By Bob Cesca: You might have noticed how the Democrats last week weren’t afraid to ballyhoo the Obama administration’s tenacious pursuit and killing of Osama Bin Laden. This pivotal event in the president’s first term represented what could be the beginning of a major shift in the perception of the Democrats as an inept, wimpy faction that tends to mishandle foreign policy and national security endeavors.

In spite of the Bush administration’s ineptitude on this front, there continues to be a massive “strong on national security” polling gap in favor of the Republicans. Back in 2010, a year before Bin Laden was killed, the Republicans were crushing the Democrats on this front by a margin of 27 points, 59 percent to 33 percent. Even with the killing of Bin Laden and the ending of the Iraq war, the Democrats lag behind the Republicans by a full 10 points, according to Rasmussen (admittedly, a Republican-leaning polling outfit, but you get the idea).

So there’s still a lot of work to be done on this issue even though, by all empirical accounts and given the Obama record versus the dismal Bush record, the Democrats should be crushing it on the national security polling front. The difference is obviously not the actions and policies of the respective administrations, but specifically in how they talk about national security and foreign policy successes. If it was just successes minus a political PR effort, the Obama Democratic Party would be out-polling the Republicans but, as of right now, it’s just the president who’s leading Mitt Romney by around 9 points on this issue. Not enough, obviously, to change the broader party perception held by voters that still shows Republicans as stronger on nation security and foreign policy. I suppose eight years of “bring ‘em on” hubris, jingoism and lies from the Bush/Cheney’s PR apparatus regarding the false notion of “keeping us safe” has stuck with voters.

The only way to overcome such a gap is for the Democratic Party — not just the Obama administration — to boast its national security posture. Hence all of the Bin Laden death talk last week. And when it comes to rank-and-file voters, you’re not going to find much sympathy for the deadliest terrorist in modern history.

Over the weekend, noted foreign policy reporter Jeremy Scahill appeared on “Up with Chris Hayes” and slammed the use of Bin Laden’s death “as a football to spike on the national stage.” Scahill and others on the left who tend to focus on the president’s national security and civil liberties record above all else have criticized the targeted killing of Bin Laden and especially the use of the mission for political purposes. I hasten to note that, yes, Scahill, Greenwald et al have an important role to play as the idealist, pacifist conscience of the far-left. They say Bin Laden should’ve been captured alive and granted due process in the courts, either in American courts or in a Nuremberg-style international tribunal. But this carries with it significant dangers, both political and practical that I’m not sure they entirely grasp.

The biggest mistake many Scahill types make is to somehow divorce politics from policy when, in reality, there’s a considerable Venn diagram overlap between the two. If, in some sort of fantasy scenario, you were to remove politics and public opinion from policy, leaders could make significantly more idealized decisions about such matters. But we have a system whereby the only means to accomplish certain goals is to compromise or outright sacrifice others. In this case, however, it’s probably a bit of a no-brainer. Kill Bin Laden, the most hated criminal in the world, potentially win re-election and therefore have an opportunity to further lock down a left-of-center agenda? Yes, please. This approach further calculates that the “due process for Bin Laden” crowd is miniscule and probably won’t find too much sympathy to make an electoral difference especially when compared to the colossal upsides that come with a “take him out” order.

Admittedly, this is a complex issue — the intentional killing of terrorist leader, but the upside could very well mean securing healthcare for 30 million Americans, preventing a 66 percent cut in Medicaid funds to mostly children and disabled Americans, the protection of reproductive rights, preventing a significant rightward ideological shift on the Supreme Court for possibly another generation and the further establishment of equal rights for LGBT Americans as well as undocumented workers. The list goes on and on. Yes, a life is a life. But the life of a known and admitted mastermind of the 9/11 attacks (as well as countless others) simply doesn’t compare with the potential for what a second Obama term as president could mean for millions upon millions of Americans. (During the healthcare debate, Harvard released a statistic regarding deaths due to a lack of health insurance. The number amounted to around 3,000 per month. That’s a new 9/11 every month.) And the only way to get there is to ballyhoo the accomplishment — a concept, by the way, that the Obama administration has been heretofore slow to embrace.

