But, this time, Governor Palin hit too close to home.  Talking to Esquire Magazine in a “Day After” interview, she talked about her impressions on the blogosphere:

“Bored, anonymous, pathetic bloggers who lie annoy me….

Okay, more indication of continued problems in the world of journalism.”

This indictment of the modern “world of journalism” is a mentality that the Republican Party needs to shed.  And if they don’t shed it soon they will continue their downward spiral all the way through the 2010 elections.

After the disastrous 1964 presidential election, the Republicans looked to Ohio-native Ray C. Bliss to remake the party.  And he did so with flying colors.  The Republican Revolution or Reagan Revolution that we later named was created by that man in that era.  He realized that winning elections was more important than ideological purity, and sought out tactics that would achieve such.  He was the first to conducy candidate training on a national level and for national candidates, and remade the Republican National Committee into an electoral apparatus of best practices. In the 60s, Bliss was ahead of the curve.

Today, Republicans could not be farther behind the curve.  They have no Ray C. Bliss, but, more accurately, they have no Joe Trippi.  When Trippi took over the Dean for America campaign, it was an undisciplined hope of a campaign.  Trippi didn’t add discipline, but he added legitimacy by being ahead of the curve.  He realized the future of politics was grassroots, but not just door-to-door, it was also IP Address-to-IP Address.  He created a community.  This community was online.  For all of the failings of the Dean Campaign, it was a Bliss moment that allowed Democrats to take the lead on electoral strategizing.  To cultivate the strength of the future (the internet) was to control your electoral success.

Republicans need another Ray Bliss or Joe Trippi in their party.  At this moment, they are good for old time zones – ones that are not yet wireless, not yet Google-ified, and, yes, not represented by a blogger.  Democrats control their future because they have no competition in the cultivation of an online community. The Obama campaign demonstrated this profusely with their sophistication of the Trippi model.  Republicans had no counterpart on the national level.  As Bliss showed in the Republican Party, innovation has traditionally happened at the national level.  This is intuitive, because there is a larger community to draw from instead of a congressional race that will have 750,000 residents.  If the RNC is not prepared to remake itself, then its congressional candidates will be left to reinvent the wheel (note: the NRCC or NRSC doesn’t have the capacity of the RNC).

Whenever Republicans complain about the blogosphere not being fair, it smacks of one who is the losing party to a technology fight.  Republicans need to reform their campaigns to be technologically savvy, because that is where the voters are.  If campaigns are about controlling a message then the internet is becoming the primary medium to do so.  If campaigns are start-up companies, then the internet is your prime advertising.  And all of this needs to be coordinated through a reformed RNC.  The RNC must be the motherboard, the master computer, the Republican.com of electoral politics.  Without it, Republicans are in for another loss in 2010 (a loss made difficult by three important Senate retirements).

It is not enough to be ideologically pure, the discussion must exist in an open community.  Wishing this online community to the fringes only upsets the balance further.  In short, abandon quickly the Palin understanding of the blogosphere as “bored”, “annoying” and “pathetic”, and realize that they are your constituents.

My name is Wyatt Schroeder and I took time out of my very busy day to lend you my seemingly legitimate opinion.  My apologies, Mrs. Palin, but you have more to lose than gain by calling us names.

- Wyatt Schroeder

Check out more from Wyatt at Politics, Baseball and Junk

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

The only snafu in this theory is that it based on the manner in which these men executed the presidency instead of the world that they shaped.

Specifics can be thrown at this proposition to make it look irrelevant: Harry supported universal health care, Bush does not, Harry was a Democrat, Bush a Republican, Harry was from Missouri, Bush from Connecticut, Harry served in WWI, Bush avoided service. But, this exercise misses the larger truth of how they exhibited American power during critical moments in history.

Harry Truman tells us, “the only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know.” We continually make history’s mistakes over and over again; the only change comes in the names, not the actions. However, the opposite must be true: we repeat our successes. Bush proved to be a corollary to this axiom: he did not repeat Truman’s success.

At the end of the World War II, America was at a “unipolar moment.” The American economy had propped up the British war effort, until it committed its own man power. While Russia had provided the blood that won WWII, the nation was poor and without the new weapon in military technology (until 1949). America commanded a plurality of the world’s share of GDP and could have easily become the world’s next empire after the collapse of the British Empire. The Germans had failed in their imperial quests, but surely America was different. In 1945, America was at a “unipolar moment.”

Truman; however, was no emperor. He used American strength and supremacy to remake the world order in cooperative symmetry. Instead of commanding an empire, he helped charter the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Instead of nation-building, Truman sent Europe the Marshall Plan – the equivalent of $100 billion in today’s dollars. And he gave Europe supremacy to allocate the money themselves instead of dictating terms and using it as leverage. Yes, Truman led us into the Korean War – a far off land, where we had seemingly no interest. But, this was part of his grand strategy of containment against communism. And this was the first UN operation. The Korean War was unpopular, but it was still a familiar, conventional war for which we were prepared. It did not go as planned, but Truman settled for an armistice instead of conquest.

The Cold War – that Truman helped ensure stayed cold – ended and deescalated during the George H.W. Bush presidency. The Bill Clinton presidency was spent – or at least advertised – as one focused on internal affairs, namely the economy. America was becoming the sole pole of the world order, but was unconcerned with its dominance (exceptions in Bosnia and Kosovo). This all changed on 9/11.

