"History's verdict is all we have left.  And when tomorrow calls today into account, some of us want to say we stood up.  We called out.  We were not silent."
--Leonard Pitts, Jr., "Gestures of Conscience Bring Solace," Baltimore Sun, March 19, 2006

JOHN McCAIN'S LORENA BOBBIT

Print the article

This entry was posted on 9/15/2008 11:08 AM and is filed under uncategorized.

When my son was a toddler, and old reruns of the long-running Western series, Gunsmoke, would come on TV, (with James Arness in the starring role), he would scamper into the living room and yell, "The Daddy Show is on!  The Daddy Show is on!"

To his two-year old mind, the 6'4" Marshall Matt Dillon, with his craggy face and calm, masculine manner, WAS his daddy, who also stands six-four BEFORE he pulls on his cowboy boots and puts on his hat.  (He'll kill me for saying this, but he also reminds me of Gary Cooper in <em>High Noon</em>, and Gregory Peck in <em>The Big Country</em>. other tall cowboys with a calm and quiet demeanor, who remain true to themselves and don't feel the need to prove anything to anybody).

To say I married into an alpha-male family is an understatement.  My husband and one of his brothers are Vietnam combat vets, and the other brother retired from the army at the rank of brigadier general.  And all our sons have done combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When my brother-in-law "got his star"--or, got promoted to general--we were treated to an interesting perspective on the world of high-ranking military officers.  The wives were competitive.  There was a serious pecking-order between "one-stars," "two-stars," and so on.  A three-star spouse, say, might demand better housing if she thought a one-star had a nicer kitchen.

This is no joke in the rarified world of high-ranking military brass. In one case, when a one-star made base commander and was transferred to a base that was short on housing, they were forced to live in a "colonel's house."   This didn't go over well with his spouse, who felt it was beneath their station, that he had earned the right to better housing, and that they could not do the extensive entertaining that he--as base commander--was required to do in such a small house. 

That said, the truth is also that, over time, you just get used to certain privileges.

For example, whenever my brother-in-law wanted to visit one of his sons wherever they were stationed, the base had to be notified in advance.  He arrived with a driver in a car flying the distinctive red flag with the single star signifying the importance of his rank, and he was greeted by a base entourage.  He never went anywhere without the people around him snapping to salute.

Now, John McCain, as the son and grandson of navy admirals, is extremely familiar with this kind of deference.  All his life, he knew the privilege of his family rank.  In fact, it is highly doubtful that he would have ever gained admission into the Naval Academy with his spotty high school academic record, had he not been admiral-born and bred.

John McCain was not only accustomed to the best in base housing as he was growing up, but he was also used to the unqualified respect that was automatically afforded his family within the navy ranks. 

In all fairness to McCain, this definitely worked against him when his Vietnamese captors discovered his identity.  On the one hand, they gave him medical treatment he might not have had, because of his father's rank, but they also offered him a chance to get out early, purely as a propaganda device.  He refused, but it must be stated here that ALL the POWs were offered chances to go home early, if they did such things as denounce their government on-camera and so on.  Nearly all of them refused.

When McCain first brought the dazzling Sarah Palin on-board his campaign, to all the media hoopla and hurrahs, I had the same sinking sensation and despair-flirting reaction as most Democrats.  I was afraid we were about to be flim-flammed again, as has happened so many times with the Rove Machine, and that the easily-distracted American public would get mesmerized yet again by smooth talk and fairy dust while a Democratic candidate ten times better qualified would go down in defeat AGAIN.

But almost immediately, as I was crying in my beer, my moderate-Republican-turned-Obama-supporter husband said, "Just wait."

I accused him of not knowing what the hell he was talking about, when he said simply, "Just wait.  She's going to keep getting more and more attention; she's going to keep drawing the cameras away from him.  Eventually, his ego is not going to be able to stand it.  It's just a matter of time before he pushes her to the rear of the campaign and takes center stage again."

I muttered something about how McCain doesn't care about ANYTHING but getting elected, and if it means his new Trophy Nominee gets the B-roll coverage, then so be it.

But my enigmatic husband merely gave me one of those I'm-so-sorry-you're-not-as-smart-as-me smiles and said, "Ahh, but you forget CINDY McCain.  Her husband's status is HER status.  The more he gets overshadowed by the NEW trophy wife, the more she's going to resent it.  It's just a matter of time before she begins to bitch about it."

I was quiet at that, remembering about three-star wives competing with one-star wives and four-star wives lording it over them ALL.

A couple weeks went by. 

Then I read about how, when McCain and Palin appear together, he hops up on stage and starts to talk, but SHE'S still down at the rope line drinking in the adoration of her fans, and that when HE tries to talk, he gets drowned out by chants of SA-RAH! SA-RAH!

