Bill Bennett's Red Alert: Complacency Watch
The nation's exemplary man of virtue was up early yesterday morning to issue this desperate cry:
Okay, look. Now is the time for all good men—and women—to come to the aid of the party.
In 1960, Barry Goldwater famously shouted, "Grow Up Conservatives." It took 20 years for that call to be heeded, and we got the expanded, entrenched Welfare State, a disastrous & humilitaing foreign policy in the meantime; and Ronald Reagan's presidency was about attempting to roll back those 20 years as much as moving forward on a positive agenda.
Look, if you want John Paul Stevens replaced on the Supreme Court with a carbon copy, pro-choice, pro-racial preferences Justice, stay home.
If you want Donald Rumsfeld hauled before Congress every week justifying the war rather than fighting it, stay home.
If you want spending to increase even above the levels you are unhappy with now, stay home.
If you want Henry Waxman holding hearings on every aspect of the administration's actions, stay home.
If you want to see the war in Iraq defunded to the point of withdrawal so that the worst elements in Iraq take over and a repeat of the helicopters-fleeing-Saigon-type-images come back all over again, signaling a decade-long disrespect and doubt of American power, stay home.
If you want to keep the border unsealed, stay home.
The stakes are large, we can't afford twenty years, we can't afford two years of this. If you want a change in your Congressional leadership, fine, wait until you have the election, then demand it, with a new GOP speaker and majority leader if you want...but let me tell you, a new minority leader and a new minority whip will not get you much, it won't get you anything.
Two years ago we sent a message by reelecting the President, have things fallen so hard since then that we can't muster those numbers again and see that the good should not be traded in for the bad? You want to rue a day? You will rue a day with John Conyers as head of the House Judiciary and Pat Leahy as head of the Senate Judiciary. Don't do it. Please don't do it.
Okay, look, as the former secretary of education would say. The November 7 entrails are lining up, the signs point Democratic. All readers of this site's Election Central can quote chapter and verse.
But much as one longs to rejoice in advance, there's a message in Bill Bennett's red alert. Republican strength in recent elections banks heavily on turnout. It doesn't matter if people tell pollsters they don't like policy X, Y, and Z--even president W or Speaker H. What matters is who shows up at the polls (and, another matter, how long they have to wait).
Washington Democrats worry, too, about Republican investment in turnout. An experienced hand I know worries about Democrats' lack of a consolidated data base and experienced field operations. Americans Coming Together, a force in '04, is essentially defunct. The WP's Dan Balz the other day quoted the savvy Democratic operative Harold Ickes thus:
Harold Ickes, a driving force behind outside efforts to put Democrats back in the game, said Republicans have two clear advantages over the Democrats. First is a deeper and richer database, which improves the GOP's ability to "model the electorate" - the term for identifying and classifying different voter blocs - and to tailor messages to individual voters. Second is a trained cadre of people who know how to make use of the databases.
"We are still behind the eight ball on that, and it will take us a handful of years to catch up," Ickes said.
The moral, for now, is: Promote turnout. Work with groups like Acorn and USAction. Don't miss this chance. Take nothing for granted.
"Washington Democrats worry, too, about Republican investment in turnout." And, one might add based on Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004, recent attempts at legislating identity checks on voters, and a long African American history, on discouraging turnout deemed unsuitable.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
October 13, 2006 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Washington Dems are worried about turnout then they should not have fought Howard Dean every step of the way.
October 13, 2006 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"What matters is who shows up at the polls", and, to quote Stalin, who counts the votes.
Let's push the "Tempting Faith" revelations to cut away the religious right, the Foley/Hastert scandal to reduce social conservatives' enthusiasm, and Abramoff/earmarks to cut away fiscal conservatives. Baker's team is set to announce "stabilization first" or possibly "redeploy and contain", which is suspiciously similar to the Murtha plan.
Ironic, mentioning Goldwater, given he would sneer at the current "conservatives".
October 13, 2006 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Look, if you want John Paul Stevens replaced on the Supreme Court with a carbon copy, pro-choice, pro-racial preferences Justice, stay home."
Wow! That which is not to be spoken(by either side) is finally spoken. Are we now in the final throws of Republican desperation or is Bennett just having a Harry Potter moment? I suspect the former.
October 13, 2006 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good god: If saving Donald Rumsfeld is a plank in their platform, if this is their slogan for victory, I say let's buy Bill Bennett some airtime!
October 13, 2006 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I'm glad Bill Bennett finally admits Reagan's presidency was as much about rolling back the Civil Rights Era as anything else...
October 13, 2006 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bennetts desparation is apparent. If the Republicans lose big, who will we turn to when we need some 'ethical' advice??? And who will want all of the right wing windbags on TV? Oh, yeah, Fox and CNN...
But seriously, Bennett does make a point that Dems need to consider, if people look at the polls, many will feel that they can stay home because we (Dems) are going to win. This is a prime setup for a surprise defeat for us. We need to hammer home that nothing happens unless good, smart, progressive voters show up at the polls in massive numbers.
October 13, 2006 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Bennett is simply pathetic. Just like all other so-called "Evangelicals."
That this traitor would openly defend a war criminal like Donald Rumsfeld is quite telling. As is his open call to racists across the country. Yeah, I suppose it is desperation. But in their desperation, the hard-core rightwingnuts are finally showing some honesty for a change.