I’d be lying if I said I haven’t struggled with this point of view. How would I have felt if the Bush administration had killed Bin Laden? Would I be as supportive of the decision? Would I have pushed for due/judicial process? Regardless of who gave the order, I, like many Americans, probably would’ve reacted similarly. I would’ve greeted news of the death of Bin Laden with relief, just as I did when it was announced by a president I support. Relief is a realistic and human reaction, irrespective of who gave the order. But I also would’ve been critical of the Bush administration’s inevitable use of scare-tactics, which they surely would’ve incorporated into the announcement. It’s very likely they would’ve fabricated some new Toe Monster to frighten us into continued submission. I would’ve also been critical of the new powers they would’ve tried to attain given the post-announcement wave of support. It’s worth noting that there would’ve been a significantly higher bounce in approval numbers for Bush than there was for President Obama. Whenever the Bush team enjoyed some sort of polling bounce, they exploited the political capital with an egregious, over-the-top agenda that included the USA PATRIOT Act, the invasion of Iraq, warrantless wiretaps and the attempted privatization of Social Security.

Ultimately, whatever case Scahill might make, there’s simply no real precedent when it comes to someone like Osama Bin Laden. Has an American commander-in-chief ever confronted a scenario in which a rogue terrorist financier and mastermind orchestrated the killing of thousands of people in a trio of deadly, coordinated strikes on American soil, then repeatedly admitted to committing crimes on videotape? And has that commander-in-chief had to make a choice as to whether to kill the admitted terrorist or to arrest and detain him with a variety of potentially dicey legal avenues to pursue — any one of them leading to the possible release of the terrorist while the commander-in-chief is still in power? Not that I’m aware of.

So it’s very easy to take the pacifistic high road in a vacuum and without acknowledging the political realities involved. Scahill and like-minded critics of the president have the luxury of taking the high road, but without a nod to the political ramifications, it become merely idealistic (if not entirely contrarian) single pet-issue finger-wagging. Mitt Romney wants to not only amplify a reckless imperialistic posture on the world stage, but he also wants to roll back everything the president has accomplished on the domestic and economic front. Ordering the death of Bin Laden and sufficiently boasting its success goes a long way towards preventing Romney/Ryan from accomplishing their nefarious goals. I simply can’t find fault in the Democratic approach — morally or politically. I can’t justify the forgoing of this political “football spike” when inaction and silence means a greater chance for the Republicans to re-establish deadly limits on health insurance for struggling Americans or reversing the economic recovery with larger slash-and-burn cuts in government spending. It must be quite a luxury to take such a narrow view of presidential decision-making. In this context and with these consequences, it’s simply not possible or practical.

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below:

The Daily Banter Headline Grab (via Yahoo News!):

President Barack Obama, transformed from inspiring hope-and-change candidate into struggling stay-the-course incumbent, promised Americans wary of giving him another term that “our problems can be solved” if only voters will grant him four more years.

“Know this, America: Our problems can be solved,” he told thousands of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. “Our challenges can be met. The path we offer may be harder, but it leads to a better place. And I’m asking you to choose that future.”

His appeal aimed to build on a rousing speech from Michelle Obama and former president Bill Clinton. The first lady assured disenchanted voters who backed her husband in 2008 but are wary or wavering today that four years of political knife fights and hard compromises had not stripped her husband of his moral core. And Clinton cast the current president as the heir to the policies that charged the economy of the 1990s and yielded government surpluses.

“I won’t pretend the path I’m offering is quick or easy. I never have,” Obama told the cheering crowd in the Time Warner Cable Arena and a television audience expected to number in the tens of millions. “You didn’t elect me to tell you what you wanted to hear. You elected me to tell you the truth. And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over a decade.”

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below:

Sandra Fluke knows a little bit about Republican "civility."

By Bob Cesca: Predictably, the Romney campaign and its apparatchiks at Fox News accused the Democrats of lacking “civility” during the first day of their convention. RNC chairman Reince Priebus called the Democrats “classless” for showing a 1994 video of Ted Kennedy debating (and embarrassing) a decidedly more liberal Mitt Romney.

Boo-hoo.

