The Cedar Lounge Revolution

It’s not quite End Times, although as splintered sunrise has noted here there’s a 1 in 2 chance that someone who buys into that sort of thing may be but a heartbeat from the Oval Office in the near future (which sounds like something of a self-fulfiling prophecy). But with a Budget appearing in mid-October rather than the customary November – well, here’s a sign that the squeeze is on in financial terms and whole flocks of chickens are wheeling home to roost at the permanent Fianna Fáil power concession, excuse me, I do of course mean our Government. And what of the most unexpected news that a ‘Russian military force is to assist EU mission in Chad’? This must be the source of at least some cognitive dissonance in a number of rather distinct and contradictory circles. For those who have sotto voce lauded the Russians getting the digs in in Georgia as a means of a sort of proxy anti-Westernism (and I’m not entirely immune to the odd feeling that this really was an intervention foretold after the last eight or so years) there is the sight of the former Red Army, under new management not entirely different to the previous one, not merely rhetorically aiding the EU but lending four Mi-8MT transport helicopters to provide tactical air support. Or for those worried that the Chad mission represented a step towards involvement in foreign conflicts, well sure, it’s a multi-polar world and the EU (with Ireland in its wake) is tilting towards one, but few would have expected the tilt to be towards that particular pole. And not least some serious head-scratching must be going on in less savvy circles in Washington as the EU consorts with the enemy de jour, although whether Russia is to Europe as Alaska is to the ‘48 is a thought worth considering. So, scripts being torn apart all over the place.

And consider the man Jon Stewart calls ‘the self-hating Democrat’, Joe Lieberman. Surely his is a sad sort of political journey, from hawkish Dem, to super-hawkish Independent to … er… mega-hawkish hanger-on at the Republican Convention. Was his speech during the week the best McCain could do by way of consolation prize for the man who couldn’t be Veep (at least not with this version of the Republican Party)?

Now this is the same person who in 2004, as Walter Mears of AP notes:

Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000, sought the party’s presidential nomination in 2004 but got nowhere. So he went back to the Senate, where his backing for President Bush’s Iraq war policy made him enemies at home.

That backing did not go unnoticed and consequently:

Challenged by an anti-war candidate, Lieberman sought help from national Democrats…

Such as who?

…one who delivered it was Obama, then an emerging political star. Obama told Connecticut Democrats on March 31, 2006, that he knew Lieberman’s coziness with the Bush administration was “the elephant in the room,” but that they should nominate him for a fourth term anyhow, for his character, qualifications and abilities. He said Connecticut should “have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate.”

Hmmmm….

That’s what happened, but only after Lieberman was defeated in the primary and ran as an independent candidate. Obama endorsed the Democratic nominee, Ned Lamont, in the general election.

When the Illinois senator went to Connecticut to help him in the primary campaign, Lieberman called Obama a blessing for the Senate and for America. “I look forward to helping him reach to the stars and realize not just the dreams he has for himself, but the dreams we all have for him and our blessed country.”

But by ‘reach’ it transpires he actually meant ‘not reach’ and by ‘realize’ he meant ’stymie’…

Campaigning with McCain, Lieberman knocked Obama’s lack of military experience – Lieberman didn’t serve in the military, either – and said the election is “between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put his country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate that has not.”

Lieberman appeared on a conservative talk radio show in April and was asked whether Obama sounded like a Marxist. “I must say, that’s a good question,” Lieberman said. “During this campaign I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. … He’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and, I think, mainstream America.”

Now to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, I know a Marxist when I see one, and Barack Obama is no Marxist. Still, what a lovely person Lieberman is – eh? Let us note however that his time is drawing to a close.

As Mears writes, although:

Lieberman is 29th in seniority in the Senate, 17th among Democrats, rank that made him chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He’s also chairman of an Armed Services subcommittee. Chairmen get more than titles and authority; they get extra staff members.

