A corollary to the RFK Memorial Post

I had intended the previous RFK post to end comically, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. After I started talking (typing) about RFK's Indianapolis speech, I couldn't regress into satire. So, I will just rant for a minute or two (depending on how quickly you read) in another post (this post).

Later that evening, after exploring the bowels of Arlington, my brother and I attended a Washington Nationals game (that's baseball). They were playing the Cleveland Indians in an interleague match-up. After coming from Arlington I was much maligned to see the Nationals play. Why, you may ask? It is for two reasons: 1) the Nationals yearly compete with the Royals to be Major League Baseball's worst team (stiff competition) and 2) the Nationals play in one of the ugliest stadiums in the Majors. The archiect was rumored to have looked at his cereal bowl one hungover morning and instantly developed the idea that became this stadium. Why would this make you mad, Wyatt? The Nationals suck. Big deal, you're a Cubs fan! It makes me mad because the name of this ugly stadium, the stadium that houses the NL's worst team is Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium.

As you can tell from my last post, I am enamored by the legacy of RFK and I can think of 1,204 better tributes to his name then this stadium. If you're a fan of RFK, ever read a history book, or can spell his initials, it should make you sick as well. RFK had a legacy of inspiring onlookers, while his "memorial" stadium makes onlookers throw up. RFK had a legacy of getting things done, triumph over evil while the Nationals have a legacy of being just as bad as that team that moved from Montreal.

The game we went to see proved to be a typical Nationals game, albeit with more excitement. The Nationals were winning 3-1 until the 9th inning. Victor Martinez came up with two men on. I decided to get into the game and I put on my rally cap. Literally, as soon as I did so, Martinez hit a three-run homer (yes, Zach and Jackie, I am taking credit for Martinez's home run). Thanks to my effort, the Nationals were now losing 4-3. But, wait, even the Nationals can stage a comeback one in a while. The Nationals loaded the bases with one out thanks in part to a pinch-hit double by Nook Logan. Lopez came up and hit a sharp bouncer to the pitcher. The force-out is at home, so he throws it to Martinez, the Indians catcher. For some reason, Nook "This is why I'm on the Nationals" Logan rounded third very ambitiously and allowed Martinez to easily pick him off at third. It was a game ending, unconventional double-play. And you could hear RFK saying "you've got to be kidding me." There are a few things that Nook forgot: 1) You never want to end an inning at third, 2) especially when your best bat in Ryan Zimmerman is coming up next and 3) I can't really think of a third. It was a disappointing loss, to say the least, and it made the ride back on the Metro will all 42, 000 fans in attendance really awkward.

My point is: Let's be careful what teams we put into stadiums named after famous Americans. Once the Nationals moved in they should have renamed it the Bob Hope Memorial Stadium because the Nats are a joke. Luckily, a new stadium is on the way. A new home for the Nationals! The only question left is: What will they name the new stadium? If the name resembles RFK Stadium in that the object of the title does not resemble the teams performance then I am pulling for: Volvo Stadium, because a Volvo is as dependable as it gets and the Nats are well . . . pretty much have the metaphorical safety standard of a clown car.

Excuse the rant. Was it necessary? Of course not, but I did it anyway.

-Wyatt Earp

RFK Memorial Post

My brother came to visit and we took a stroll to Arlington Cemetery. As all of you should know, it is solemn ground, notably when standing over the Eternal Flame memorializing John F. Kennedy's premature death. The words of his inaugural address (I wish I could say "first inaugural") are sketched into stone; immortalized. Sadly, the words are starting to fade into the stone.

Then, after a few paces, we were standing in front of Robert Kennedy's grave. There is something to be said of taking in the final resting place of America's most celebrated brothers, all the while standing side-by-side with your own brother, whose examples and experiences have shaped your life just as much as your own trials have.

The cross that marks RFK's grave faces his words, also sketched in stone. One of the quoted speeches bears witness to a great act of political courage. The day is April 4th, 1968. Those students of history might recognize the date as the day Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on a balcony overlooking Memphis. RFK was scheduled to give a speech in Indianapolis to a black crowd. When he stepped off of the plane, RFK was alerted to MLK's death. The police advised Kennedy to cancel the speech because they feared the crowd would quickly become unruly, threatening Kennedy's life. Devoid of the information highway, there was no way RFK's waiting supporters would know of the civil rights leader's death. It would not be wise for a rich, New England, white man to tell a black, urban crowd that their beloved hero had been assassinated by a racist white man. It was political and, possibly, physical suicide. Robert Kennedy would have none of it. Inspired by his brother's assassination, he went on with the speech.