You know who shouldn’t be lecturing the Democrats about civility? The people who gave us swift-boating, the Southern Strategy, the outing of Valerie Plame, Birthers, Reverend Wright videos around the clock, “Obama pals around with domestic terrorists,” the exploitation of 9/11, comparing a triple amputee Vietnam veteran to Saddam Hussein, the booing of a gay soldier, and the party that sported Purple Heart band-aids at the 2004 convention to mock another decorated Vietnam veteran, John Kerry, who was wounded in combat. And no one on the floor of the Democratic convention hurled peanuts at an African American camerawomen, shouting, “This is how we feed the animals.”

Yes, the Democratic speakers unapologetically jabbed Romney for having a Swiss bank account and for being a shameless prevaricator. They criticized his policy proposals for being the usual Reaganomics claptrap we’ve heard during every election and, accurately enough, how the same policies caused the recession. There’s a difference between taking fair shots at an opponent and the reprehensible tactics routinely exercised by the Republicans.

I totally get it: since the dawn of history, politics has always been about rigorous debate, passionate arguments, salient framing and rhetorical aggression. That’s not incivility. That’s politics. But the Republicans always appear shocked whenever the Democrats bring their A-game to political contest, and then they hilariously lean on this well-worn “civility” crutch with full knowledge that the party’s PR wing, AM talk radio and Fox News Channel, has made a fortune in cash and ratings by calling the president a communist, a traitor and a “little black man child.”

The Democratic Party finally and thankfully stood up for its values and, most noticeably, its position on social issues. The party was unafraid to feature leaders from NARAL and Planned Parenthood on the stage. Various speakers talked repeatedly about reproductive rights, civil rights, LGBT rights and the role of government and how “we the people” ought to lend a hand to those who have nowhere else to turn. Core liberal values. Likewise, the party made it clear that Mitt Romney and the Republicans are the enemy of these values. And they are. They’ve pledged to repeal all of the advances in these areas upon arriving at the White House. Last night, an actual undocumented worker named Benita Veliz — an illegal immigrant, the latest brand of “evildoer” — spoke at the convention. On top of that, right-wing lightning rod Sandra Fluke spoke during prime time and thanked the Democrats for “amplifying” her voice in spite of brutal attacks from Rush Limbaugh and others who not only lied about her testimony to Congress but publicly and relentlessly slandered her reputation for weeks, calling her a “slut.”

Tell me again about civility, Republicans.

Frankly, I think this notion of taking a firm stand on core values hit really close to home for the Republicans who’ve nominated a candidate whose positions change by the day, interspersed with universally debunked lies. Simply put: Romney and Ryan don’t seem to stand for anything — you know, other than doing the exact opposite of President Obama.

On the same day when American voters were talking about powerful speeches from the First Lady and Julian Castro, The Nation reported that the increasingly shaky and awkward Paul Ryan actively lobbied the Obama administration for money from Obamacare, specifically for a community healthcare center in Racine. The Affordable Care Act provides $9.5 billion for health centers and $1.5 billion for a series of brand new centers, and Paul Ryan wanted a piece of the action while demonizing Obamacare’s “reckless spending” and how it’s a “government takeover.” We’ve heard this before. Ryan also requested money from the dreaded stimulus while voting against it and while using it as a cudgel to utterly skull-bash the president’s agenda.

But I suppose I’m not being civil by pointing out Ryan’s obvious lack of integrity, say nothing of the top of the ticket whose home planet eradicated integrity centuries ago while purging itself of emotions and authenticity during the final epoch of the Alpha Centauri Interstellar Conundrum.

So the contrast between a strong Democratic Party and a flaky, unstable, flip-floppy Republican Party has prompted the GOP to spend the week whining and pooping its big boy pants about how the Democrats are being so mean. For a Republican Party dependent upon lies and intellectual dishonesty, the truth really hurts.

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below:

Clinton and Obama embrace following the former president's stirring remarks.

The Daily Banter Headline Grab (via Yahoo News!):

CHARLOTTE — Former President Bill Clinton, once a political foe of President Barack Obama, made a strong case that he’s one of the nominee’s best surrogates Wednesday, especially when it comes to bringing independents into the Democratic re-election effort.