Due to the terrorist attacks on our soil, America was presented again with a “unipolar moment.” President George W. Bush had a clear choice, the same choice Truman had to make: use this moment to create a world order of unipolarity or multipolarity? Truman chose multipolarity, while Bush chose unipolarity. The Bush Doctrine departed from precedent – and international law, most would say – and embraced pre-emptive war as U.S. Defense policy. The doctrine that bears his name will be Bush’s primary legacy and demonstrates the president’s willingness to use his unipolar moment to pursue U.S. supremacy. The Iraq War, which needs no definition, stands as the example of this doctrine.

The Cold War was over and the U.S. had the opportunity to embrace an emerging multi-polar world. With the rise of economic powers, namely China and India, and competing political powers, namely the European Union and Russia, Bush had the chance to accommodate and include these countries in the emerging world order. Accommodation is not to say compromising our values, but accommodation demonstrates leadership and, therefore, allows the U.S. to control the moment at hand. However, Bush chose unipolarity and sequestered itself from world opinion. The result is that these rising economic and political powers will continue to rise in spite of the U.S. instead of with the U.S.

Bush will not go down in history as the reincarnation of Harry Truman. Both presidents were president for tumultuous times in our world, presenting the United States with a unipolar moment. However, they chose different paths. Truman selected a multipolar world order that allowed us to peacefully navigate the world following a world war. Bush chose unipolarity and the United States is now distracted from the true front of the war on terrorism: globalization in emerging markets, and ignores the changing world order beneath our feet (the “rise of the rest”, including China and India).

My apologies, President Bush, history may not have had its last word yet, but its last word will not include the name Harry Truman.

Wyatt Schroeder

Check out more from Wyatt at Politics, Baseball and Junk

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

At present the governor has sole authority to appoint a replacement in lieu of any vacancy.  Therefore, the options are thus: 1) Blagojevich can still appoint a replacement Senator, 2) Blajojevich can resign (or be impeached), allowing Lt. Governor Pat Quinn (D) to ascend to the post and appoint a replacement, or 3) the state legislature could pass a law mandating a special election for the seat (would still need to be affixed with the governor’s signature).

That said, it is quite likely that no matter the course taken, we will  not have a junior senator from Illinois for a while.  If this is so, then the person who suffers most is the past junior senator from Illinois, President-elect Obama and his agenda.

Let’s examine our options, shall we.

Option 1: Blagojevich could at any moment appoint a replacement, because Obama has already resigned the seat.  However, the appointee would be stupid to accept the appointment – at least in this fashion.  The replacement would enter the Senate with no credibility of selection, disregarding their qualifications.  This would be akin to a political appointment from the yesteryear of politics under mob rule (Chicago has a long history of that, anyway).  However, this option would be interesting if Blagojevich appointed a Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq War veteran and current director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs.  Would ones qualifications overrule the manner in which they were selected?  I hesitate to say ‘yes.’  Vice President Biden would be constitutionally forced to damage his own credibility by swearing in this suspect appointment.

Option 2: Blagojevich has stated on many occasions now (to the press and through sources) that he wants to fight these charges.  He is eager to speak to the people of Illinois about the arrest and assuage any doubt of his innocence.  Not debating his innocence, we can assume that this man will not be resigning.  Impeachment would be the only other option to have Blagojevich removed from the seat.  A 12-person committee was created in the Illinois legislature to look into Blagojevich’s records and the possibility of misdemeanors culminating in an impeachment hearing.  However, it is not clear what those charges would be, because it is known that he spoke of committing crimes but it is not certain that he actually committed any.  The legislature would set a dangerous precedent if they impeached a governor on the grounds of job-performance disagreement.  All that is know is that an impeachment process would take months to complete.

Option 3: That leaves us with a special election.  I do not believe that the Democrats would lose a special election, even in light of Blagojevich’s scandal (although, we have screwed up larger things in the past).  One of the few Republicans who could have been competitive in such a contest, Rep. Ray LaHood, was appointed by Obama to be our next Secretary of Transportation.  But, the possibility of Democrats losing is not the only concern.  The larger concern could be time.  Washington Post postulates, “the election calendar would suggest party primaries would be held on Feb. 24 and a special general on April 7.”  We would not have a replacement under these rules until April 8th.

As shown above, we may not have a junior senator from Illinois for quite some time.  What does this mean?

The press and history mark a president’s effectiveness by their ability to augment a legislative program in their first 100 days (an arbitrary deadline).  That deadline ends at the end of April for President Obama.  Therefore, for about 75 days, he could be operating with 58 Democratic votes in the Senate (57 if Franken doesn’t win in Minnesota).  This is a razor thin margin of error in a Senate that is progressively demanding more and more cloture votes (needed 60 yah votes) to move to passage.  It should also be noted that you can not guarantee 100% Democratic support on any given issue, especially in light of 1/3 of the Senate being up for re-election in 2010.

This will notably be an issue when the Employee Free-Choice Act comes to a vote, likely in this 100 day window.  Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com examined this possibility.  But, other measures could prove dangerous as government action becomes more a necessity in wake of the continuing economic downturn.  More government intervention may produce a reaction from Republican ranks and pressure Democratic unity on given bills.  That one vote could be an important one during desperate times.

A special election is the morally correct option available.  Allowing the people to decide the replacement of a Senator elected by the people.  However, time is an issue working against the effectiveness of a special election.  Therefore, a special election is both the right and wrong track to take.  We will have to see how quickly impeachment proceedings move, because they may be the best hope for keeping that seat warm in the backrow of Capitol Hill.

In short, we know not what direction Illinois is likely to go, but the direction that is chosen will help determine the success of Obama’s agenda in the Senate.  Yes, a lot of emphasis is being placed on one vote, and he will hopefully not have to rely on such thin margins of error.  But, given the history of the Senate, one vote can be a difference maker.

Wyatt Schroeder

Check out more from Wyatt at Politics, Baseball, and Junk