Jackson Free Press

2006 is going to be a really big year for politics--city, state, and national. Here's my take on what to expect.

In the City of Jackson...

2005 was a banner year in Jackson city politics as former MBN chief and local media mogul Frank Melton--a committed volunteer, an advocate for at-risk youth, and a fiery critic of every prior mayoral administration I can remember--was elected mayor by an astonishing margin: replacing two-term incumbent Harvey Johnson in the Democratic primaries with 67% of the vote, and defeating Republican challenger Rick Whitlow with 88% of the vote in the general election. There was also a changing of the guard at the Jackson City Council, as Melton allies Frank Bluntson and Charles Tillman defeated incumbents Bo Brown (two-term) and Bettye Dagner-Cook (one-term).

But the Melton administration has had a lackluster first five months in office, notable primarily for increased media scrutiny of Melton's ideological platform (which was surprisingly lacking during the actual mayoral campaign) coupled with a bizarre series of new administration initiatives: disorganized truancy raids, mass firings, routine threats to demolish the King Edward Hotel in the face of a promising new renovation plan, and the radical restructuring--some would say dismantling--of Jackson's growing community policing program. We haven't had enough time with Mayor Melton to know what he's going to accomplish during his first four years in office, but this hasn't exactly been a promising start.

My Prediction: Although he will continue to give folks plenty to groan about, Melton will show signs of improvement in 2006 as he adjusts to his new role as mayor. Over time, he will find himself supporting more and more of his predecessor's policies--just as Johnson did after he took office in 1997. Crime will probably increase slightly in 2006, but for reasons that have very little to do with city politics.

In the State of Mississippi...

Hurricane Katrina was the dominant problem of 2005, and reconstruction will probably be the dominant issue of 2006. There will be a certain amount of bipartisanship--the political stakes are too high to allow otherwise--but there will still be high-profile squabbles over casino regulations, "gentrification" in the rebuilding efforts, racial and ethnic discrimination, environmental concerns, and so forth. Education funding will continue to be a bone of contention between Governor Barbour and state legislators, with Barbour citing losses due to Katrina as a reason to issue further cuts. Also looming: A new state law designed to strip Mississippi's only abortion clinic of its license to perform second-trimester abortions.

My Prediction: With fresh statewide elections looming in 2007, neither Barbour nor legislators will want to engage in anything that resembles a nasty fight over, or even during, Katrina reconstruction efforts. Education funding probably won't go up, but it won't be cut by a substantial margin, either. The issue of second-trimester abortions will remain unresolved in 2006, with the clinic continuing to perform the procedure under a series of judicially-mandated stays.

Where Mississippi Meets Washington...

The U.S. congressional midterms of 2006 will see five incumbents--Trent Lott, Bennie Thompson, Gene Taylor, Roger Wicker, and Chip Pickering--face new challengers. Lott, running for his final term, will face a challenge from a yet-to-be-named Democrat, while Bennie Thompson will have to fend off state legislator Chuck Espy (and his famous brother, Mike) in a Democratic primary campaign that is likely to be impacted by Republican crossover votes.

My Prediction: Barring a celebrity candidate or major scandal, Lott will probably coast to a final term in the U.S. Senate in November. Meanwhile, Thompson will make quick work of the less experienced Espy, who will find that being the brother of a Clinton administration official is not the key to Republican crossover support. Unless somebody vanishes in thin air or is found to have burned down the Reichstag, I don't see any seats changing hands in the Mississippi delegation.

Meanwhile, in the Rest of the Country...

In the first midterm elections since the post-9/11 honeymoon, incumbents in the House and Senate face a contentious year. The Senate races, in particular, look dramatic. Here are a few examples:

New York: Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-i) wants to run for president in 2008, but she won't get the chance if she's defeated by Republican challenger Ed Cox.Pennsylvania: Right-wing wunderkind Sen. Rick Santorum (R-i) is trailing badly in the polls against challenger Bob Casey Jr. (D), son of the former state governor. Santorum has made noises about pursuing the 2008 presidential nomination, but if he can't keep his seat here, that won't happen.Tennessee: With the retirement of 2008 presidential hopeful Sen. Bill Frist (R-i), this seat is now in play, with Ed Bryant (R) and Harold Ford (D) contending for the spot.

Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) is now surprisingly vulnerable in his home district, and the U.S. Supreme Court may overrule Texas' 2003 redistricting scheme--which gave three seats to Republicans in 2004, seats which might just as quickly end up back in Democratic hands if the district lines are moved back to where they were.

Also facing reelection in 2006 is California's own Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), who is dealing with a dismally low approval rating that has not been boosted significantly by his attempts to appeal to the center--most recently supporting a hike in the minimum wage, for example.

My Prediction: Democrats will probably make substantial gains in both the House and the Senate, but will probably not achieve a Senate majority. Why? Because so many Republicans up for reelection are either in safe red states, or are purple-state moderates like Lincoln Chaffee, Mike DeWine, and Olympia Snowe. But we will most likely see the end of both DeLay and Santorum as national politicians, Hillary Clinton will probably coast to a second term, Schwarzenegger will more than likely leave the Governor's Mansion, and the stage will be set for a possible Democratic takeover in 2008.

And This Assumes...

...that there are no major surprises. There always are. The Bush administration looks as if it will face further indictments in the Plamegate scandal, spygate is showing signs of potentially becoming even more damaging, and the Iraq War will most likely keep wearing thin throughout 2006. The January vote on proposed U.S. Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito will be a substantial test of this administration's strength, as will the May debate over whether to modify or revoke the expiring PATRIOT Act. If the economy picks up, none of the scandals materialize, and the Iraq War goes better than expected, Republicans could conceivably actually pick up congressional seats; but if things keep going downhill, or get worse, then all bets are off.

Also significant: If 2008 follows past trends, most of the Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls will probably have announced their candidacies by the end of 2006.

My Prediction: Gosh, how can anyone predict scandals? It seems clear that, like Clinton before him, Bush will have a defensive second term--though Bush's scandals are far more serious. But unlike Clinton, he will also have congressional majorities in both houses of Congress--which means that, barring further revelations, he will probably be able to keep his administration afloat. Both he and other members of his party will suffer the PR effects of scandals and a poorly managed Iraq War, but unless there are major breakthroughs, his administration will still be able to maintain most of its power. I predict a contentious process for Alito, though--nothing like the collegial atmosphere Chief Roberts experienced--and there is the substantial possibility that spygate has given moderate Republicans an "out," allowing them to vote against use of the nuclear option, and giving Democrats the opportunity to filibuster his nomination. The PATRIOT Act will not be renewed intact as a permanent bill; it will either be modified, or it will be renewed again on a temporary basis. As for the rest: I'm not even going to speculate. We'll just have to sit back and see what develops.

Previous Comments

ID

104049

Comment

Good post Tom, I agree with you on most of those points, I think alot of mid-term election will hinge on the economy, as the saying goes, "folks tend to vote their pocket books". The economy was a mixed bag in 05 and may continue that way in 06, the only real bright spot for 05 was the employment numbers which remained good; however, many of these jobs are in the housing biz and if that market "pops" those numbers could plunge. The late economy word of 05 was the "Inverted Yield Curve" which is cooling the housing market and was a predictor of the last four Recessions. If the housing market pops, job numbers plunge, and the "R" word becomes the buzz word, I think that will throw the mid year elections wide open and would unseat more incumbants that any current scandal.

