Government is serious. Democracy is sacred. And then there is politics the way it is actually played. The Vote blog looks at politics the way the players talk about it among themselves after work.
Obama's busy Memorial Day weekend: Arlington cemetery loses out
Can the Obamas catch a break?
Just about every time the first family tries to take a vacation, national events conspire to throw a wrench in their plans.
Their Christmas break in Hawaii was delayed due to the health-care debate. Two months later, health care again drove them to cancel a spring-break-timed family trip to Indonesia. (It's rescheduled for next month.) Three more of the president’s recent trips, including ones to Asia and Copenhagen, Denmark, have been rejiggered or delayed at the last minute.
And Memorial Day weekend? More rejiggering.
It’s the first time the first family will be together in Chicago in more than a year (the last time was Valentine’s Day weekend 2009), but the BP oil spill is mucking up President Obama’s plans (as well as the Gulf Coast's).
And so, Mr. Obama is jetting off to New Orleans for a day trip Friday, hours after he arrives in Chicago Thursday night.
And then there are Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and the anti-Obama machine.
They’re raising a storm on the blogosphere, with Mr. Beck saying that Obama has "decided not to honor our troops on Memorial Day."
From the May 26 edition of “The Glenn Beck Program”:
"The president has decided not to honor our troops on Memorial Day and go to – can you find out the last president that decided to take a vacation and then ... come back for – a Paul McCartney concert, but not for the laying of a wreath on Memorial Day? Maybe this has happened before. I don't recall it."
In fact, it’s happened before, and with Republican presidents, no less.
In 1983, President Reagan attended a Williamsburg, Va., summit and sent Deputy Secretary of Defense W. Paul Thayer to lay the ceremonial wreath at Arlington National Cemetery.
In 1992, President George H.W. Bush spent Memorial Day weekend at the Bush family's famed Kennebunkport, Maine, vacation spot, where he attended a wreath-laying ceremony at a local American Legion hall (and squeezed in a round of golf). Vice President Dan Quayle went to the Arlington ceremony.
And on Veterans Day 2007, President George W. Bush was in Texas while Vice President Dick Cheney attended a ceremony in Arlington.
But Memorial Day is different, conservatives and military backers say. This time, the Unite States is at war. With so many Americans serving overseas, is Obama’s decision not to lay the wreath at Arlington National Cemetery disrespectful?
That argument might have carried some weight, given that more rejiggering has happened. Specifically, Obama has added another item to his weekend itinerary: He will speak at a Memorial Day ceremony at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Elwood, Ill., the White House announced Thursday. (Vice President Joe Biden will lay the wreath at Arlington National Cemetery.)
Is that enough to quell the storm?
From some quarters, yes.
“We don’t really see the big deal, so long as he’s taking time to honor our fallen war heroes throughout Memorial Day weekend,” Ryan Gallucci, spokesman for AMVETS, told The Washington Post. “After all, it’s not groundbreaking for a sitting president to visit other national cemeteries or overseas ... cemeteries over the holiday. Arlington is certainly not the only place our fallen heroes are buried, so why not pay your respects to veterans around the country?”
But plenty of others aren’t satisfied.
“Arlington is hallowed ground and the center of our nation’s attention on Memorial Day,” Paul Rieckhoff, executive director and founder of the group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, told The Washington Post.
“Of course, Obama really doesn’t like the military, does he,” wrote commentator Erick Erickson on the conservative site RedState.com.
And you can bet the blogosphere is still having a field day with the news. “Obama blows off Arlington” got over 100,000 hits on Google Thursday.
But still, after a frenetic week of oil-spill gushing, Korean-crisis escalating, and stock-market swinging, the guy probably needs a break.
Related:
Obama Hawaii-bound after getting Christmas wish on health care bill
Indonesia disappointed after Barack Obama delays trip
Richard Blumenthal Vietnam ‘misstatements’: How damaging?
Richard Blumenthal now has a tight political race on his hands.
