Politics

Obama Impersonator Defends Comedy Routine

Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
June 20, 2011, 10:01 a.m.

“A day after ar­guing over who had more ex­per­i­ence chan­ging bed­pans,” Ex-Amb. to Ire­land Tom Fo­ley (R) and ‘06 can­did­ate/ex-Stam­ford May­or Dan Mal­loy (D) “found the per­fect ven­ue for their bick­er­ing gubernat­ori­al cam­paign” in a 10/7 ra­dio ap­pear­ance on WPLR. Both “touched briefly on the state budget crisis, but spent more time on who’s the big­ger li­ar.”

Want More On This Race? Check out the Hot­line Dash­board for a com­pre­hens­ive run­down of this race, in­clud­ing stor­ies, polls, ads, FEC num­bers, and more!

Mal­loy: “(Fo­ley) has a track re­cord of put­ting people out of jobs. Tom doesn’t un­der­stand every­day people.”

Fo­ley: “He’ll raise your taxes. I won’t” (Dix­on, Con­necti­c­ut Post, 10/7).

Mal­loy: “When you went away to make a lot of money, I went to New York to be a pro­sec­utor.”

Fo­ley: “We ought to re­tire him. Maybe he could go back to be­ing a pro­sec­utor” (Phan­euf, Con­necti­c­ut Mir­ror, 10/7).

Tom And Dan The Build­ers

“Key dif­fer­ences” between Fo­ley and Mal­loy “were on dis­play” at a “for­um hos­ted by build­ing con­tract­ors and de­velopers.” Both “agreed the state needs to be more busi­ness friendly,” and “also agreed the state” has to “do more to at­tract and re­tain busi­nesses.” But “in their an­swers to ques­tions about uni­ons, trans­port­a­tion pro­jects and how to op­er­ate” a state air­port, “they differed.”

Mal­loy, on pub­lic vs. private sec­tor uni­ons: “Does any­one here want your fire de­part­ment, or po­lice de­part­ment or your teach­ers to go on strike? Be­cause what we have, we have uni­ons, but we also have an ar­bit­ra­tion sys­tem de­signed to make sure that doesn’t hap­pen.”

Fo­ley: “(I don’t think) state gov­ern­ment has any role in telling cit­ies and towns what sort of work­ing re­la­tion­ship they ought to have with their em­ploy­ees or who they pur­chase ser­vices from. … (I fa­vor) re­view­ing all these man­dates on cit­ies and towns and help­ing them fig­ure out how to lower their costs” (Krechevsky, Wa­ter­bury Re­pub­lic­an-Amer­ic­an, 10/8).

Born To Run And Then Sub­sequently Help Elect Nearby GOP Gov­ernors

NJ Gov. Chris Christie (R) will be in CT later this month to stop for Fo­ley. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) and LA Gov. Bobby Jin­dal (R) will also make ap­pear­ance in Oct. “A sched­ule for the cam­paign stops was not re­lease” but the Fo­ley camp “said all three of­fi­cials agreed to come to” CT “with­in the next” 2 weeks (Phan­euf, Con­necti­c­ut Mir­ror, 10/7).

A Real Chat­ter­ing Class Act

Hart­ford Cour­ant’s Green writes “I have a Dan Mal­loy prob­lem. No, it’s not some tor­tured, elit­ist ar­gu­ment I’m in with my­self about how I see the Demo­crat­ic gubernat­ori­al can­did­ate and his views. Aside from his cozy re­la­tion­ship with state em­ploy­ee uni­ons, I like what Mal­loy stands for. It’s a more vis­cer­al re­sponse after watch­ing him over the last six months.”

“As I watched Mal­loy and Fo­ley call each oth­er li­ar for 60 minutes the oth­er night, my prob­lem came in­to fo­cus. Mal­loy’s strident streak — which bor­ders on the nasty — was on statewide dis­play. … Here’s a les­son for Mal­loy: Voters don’t like an­noy­ing can­did­ates” (10/8).

Manchester Journ­al In­quirer’s Pow­ell re­acts to a 10/7 de­bate, writ­ing “Strip away the dem­agoguery and pet­ti­ness that drenched the first tele­vised de­bate of the ma­jor-party can­did­ates for gov­ernor Tues­day night. Strip away Demo­crat Dan Mal­loy’s at­tack­ing Re­pub­lic­an Tom Fo­ley for fail­ing to save a Geor­gia tex­tile mill, for be­ing rich, and for be­ing a busi­ness­man, a mem­ber of a class of people that in­cludes a lot of crooks — like the class of which Mal­loy him­self was a mem­ber un­til re­cently, Con­necti­c­ut may­ors. And strip away Fo­ley’s at­tack­ing Mal­loy for hav­ing been may­or of Stam­ford dur­ing a hor­rible re­ces­sion when jobs were lost and for hav­ing had to cope with a school sys­tem with a lot of poor kids. What was left?”

“Mal­loy was ar­tic­u­late, fo­cused, cun­ning, and in­dig­nant. Fo­ley, the sup­posedly ruth­less busi­ness ex­ec­ut­ive, was dif­fid­ent, im­pre­cise, un­prac­ticed, and un­der­stated. On present­a­tion alone Mal­loy stole the show. As for the can­did­ates’ an­swers, the event was less de­cis­ive” (10/7).

Pres­id­ent Obama’s em­brace of same-sex mar­riage last week un­der­scored an im­bal­ance in Amer­ic­an polit­ics so pro­found and en­dur­ing that it has al­most dis­ap­peared from view, like scenery too fa­mil­i­ar to no­tice. Yet that im­bal­ance ex­plains why leg­al­iz­a­tion of gay mar­riage, al­though still fiercely con­tested, seems in­ev­it­able, while pil­lars of Obama’s eco­nom­ic agenda such as health care re­form face a much more un­cer­tain fu­ture.

Throughout the na­tion’s his­tory, as his­tor­i­an Mi­chael Kazin of Geor­getown Uni­versity ar­gued in his per­cept­ive 2011 book, Amer­ic­an Dream­ers, the Left in Amer­ic­an polit­ics (whatever its name at the time) has pur­sued two broad goals, one so­cial and one eco­nom­ic. Lib­er­als would define their twin pri­or­it­ies as ex­pand­ing in­di­vidu­al rights to an ever-broad­en­ing circle of Amer­ic­ans and pro­mot­ing great­er eco­nom­ic op­por­tun­ity and equal­ity. Con­ser­vat­ives would de­scribe the Left’s goals as un­rav­el­ing tra­di­tion­al mor­al­ity and re­dis­trib­ut­ing in­come.

But wheth­er the agenda is cel­eb­rated or damned, the same long-term ver­dict ap­plies: The Left has suc­ceeded far more at re­shap­ing the cul­ture than re­mak­ing the struc­ture of the eco­nomy. Gen­er­a­tion after gen­er­a­tion, re­formers have se­cured great­er leg­al rights and so­cial ac­cept­ance for pre­vi­ously mar­gin­al­ized groups — a pro­cess that seems ir­re­voc­ably un­der way for gays and les­bi­ans. But the Left has suc­ceeded only in­ter­mit­tently and pro­vi­sion­ally at us­ing gov­ern­ment to chal­lenge the free mar­ket’s ex­cesses, as the con­tin­ued pub­lic skep­ti­cism about health care re­form and oth­er Obama pri­or­it­ies demon­strates. “In a polit­ic­al cul­ture which val­ued liberty above all,” as Kazin wrote, “the Left [has] had more dif­fi­culty ar­guing for the col­lect­ive good than for an ex­pan­sion of in­di­vidu­al rights.”

(RE­LATEDA Mil­lion­aire’s The­ory on Fix­ing the Eco­nomy)

The growth of both per­son­al liberty and the circle of tol­er­ance is a steady, if me­an­der­ing, cur­rent in Amer­ic­an his­tory. The ex­ten­sion of rights to new groups in­vari­ably has been res­isted, delayed, and won only after ex­ten­ded — some­times bloody — struggle. But al­most all the walls of res­ist­ance even­tu­ally have fallen. From the ab­ol­i­tion of slavery to wo­men’s right to vote, from the civil-rights laws of the 1960s to the leg­al and so­cial changes that provided het­ero­sexu­al couples un­pre­ced­en­ted sexu­al free­dom (on is­sues ran­ging from ac­cess to con­tra­cep­tion to abor­tion) on to ex­pan­ded work­place op­por­tun­it­ies for wo­men and minor­it­ies, the tra­ject­ory of Amer­ic­an life has moved ir­re­vers­ibly to­ward provid­ing more people great­er autonomy to pur­sue hap­pi­ness as they see fit.

Equal­ity for gays and les­bi­ans seems destined to join this roster. In Gal­lup sur­veys even in the late 1990s, a plur­al­ity of Amer­ic­ans said that gay re­la­tion­ships should be il­leg­al. Now, most na­tion­al polls show that slightly more Amer­ic­ans sup­port than op­pose same-sex mar­riage. The suc­cess of so many state-bal­lot meas­ures non­ethe­less ban­ning it hints that those num­bers may some­what over­state cur­rent at­ti­tudes, and Obama’s ad­vocacy may cost him as many votes as it wins him this year. But young people now sup­port re­cog­ni­tion for same-sex mar­riages so over­whelm­ingly that it seems more a ques­tion of when, than wheth­er, this bar­ri­er falls.

This un­stint­ing pro­cess of per­son­al lib­er­a­tion has pro­duced not only be­ne­fits but costs (such as more single-par­ent fam­il­ies). But while the dir­ec­tion of change some­times has stalled, it has nev­er fully re­versed; over time, the ar­row has al­ways moved to­ward great­er equal­ity for more people. To para­phrase Mar­tin Luth­er King Jr., the arc of Amer­ic­an at­ti­tudes to­ward per­son­al liberty may be long, but it al­ways bends to­ward in­clu­sion.

(MAP: Where Is Same-Sex Mar­riage Leg­al?)

The story di­verges on the Left’s oth­er great pri­or­ity: us­ing gov­ern­ment to soften the free mar­ket’s rough edges. On that front, the de­bate has ebbed and flowed in dis­tinct cycles. Only in brief win­dows have lib­er­als suc­ceeded in ex­pand­ing gov­ern­ment’s in­flu­ence over the mar­ket, wheth­er to po­lice cor­por­ate be­ha­vi­or or to try to ex­pand se­cur­ity and op­por­tun­ity: the Civil War years, the Pro­gress­ive era, the New Deal, and the Great So­ci­ety (which spilled in­to Richard Nix­on’s reg­u­lat­ory ad­vances). Pres­id­ent Obama’s first two years, capped by health care re­form’s pas­sage, pro­duced the broad­est ex­pan­sion of gov­ern­ment’s au­thor­ity in more than three dec­ades. For the long stretches in between, the Left has struggled to de­fend its break­throughs.

In 2012, Demo­crats seem clearly on the de­fens­ive again. In con­trast to the steady warm­ing to­ward gay mar­riage, Obama faces wintry skep­ti­cism about his health care law spe­cific­ally and fed­er­al act­iv­ism broadly — even amid hard times that have shattered faith in the private sec­tor. “The Re­pub­lic­ans are run­ning more on re­peal­ing Obama’s agenda than Obama is run­ning on the de­fense of [it],” notes Pete Wehner, a seni­or fel­low at the con­ser­vat­ive Eth­ics and Pub­lic Policy Cen­ter.

On both cul­tur­al and eco­nom­ic is­sues, the na­tion re­mains closely di­vided and du­bi­ous of ex­tremes. In their ar­dor to re­verse Obama’s ad­vances, Re­pub­lic­ans from Mitt Rom­ney on down risk over­reach­ing: Polls also show most Amer­ic­ans will­ing to raise taxes on the rich and re­luct­ant to re­trench gov­ern­ment pro­grams such as Medi­care as much as con­ser­vat­ives prefer. But the same in­clin­a­tion to­ward per­son­al liberty that nar­rowly tilts most so­cial de­bates like gay mar­riage to the left also usu­ally tilts ar­gu­ments about gov­ern­ment’s eco­nom­ic role slightly to the right. That’s one of many reas­ons why neither party is likely to win a de­cis­ive ad­vant­age this Novem­ber — or any­time soon after. 

What We're Following See More »
SANS PROOF
NRA Chief: Leftist Protesters Are Paid
1 days ago
UPDATE
NEW TRAVEL BAN COMING SOON
Trump Still on Campaign Rhetoric
2 days ago
UPDATE
“WE’RE CHANGING IT”
Trump Rails On Obamacare
2 days ago
UPDATE

After spending a few minutes re-litigating the Democratic primary, Donald Trump turned his focus to Obamacare. “I inherited a mess, believe me. We also inherited a failed healthcare law that threatens our medical system with absolute and total catastrophe” he said. “I’ve been watching and nobody says it, but Obamacare doesn’t work.” He finished, "so we're going to repeal and replace Obamacare."

FAKE NEWS
Trump Goes After The Media
2 days ago
UPDATE

Donald Trump lobbed his first attack at the “dishonest media” about a minute into his speech, saying that the media would not appropriately cover the standing ovation that he received. “We are fighting the fake news,” he said, before doubling down on his previous claim that the press is “the enemy of the people." However, he made a distinction, saying that he doesn't think all media is the enemy, just the "fake news."

FBI TURNED DOWN REQUEST
Report: Trump Asked FBI to Deny Russia Stories
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"The FBI rejected a recent White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump's associates and Russians known to US intelligence during the 2016 presidential campaign, multiple US officials briefed on the matter tell CNN. But a White House official said late Thursday that the request was only made after the FBI indicated to the White House it did not believe the reporting to be accurate."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login