Author

Dennis

Date

2006-01-01T22:46:07-06:00

ID

104050

Comment

Good post, Dennis, and thanks for the fresh angle. Until now, I thought the inverted yield curve was a wrestling hold--this is something worth Googling up, for sure. I think the perception since 2004 (aided by a well-financed Bush reelection campaign) has been that the recession is slowly lifting; but I gotta agree that if it takes a nosedive, things could get ugly for incumbents. I do remember hearing the "look at housing, look at housing" mantra from Republican pundits in late '04/early '05; if that's the crazy glue holding the employment numbers together, then...wow. Definitely something to keep an eye on in the new year. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-01T23:13:59-06:00

ID

104051

Comment

Oh, this could also get good: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/31/abramoff.plea.ap/index.html Abramoff's cooperation would be a boon to an ongoing Justice Department investigation of congressional corruption, possibly helping prosecutors build criminal cases against up to 20 lawmakers of both parties and their staff members. CNN is careful to say "of both parties" because Abramoff has been linked primarily to Republican congressmen so far--most notably one Tom DeLay. My friends, this is about to get good. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-02T02:51:18-06:00

ID

104052

Comment

(That post wasn't supposed to have a refrain, but what should I expect when I'm posting at 2am while recovering from a cold? Bah.)

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-02T02:52:46-06:00

ID

104053

Comment

And don't forget the ties between Barbour and Abramoff. You did see the Wash Post story Saturday, right, which involves the Mississippi Choctaws. I need to go link it to my blog; it's a big story. The Delay-Abramoff Money Trail You're right: A whole lot folks must be terrified about what he's going to say. Buckle your seatbelts.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-02T02:55:55-06:00

ID

104054

Comment

I saw the article, but didn't really read it. This is sounding better and better... Combine all that with a Karl Rove indictment and November starts looking really nice... Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-02T04:27:01-06:00

ID

104055

Comment

Some really good reading here (made it through the first one; server is freezing on the second one, so I'm heading for bed): http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-vision_reflections/futurology_3153.jsp http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-vision_reflections/futurology_two_3154.jsp Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-02T05:46:50-06:00

ID

104056

Comment

Thank you Donna Ladd for "The Delay-Abramoff Money Trail" link this was a very informative article and I found the link between Tom Delay, US Family Network, and the MS Band of Choctaw Indians to be most interesting. To see the connection between the "Religious Right" and the Choctaw casinos was very enlighting, once again proving just how strange political bedfellows can be.

Author

Dennis

Date

2006-01-02T10:09:25-06:00

ID

104057

Comment

No problem, Dennis. The remarkable part is the whole fake "family" organization the Republican operatives set up to funnel money around. The hypocrisy, and hubris, is simply astounding.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-02T11:29:25-06:00

ID

104058

Comment

This is my favorite line While DeLay's wife drew a monthly salary from the lobbying firm, she did not work at its offices in the townhouse on Capitol Hill, according to former Buckham associates. I post that statement mainly because I want that kind of job. The kind that pays you a salary when you don't really do anything. Or even show up. That would be cool. Its the Monday after the holidays and I have to WORK. Unlike most of my friends...and DeLay's wife. ;)

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-01-02T12:14:38-06:00

ID

104059

Comment

I'd bet against any major upheavals. If the democrats can get their act together, which'd start with dumping the lightining rod that Howie Dean is, they'll be better players in 08. If not, everyone will vote Repub, on the theory that they're less radical than the volitile democrats.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-01-02T13:20:16-06:00

