If you happen to be reading from afar, be aware that my blog and I both reside in Indiana’s 9th congressional district, which for much of my life – 34 years, to be exact – was represented by Lee Hamilton, a Democrat.
When Hamilton retired in 1999, he was succeeded by Baron Hill, also a Democrat, but one that cannot be identified with the party’s liberal wing.
(Excuse me if I err in taking for granted that such a beast even exists in the American two-party, non-genuine-choice system.)
Hill served two congressional terms before being defeated by Republican Mike Sodrel in 2004. Sodrel, a trucking magnate, actually lives just outside New Albany, a fact that is largely meaningless, but one that I diligently report in an effort to find something favorable to write about the mercifully short-lived political phenomenon of Sodrelism.
In truth, when it comes to Sodrel’s unapologetically Falangist political orientation, there is very little positive to say. During his two years on Capitol Hill, Sodrel’s fawning fealty to the miserably failed George W. Bush bordered on the pathological. With no visible prompting, he could be counted on to prostrate himself before King George in what amounted to an unappetizing display of groveling reminiscent of the Ottoman Empire at its zenith.
Sodrel’s running yet again, and I see that the man dubbed by his foes as “Millionaire Mike” is selling himself (no puns, please) as “Million Mile” Mike in his recent television ads.
Considering Sodrel’s numerous previous bids for the seat, why not “Million Yawn Mike”?
I prefer “A Million Votes with the Discredited Bush Mike.”
Or, to recognize the storybook rags to riches to sags tale: “Million Mile Farce” to Washington … and back again.
As is the case with John McCain, Sodrel and by far the very worst president in American history – a graveside giggle by Warren G. Harding is permitted at this juncture – have been politically joined at the hip in ways that right-wingers would decry as blatantly pornographic if all involved were San Franciscans wearing leather and chains.
Did Sodrel vote against the interests of W even once during his appropriately shrunken congressional tenure? Perhaps, but the percentage of agreement surely exceeded 95% – and that’s roughly 90% too often.
What I don’t understand is why the GOP is not considering longer-term electoral interests in this race. Not that I want a theocratic Republican to win, but can any of our resident pachyderm apologists explain the tactical wisdom of Sodrel’s latest bid for Congress?
Perhaps Sodrel hasn’t yet pole vaulted past the suggested sell-by date as obviously as McCain has, though he’s rapidly gaining ground in the competition to be chronologically irrelevant. So, is the party just buying time by running a putrefying political retread in a season when the electoral (read: economic) climate probably is not conducive?
But why not let a “next generation” candidate get his or her feet wet this time, then be infinitely better placed to contest the seat in 2010?
Hill should win, and that’s good enough, even if it isn’t as good as it might be. The persistent problem for progressives in this moribund district is that Hill must always lean center-right to remain viable in a constituency that merrily views Attila the Hun as a flaming liberal.
Hill’s name came up in conversation recently, and I was asked, “Do you like him?”
My response: “I like him way more than Sodrel.”
Still, the fact that local Republicans regard Hill as Nancy Pelosi’s illegitimate sibling remains reason enough to reelect him, enthusiastically or otherwise.
I might add that I genuinely respect Eric Schansberg, the soon-to-be perennial 9th district Libertarian candidate, and find his views far more palatable than Sodrel’s. As a third party nominee, the educator and economist has the luxury to gleefully dissect the positions of both major party bidders.
Unfortunately, Schansberg’s fundamentalist religious orientation (in particular, a strident anti-abortion stance) effectively dissuades me from supporting him even if his presence in the race immeasurably enlivens the economic debate.
His isn’t so much an endorsement as a preference expressed with palpable resignation, and so I’ll be voting for Hill. I’ll continue to read Schansberg’s blogs and wish him further success in academia. Sodrel should retire from politics and focus on the family business, and the GOP should find someone younger and more capable.
Gee, thanks for asking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I will admit that voting for Baron Hill falls in my philosophy of voting Democrat for the national government, but I would prefer someone a little more left of center. I've wondered sometimes if Mr. Hill wouldn't want to be a little more liberal in his thinking (he did endorse Obama over Hillary, after all), but can't for fear of being branded a "far-leftist, unamerican, liberal".
BTW, speaking of Congress, anyone see this crazy person on Hardball the other night??
"(The Politico) Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) suggested today that the media should investigate members of Congress to determine if they hold anti-American views.
During an appearance Friday on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Bachmann was busy railing against Barack Obama and his ties to former terrorist-turned-education-activist Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright when Matthews asked the controversial Minnesota Republican whether she suspected any of her congressional colleagues of holding anti-American views.
Bachmann's answer was not the resounding "No!" that one would expect in response to such an inquiry.
"What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would," Bachmann said. "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America. I think people would be -- would love to see an expose like that."
The Crypt, for one, rejoices that the issue of anti-Americanism has returned to our national political debate, along with the use of the terms "socialist" and "communist," which we missed out on the first time around. We thus call for the immediate restoration of the House Un-American Activities Committee, which has been out of business for almost 40 years. The Crypt also wants Richard Nixon installed as chairman of HUAC, despite the fact that he passed away in 1994.
However, The Crypt is kind of a little grossed out by the idea of "penetrating" and members of Congress, so we instead suggest a regular ol' expose instead.
Bachmann's office declined to make the congresswoman available to elaborate on her Hardball comments. The Crypt will need some help in determining which members are anti-American, although we suspect that anyone with a "D" in front of their name is probably Bachmann's idea of a good place to start."
I saw Rep. Bachmann's performance the other night—beyond creepy; much more disturbing than the Republican campaign robocall (about Ayers) Matthews was asking her about.
I was bemused last week to receive a letter from the National Rifle Association. It explained why Obama wants to take your guns away, and it included a pair of small "Bitter Gun Owner Who Votes" stickers. But it also included a full-sized NRA/Baron Hill sticker. Apparently, our Blue Dog Democrat votes 100% on NRA issues. I'm not sure I'm that pro-gun, myself, but Hill has my vote.
In a word: an eloquent beat-down of Sodrel; "palpable resignation" in choosing Hill; and considerable respect with disagreement on some issues for me.
Thanks for your kind words!
Thoughts on two of the labels you used...
You refer to my "fundamentalist religious orientation". As an aside: is this a good time for a reference to "choice" vs. "was I born that way"? ;-) In any case, I'd be more careful throwing around a label like that.
First, it's not true about me in general terms. Anyone who knows me in terms of my theology and Christian walk would be hard-pressed to make that pejorative stick.
Second, you connect my fundamentalism to my views on abortion. Again, I'd take care with that assertion as well-- if one's views are based on a bizarre view of a sacred text (the Constitution) and decades-old science (on when life begins).
More broadly, and I don't know you well enough to say this about you, but many in your crowd suffer from various forms of fundamentalism with respect to the State, Nature, and so on.
And then there's the term "progressive". You might want to check the Progressive Handbook on this. But I don't think you're allowed to claim the label when you publicly support a candidate who does nothing substantive to get us out of Iraq, says nothing about the 15.3% tax on every dollar earned by the working poor, nothing about the negative rate-of-return on Social Security for African-Americans, and so on. I'll admit that Hill seems quite strong on keeping our kids away from porn and supporting our veterans. But that hardly seems like enough for a "progressive" to actively promote the status quo.
Instead of progressive, I think you mean "pragmatist". Of course, I need voters to be more principled. And with Hill cruising to victory with a 11-15% lead, nose-holders in both parties now have an option which would allow them to sleep better at night.
I'd love to win. That said, assuming a second-tier miracle is not in the offing, reaching 10% is within reach. (We were at 7% in the last poll.) Reaching double-digits would hopefully lead to a national discussion of third-party candidates (including various types of "progressives")-- something all of us, presumably, want to see.
Don't waste your vote this time. Vote Schansberg for Congress on November 4th.
Thanks for dropping by. Would it be okay if I moved this comment to the marquee?
Unedited, of course.
sure!
Post a Comment