homegame

Say It Ain't So, John. You Too, Hil

Attempts to fix elections are as old as American democracy itself. Up until now, however, the fixers always cheated in an attempt to WIN.

Times change. Based on the available evidence, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) are doing their darndest to make sure their parties LOSE the upcoming congressional elections. If they're not actually dumping, the two solons are at least shaving points.

This unconventional strategy may or may not be in the best interests of the nation, but it certainly serves the two senators' personal ambitions. McCain and Clinton would both like to be the next president, and their chances would be much enhanced if the other party controlled Congress for the next two years.


We start here with a caveat. Both McCain and Clinton would tell you they're sincerely acting in the best interests of the nation, and they're not lying. No one reaches their prominent place on the national stage without the ability to weave the ideas of personal and public good into a seamless web.

As usual, McCain, who must sleep in TV makeup, is attracting the most attention of the two. He is leading the faction of Republican dissidents who oppose President's Bush's plan to, why sugarcoat it, legalize torture. The administration's hope was that Democrats would be forced to take a stand in favor of the Geneva Convention and human rights, thus dooming them in November.

Leaving aside the moral implications of torture as a political winner, McCain and his fellow rebels have shattered the practical effects of Bush's manuver. The senator has created a high-profile intramural fight in his party on the eve of an election where the GOPs prospects are not as bright as they could be. This has a devastating internal effect on an organization built on heirarchical, not to mention authoritarian, principlesa.

And if one hopes for a McCain administration in 2009, that's all good. As everyone knows, the biggest hurdle on stout conservative McCain's route to the White House is the distrust and dislike he inspires among the ultra-conservative Republicans who dominate the party's structure.

On the surface, disloyalty to Bush wouldn't seem the best way for McCain to overcome that handicap. Ah, but here's a case where it's far better to be hung for a sheep than a lamb. Having controlled both the White House and Congress for the past six years, the ultra-conservatives would be frantic with fear should the Democrats take the latter this fall. They'd be looking for a winner in 2008, and loyalty oaths be damned.

Ms. Clintons's point-shaving is more subtle. It's a sin of omission, and hence, almost impossible to trace to her. As such, it befits her career as the most low-profile, high-profile national politician of modern times.

Clinton is running for re-election against some unknown Republican she'll smash to smithereens on Election Day. She has also accumulated a campaign treasury of over $20 million. She's on point for what's projected to be a Democratic landslide in the Empire State.

At the same time, as many as five New York Republicans in the House of Representatives are potentially vulnerable to Democratic challengers this year. Or so it was thought. To date, these challengers have run smack into the formidable advantages of any non-indicted incumbent. If some of them can't win, the Dems' chances of re-taking the House shrink and possibly vanish.

Boy, those candidates could sure use the help of a popular, well-funded Democrat this fall. Any help they've received from Sen. Clinton has passed under the radar screen of Hillary-obsessed national political reporters. We're left to conclude her assistance has been minimal.

How come? Well, for a member of the opposition party running for president, being totally shut out of power has many advantages. With no power comes no responsibility. The most absurd blue-sky campaign promises can be made without fear of their being tested in the arena. Were the Democrats to control even one branch of Congress, Clinton would be forced to present her agenda for debate, something she's avoided like Monica jokes so far. And on the meanest personal level, a Democratic congress would create new party leaders, new voices, and new stars, all potential rivals in '08.

McCain and Clinton share the most pressing motive for wanting the other side to win this fall. It would help them cope with the consequences of national catastrophe.

Thanks to Bush, the Republican party's stance on national security has boiled down to a sentence. We must continue the unpopular war in Iraq or Arab terrorists will blow up Mr. and Ms. American Citizen while they sleep. It's not a bad stance, politically speaking. Feat and its handmaiden hate always sell.

However, the Bush policy is a captive to events-bad events. Should there be another terror attack inside the United States (most unlikely) or a complete political collapse in Iraq requiring American withdrawal (rather more likely), the Republicans themselves would face collapse.

In those unhappy circumstances, a potential Republican president had better have been a rebel. A potential Democratic candidate could only benefit from representing a powerless minority. If Clinton's party wins in November, she'll HAVE to propose some plan for Iraq, like it or not. Since all options suck, and truth-telling loses elections, it's better to be able to shirk that duty.

So much for trashing two people who are among the more tolerable of our nation's leaders. I'm mean and I admit it. I just can't help looking forward to election night, when both McCain and Clinton will receive mucho network face time. Whichever party wins, I predict one solon's joy and the other's sorrow will be stoicism personified.

posted by Michael Gee @ 9:01 AM