In a speech that was repeatedly interrupted by standing ovations and often veered from the prepared remarks on his Teleprompter, Clinton took on nearly every criticism that Republicans leveled at Obama last week at their party convention in Tampa. Clinton’s wide-ranging speech defended several aspects of Obama’s record, including his health care law, the controversial Recovery Act, the restructuring of cash-strapped American auto companies and even his choice of Joe Biden as vice president.

“We believe ‘we’re all in this together’ is a far better philosophy than ‘you’re on your own,’” Clinton said in a speech that went on for nearly an hour. “I want to nominate a man who’s cool on the outside but burns for America on the inside.”

Clinton even took on the question that Republicans have used in their convention counter-programming this week, arguing that the country is better off than it was when Obama first took office.

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below:

By Chez Pazienza: I do my best not to be overtly partisan, certainly not to the exclusion of all other points of view. Yes, my politics lean left and I’ve made it abundantly clear that I find it very difficult to side with the GOP on almost anything these days simply because the mainstream of the party has embraced the fringe in a way that’s positively shameful and which should embarrass any old school Republican. I don’t dismiss out of hand the opinions of conservatives but it’s tough to take the modern conservative mentality seriously when it’s allowed itself to become so inextricably linked to extremism and anti-intellectualism; I have no doubt that William F. Buckley is spinning so fast in his grave at what his beloved party and political affiliation have become that he looks like the Tasmanian Devil.

With all of this in mind I’d like to be insouciant and claim that last night’s kick-off of the Democratic National Convention — which I expected to be another exercise in stiff and scripted political Kabuki and potential Democratic flailing, the kind of thing not likely to penetrate the barbed-wire defenses made of pure hostility and cynicism wrapped tightly around my cold heart — wasn’t really anything all that special. I’d like to — but I can’t. The reality is that the Democrats, love their politics or hate them, hit it pretty well out of the park over and over again, culminating in what honestly had to be the very best speech I’ve heard at either convention so far: Michelle Obama’s stunning, eloquent, passionate and personal keynote address. The evening was so impressive, particularly the First Lady’s part in it, that I admit to being somewhat taken aback at what I was witnessing.

Certainly, the incumbent party and candidate in a presidential race often have the wind at their backs; there’s a natural cohesion and excitement among their ranks that the challengers can rarely muster. But for years, with the exception of the Clinton era — when a supernaturally charismatic president and a booming economy created a perfect storm that swept away everything in its path — the Republicans have been the ones able to stay on message, sound that message loudly and proudly and, quite honestly, play the game better than their adversaries. We’re used to seeing the GOP not just grabbing the mantle of patriotism and milking it for all it’s worth, but we’ve come to expect them to put on a better show than the Democrats. Sure, that show was often a lot of smoke and mirrors, but it worked — and best of all, it seemed more “American” in that the GOP was so focused that it could present itself as being the sole arbiter of a unique and necessary vision for this country and make it seem like destiny. Put simply, the party was the more competent when it came to politics.

But something’s changing. It shouldn’t be really, given that the economy is still in bad shape and a very legitimate argument can be made that Barack Obama — while certainly deserving far more credit than he’s gotten from both edges of the political spectrum — doesn’t have the kind of overpowering legislative success rate to tout that would allow him to stand head and shoulders above his opponents politically. Things are definitely improving, but it isn’t exactly morning in America just yet. And yet the Democrats went out there last night and looked like a party on top of the world. They were focused, energized, determined — and at the same time they seemed as if they were offering the truly American vision that their political adversaries seemed to have a monopoly on for so long.

