Day One

If you like George W. Bush to this day, in spite of all he's put the country through, there wasn't much more than awkwardness to glean from Friday's joint appearance with John McCain. Black babies, torture, earmarks, hyphen Feingold, et. al. Shall we just stipulate that the past is behind us?

But there was a moment, as Dan Balz wrote about at the Post, when truth had the audacity to join them on the stoop of the people's house. "Bush joked about his willingness to do whatever McCain may want him to do between now and November. 'If he wants me to show up, I will,' Bush said. 'If he wants me to say, You know, I'm not for him, I will. Whatever he wants me to do, I want him to win.'"

Much of the media found Bush's tap dancing while waiting for a tardy McCain most newsworthy. But, there on the steps, we were reminded how the Republicans come at the whole idea of politics.

Power rests in the people who turn their measly share over to a small number among us.

Two distinct models present themselves for your close consideration, savvy reader. Acquisition of power and sharing of power.

Bush and McCain have let it be known that, to them, it's all about the former. They intend to put on a show, regardless of authenticity (in the old school sense of being based in truth), and get this man elected!

McCain, in what he knew instantly was a slip, famously had said that his election hinged on convincing the American people things were going well in Iraq. The straight talker and the hidden persuader evidently hadn't yet completed their mind meld.

You can bet consultants have since been working on McCain to keep the straight talking style, but keep it confined to more strictly delineated matters.

The acquisition of power model works backward from an absolute necessity for victory and creates that jingoistic solidarity which is emblematic of today's Republicans. There is no "let's tell the people the truth and cast our lot with their better judgement."

Ha!

Bush, as John McCain knows firsthand, shamelessly exemplifies winning the election at any cost.

If they trusted the people, why is mind-bending usurpation of the meanings of words one of their highest priorities? From no habeas corpus for terrorists to not abandoning techniques they didn't even admit to a year ago, you always get the sense that you're being let in on only a tiny fraction of what they're really up to. "Because the danger remains, we need to ensure our intelligence officials have all the tools they need to stop the terrorists," says the president of the United States, justifying means with ends. Ends which are themselves tautologies.

He doesn't trust us but we're supposed to trust him.

Governing, in the context of a modern democracy, should involve more than accomplishing in secret something that would be, for no reasons that can be articulated with anything but gibberish, a catastrophe to lose. That's got to be what brings out their legions of fear mongers, wordsmiths and megaphones. Bush has never hesitated to conflate opposition to him with opposition to country.

(That's part of the spoils of victory, after all.)

The Democrats are not as far along, not just in nominating their candidate, but deciding on which of the two models they wish to signify.

Senator Clinton, in an heretical statement from the standpoint of party loyalty, compared herself favorably to John McCain in being ready on day one, in contradistinction to her opponent whose resume she reduced to a speech in 2002.

Her "kitchen sink strategy" turned out to be nothing more than the old media consultant trick of saturation bombing. Something fresh and titillating for each news cycle, as long as they don't stop talking about you. Hill-On - apply directly to the forehead.

Along the way, to those with the jaundiced eye of, say, a Matt Taibbi, she has embraced quite the array of positions. Eloquence portrayed mockingly as a character flaw. Naïveté exemplified by choosing community organizing over joining a large law firm. Downplaying her own support for NAFTA, while in the rust belt.

There have been many instances of Clinton surrogate attacks, from Bill Clinton's repeated, over the top musings to the south Texas Latino organizer who was caught spreading the tripe that Hispanics wouldn't vote for a person of color (psst, you know, black). And who can forget the cocaine smear in New Hampshire and the failure to categorically insist, on 60 Minutes, that Obama is a Christian, by choosing the weasel words not a Muslim, "as far as I know."

When Karl Rove helped win George W. Bush the presidency twice, using these same techniques, we wound up with less of a power sharing arrangement and more of an irrevocable lease. Is that the dark side to Clinton's candidacy, too?

Trouble is, compared to Rove the architect's customary fare, Hillary's recent barrage was more like the little prep sink at the end of the center island. And, despite all the hoopla, she's behind in the math. Still.

What has shaped up for Democrats is a decision on the most fundamental issue a political party can face. Do you send your support to the better sloganeering or throw in with the one whose trust, you trust, is in you?

Yes, an Obama adviser was dismissed for calling Hillary a monster, much was made of a conversation about NAFTA for which the only proof is a record of a meeting, and a former benefactor is on trial for unrelated matters, but I don't get the same sense that all sorts of nefarious activities are just one whistleblower away from coming to light, as you do with the Penn, Wolfson, McAuliffe and Bubba machine.

Equally as moronic as this notion of ready on day one is that it's not Obama's turn. Because it is, if you view politics as the art of sharing power.

For Hillary Clinton, who has stooped to align herself with Dubbya and John McCain in the most unfortunate way, politics is like talking the car keys out of dad.

How's that working out for you, Dad?

Next week: Beware the Idiots of March

RETURN