…all that is set to change as the Democrats seem certain to gain a ’solid majority’ on November 4th and…

….what seniority gives, the majority party can take away. And the Democrats almost surely will take it away from Lieberman.

But let’s not worry too much, at least not yet. Or at least no more than usual for also at the Republican Convention there was at least one constant star fixed on its course, a good friend of McCain, and that star’s name is McCain. Now, it’s relatively soon after his speech, but, from the response is dutiful rather than starry-eyed. That’s not entirely surprising. It was – after all – described as ‘halting’ in parts. There’s no doubt as noted in Slate that McCain is easier away from the political high-lands of the economy and foreign policy. Indeed for such a ‘maverick’ its remarkable how little the brass tacks of political process appear to interest him. Or how poorly, relatively speaking (and we’re speaking about Obama) he appears able to articulate his message.

With the neon-blue screen behind him, McCain could have been your local TV weatherman—a map could pop up at any moment!—or a contestant on Jeopardy. His call to national service was lost in a rushed delivery, and his crescendo at the end was drowned out by an audience that had been told to stand up but did so before the candidate called on them to “stand up!”

And the implicit contradiction in his message was obvious. As the Irish Times notes this morning:

Mr McCain criticised Barack Obama but he also hit out at Republicans in congress, suggesting that they had abandoned their principles in recent years.

“We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us,” he said.

“We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. We lost their trust when rather than reform government, both parties made it bigger. We lost their trust when instead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties and Senator Obama passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies. We lost their trust, when we valued our power over our principles.”

“Both parties and Senator Obama’. I fear two can play that game. But the nonsense of the argument in a week where, as on Channel 4 News last night Trent Lott was lining up to sing the praises of mcain/PALIN was obvious. The Republican establishment, yes that same one that has overseen the last eight years and more besides, is foursquare behind him. And although….

McCain tried to distance himself from Bush repeatedly in his speech. He didn’t even mention the president’s name (though he mentioned Laura’s), and he talked about getting the country moving again, even though his party has controlled the White House for eight years.

Obama/Biden will have to push hard on that particular argument. Not least because McCain has some reform credentials. And yet, they’re oddities. If Lieberman is a strange hybrid, then how much more so McCain who has always played the media with the notion that he is not entirely of the Republican party even if he was in it (a notion that was clearly reciprocated by that party until the arrival of Palin). But, that’s just a notion, and not a reality. And that must prove useful ammunition for the Democrats.

And how about this?

But, a poor orator who has made few – if any – memorable speeches in the past, he failed to match either the rhetoric of Obama in Denver last week or even the feisty, sarcastic delivery of his own running mate, Sarah Palin.

Some of the loudest cheers of the night were when Palin, the new darling of the Republican party, joined him at the end.

Anyhow nice to hear Warren Olney on NPRs To The Point put an obvious question about the ‘experience’ issue. The response from a Republican delegate?

‘ in relation to foreign policy experience…she is the commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard and Alaska is a enormous state… you could put a lot of the USA within it’s confines. It’s disjointed…she knows that if there were a national emergency or a natural disaster in Alaska she knows that it would be probably 48 hours before help could get to her from the lower 48. So she knows that she has to be more adept in that and interestingly…

WO ‘…has she ever been challenged in that regard, has it ever been necessary for her to take some action along the lines’…

RD.. ‘I don’t know if there is, if there has been a challenge, I do not think… but the point remains that the preparation has to be there so that she could accept that challenge…”

Hmmm… if we’re taking that line then her experience in facing ‘challenges’ in Alaska is about equal to mine. Which is to say not at all. And lest this seem like an unfair dig at her, the same could be said of Obama, so, wouldn’t it be nice to have a serious adult conversation where such matters were dealt with usefully? Which brings me back to Lieberman. Why is it that in politics it is considered unnecessary to explain such a major volte-face as his on Obama? Why do people expect so little from those who purport to represent them? Or perhaps why do I, and I’d imagine most of us, expect so much more considering the dismal track record of those so-called representatives?