Without notes in front of him and visibly shaking RFK began, "I have some very sad news for all of you, and I think sad news for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love peace all over the world, and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee." The crowd responded with audible screams and shock. But, RFK pressed on. Slowly, RFK gained his composure and outlined steps to fulfilling the legacy of Martin Luther King.

"What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or lawlessness; but love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or they be black."

After that the sullen crowd slowly applauded and began to cheer RFK's inspiring words. Much like the Gettysburg Address, RFK's speech was short, but poignant. And much like, too much like, Abraham Lincoln, RFK was shot and killed by those who feared the legacy that he strove to instill.

I just thought I would share the thoughts running through my head while looking at RFK's grave. As inspiring a leader JFK is noted to be, his brother matched his oratorical prowess (although, not nearly as famously). We must remember that together JFK and RFK navigated through the Cuban Missile Crisis and the abbreviated Kennedy presidency. If you would care to see the Indianapolis speech (you should) go to this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPYNb4ex6Ko

-Wyatt Earp

PA not likely to move primary

My beautiful home state, Pennsylvania, had been talking about moving up their primary to Feb. 5 along with some 20 other states. However, it does not look like that is going to happen anymore. This coming week the General Assembly will vote on whether to move it to Feb. 12 or March 4th. Personally, I am pulling for March 4, because I would love to vote on my 21st birthday. Check out this article, if you're interested in PA politics:

Click here


-Wyatt Earp

The Reason Why

On Friday, my program went to the Old Executive Office Building, right next to the White House, to meet with Barry Jackson. Barry is the Assistant Deputy to the President and the Principal Deputy to the Senior Advisor. The Senior Advisor being Karl Rove. That is a roundabout way of saying he's Karl Rove's go-to-guy. We met in a conference room right next to the Indian Treaty Room where Dwight Eisenhower held the first ever televised press conference. If nothing else, it was nice to feel important enough to have an appointment in this place.

Barry sat us down and told us a bit about his job in the White House. While he was describing his position, the sound of a helicopter interrupted Barry's baritone. Barry stopped speaking and told us to go to the window because Marine One (the President's helicopter) was about to take off. Sure enough, Marine One was sitting on the South Lawn of the White House waiting for the President to board. Bush was going to Kansas to stump for Senator Pat Roberts. It was a pleasant interruption, to say the least.

We were then afforded time to ask Barry questions. Of course other people asked questions, but this blog is about me, so I'm going to talk about my question. (Selfish, no?) As you may have noticed, the immigration debate has been on my mind as of late and I wanted Barry's take on it, being as close to the action as he is. I asked his take on Karl Rove's strategy to attract more Hispanics to the Republican Party in order to establish a permanent Republican majority and if he thought his party's dissent on immigration damaged the achievement of that goal. Barry quickly pointed out that the strategy was designed not only for Hispanics but for other minority groups too, namely African-Americans.

Barry then took my question to a very broad scale. He initially ignored the immigration focus of my question in favor of a broad-spectrum look at Bush's policies. He argued that Bush has done more for minorities in this country than any president in recent history. The president's Prescription Drug Bill, he continued, did much to assuage low-income minority seniors of the rising cost of prescribed pills. No Child Left Behind's primary focus was the reconciliation of the "achievement gap" between whites and minorities. It has shed a spotlight on minority underachievement in our public schools and has begun the process of reconciling it. Then he came around to immigration and said that the president has been the torch-bearer for legalization and the guest worker program that does nothing but help immigrants and working minorities in this country. He concluded by saying that his party's defiance of the president on this issue will most certainly hurt them in the long run.

Barry Jackson had just argued that President Bush was the czar of minority rights. My first reaction was: well, we're obviously not counting gays as a minority in this conversation, but then I was struck by something. Barry had just articulated 6 years of Bush policy in ten minutes and it made sense to me. One of my teachers at my program in DC has taught us that every campaign needs a message, or put another way: a reason why. Bush's policies had always seemed from the hip to me. Sure, he tackled big questions like education, but what was his driving motive? How did his education policy connect to his health care plans? What was his reason why? Barry Jackson, whether purposefully or not, had stumbled upon it. Bush's reason why was to level the playing field for minorities. Of course, this seems hard to fathom for some liberals, but it makes sense if you contemplate it enough.

Regardless of ones policy disagreements with NCLB or Medicare Part D (I have some of my own), it is striking to hear a connecting tenet between those policies. If Bush had articulated this message for the past 6 years then his immigration policy would not seem as hollow. He would be able to back up his immigration beliefs with legislative achievements. I think the hardest thing for Bush is that his message is not a conservative one: government regulated education, massive health care spending and amnesty. Oops, I said amnesty (at least, that's what "true" conservatives would call it). As much as liberals rail on Bush for being a right-ist, his legislative achievement speak differently. Big-government conservatism, anyone?