Until this week, the Democratic attorney general of Connecticut was favored to succeed Christopher Dodd (D) in the Senate. But when The New York Times published evidence – video included – that Mr. Blumenthal had erroneously claimed military service in Vietnam, the calculus changed.
The latest Rasmussen Poll shows him beating the strongest GOP contender, wealthy businesswoman Linda McMahon, by only 3 points, down from the double-digit leads he used to hold.
Since the initial New York Times story was published, more examples of Blumenthal “misstatements” have come to light, in which he talks about his service “in Vietnam,” instead of service “during the Vietnam War.”
The difference is important: Blumenthal in fact never did serve in Vietnam, but was in the Marine Corps Reserves stateside, after receiving at least five deferments, according to the Times.
The Democratic reaction has been central to his survival thus far. The party is rallying around Blumenthal, blaming The New York Times for playing “gotcha” and for showing only part of the videotape in which Blumenthal claims Vietnam service. Defenders also point to examples of Blumenthal saying explicitly that he did not serve in Vietnam.
Ms. McMahon’s acknowledgment to the media that her campaign gave the story to the Times has temporarily diverted attention from the main issue.
In fact, analysts blame first-time candidate McMahon for committing a rookie mistake in making that admission, as it spawned discussion about how the Times got its story and put focus on the McMahon campaign – not where a candidate wants to be when the other party’s top guy is on his heels.
But with the revelation of more misstatements, discussion is back on Blumenthal, and speculation as to just how damaged he is.
The nonpartisan Cook Political Report has moved the race from “lean Democratic” to “tossup.” For now, it would appear, Blumenthal’s campaign has not completely imploded. At a press conference Tuesday afternoon, Blumenthal admitted past misstatements, but said he was not aware that his “misplaced words” had appeared in print. He did not admit to lying, and in the face of the evidence, some analysts say he has not really come clean.
Before the flap erupted, the Harvard- and Yale-educated Blumenthal had a squeaky clean image, high popularity in Connecticut, and a lot of political capital to burn. Now he seems to have burned quite a bit. But as long as his party sticks by him, and no more bombshells explode, it seems assured that he will at least get his party’s nomination.
Beyond that, the race could go anywhere. McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, is duking it out in the Republican primary with former Rep. Rob Simmons (R) of Connecticut.
At first, Mr. Simmons seemed the ideal challenger – a moderate Republican in a part of the country that still appreciates moderation. But in this “tea party” energized election cycle, McMahon’s profile as a conservative outsider willing to spend a lot of her own money has moved her ahead of Simmons. A third candidate, businessman Peter Schiff, trails the other two Republicans badly in primary polls.
Related:
Rand Paul: Civil Rights Act brouhaha clouds Senate campaign
Kentucky’s Rand Paul, the darling of the conservative “tea party” movement, has started his general election campaign for the Senate with a bang. But not the kind of bang the Republican Party wants.
First, Dr. Paul held his post-primary victory party Tuesday night at a private country club – which didn’t exactly promote the kind of populist, outsider image tea partyers are trying to cultivate. In interviews, he defended the choice by arguing that country clubs and golf aren’t as exclusive as they used to be, citing Tiger Woods as an example.
Now Paul is having trouble giving a straight answer to the question of whether he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation. On MSNBC’s "Rachel Maddow Show" Wednesday night, the host and Paul had this exchange:
Ms. Maddow: “Should Woolworth’s lunch counter ... have been allowed to stay segregated? Sir, just yes or no.”
Paul: “What I think would happen – what I’m saying is, is that I don’t believe in any discrimination. I don’t believe in any private property should discriminate, either. And I wouldn’t attend, wouldn’t support, wouldn’t go to. But what you have to answer when you answer this point of view, which is an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you want to bring up. But if you want to answer, you have to say then that you decide the rules for all restaurants and then you decide that you want to allow them to carry weapons into restaurants.”
'He needs to come up with an answer'
Thursday morning, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, host and former Republican Rep. Joe Scarborough sees the potential for the issue to blow up: ”He needs to come up with an answer today, or Kentucky will be Arizona: a battleground for ugly, racial politics. He has 24 hours.”