ID

104060

Comment

Heh. Ali, while we're at it, I can really use that whole domestic spying without a warrant thing, too! Ironghost, quick, name the two DNC chairs prior to Terry McAuliffe. Can't do it? Neither can I. And that speaks to what the party chair's job is--to take care of the party faithful, not to be a public face of the party for swing voters. Nobody expects to elect the party chair as president. That's not the candidate who gets evaluated. If it was, then oy, gevalt, how did the Republicans do so well in purple states with Haley Barbour? Howard Dean is perfect for the Dems for the same reason Haley Barbour was perfect for the Repubs: He knows how to serve red meat. All of this ignores the question of how appealing Dean could have been as a presidential candidate, had he done better in that first batch of primaries. His anti-war position is now consonant with what more than 50 percent of Americans believe. His support for civil unions is also shared by a slim majority of the population. And on Second Amendment issues, he's actually well to the right of his party. So in what way is he too extreme? Because of his personality? Pfft. The party faithful love his personality. He's like a liberal John McCain. He'll level with ya. I'm tired of listening to liberals who won't level with ya. That's why I want Russ Feingold to run for president in 2008. Somebody on last night's Meet the Press described him as a "sane Howard Dean"; I wouldn't call Dean insane by any stretch, but Feingold brings to the table Dean's ability to level and then some (I would say that Feingold is even better at "leveling" than Dean or McCain), and he hails from a swing state (Wisconsin), and he has more experience, and he has a proven record of both bipartisanship and integrity. I doubt he'll get the nomination, but of all the people whose names have been thrown out there, he is by far my favorite. I don't look forward to a Hillary Clinton candidacy, but if she wins the nomination, I'll probably support her. The only nationally known Republican I'd really be able to consider supporting right now is Arlen Specter, and he's probably too old, and too sick, to run. (Shame he wasn't nominated when he ran in '96; he would have beaten Clinton.) McCain is too far to the right on social issues, though I have to say I believe he's a good human being and think he'd elevate political discourse in this country if he were to win the nomination. And Giuliani is a wash--after all the swinging to the right he would have to do to win the nomination, he'd be the biggest Republican flip-flopper since J. Edgar Hoover in a tube top. Oh, BTW, Ironghost... Email me, if ya will. [email][email protected][/email] Got a URL to share, but it might de-anonymize you if I posted it here. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-02T18:05:56-06:00

ID

104061

Comment

My dream tickets for 2008: Democrat: Feingold/Obama Republican: McCain/Hagel That would be an incredibly cool series of debates. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-02T19:29:27-06:00

ID

104062

Comment

In your dreams. That would mean that both parties would have to nominate intelligent, compassionate people. Ain't gonna happen. But that would be a debate a la that great West Wing discussion. Hell, I would vote for that Alan Alda for president. OK, almost. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-02T19:43:08-06:00

ID

104063

Comment

Donna writes: In your dreams. That would mean that both parties would have to nominate intelligent, compassionate people. Ain't gonna happen. You're probably right... This looks more realistic: Democrat: Rodham Clinton/Bayh Republican: Frist/Giuliani *shiver* Only way it can get worse is to somehow fit Edwards on the D ticket, and Santorum on the R ticket... But that would be a debate a la that great West Wing discussion. Oh, yes! I think I'd just about pay to see McCain and Feingold debate the issues... Never mind the presidency thing. Just hearing those boys have a real conversation about all this, as if they were running for president, would be awesome. Hell, I would vote for that Alan Alda for president. OK, almost. I'm just about ready to write him in! Of course, this is the same party that gave Specter 6 percent of the vote in early primaries because the Christian Coalition didn't want to have him speak--and gave Pat Buchanan the early primaries in '96 (Dole being a compromise "anti-Buchanan" candidate in much the same way that Kerry was the "anti-Dean" in '04), and almost made Pat Robertson the nominee in '88... Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-02T20:44:28-06:00

ID

104064

Comment

(And, most damningly: Picked Bush over McCain in '00, by a landslide. That still confuses the hell out of me. They had John McCain, and they picked a guy who couldn't even use linking verbs properly?)

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-02T20:45:57-06:00

ID

104065

Comment

What the democrats have to understand is that they lost ground in some of their tradiitional stronghold in 04. Bush and the his Band of Bible Thumpers made some inroads into the well to do and middle class black voters, who are for the most part are active in their churches and fell quite strongly about "family value" issues. A card Kerry could not and did not play very well. Is this more about preception than substance, of course it is, but the GOP played it like a drum. Rove made it work. Will the growing list of "scandalgates" doom the GOP, I don't know alot of folks are kind numb to them all now. I don't really see the GOP having the courage to run John McCain, I think a McCain/Powell ticket would be a tough one to beat. Powell seems to have little stomach for the political slime game as it is played now and that is a shame. Now excuse me but I need to go stock up on supplies, since Marshall Melton has declared a STATE OF EMERGENCY in the city.