Anyway, I just went off for a while there. This is about Barry Jackson! Barry blames the media (a conservative pastime) for not allowing Bush a window to present an uncensored message, but I don't buy it. In campaign terms, Bush is excellent at one thing: staying on message. It's the reason he twice won this country's highest office. I just think he should have picked a clearer message that articulated his reason why.

-Wyatt Earp

Bush's Two Minute Drill

In football parlance, the two minute drill is one of the most intense strategies to watch unfold. The game is on the line and you have two minutes to drive eighty-some yards, score a touchdown without leaving enough time for your opponent to respond. Its an intense time, as most of you know, I'm sure. But, at this time, it is only a metaphor.

For metaphor's sake, Bush has two minutes left on the clock. Of course he has plenty of calendar time (until Jan. 20, 2009), but the duck is roasting and his political capital is diminishing each day. Football teams that are losing have two options during the two-minute drill: 1) Hail Mary (go for the gold, score quickly and score frequently) and 2) Run out the Clock (basically, giving up. No last ditch effort). ***Listen football nerds, I realize that most teams with two minutes left won't go straight to a Hail Mary, but let's just remember its only a metaphor***

I am curious to see which strategy Bush will choose. Will he start offering legislation left and right in a last ditch effort to establish a legacy or will he simply sit back and try to do as little damage as possible. Bush's approval rating is monitored as low as 29% with an aggregate of 31.9% according to Pollster.com. Needless to say, Bush is not swimming in love. It is time for his two-minute drill. What strategy will he choose?

So far he erring on the side of Hail Mary. In the past two weeks, Bush has come out in favor of global warming legislation (a first), pseudo-critized Russia's pseudo-authoritarian regime (a first), went to the Hill to meet with Republican leaders (a second), actively lobbied for immigration reform (a first), stuck by a beleagured friend and Attorney General (yeah, he's pretty loyal) and who knows what is next. A gun control bill has been worked out by Senate Democrats and the NRA (yes, that NRA); it will be interesting to see where Bush comes down on this. It looks like Bush is turning a new leaf and legacy shopping. Good for him, I say. It is nice to see Bush persuing causes again.

This is where I overdo the metaphor: Bush had success early with his passing game. He was able to pass big buck legislation in a legislative form of shock and awe. He'd attack a touchy subject and muscle it through Congress (i.e. Education reform- NCLB, faith-based initiatives, PATRIOT Act, Iraq War Authorization). But he never established a consistent running game (smaller legislation that built up an over-arching message). What is Bush's message? Where is Reagan's "Morning in America", Kennedy's "New Frontier", LBJ's "Great Society", FDR's "New Deal", Truman's "Fair Deal", Teddy Roosevelt's "Square Deal" or even Clinton's "New Democrat" image. As you can see, an over-arching theme (a running game) is a good strategy for a successful presidency. Now, with time running out on the clock, Bush is left only with enough time for post routes and hail marys. A sporadic passing game is hardly a strategy (we're not dealing with Peyton Manning here). It will be interesting to see how effective Bush is in the coming months.

That is my Bush legacy rant. And to answer your question; yes, I took the metaphor too far.

-Wyatt Earp

So Close to Disappointment. (Immigration failing)

For the next two months I live only five blocks from the White House. It gives one an odd perception of government when one is geographically close to the deals, bargains, compromises, votes and filibusters (especially the filibusters). I have only lived in DC for seven days, but I can already tell that news travels faster in this town. Without turning on the TV, picking up a newspaper or reading an online source I can know what happened in the world last night before I get to class at 9am. Granted the program to which I am involved is compromised of 17 political nerds who talk of nothing less (hyperbole, of course), but the point still rings true: news travels faster.

Last night I was browsing through the channels before the Daily Show came on and I stumbled upon CSPAN (or was it CSPAN 2?). Senator Dick Durbin (Majority Whip) was giving a speech. My channel surfing came to a halt when the ticker under Sen. Durbin told me that the Senate had failed (45-50) to invoke cloture on the immigration bill and bring it to a final vote. This caused me to be rather frustrated, although, I did not dwell on it until the next day. For those who are not familiar with Senate rules: a successful cloture vote ends debate and brings a bill to a final vote on the whole package (in this case the comprehensive immigration bill). Those who do not want the bill passed will often unite and not even allow a vote to occur. Especially on a sensitive subject as immigration some Senators would be just fine in not having a vote on the record to be scrutinized later.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that this does not mean the bill is done, but I am skeptical. Sen. Reid does not agree with most of the bill, so I cannot see him pushing too hard to bring the immigration debate up again. We opened a can of worms and what do we have to show for it? The status quo. Of course, the Republicans will not be done with their debate. Most Republicans, namely Mitt Romney, argue that we should simply enforce the 1986 Immigration Act (which we didn't fully implement) and not worry about a new bill. Others contend that there should not be a legalization process at all for illegal immigrants. As you could see from the recent Republican debate, it is considered by some that any attempt to legalize those who committed a crime is amnesty (it should be noted that our prison system was founded on the idea of reintroducing criminals into society). I must agree with President Bush when he contends that this bill does not offer amnesty. Amnesty is the forgiveness of charges without penalty. In this bill, immigrants must pay $5,000, the head of the household must go back to their home country before being granted citizenship, and with a new emphasis on skill over family connections means that newly legalized immigrants may not see their family for decades on end. Oh, and the process takes anywhere between eight and thirteen years. If you call that "without penalty" then you have lived a very hard life. But, if there is something that Republicans are good at it is negative image building (see: flip-flopper and now "Amnesty Bill")