Maybe it’s the changing face of our country and the fact that the Democrats actually embrace it rather than paying lip service to it through what looks like a phone call made to Central Casting while in reality demonizing anyone not either straight, Christian, male and white or in thrall to that demographic. Maybe it’s the mean-spiritedness and intolerance of the Republicans’ platform and their rhetoric. Maybe it’s the infighting that the Tea Party insurgents and the Ron Paul zombies have wrought. Maybe it’s simply the fact that Mitt Romney is a lousy candidate — the worst possible person to represent the Republican party or any political party at this moment in our history and a cringe-inducingly awkward dud personally — and the guy he picked as his running mate is a pathological liar. Maybe it’s all of this and more, but the end result is the same: the Democrats have a fire in their belly and a newfound spine in their backs that translates into the kind of optics the GOP just can’t seem to muster right now. Whether it’ll ultimately translate into votes is anyone’s guess, but the right kind of show in Charlotte can reset the debate and push things entirely in Barack Obama’s favor in a way that the Republican National Convention couldn’t for Romney.

Last night, Michelle Obama spent 25 minutes weaving a poignant story about her husband and her family’s place in the American dream and in doing so brought to my mind a word that I haven’t associated with Barack Obama in a very long time, something I’d kind of forgotten amidst all the governing, politicking and the sound and fury of the resistance from the right. That word is hope. It would be a huge surprise if the Democrats and the president himself could somehow make that a resonant theme again as the 2012 campaign builds to a crescendo, but they’re off to a pretty good start.

Subscribe

Chez Pazienza's feed

Enter email below:

San Antonio mayor Julian Castro. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

The Daily Banter Headline Grab (via Yahoo News!):

CHARLOTTE, N.C.—In a speech that instantly invoked comparisons to Barack Obama’s star-making turn at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro invoked his personal story as the descendent of Mexican immigrants to press the case that Mitt Romney “just doesn’t get it” when it comes to the struggles of average Americans.

Castro, the first Latino to deliver the DNC keynote, spoke of the “unlikely journey” that led him from a poor upbringing in Texas to a rising star of the Democratic party. He talked about his grandmother, an orphan, who immigrated to the United States and dropped out of school in the fourth grade to work and support her family.

She barely scraped by, Castro said, but did what it took to give his mother a better life. She, in turn, gave him and his twin brother, Joaquin, a Texas congressional candidate, a better life too.

“My family’s story isn’t special. What’s special is the America that makes our story possible. Ours is a nation like no other, a place where great journeys can be made in a single generation,” Castro said. “No matter who you are or where you come from, the path is always forward.”

But echoing other speakers during the first night of the DNC, Castro argued that the path would not be “forward” if Romney is elected. He accused the former Massachusetts governor of being out of touch with average Americans.

Making reference to Romney’s status as the son of a former Michigan governor and auto industry executive, Castro called Romney a “good guy” but said “he just has no idea how good he’s had it.”

Subscribe

Chez Pazienza's feed

Enter email below:

Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick brings the backbone.

By Bob Cesca: I’ve been following politics for most of my life, and while I’ve always felt energized by the potential and history of liberal policy-making, I’ve never felt like my chosen party reflected that energy or lived up to my expectations for it. Frankly, the Democrats have tended to disappoint more than they’ve impressed, and I’m not the only one who’s noticed. Evidently Deval Patrick has, too. More on that presently.

The party has struggled to shake an almost sleepy, flustered attitude, more interested in the noble even strain than the passionate barn burning many of us have wanted it to be. It’s been disorganized, crumpled, fumbly and hopelessly off message — almost out of breath — and all too willing to fearfully bend over backwards to avoid saying anything that might incite a counterattack from the other side.

But the Democratic Party on display last night is decidedly a brand new Democratic Party, if not in substance, almost certainly in style. The line-up of speakers presented on the first day of the convention was an extraordinary breath of fresh air — and a much needed shot of enthusiasm and electricity. Throughout the proceedings, I literally kept thinking to myself, what the hell party is hosting this convention because it certainly doesn’t sound like the Democrats of four, eight or twelve years ago? Who are these people? They’re razor sharp; they’re unafraid to seize the initiative and stick it to the Republican nominee; they’re energized; they’re inspired; and, chiefly, they sound strong. Surely they can’t be Democrats.