Paul, a libertarian – or as he puts it, a “constitutional conservative” – is having a hard time squaring two strains of thought: an objection to government telling private businesses what they may or may not do and the right of government to regulate the practices of private businesses, such as discrimination based on race or allowing customers to carry weapons inside the business.
Paul’s ambivalence toward federal laws mandating the actions of private business – such as disallowing racial discrimination and requiring accommodation for people with disabilities – is nothing new. He suggested as much during the campaign in an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal editorial board.
But it has come to the fore in interviews since the primary. In addition to the Maddow interview, he spoke with NPR’s “All Things Considered” on Wednesday afternoon and, again, would not say straight up that he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act.
“What I’ve always said is, I’m opposed to institutional racism, and I would have – if I was alive at the time, I think – had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism,” he said in response to a first question about the act.
“You would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater?” asked host Robert Siegel.
“I think it’s confusing in a lot of cases in what’s actually in the Civil Rights Case [sic],” Paul replied. “A lot of things that were actually in the bill I’m actually in favor of I’m in favor of – everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there’s a lot to be desired in the Civil Rights – and indeed the truth is, I haven’t read all through it, because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn’t been a real pressing issue on the campaign on whether I’m going to vote for the Civil Rights Act.”
Paul blames the 'loony left'
Paul supporters blame liberal media for going after him – the “loony left,” as Paul refers to critics. On Thursday morning, in an interview with the conservative Laura Ingraham, Paul did not express regret about his comments, but says he regrets appearing on "The Rachel Maddow Show."
“It was a poor political decision and probably won’t be happening anytime in the near future,” he said on Ms. Ingraham’s radio show.
But in a statement Thursday that seemed to acknowledge the political brouhaha he finds himself in, Paul said, “I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Does he support all aspects of the landmark antidiscrimination legislation? That's still unclear.
Related:
Rand Paul rallies Tea Party with Kentucky GOP Senate primary win
Arlen Specter out, Rand Paul advances, Blanche Lincoln fights on
Five lessons from Tuesday’s primary election results
For Democrats and Republicans – incumbents and establishment candidates alike – the outcome of Tuesday's primary election results could not be clearer: watch out. Recent elections from Massachusetts to Utah had suggested that American voters were in a "throw the bums out" mood. Tuesday added an exclamation mark.
Here are five things to take away from the primaries Tuesday.
It’s an 'anti' mood out there …
That is, anti-incumbent, anti-establishment, anti-Washington. The recession has left in its trail soaring unemployment, plummeting 401(k)s, and a very angry electorate.
In this kind of climate, an impressive congressional pedigree can in some cases be a millstone more than a life preserver. Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter, who was elected to the Senate in 1980, lost to upstart Rep. Joe Sestak (D) in Pennsylvania. And sitting Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) of Arkansas was forced into a June 8 runoff by Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. At this point, polls show either of them losing to the Republican candidate by a wide margin in the general election.
“Tuesday night gave us a sneak preview of the fall midterm contests,” wrote Democratic political strategist Donna Brazile in the New York Times. “Be prepared for a tidal wave of voter rebellion.”
... and that’s fueling the 'tea party' fire
Voter anger has roiled both poles of the political spectrum (just ask Senators Specter and Lincoln about challenges from the left). But only the right has a movement to give that frustration a political direction – loose though it is. Republicans ignore the 'tea party' at their peril.
“There’s a tea party tidal wave coming,” said Rand Paul, the winner over Kentucky's Secretary of State Trey Grayson in the state Republican primary. “It’s already hit Utah [with the ouster of Sen. Robert Bennett] and it’s coming to Kentucky. The day of reckoning is coming. We cannot elect the same old politicians without getting the same old mess.”
Tea partyers have not yet proven that their influence can turn a general election. But their dogged advocacy of bedrock conservative ideals – small government, less federal spending – has played a sigificant role in reshaping the primary season. Before Tuesday, the tea party helped topple Senator Bennett in Utah and chased centrist Senate candidate Charlie Crist from the Republican Party in Florida.