So, what does the future hold? The first attempt at a bipartisan "Grand Bargain", as it has been called, has inevitably failed. The more time passes by the more likely it is that immigration reform won't happen. Why? Primary season is in full-swing. Primaries bring out the fringes of each party to vote for their candidate. (Something like 15% of the electorate votes in the primaries, which means that the most-die hard ideologues decide the candidate of each party). The Republican, as seen by the recent debate, will drive hard right on immigration and refuse Bush's moderate stance. That means no guest worker program, and no "amnesty" or anything that stinks of it. Democrats will be more measured on immigration reform because their base is compromised of minorities. Therefore, they will not be as loud about the subject and likely speak in grand terms like "we are a country of immigrants and will continue to be one. We must do what we can to help everyone achieve the American Dream." Primary season is in full-swing, which means it is the worst time for bipartisan anything let alone a marriage between John McCain and Ted Kennedy.

And finally, here are the highlights of the immigration debate in Congress:

Lame-Duck anyone? - President Bush has always been moderate on immigration dating back to his gubernatorial stint in Texas. His chief policy, the guest worker program, was one of the most opposed points of the bill by the Republicans. Bush did not weigh in very deeply into the Congressional battle, and why? Mostly because Bush is no longer the spokesman of the party. There are ten Republican candidates (eleven with Thompson and twelve with Gingrich), which proves that the Republicans are without a singular voice right now. Bush is becoming less influential by the day (approval rating hit a new low: 29%). He thought that immigration could be another one of his grand legacies along with No Child Left Behind and the War in Iraq (so far so good), but it appears that the bill is on life-support. Harry Reid has tactfully begun calling the immigration package, the "president's bill" which serves a dual purpose: 1) to encourage Bush to take some initiative with his ideas and 2) to leave Bush with the check if the bill fails. Bush needs this bill to salvage his reputation. He should get off his horse and get in the game.

Rove might fail at something? - Karl Rove, Bush's chief election strategist, had a dream. Rove wanted to see a permanent Republican majority. How was he going to accomplish this? Rove believed that if Republicans took the Hispanic vote from the Democrats then they would never lose. It appeared to work. In 2000, Gore won the Hispanic vote 65-35 percent and Bush lost the popular vote. In 2004, Kerry won the Hispanic vote 55-45 percent. Hispanics accounted for 12% of the national vote, so Bush's increase of 10% translated to an increase of 1.2% of the national vote (and a 1.2% negative for Democrats). Bush won the popular vote by 3.1%, so that 2.4% difference in Hispanic vote from 2000 to 2004 becomes huge (Dick Morris gave me the numbers). Rove correctly realized the potential of the Hispanic vote and effectively exploited it in '04. But, now what? Rove has been discredited due to Valerie Plame, the 2006 election and now a possible involvement in Alberto Gonzalez's dealings and it is duck season for Bush (a looney toons reference in a political piece?). The Republicans are appealing to their base and beginning to sound like what Fareed Zakaria had called the "New Know-Nothings." The Republicans are rejecting the Rovian permanent majority strategy. This is very disappointing for Red fans because 2004 was merely the beginning of the possible Hispanic conversion.

The Democrats lack the will - I think that pretty much says it all. This bill would have helped dispel the idea that the Democrats were becoming a "do-nothing" Congress. Harry Truman won re-election in 1948 by labeling the Republican Congress as a "do-nothing" Congress. The growing public perception of the Democrats leaves the Republicans room to accuse Pelosi and Reid of the same.

This last highlight is the reason for my disappointment. I am a mere mile or so from the Capitol, yet I cannot help but fathom what goes on there. There are two debates that are coming up: the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind and global warming. I hope that we get the public riled up for action, not for anger. I am a Cubs fan, so I am accustomed to disappointment, but this is becoming too much.

-Wyatt Earp