Author

Dennis

Date

2006-01-02T20:51:31-06:00

ID

104066

Comment

Oh Tom there should be no confusion why the GOP picked Bush over McCain, one word "Abortion", the "Christian Conservaties" will never support McCain until he changes his views to line up with theirs. John McCain is a good decent man and stands by his convictions. Bush just follows orders.

Author

Dennis

Date

2006-01-02T20:57:28-06:00

ID

104067

Comment

Hmmm. Dennis, I'm going to be devil's advocate here and say that, in terms of the general election, Bush had no traction on "moral values"/"family values" in '04 that Republican candidates didn't already have in previous years, and probably much less than Reagan had in '80 and '84. Polls showed that 17.6% of those who voted for Bush cited "moral values," a category that included abortion, gay marriage, and personal scruples, among other things. This was the first exit poll in recent memory that had "moral values" as a block category like that--usually abortion is set aside on its own, and responsible for 16% of the Republican candidate's vote. So even if all moral values voters were really abortion voters, we'd be looking at a tiny net increase. Also significant is that Bush was coy on abortion in both '00 and '04; the last real "moral values" election was Clinton-Dole in '96, and the overwhelming message sent by voters was that they'd rather elect a competent libertine than a sanctimonious old grouch. Reagan was able to do a lot with these issues, for some reason, but none of his successors have been able to pull his numbers, per capita, in terms of bringing out the evangelical vote. I think this is because evangelicals are getting wise to the fact that they're being used. Bush did make tiny inroads among blacks and especially among Hispanics, but I would say this had more to do with the fact that Bush appointed high-profile African Americans (most notably Powell and Rice) to his administration, and speaks Spanish reasonably well. Bush also was very careful not to oppose affirmative action too vociferously, and supported more generous immigration policies than any Republican president of our lifetimes. These are issues that generally carry more weight with blacks and Hispanics than abortion and gay marriage. In a nutshell, I think Bush did better among blacks and Hispanics because he actually courted blacks and Hispanics, something none of his predecessors in the Republican Party had ever really tried to do. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-02T21:11:59-06:00

ID

104068

Comment

(Not in the post-Eisenhower era, anyway--19th century Republicanism was all about progress on race. The first ever Republican president candidate, John Fremont, ran on what was then an unelectably radical anti-slavery platform. His replacement was the more moderate Abraham Lincoln, who won--with about 40 percent of the popular vote--only because the Democratic ticket was split between a radical southern pro-slavery candidate and a moderate northern pro-slavery candidate. I find it kind of ironic sometimes that the Republican Party later wound up adopting the same racially charged "Southern Strategy" that was used against the Republicans during the 19th century.)

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-02T21:16:18-06:00

ID

104069

Comment

Dennis, agreed on Bush being perceived as being more socially conservative; McCain is technically against abortion, but nobody in the party's right wing seemed to notice. I think you're right in terms of the Republican primaries: the Religious Right liked Bush a heck of a lot more because he was one of them. What I liked about John McCain was probably more or less the same thing that the far right hated about him: He made sense. When I flash forward to '08 and look at all of the moderate candidates running--McCain, Hagel, Giuliani, Pataki, Romney, et. al.--I wonder if that'll be the year the Republican Party splits in two. It's hard to imagine the religious right being happy with a Giuliani candidacy, which paves the way for a compromise Frist or Allen candidacy that will excite pretty much nobody in the party base. That's why I hope we run an ideologue like Feingold; if the Democrats are running the believe-in-something candidate and the Republicans are running the candidate-by-committee, then it's going to be a beautiful election... Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-02T21:21:00-06:00

ID

104070

Comment

I agree with you on the GOP and the compromise ticket idea. One thing that Bush (really it was Rove who did it but lets give W the credit) was able to do was excite his base, the Religious Right. The Rove Machine demonized Kerry to that crowd in a very effective way and it worked like a charm. The next candidate won't have Karl as he should be in prision by then, or at least unemployed. Can the Religious Right support McCain Giuliani, or other moderate no. Will they support a First or Allen, to soon to say. I think the GOP is geared to fight a Hillary ticket, who has been playing to the center since her election, but will she run in 08. An ideologue like Feingold may play well to the dyed in the wool Blue states, but I don't think she woud have very good appeal to the independents (Purple People). My gut is that Iraq will be the chief topic of the 08 campaign and the winner will be whoever sells the public that they have the best plan to get us out of that blood trap.

Author

Dennis

Date

2006-01-02T21:45:35-06:00

ID

104071

Comment

I'd be truly surprised if Hillary ran at all, for a variety of reasons. I'd actually be surprised if she wanted to, and even if she did I'd be surprised if the DNC would swing behind her. Like, real, real surprised. I was also reading that Kerry may try to make another go of it. I say, "Bzzzzt. Thanks for playing Johnny." I just don't see that one working out either. The Republican dirty laundry that will be airing over the next nine months is going to be colorful, I agree with you Tom. This offering at least a few more details on the Abramoff matter. Some are calling this development the equivalent of a potential political tsunami for the Republicans. Maybe FEMA can find the Republicans some housing. As a result of all this, I think a rebalancing will happen in the House and the Senate in 2006. In 2008, DESPITE a perceived lack of experience, I think some people could end up throwing their vote behind John Edwards, who will undoubtedly make a run again. Perhaps it's an Edwards/Obama ticket? Some will clammer, "No experience!" Perhaps that's a good thing. Everyone with experience seems to be a crook or "on the take." Perhaps a *genuinely* young and fresh angle on things is what is needed, because even the old tried-and-true veteran Democrats are starting to look like potential pinatas to me when I look toward 2008.

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2006-01-03T20:33:53-06:00

ID

104072

Comment

Here's a thought: what happens when the Religous Right wakes up and realizes that Bush hasn't actually done squat for them? All talk, no action. I doubt it, mainly because their leaders have been frantically trying to keep them from noticing how things are really being run. The Democratic solution would be to run someone who wouldn't offend the individual religious voter. Gather the individuals together by appealing to their conscience. Let's face it, Mississippi isn't likely to vote democratic, because no one can recall anything the democrats have done for us. Musgrove would be about the only one who can lay claim to doing anything. Barbour is turning his talents to good use, and looking better than Blanco and others across the river. I'm not familiar with the front runners right now, but I don't see Clinton running. From what I know, people either love her or hate her. No middle of the road there. McCain won't get the nod, because he's crusing through his seventies now and doesn't excite the Republican Apparatus.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-01-03T23:31:05-06:00

ID

104073

Comment

>>>Let's face it, Mississippi isn't likely to vote democratic, because no one can recall anything the democrats have done for us. --Well, it has been a while, but I'll just throw a name in: William Winter. Probably the most visionary politician Mississippi has ever seen, or is likely to see for a while. --Of course, we also have to define exactly what you mean by "us."

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2006-01-03T23:37:52-06:00

ID

104074

Comment

Ah, Gov. Winter. What a gentleman and a hero.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-04T00:05:58-06:00

ID

104075

Comment

...and his center is training a whole new generation in the art of nonviolence, racial reconciliation, and non-ego based social activism. It's very good to see.

