip of Fred Thompson's announcement on the Tonight Show, tonight, that he's running for President. With a little Jay Leno humor thrown in, too...

Makes sense, given Thompson's creds as an entertainer as well as a politician.

As I indicated in my Fred Thompson and the Fame Game piece here in June, Thompson's recognizability and public clout as an actor will make him hard but by no means impossible to beat. On the one hand, Thompson has a lot of what Reagan and Arnold had and have going for them. On the other hand, because of the Internet, I don't think network television is quite as important now as it was for Reagan (along with movies) or movies for Schwarzenegger.

I think Thompson's candidacy will most hurt Giuliani, Romney, and McCain - with little effect on Ron Paul, who has such a different wellspring of support.

Fred Thompson and the Fame-Game in Politics

Fred Thompson - former Senator and current actor - has soared into second place in the Republican presidential polls. I thought this might be a good time to post my 2003 op-ed from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, about Arnold Schwarzenegger.

When you consider that Thompson is not only an actor, but a bona-fide public servant - unlike Schwarzenegger and Reagan before they were first elected to public office - Thompson may be hard to beat, at least for the Republican Presidential nomination...

Schwarzenegger and the Fame Game

Paul Levinson

Op-ed, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 12 October 2003



Fame is a highly transferrable commodity. The part of our
brain that feels it knows someone isn't too choosy about how we
came by this comfortable acquaintance. If we admire someone as a
movie star, that person has a far better chance in politics than
a little-known politician. Although the recall election in
California was extraordinary, Arnold Schwarzenegger's victory
was predictable. As soon as he announced, most people figured
he would win. Only a robot devoid of popular culture would not
find at least a little temptation to vote for the Terminator.

Television has intensified this process, serving as a
cauldron for the fusion of fames. Martin Sheen plays President
Bartlett on The West Wing, then tapes a political commercial
against the Iraqi War. Who is talking to us in that commercial
-- an actor or a President? Years ago, Robert Young, who played
Marcus Welby, MD on television, appeared in a series of
commercials for Sanka decaffeinated coffee. Who was telling us
this coffee was good for us, an actor or a doctor?

There presumably are some limitations on this
transferability of celebrity. One hopes the Menendez brothers,
if they were able to get out of prison and run for office, would
not be elected. On the other hand, we get briskly selling books
from people behind bars all the time.

Even before television, the cross-pollination of politics
and other kinds of fame was a staple of American elections.
After all, generals from George Washington to Dwight David
Eisenhower became President on the strength of the gratitude
Americans felt for the military, not necessarily political,
prowess of these men. Of course, a general's work and experience
usually has more relevance than an actor's to the actual world.
But the experience of a governor or senator still seems the
better political credential, and would be, were the
transferrability of fame not so powerful.

The real question may be why we are still so surprised when
an actor is elected to public office. We may be getting to the
point that acting, military leadership, anything that puts
someone in the limelight is the surest path to political victory.

Not that there is anything necessarily nefarious about
this, or any use of fame in one area to make an impact in
another area. Eriq La Salle, who played Dr. Benton on ER, did a
very effective public service commercial against drugs. If the
kids who saw it were influenced by La Salle/Benton's medical
imprimatur, what's wrong with that?

Furthermore, although actors are unlikely to make good
doctors -- unless they happen to have medical degrees -- the
same is not necessarily true for actors elected to public
office. Some historians give Ronald Reagan pretty high marks for
his presidency. And generals Washington and Eisenhower have
fared pretty well in presidential history, too. The fact that
Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor for perhaps not the
best reasons does not mean that he cannot do a commendable job.

In the current age of specialization, we often forget that
multi-tasking human beings can come equipped with more than one
talent. Thomas Jefferson invented a device that automatically
copied a document as it was being written -- no shabby invention
in an age before carbon copies and xeroxes. C. G. Dawes, Vice
President in Coolidge's second administration (1924-1928), wrote
the music to "It's All in the Game" in 1912 -- which some of us
with recollections that go back to the 1950s may remember as a
beautiful recording by the mellow-voiced Tommy Edwards. Dawes,
for good measure, had also been a banker in Chicago.

Yet, there is still something at least faintly disquieting
in someone being elected to high public office on the basis of
credentials in areas other than political accomplishment and
wisdom. The concern is as old as democracy. Socrates, in his
student Xenophon's Memorabilia, points out that on a ship,
everyone follows the captain's orders (including the owner of
the ship), because the captain presumably is an expert in
navigational matters. But in a democracy such as Athens,
everyone has a say in policy, and leaders arise not necessarily
on the basis of their political wisdom or expert knowledge, but
on the basis of their popularity with the crowd. Sound familiar?

Of course, Socrates was not trying to improve or safeguard
democracy, but do away with it. In his and his student Plato's
views, the ideal leader was not someone who was elected for any
reason, but someone whose wisdom was such that he (not likely
she, in those days) would rise to the top. In Plato's
Republic, this "philosopher-king" would have absolute
authority.

In practice, in the twentieth century, such self-appointed
philosopher kings have come closer to Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam
Hussein than any democratically elected leader. (Hitler actually
was democratically elected, at first, but then seized
totalitarian power.) Even in Roman times, the generally
effective emperor and philosopher Marcus Aurelius disastrously
chose his son, Commodus, as successor (contrary to the Roman
proscription at the time on anointing one's child as the next
emperor). The philosopher-king failed in his most important
responsibility.

The process of free elections in a democracy, for all of
its imperfections, succeeds much better in choosing new leaders.
This is because the process is self-correcting. If the people do
not choose wisely -- if they elect someone for the wrong
reasons, such as a feeling of confidence born of seeing the
candidate in appealing roles on the screen -- they can always
vote the official out of office the next time. Or, as the
California recall has shown, even before the next election.

Winston Churchill probably said it best when he observed
that "democracy is the worst form of Government except all those
others that have been tried from time to time." So, yes, one of
the characteristics of this least worst form of government is
that people vote with their emotions. Good looks and engaging
voices were always at least as important as what candidates for
office said and did, and in the age of media a powerful persona
in fiction on the screen may be more important still. But
emotions make us human, and sometimes they can be better guides
than stringent logic. And if not? Well, the nice thing about
democracy is that there is always another election. It's not
the end of the world. It's all in the game.