Tuesday's Kentucky primary, however, was the first clear test of whether the tea party could translate fervor into votes. On Tuesday in Kentucky, the answer was an emphatic "yes."
Endorsements: Who needs 'em?
Quite simply, endorsements are overrated.
Remember Martha Coakley? Massachusetts’ attorney general lost the special election to fill the late Sen. Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat to newcomer Scott Brown in spite of an endorsement from the President Obama. Ditto for Gov. John Corzine in New Jersey and gubernatorial candidate R. Creigh Deeds in Virginia.
In Tuesday's races, President Obama backed Specter in Pennsylvania, as did Gov. Ed Rendell. Meanwhile, the most powerful Republican in Washington, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (a Kentuckian) endorsed Mr. Grayson. Both lost.
In the end, the endorsements might have hurt more than they helped, cementing Specter and Grayson as the establishment candidates.
Stick with the (party) program
In Specter and Lincoln, voters saw candidates who abandoned their core constituencies or beliefs.
Certainly, Specter’s opportunistic-seeming switch from the Republican to the Democratic Party last year was a major liability. Congressman Sestak smartly leveraged the switch with a brilliant ad that showed President George W. Bush praising Specter as “the right man for the United States Senate.”
Even worse were Specter’s own words: “My change in party will enable me to be re-elected." The commercial’s narrator adds: “Arlen Specter changed parties to save one job… his, not yours.”
Lincoln was forced into a runoff because the Democratic base – especially organized labor – felt she betrayed the core principles of her party.
But don’t take any of this too seriously.
Politics moves fast and voters are fickle. Primaries are always overanalyzed by pundits seeking to divine in a handful of races the cosmic shifting of political tumblers.
“As interesting as primaries are, history tells us they have little predictive power,” writes Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, in the New York Times.
In short, a lot could change come November.
Related:
Arlen Specter out, Rand Paul advances, Blanche Lincoln fights on
Arkansas primary a crucible for Blanche Lincoln, centrist politics
Bo Obama: a bargain at $1,600
Bo Obama was a steal.
According to financial disclosure forms released by the White House this week, Portuguese water dog Bo Obama is valued at $1,600.
IN PICTURES: Bo Obama, you complete me
But the typical range for a Portuguese water dog, like the one the Obamas own, is $2,000 to $3,000, according to breeders.
Anything less, they say is suspicious.
“It’s hard to get a puppy from a reputable breeder for $1,600,” says Lisa Wiley, a Portuguese water dog breeder in Bethany, Conn. “I would be wary of any puppy less than that.”
Uh-oh. Is that why Vice President Biden said his dog is smarter than Obama's?
Portuguese water dog values are based on the dog’s bloodlines and whether its parents are Champions (high-quality bloodline), among other factors.
Um, so what’s wrong with Bo?
Nothing, as far as we can tell. Bo Obama was a ‘return dog’ – a dog that was previously owned and returned to the breeder. Since he wasn’t purchased as a pup and was previously owned, as used car dealers like to say, his price tag was probably reduced.
So the late Sen. Kennedy bought him on sale.
IN PICTURES: Bo Obama, you complete me
Related:
Obama's dog Bo arrives at White House - chaos erupts
Germans love Bo Obama! Portuguese Water Dogs sell out.
Hawaii slams door on 'birthers,' who turn to Obama Social Security number
Hawaii is saying ‘Aloha’ to the "birthers."
The state government can legally ignore repeated requests for President Obama’s birth certificate – a blow (or perhaps a publicity boost) to the birther movement, which claims that Mr. Obama was not born the US, and is therefore not eligible to be president.
The birthers are instead turning to another claim against Obama’s legitimacy: an Internet rumor that questions the Obama social security number. Two private investigators claim that the digits indicate that it was issued in Connecticut, not Hawaii. (The digits in a social security number are allocated based on state of residence when issued.) They also say his social security number belongs to someone born in 1890.
In Hawaii, the Republican Gov. Linda Lingle signed the birth certificate bill into law Wednesday.
The Hawaii Department of Health, apparently, has had enough. It receives about 50 requests for Obama’s birth certificate every month, according to the agency’s director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. And those requests come mostly from the same four to five people, she said in a testimony before the state legislature in February.
“The time and state resources it takes to respond to these often convoluted inquiries are considerable,” she said in the testimony.
Sure, but wasn’t Obama the guy who proclaimed, “Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency,” in welcoming remarks to his cabinet and senior staff just one day after he took the oath of office?
The law, known as Act 100, takes a detour around the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by allowing state agencies a limited exemption from FOIA requirements when repeated requests for information are made by the same person. The law covers all agencies but it specifically targets people who repeatedly request a copy of Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate, the Honolulu Advertiser reported Thursday.
In an interview with WABC Radio in New York, Governor Lingle said the state’s health director personally viewed Obama’s birth record.
“The president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii,” she said on air. “And that’s just a fact.”
According to the certification of live birth (which is considered the same as a birth certificate, legally), he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
That’s been confirmed by factcheck.org.
And thanks to Act 100, that’s all the fact-checking anyone can do, for now.
Related:
Blogosphere goes bonkers over 'birthers'
Birther leader Orly Taitz implodes on MSNBC
Tampa nabs 2012 Republican convention. Er, congratulations?
And the winner is …
Tampa!
… or is it the loser?
The Republican National Committee’s site selection team announced Wednesday that Tampa, Fla., is its pick for the 2012 Republican convention.
That should bring lots of revenue, tourists, and attention to the Gulf Coast city, right? Er, it might also mean lost investments, protests, and lingering lawsuits.
But the RNC isn't concerned about that. It just wants a warm, sunny place to throw a party for its party for four days in 2012. So, like many fun-loving college kids, it chose Tampa.
It’s not hard to see why.
As a battleground state, “Florida is a valuable commodity to any party,” says Stephen Hess, senior fellow emeritus at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
And the competition wasn’t exactly fierce.
Phoenix, now known as the capital of the state that just passed America’s toughest immigration law, doesn’t quite send the welcoming vibe Republicans are looking for.
And Salt Lake City may be too white, too Mormon, for a party that’s trying to diversify its ranks (hello Michael Steele).
Surely, the lavish wining and dining that local Republicans treated the 12-member site selection committee to in March didn’t hurt.
If the RNC affirms the Tampa pick in August, the 2012 RNC convention will be held at the St. Pete Times Forum – bringing tens of thousands of visitors, hundreds of millions of dollars, and one big challenge to city planners scrambling to raise funds, beef up security, and manage logistics.
National political conventions are fickle guests, never letting on whether they’ll trash their host city (remember Chicago’s riot-marred 1968 convention?) or boost its reputation (the DNC’s 1988 convention put Atlanta on the world stage).
So are conventions a boost or a bust for host cities?
The bottom line, says Mr. Hess of Brookings, is, well, the bottom line.
“Cities always think they’re benefiting, or they wouldn’t put their hat in the ring. Whether they benefit or not depends in part on the balance sheet: How much does it cost them versus how much business do they bring in?”
The Tampa convention would cost the city about $100 million, according to The Tampa Tribune, citing the host committee.
The host committee estimates the event will bring in more than $150 million.
The 2008 DNC convention in Denver generated $266 million in spending there, according to one study.
But the previous DNC convention – the 2004 show in Boston – cost Boston $8 million in lost productivity due to the closure of a major highway.
Money aside, Tampa will have to figure out how to house, feed, and secure the roughly 50,000 party delegates, media employees, and visitors who’ll descend upon their streets in 2012.
And then there are the protests – the ugly side of glitzy conventions that any city tries to hide. Philadelphia spent four years dealing with court cases and lawsuits involving protesters arrested during the 2000 RNC.
Then again, conventions bring host cities lots of attention.
The RNC convention is basically a giant infomercial for the GOP, and Tampa is hoping for it, too.
Related:
Is Arizona's new immigration law unconstitutional?
McCain shapes a maverick GOP convention
Demon Sheep: the sequel, starring Carly Fiorina
The “demon sheep” are b-a-a-a-a-ck.
Democrats in California and Washington have produced a sequel to the bizarre political ad Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina put out in February, depicting primary competitor Tom Campbell as a red-eyed sheep. Or actually, as a red-eyed man dressed up as a sheep who is – and here’s the scary part – a fiscal liberal.
The original ad went viral, at least in the political world, and raised the ultimate question: Is Ms. Fiorina trying to lose the election, or what? Or maybe it was so out there, in a cheesy but entertaining way, that it showed Fiorina was actually kind of cool. Either way, the ad generated buzz.
Now the California Democratic Party and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have revived the genre with “Demon Sheep II: The Fleecing of California.” In the sequel, Fiorina is a red-eyed ewe in pearls, flying around in her seven corporate jets and lounging in her two yachts.
As a former CEO of Hewlett-Packard who was ultimately fired, Fiorina is taken to task for her record – 28,000 California workers fired, the faux movie trailer asserts, their jobs sent to China, India, and Europe. The workers are depicted as sheep on the Great Wall, the Taj Mahal, and Eiffel Tower. The people of California are also sheep, natch.
“Carly has been very, very ba-a-a-a-d,” Mr. Movie Voice intones, unleashing one bad pun after another. She’s “still trying to pull the wool over our eyes.”
But wait, there’s more. Part three will feature another GOP primary competitor, conservative state Assembly member Chuck DeVore, in “Demon Sheep III: The Tea Party’s Over.”
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then maybe Fiorina will appreciate the Democrats’ new ad. The bigger boon to her campaign, though, may be her endorsement Thursday by Sarah Palin, who cited Fiorina’s fiscal conservatism and private-sector experience. Ms. Palin may also have felt some allegiance to Fiorina, who had advised the McCain-Palin ticket in 2008. The Palin endorsement represented a blow to Assemblyman DeVore, who is a "tea party" movement favorite.
The primary is June 8, and the winner will face Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer in November.
Related:
Carly Fiorina's bizarre political ad: Tom Campbell as demon sheep
Carly Fiorina's bizarre ad II: Barbara Boxer as 'demon blimp'
James Jones apologizes for Jewish joke
The room erupted in laughter after National Security Adviser James Jones told a Jewish joke last week to kick off his keynote address to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel organization. But apparently not everyone in the room was amused – and by Monday, when the Israeli paper Haaretz published a story, a full-fledged international incident was born.
On Monday, Mr. Jones issued an apology. In addition, the White House created the appearance of scrubbing the books by not including the off-the-cuff joke in its official transcript of his remarks. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs denied any coverup. “It was obviously an on-camera speech,” he said, per Fox News. “There was no attempt to deceive.”
Here’s a link to the YouTube video of Jones’s joke, and here’s a transcript:
"A member of the Taliban was separated from his fighting party and wandered around for a few days in the desert, lost, out of food, no water. He looked on the horizon and he saw what looked like a little shack, and he walked toward that shack and as he got to it, turned out that it was a shack, a store, a little store owned by a Jewish merchant. And the Taliban warrior went up to him and said, 'I need water, get me some water.' And the merchant said, 'I'm sorry, I don't have any water, but would you like to buy a tie? We have a nice sale of ties today.'
"Whereupon the Taliban erupted into a stream of language that I can't repeat about Israel, about Jewish people, about the man himself, about his family – and just saying 'I need water, you try to sell me ties, you people don't get it.'
"And passively, the merchant stood there until this Taliban was through with his diatribe and said, 'Well, I'm sorry but I don't have water for you and I forgive you for all of the insults you've levied against me, my family, my country, but I will help you out. If you go over that hill and walk about two miles there's a restaurant there, and they have all the water you'll need.'