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2006-01-04T00:29:51-06:00

ID

104076

Comment

Wow. Lots of posts here. Dennis: Good point on appealing to the religious right. Bush doesn't do it (IMHO) as well as Reagan did, but the fact that he's a "born-again" Christian was a major reason why his father did well in the primaries. 43 would get together with far-right leaders in hotel lobbies and tell them his story; they'd come in as Robertson supporters and come out Bush supporters. chronos: Agreed that William Winter is amazing; I'd call him my favorite Mississippi governor, ever, period. Re other stuff: - My bet is that Rodham Clinton* will run. - I agree that Kerry probably needs to hang it up. - Edwards is quite possibly my least favorite Democratic candidate right now. He is gaining a reputation in some Democratic circles for being incredibly mean-spirited (when asked what he'd learned from the 2004 campaign, he told a room full of folks at Mary Beth Cahill's university--with Cahill present--that he "Learned not to listen to Mary Beth Cahill"), and the moment in the VP debates where he torpedoed Cheney for his daughter being a lesbian ranks, in my mind, as one of the creepiest debate moments I've ever witnessed. Yes, Kerry brought up the same thing, but with Edwards there was an obvious malevolent glee on his face. I don't like the man as a presidential candidate. I want him to go run his anti-poverty think tank. Ironghost, good point re: the Religious Right. It does look like they're being exploited, big time. That was actually the topic of one of my first blog entries here. Cheers, TH * See next post.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-04T00:46:44-06:00

ID

104077

Comment

I've always called Sen. Clinton "Hillary," too, but an entry on the feminist blog Echidne of the Snakes pointed out something that I hadn't noticed before: We talk about "Hillary" and "Condi" when we're discussing female politicians, but "Bush" and "Kerry" when we're talking about male ones. Once Echidne pointed this out, and especially after I read the fruitful discussion that followed, I realized I needed to do things a llittle differently: The Hillary/Condi thing got started mainly by that pig Dick Morris, who uses lots of subtle (and extremely obnoxious) catfight imagery in his description of the possibility that they might "go at it" for the presidency. My shorthand, FWIW, tends to go like this: President George H.W. Bush -- Bush Sr. President George W. Bush -- Bush President Bill Clinton -- Clinton Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton -- Traditionally Hillary or Sen. Clinton (depending on context), but see below. Secretary Condoleezza Rice -- Rice I don't like "Sen. Clinton" or "Ms. Clinton" because, by definition, I don't use honorifics as part of shorthand. This means that, in most contexts, I use "Hillary." But as a result of this thread--and the very real problem it brings up re: how "cute" women in politics are, that we just call them all by their first names--I'm going to start using "Rodham Clinton" instead. Similar parallel that debunks the idea that the first-name business is not rooted in misogyny: Turn on pro wrestling sometime. No greater way to take neanderthal culture's temperature. Men get called by their full names ("Ric Flair," "Hulk Hogan"), nicknames ("Sting," "The Great Muta"), or last names ("Goldberg," "Batista"). What do women get called? "Trish," "Maria," "Ashley"... Not particularly eager to adapt that mentality to politics, so it's Rodham Clinton from now on. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-04T00:50:46-06:00

ID

104078

Comment

(I love the fact that the blog software censored D i c k Morris' name!)

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-04T00:51:27-06:00

ID

104079

Comment

Yes, there's something poetic about that. The blog censor has a mischievous little mind of its own, make no mistake. And it's smarter and wittier than most non-JFP bloggers in this city. Ouch. Sorry, that was ugly. I take it back, truth notwithstanding. Have you seen what passes for dialogue on the Ledge forums? Gulp.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-04T00:54:19-06:00

ID

104080

Comment

Just took a peek again. ACK. That's a pretty dreadful little discussion forum, over there. They need to either moderate it or shut it down. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-04T04:55:13-06:00

ID

104081

Comment

Winter slipped my mind. :) He did great things for education. The greater point was that out of 126 years of Democratic Governors, we can only think of two that have done things like that. Unless you want to count Bilbo's highway campaign, but the man had other issues which probably overshadow paved roads. :)

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-01-04T10:15:03-06:00

ID

104082

Comment

Just wanted to blog this editorial from today WSJ into the mix http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007778

Author

Dennis

Date

2006-01-06T13:53:41-06:00