October 13, 2006 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. I agree with so much he says here, particularly the part about wingnuts staying home.
Who would have believed that an overweight, pompous, millionaire with weak will, a compulsive gambling habit and a taste for dominatrixes could have so much to say?
October 13, 2006 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully this was not a cameo performance by Mr. Bennett. Last year he wrote an op/ed piece for the LATimes expounding at great length on why marriage between gays should never be allowed.
I doubt that I've ever read such an impassioned argument on why gays SHOULD be allowed to marry.
October 13, 2006 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
How nice of Mr. Bennett to to so much of my work for me. All I have to do now is cut and paste his screed into my trusty word processor, then use the good-old "find and replace" tool. "Find" "stay home" replace with "don't stay home".
So, because I want to chortle in my joy, I won't stay home. I'll go to the polls, haul as many like-minded people to the polls as I can (It won't take a lot of hauling... they're on their way there already), and hand Mr. Bennett his worst nightmare.
aMike
October 13, 2006 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want Bill Bennett to, finally, shut-the-fuck-up, stay home.
Bennett had his Crack Dealer in the ‘8os, his Super-Predator in the ‘90s and, of course, the Islamo-Fascist recently. But, that boogieman is becoming played out and all he can do now is beg.
October 13, 2006 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only real disagreement I have with Bennett about election results is his assertion that Democrats will cause "spending to increase even above the levels you are unhappy with now".
Reminds me of what some of my Conservative friends (one of whom doesn't vote because it seems that he can't be bothered to become an American citizen, interestingly enough) tried to convince me of in 1992. If elected, 'Clinton' they said, 'would cause deficits to go through the roof and Democrats would wreck the economy.'
Uh huh.
-Dave Adams-
October 13, 2006 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bennett's implied claim of association with Goldwater is defamatory:
His implication that the Reagan Presidency represented an ascension of Goldwater Conservatism is specious also:
Bennett was a member of the Reagan Administration, which sought to place the executive above the Constitution. There is nothing remotely resembling Goldwater's vision of conservatism in this concept:
Although in the past, Bennett made an honest assessment of Reagan's legacy:
Bennett has also shown himself to practise a different form of conservatism from Barry Goldwater in that he doesn't believe in accepting personal responsibility, and he doesn't think that the proper vices to rail against includes either gluttony or gambling addiction:
October 13, 2006 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine rundown there PseudoCyAnts. I'm sure you'd be the first to acknowledge that you're preaching to the choir here ... But thanks for taking the time...
Most here at the Cafe are well aware of Bennett ... But he's preaching to the droolers to put a fire under their collective butts. He's like the screaming preacher telling his flock they'll all go to hell if they don't show up on Sunday.
The important thing that Todd points out: What matters is who shows up at the polls...
~OGD~
October 14, 2006 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Predicting the turnout seems to be everyone's favorite new parlor game. It is difficult to parse it out, and I am in no position to statistically prove my point... because of "Iraq war-fever", 2002 may not be the best comparison anyway....but my gut feeling is there is a substantial difference in the effectiveness of the GOP Machine's ability to turnout voters during the presidential election and mid-terms.
By their nature, the Senate elections are more akin to the presidential election because its a statewide tally -- so I'll concede there are similarities in those races.
On the other hand, each congressional district is its own world. No doubt, the Republicans have done a fine job of gerrymandering districts in their favor, but turnout in each will largely be determined by the motivation of the local parties -- both Rep and Dem -- not the national machines. (The edge goes to the Dems there, or at the very least things are even from a motivational viewpoint.)
I really think Election Day will be determined by the Mom vote and elderly vote. They get out to the polls and were crucial to the Reps winning in 2000 and 2004 (by very narrow margins, remember).
There are reports that this time around those demographics are disgusted with the current leadership. At this point, a call from Joe Republican the night before the election will not change their minds.
There's no need to comment on Bbbbbbill Bbbbbennett. You all did a find job ripping that bloated bag of wind....Well,one comment: I think he's secretly rooting for a Dem win because we saw a lot more of him on Faux News when Clinton was in power. And you know its all about the $$$ for him.
October 14, 2006 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remeber that I am not a democrat.
I will an end to this two party obscenity, but what has been done by the GOP, is well beyond what I, walkabout in the Dreamtime, could endure without allying with the other side.
Nothing is sacred to this crop of SOBs; not even Habeas Corpus. They have waged unrighteous war, and tortured humans under the authority imparted by the American flag;
My Flag, God Damnit - This Must Cease!If you look around, you'll notice I've stayed away from most of the economic issues on this site. The time may soon come to actively dissent though. Presently i am entrenched in my long held position of the high ground, awaiting the time to participate in the withering supressing fire; the enfilade of contemporary conservatism's moral awakening. It is the proper placre to be, but i find little joy possessing this knowledge.
October 14, 2006 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I despise you for making the best points before I had a chance, but I would add:
a chance to stop spending money on the monumental boondogle on Euphrates -- yes!
a chance to have some sensible plan of dealing with illegal immigration, like enforcing labor laws, rather than proposing a Chinese wall, criminalizing non-criminal behavior etc. -- yes!
a chance for equal rights for gays -- I do not yet believe that it is realistic, but -- yes!
October 15, 2006 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink