The Senator Who Was Once A Democrat
He was one of the first Senators to denounce then-President Bill Clinton during the wake of the Monica Lewinsky Affair.
Al Gore chose him as a running mate for the 2000 Presidential election to match then-Governor George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Upon losing that contest, he went back to his job as US Senator from Connecticut. His moderate tone and demeanor was praised even in defeat.
Then America experienced the horror of 9/11/01, and this man seemed to change right in front of our eyes. Suddenly, the GOP, not his own party, was the group best equipped to combat terrorism. Suddenly, nation-building and pre-emptive strikes were necessary. Sure, many other Democrats had supported variations of these things, but as the occupation of Iraq and the constant shifting between winning in Afghanistan to Taliban resurgence to winning again took their toll a large number of those Democrats experienced a change of heart. It also didn't help to learn that American soldiers were abusing prisoners, or that WMD were not found in Iraq, or that Iraq had nothing resembling an alliance with al-Qaida (as the Bush Administration led us all to believe).
So while all were taking in new information and startling revelations, and then mentally cross-referencing them with our own beliefs and morals, Americans by the score became more and more aware that out of all the foreign policy initiatives pushed by this current White House, "invading Iraq" was one that seriously needed some reconsideration. As in, "It's time to leave."
However, this man -a Democrat who steadfastly stood by the Bush Doctrine- decided to stick to the GOP view of how to handle terrorism. This decision led to him losing his Senatorial Primary, forcing him to make a choice: count the loss as a lesson learned and try to win back his party's favor, or press on in another form. He decided to do the latter, and went on to win his seat as an Independent.
Now, with the Bush Doctrine proving to be a disaster (as least for poor and middle-class Americans) and its spokesperson nearing the end of his term another person has been chosen to carry on. This man, John McCain, is every bit as hawkish as Bush and presumably more temperamental. But nonetheless, he is a close personal friend of the Senator who was Once a Democrat.
That, more than the possibility of continuing the foreign policies of Bush and Cheney, is probably what's behind the decision to allow this Senator to speak at the GOP Convention in two weeks. It almost goes without saying that members of both parties have something of a "beef" with him.
His only political salvation is the current virtual stalemate in the Senate. An Obama victory or an increase in seats for Democrats would spell his official banishment. A McCain victory would force him to go all in with his buddy, and would definitely end his Senate career (to those who say, "So?" I say, "And if McCain is a one-termer like Bush 41, where does the Senator go? I'm almost certain he's given this some thought.") A GOP comeback in the Senate would put him in a similar situation, but it would be easier for him to run back to the Democratic Party and beg for forgiveness (needing the numbers in this scenario, Democrats are likely to accept him back).
Of course, odds are this stalemate isn't going to occur. As much as people hate Congress now, signs show some kind of increase in seats for the Democrats. The base of the Democratic Party (aka, liberals and progressives) are calling for the Senator's ouster. He's disappointed his constituents. The base of the GOP consider him (support of the Bush Doctrine aside) to be as liberal as a Kennedy.
Eight years ago he was in a wonderful situation (as far as political life goes): come January 2001 he was either going to be a Vice President on the road to running the White House or remain a Senator with clout and a shot to go for the big job himself in four years. Now? He's someone whose very name makes liberals and conservatives alike shudder.
So much for "the vital center."
Al Gore chose him as a running mate for the 2000 Presidential election to match then-Governor George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Upon losing that contest, he went back to his job as US Senator from Connecticut. His moderate tone and demeanor was praised even in defeat.
Then America experienced the horror of 9/11/01, and this man seemed to change right in front of our eyes. Suddenly, the GOP, not his own party, was the group best equipped to combat terrorism. Suddenly, nation-building and pre-emptive strikes were necessary. Sure, many other Democrats had supported variations of these things, but as the occupation of Iraq and the constant shifting between winning in Afghanistan to Taliban resurgence to winning again took their toll a large number of those Democrats experienced a change of heart. It also didn't help to learn that American soldiers were abusing prisoners, or that WMD were not found in Iraq, or that Iraq had nothing resembling an alliance with al-Qaida (as the Bush Administration led us all to believe).
So while all were taking in new information and startling revelations, and then mentally cross-referencing them with our own beliefs and morals, Americans by the score became more and more aware that out of all the foreign policy initiatives pushed by this current White House, "invading Iraq" was one that seriously needed some reconsideration. As in, "It's time to leave."
However, this man -a Democrat who steadfastly stood by the Bush Doctrine- decided to stick to the GOP view of how to handle terrorism. This decision led to him losing his Senatorial Primary, forcing him to make a choice: count the loss as a lesson learned and try to win back his party's favor, or press on in another form. He decided to do the latter, and went on to win his seat as an Independent.
Now, with the Bush Doctrine proving to be a disaster (as least for poor and middle-class Americans) and its spokesperson nearing the end of his term another person has been chosen to carry on. This man, John McCain, is every bit as hawkish as Bush and presumably more temperamental. But nonetheless, he is a close personal friend of the Senator who was Once a Democrat.
That, more than the possibility of continuing the foreign policies of Bush and Cheney, is probably what's behind the decision to allow this Senator to speak at the GOP Convention in two weeks. It almost goes without saying that members of both parties have something of a "beef" with him.
His only political salvation is the current virtual stalemate in the Senate. An Obama victory or an increase in seats for Democrats would spell his official banishment. A McCain victory would force him to go all in with his buddy, and would definitely end his Senate career (to those who say, "So?" I say, "And if McCain is a one-termer like Bush 41, where does the Senator go? I'm almost certain he's given this some thought.") A GOP comeback in the Senate would put him in a similar situation, but it would be easier for him to run back to the Democratic Party and beg for forgiveness (needing the numbers in this scenario, Democrats are likely to accept him back).
Of course, odds are this stalemate isn't going to occur. As much as people hate Congress now, signs show some kind of increase in seats for the Democrats. The base of the Democratic Party (aka, liberals and progressives) are calling for the Senator's ouster. He's disappointed his constituents. The base of the GOP consider him (support of the Bush Doctrine aside) to be as liberal as a Kennedy.
Eight years ago he was in a wonderful situation (as far as political life goes): come January 2001 he was either going to be a Vice President on the road to running the White House or remain a Senator with clout and a shot to go for the big job himself in four years. Now? He's someone whose very name makes liberals and conservatives alike shudder.
So much for "the vital center."
Comments