The Democrats never used to sound that way. Even when John Kerry opened his 2004 acceptance speech with the line, “I’m John Kerry reporting for duty!” it sounded desperate — it sounded like, “I’m John Kerry and I’m trying really, really hard to sound badass but I’m not.” Sure, it was a nod to his Vietnam service, but it landed with thud mainly because the rest of his speech was entirely forgettable in both tone and content. Come to think of it, whenever the party used to feel a little too spineless and defensive, it would simply mimick the style and policies of the Republicans. But the Republicans have always been effective at telling American voters what they stand for, and so you’d think somewhere along the line (prior to this week) the Democrats would get a clue and do the same: to unapologetically stand up for Democratic and liberal values.

Last night, the Democratic Party was, for the first time in memory, boldly and fearlessly related its core values — what it stands for, without attempting to trick Americans into thinking its merely the Republican Party With A Heart. Finally, one speaker after another — from Ted Strickland to Deval Patrick to the First Lady — described what it means to be a liberal, and they did it in a way that resonated as the obvious reflection of American middle and working class values.

Of course none of this would be possible without world-class speeches, one after another, with hardly a dud in the batch.

The most surprising address was Lilly Ledbetter, the woman behind the fair pay law, who, if you were only listening to the convention, could easily have been mistaken for the legendary former governor of Texas Ann Richards. She also had one of the most memorable lines about how 23 cents, the difference in pay per dollar between men and women, doesn’t mean much to someone with “a Swiss bank account.”

Former governor of Ohio Ted Strickland was clearly the most loud and forceful of the speakers, and even though not every beat was a hit, we need more of this kind of, well, shouting. Democrats fancy themselves to be intellectual and therefore raising our voices is somehow tasteless. Nonsense. Democrats don’t always have to yell, but sometimes it’s the best way to lend fire to the cause. Strickland, who delivered his barn-burner with a devilish smile, was the only speaker to accuse Mitt Romney of “lying,” and of “hiding” his financial history. He also attacked “Mitt” directly and relentlessly with lines underscoring Romney’s elitist wealthy tax dogdes, “Mitt has so little economic patriotism, that even his money needs a passport — it’s summers on the beaches of the Cayman Islands and winters on the slopes of the Swiss Alps.”

San Antonio, Texas Mayor Julian Castro will surely become a household name after his keynote not just because of the efficacy of his address, but also the fact that in both age and ethnicity he, like the president, looks like America’s demographic future. He’ll almost certainly going to be a serious presidential contender in the coming decades. Unlike Chris Christie’s baffling speech about “love versus respect” with barely a mention of Romney, Castro effectively wove his personal story with a pitch for the president’s record in even doses.

What can I say — the First Lady’s speech was arguably one of the great political addresses in Democratic history. In and amongst the personal stories of her life with the president and her struggles to raise her daughters, she also delivered a gut punch to Mitt Romney’s issues with tax returns, tax shelters and the serial mendacity of his campaign: “We learned about honesty and integrity. That the truth matters. That you don’t take shortcuts or play by your own set of rules, and success doesn’t count unless you earn it fair and square.”

Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick’s speech was easily the second best of the night, though I wish he had swapped places with the mostly forgettable Martin O’Malley speech and appeared in the 10 p.m. network coverage hour. More than anyone else, Patrick represented the exact tone I’m talking about here. Bold, fearless, oratorically powerful and inspiring. The only “problem” with Patrick’s address was this line: “It’s time for Democrats to grow a backbone and stand up for what we believe.” While I absolutely agree, I think the line was a few days too late. The Democratic Party that appeared in Charlotte last night boasted a massive backbone reinforced with indestructible adamantium.

Now the challenge will be to build on this momentum through the next two nights.

Adding… Some additional thoughts. Wishful thinking but I hope the Democrats re-air the Ted Kennedy video footage from his 1994 senatorial debate against Mitt Romney sometime during the 10 p.m. network television time slot. In the video, after Romney swears that he’s pro-choice, Kennedy turned to Romney and replied, “Mitt Romney isn’t pro-choice. He’s multiple choice.” Brilliant line. I also like the personal story of the family whose young daughter, Stacy, is directly benefiting from the Affordable Care Act’s elimination of lifetime limits on insurance benefits. Without Obamacare, this family would’ve used up their designated lifetime coverage amount and lost their health insurance. The Democrats need to continue to illustrate the real world advantages of Obamacare and seriously own the law. It will only help them in the long run.

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below: