Only Jesus, Columbus and MLK get their own holiday in the US.

Is MLK the greatest American that ever lived?

That’s what this holiday says.

‘Twain and I are in very much the same position; we have to put things in such a way as to make people who would otherwise hang us believe that we are joking’.

GB Shaw

Just want to jump in to second Quaker’s idea that there should be a Mark Twain day. Brilliant!

You’re on, Doc! See you November 30?

Hey, man, I’ll give you Mondale and possibly Kerry, but in Kerry’s case what would that election have been like if it didn’t become all about the Swift Boat shit? I mean talk about a wedge issue campaign.

Clinton kicked the shit out of Dole and we all know Dole was the GOPs sacrificial lamb.

Gore was hurt by a media that insisted on repeating every bullshit conservative distortion of his record — “Al Gore thinks he invented the internet” — and the whole Lewinsky thing but, of course, we all know he actually won.

Ditto the above.

So what you’re saying is: “I can read the hidden meaning!”

Oooooooooooooh!

Fafaroo: “it’s going to be Wedge Issue City this year, just like every other Republican campaign for the last 30 years.”

Oliver: Policy based campaign? “…a first in my lifetime, and contrary to all evidence we’ve seen to date.”

You: “I’m also very happy to hear that the election will not be about silly “wedge issues” like gay marriage, abortion, silly posturing on illegal immigration, and whether Mr. Obama is actually a Secret Angry Negro.”

Now if you’re saying your comment is serious, then by all means, let me know. But it came off like serious sarcasm to me. The only thing missing at the end was a, “Yeah right!” The implication is, Democrats do policy in campaigns, Republicans don’t. Now if I am wrong about what I perceive to be is your implication, then I apologize.

But Fafaroo’s initial comment about Republicans and wedge issues is part and parcel of the whining I have been hearing from Democrats for as long as I can remember. Whenever Republicans win, it’s NEVER because people thought their ideas were better and their proposals better. It’s because of some kind of ‘wedge issue’ or something else. The last time I can remember the Democrats didn’t have an excuse was when Reagan beat the crap out of Mondale in 1984.

Bush wins in 1988? “Because of Willie Horton!”
GOP takeover of Congress in 1994? “Because of angry white males!”
GOP gains in the Congress in 2002? “Because of scaring Americans!!”
Bush wins re-election in 2004? “Welcome to Jesus Land!” and “Because of Swift Boat Liars!”

The built in excuse making is already being floated. If McCain wins in November it will because of racism (if the Dem nominee is Obama) or because of misogyny (if the Dem nominee is Hillary) or because of some other boogey-man the GOP latched onto and not because voters looked at where either candidate stood on issues and decided McCain was the better choice.

Because policy isn’t going to be the ground on which McCain can win this thing. Americans don’t want another four years of Bush Co which is exactly what McCain advocates. So if policy can’t win, it’s going to be Wedge Issue City this year, just like every other Republican campaign for the last 30 years. And whether it’s Clinton or Obama as the candidate, the wedge issues are going to be feminism and race. Simple as that.

Now I think my meaning here is pretty clear. Of course, McCain will talk about policies, but he’ll need a wedge issue or a series of them, if he wants to win. I think that’s been the edge that Republicans have used in every election of my lifetime. Sometimes it works — ie Dukakis and Willy Horton — sometimes it doesn’t — ie Clinton and flag burning, gay rights, pot smoking, adultery etc. But the Republicans always use wedge issues prominently and vocally in their campaigns. Dems, not so much.

Um, Jay, discussing changes in policy is a policy discussion. It doesn’t matter if the policy relates to race, guns, the economy, the war etc. etc. Policy discussions can just as ugly as trumped up controversies over wedge issues and indeed there’s a lot of overlaps between policy decisions and wedge issue politics. The Willy Horton ad that Republicans ran against Dukakis was as dishonest and racist a campaign as you can find, but it claimed to be about Dukakis’ policy choices. It isn’t simply a difference between discussing policy and pushing wedge issues. It’s how one presents the policy issues, as well. We can have a serious policy discussion about affirmative action, but if it’s slanted towards the “affirmative action is reverse racism” angle, well, that’s a wedge issue approach. I never said that Dems were above wedge issue politics but I can’t think of a single Dem campaign where a wedge issue was a center piece of the Dem strategy. Wedge issues are Republican life blood.

A case in point is the post you link to on the Dem party page. I find it amazing that you think a single post on the dem party webpage rises to the same level as the non-stop mudslinging of the “Reverend Wright is a racist so Obama must be one too” variety. I haven’t heard a single Dem strategist, Howard Dean, Clinton or Obama mention McCain’s opinoons on MLK day in any context. It simply isn’t a part of their national campaigns. I have, however, seen Republican politicians, operatives and pundits on television and the radio attempt to use Wright’s words to stir up racial anxieties before national audiences in the millions. A post on a webpage, does not a wedge issue campaign make. Sending out your minions to attack a candidate’s pastor on national television and radio, does.

And let’s face it, the Wright thing has absolutely nothing to do with Obama’s actual and real policy statements and votes. It has everything to do with impugning his character and hinting that he will be some kind of radical black nationalist once elected. Republicans have already made it clear that will use Wright as a centerpiece of their campaign against Obama in the general. Of course, McCain will talk about the real policy differences between himself and the Dem candidate but he can’t win on those policies alone and he knows it. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that “81 percent of respondents said they believed that ‘things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track,’ up from 69 percent a year ago and 35 percent in early 2003.” You think McCain can win by telling those people he’s going to continue the policies of the Bush-era? Not a chance. He will, once again, have to find a way to get people to vote against their self-interest by playing to their fears. That’s wedge issue politics in a nutshell.

Flip-flop?

Glad we’re all about policy and issues now.

Faf: McCain can’t win on the issues, so he’ll run on wedge issues.
Jay: Nuh-uh. Will too run on the issues.
Quaker: Great. Bring it on!
Jay: You’re saying Republicans always sling mud!
Quaker: Whuh?

Let me replay your own words for you, yet again.

And you’ve become an expert at quoting things out of context. You see, I didn’t make the claim that only this party or only that party focused on policy discussions while the other side didn’t.

Out of context? Oh, do forgive me! Let’s go back and look for that missing context, shall we?

Fafaroo at 12:02, April 3: Because policy isn’t going to be the ground on which McCain can win this thing. Americans don’t want another four years of Bush Co which is exactly what McCain advocates. So if policy can’t win, it’s going to be Wedge Issue City this year, just like every other Republican campaign for the last 30 years.

Jay, following immediately: This notion that it won’t be about policies is absurd. For the first time since I can remember, we’re going to have two Presidential candidates that are going to be sitting Senators. It’s all going to be about voting records and I can tell you right now, that the majority of the public at this point is going to look more favorably upon McCain’s than the other two.

Quaker, following immediately: I, for one, am so glad to hear that. I expect Democrats will welcome a debate on whether the U.S. should maintain a military presence in Iraq for 100 years. The Dems will likely prevail in a discussion about the future of health care and social security. We really like talking about the environment–we’re a bunch of tree-hugging wackos, remember?

Etc.

Now we jump from the “John Henke Whine” thread to the “MLK Holiday” thread. After Oliver notes Mr. McCain’s voting history on the federal MLK holiday, you jump in at the second comment:

This must be another one of those important policy issues that will dominate the campaign right Oliver?

Of course it wasn’t Oliver who asserted that this campaign would be dominated by important policy issues. That was you. Quaker helpfully reminds you at 3:24:

Jay, I don’t think it was Oliver who was peddling this line of bull:

“This notion that it won’t be about policies is absurd.”

Are we missing any context yet, Jay? Good! Let’s press on.

With four hours to mull it over, you return this volley, addressed directly to me:

No, it was Oliver that said the GOP never discusses policies. And you and Fafaroo parroted the same huge stinking, steaming pile of horsehit, making it seem like the Noble Democrats were about those important issues and only the GOP slung the mud.

Aha! Now we do seem to have not only missing context, but also missing content! To this point, I have not said the “Noble Democrats were about those important issues” or that “only the GOP slung the mud.” I HAVE said that if this election plays out the way you insist it will, the Democrats should be glad of it. Although you think the voting public will identify more closely with Mr. McCain’s past votes, I believe the public is more attuned to the eventual Democratic nominee’s positions on where we stand today.

(Aside: Today’s New York Times reports that 81 percent of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction!)

Now after a diversion to debate the precise definition of “strawman,” you return to point–sort of:

if Oliver, Quaker and Fafaroo want to deny their claims that GOP candidates don’t win elections based on campaigns that are about policies, I’d like to see them explain exactly what it is they meant.

Here’s the problem, Jay. I did not say that GOP candidates don’t win elections based on campaigns that are about policies!

It was you who insisted they do; I only opined that Democrats will hold an advantage is that is the focus of this election.

If we are missing any context, it is right here, but it is you, not I, who omits it. In your comment–the one quoted immediately above–you suggest that I asserted that Republicans never campaign on issues. You neglect to recall your own statement–the one I was responding to–when I commented. You also magically transform my remarks about this election into a generalization about all elections.

Finally, in a masterstroke of up-is-downism, when I try to insert this missing context, you accuse me of taking your words out of context.

You’re shameless, Jay. You will distort in any way necessary to sustain a sense of consistency in your own head. I must remind you, your internal mental gymnastics don’t alter reality.