"And the Taliban, instead of saying thanks, still muttering under his breath, disappears over the hill – only to come back about an hour later and walking up to the merchant and says, 'Your brother tells me I need a tie in order to get into the restaurant.' "
And now, Jones’s apology:
"I wish that I had not made this off the cuff joke at the top of my remarks, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by it. It also distracted from the larger message I carried that day: that the United States commitment to Israel's security is sacrosanct."
The US blogosphere is lighting up: Was this joke indeed offensive? Would it have been OK if a Jew had told it? (Jones is not Jewish.) Since the story makes fun of the Taliban, in addition to perpetuating the tired stereotype of Jewish merchants, does that mitigate any offense?
Related:
Blog: Israel rejects Obama's call for building halt in East Jerusalem
Is progressive Asheville Obama’s vision for America?
Okay, maybe the Obamas’ Asheville, N.C., trip is just a romantic getaway and a chance to grab some 12 Bones BBQ, as the White House suggests.
But you know something is going on when even the local “tea party” affiliate welcomes Obama to their “mountain paradise.”
Critics like Hoover Institution fellow Shelby Steele have complained that Obama’s “ultimate vision, he has not been very clear about.”
So given that the Obamas “kind of fell in love” with the Buncombe County burg during a debate prep visit during the 2008 campaign, could Asheville itself be a clue to what the President is thinking when he talks about “transforming” America?
'Hillbilly-hippies'
Founded as a health resort, the little city of “hillbilly-hippies,” entrepreneurs, musicians, retirees, and community drum circles is, indeed, a progressive’s vision of America.
Nestled in the oldest hills on earth, Asheville (pop. 70,000), the first East Coast city to require sustainable green construction, is a sort of experiment in environmentalism that has made the city the gateway to the new Appalachia and gotten it listed both as one of America’s “happiest places” and as one of the “best places to reinvent your life.”
But it also represents conservative fears about what President’s intentions might wreak: A dearth of high-paying jobs, relatively high taxes, large numbers of homeless and other wards of the state, a high crime rate, and a progressive ruling class perhaps more interested in maintaining quaintness than thickening residents’ wallets.
“At least as far back as the arrival of the Vanderbilts, it has been a haven for artists, innovative types, sophisticated thinkers, and people who want a little something more out of life than the average,” writes former resident Thomas Osborne on City-Data.com. “Asheville is cultured and educated, perhaps more like a New England town, but amazingly friendly and polite, like a piece of decent southern aristocracy.”
To be sure, the visit also fits into Obama’s “White House to Main Street” program, where he will travel next week to the struggling small towns of the Midwest who first gave him real traction in the 2008 campaign.
'A guy like the rest of us'
And compared to other presidential vacations to tony Martha’s Vineyard, this trip represents a “middle class” vacation to portray Obama as what Dolly Jenkins-Mullen of the University of North Carolina calls “a guy like the rest of us” as Congress ponders a crackdown on Wall Street.
Politically, the visit – the President’s fourth to North Carolina – also could be a signal, writes Politico, that his popularity in North Carolina, a state he stole from the Republicans in 2008, is turning as Democratic support fractures.
But if Asheville is indeed an Obama vision for America, there’s a stark lesson about the impact of soaring debt in hard times to glean from the city, as well.
The city’s success today – embodied by its rich catalog of Art Deco buildings – came at a price.
As a result of the 1920s building spree, Asheville “entered the Depression with the highest per capita debt in the country,” writes New Hampshire native Terry Pindell in “A Good Place to Live.”
“All across America, governments declared bankruptcy, further contributing … to the national depression. But Ashevillians’ stubborn mountain pride led them to choose a different path [which] made Asheville what it is today. They created a sinking fund to pay off every cent of the debt, no matter how long it took. [T]he debt wasn’t retired until 1977. For forty years Asheville lay in an economic cocoon – a long sleep.”
Become part of the Monitor community
14,200 Fans | 5,430 on Twitter | 700K RSS subscribers