Few days later, I read how, when he appeared for the first time without her, the crowds were so anemic that they had to wind the event down early.  How the campaign was seriously considering the old Bush/Rove tactic of packing the venues with invitation-only partisan hacks, who then appear on the evening news to be simply common people who happen to adore their guy.

And then, in this Sunday's New York Times, I saw my husband vindicated, in Frank Rich's seminal op-ed, "The Palin-Whatshisname Ticket."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14rich.html?ref=opinion

Opening paragraph, Rich urges us to take seriously the scenario of a Palin presidency, and states, flat-out:


"...the 2008 edition of John McCain is too weak to serve as America’s chief executive. This unmentionable truth, more than race, is now the real elephant in the room of this election...

"...A McCain victory on Election Day will usher in a Palin presidency, with McCain serving as a transitional front man, an even weaker Bush to her Cheney.

"The ambitious Palin and the ruthless forces she represents know it, too. You can almost see them smacking their lips in anticipation, whether they’re wearing lipstick or not."


Rich points out the "coincidence" that, in her convention speech allusion to Harry Truman, Palin "just happened to alight on a Democrat who ascended to the presidency when an ailing president died in office."

He concludes by saying:


"Obama’s one break last week was the McCain camp’s indication that it’s likely to minimize its candidate’s solo appearances by joining him at the hip with Palin. There’s a political price to be paid for this blatant admission that he needs her to draw crowds. McCain’s conspicuous subservience to his younger running mate’s hard-right ideology and his dependence on her electioneering energy raise the question of who has the power in this relationship and who is in charge. A strong and independent woman or the older ward who would be bobbing in a golf cart without her? The more voters see that McCain will be the figurehead for a Palin presidency, the more they are likely to demand stepped-up vetting of the rigidly scripted heir apparent.

"Before our eyes,"
he goes on to say, "McCain is turning over the keys to his administration to ideologues and a running mate to Bush’s right."


As I read the article, the word "impotence" came to mind.  I actually looked it up, and found the predominant definition to be, "lacking in power."

My old college Thesaurus, after mentioning such cringe-worthy words as "emasculating" and "castrating," put this word up as the antonym, or complete opposite, of "impotence"--

POWER.

And if this all seems a little dramatic or over the top, let me draw your attention to two powerhouse pieces that also appeared yesterday, one in the New York Times, "Once Elected, Plain Hired Friends and Lashed Out at Foes,"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?ex=1379131200&en=dd4449ce3310ba6e&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg

and the Washington Post, "As Mayor of Wasilla, Palin Cut Own Duties, Left Trail of Bad Blood,"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/13/AR2008091302596.html

Both articles paint a chilling portrait of Dick Cheney in high heels (only a better shot).  But the big difference between Palin and Cheney is not their far-right-wing philosophies, which are the same, but the fact that Palin is so adept at USING CHARM to disarm her opponents.

Nobody likes Voldemort--I mean, Dick Cheney.  But everybody just loooooves that pretty Sarah Palin with the special-needs baby on her hip and shotgun in the other arm.  She moves swiftly to use that charm and beauty to seduce the public into falling in love with her, then, once in power, she moves in for the kill:


"But an examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents 'haters' — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image.

"Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials."  (NY Times)


Both articles detail incidents where even mild complaints resulted in firings, and when public outcry would prevent her from firing who she wanted to, she extracted revenge through budget cuts and other punishing acts.

Once in power, Palin cuts off media access to her administrations and then moves to shroud everything her office does in secrecy, using a trick that should be familiar to all Bush White House-watchers--conducting government business on private e-mail accounts to circumvent subpoenas of public records.

And, like our current president, the lady don't sweat the small stuff.  Rather than steep herself in the important issues facing her government, she relies on a close-knit group of supportive aides to do all the hard work--boiling everything down to soundbite-level arguments that can fit, literally, on index cards--and then memorizes them in time for public appearances or debates.

She also hides from legislators, refusing to take calls, refusing to meet with them, and provoking such frustration that some of them took to wearing "Where's Sarah?" buttons to the State House.

According to the Times:


"The administration’s e-mail correspondence reveals a siege-like atmosphere. Top aides keep score, demean enemies and gloat over successes. Even some who helped engineer her rise have felt her wrath."


And, in another eerie resemblance to our current administration, Palin has a habit of appointing old high school buddies and other loyal friends to imporant and high-paying positions of state, such as one loyal friend who was made secretary of the Dept. of Agriculture in Alaska because, as a child, she had always been fond of cows.

As the Washington Post put it:

"Palin's replacements included a public works director who lacked engineering experience but was married to a top aide to a former Republican governor, and she made a former state GOP lawyer city attorney, according to the Daily News. Langill, the former councilwoman, said the new hires fit Palin's management style.

"'Sarah always did and still does surround herself with people she gets along well with,' she said. 'They protect her, and that's what she needs. She has surrounded herself with people who would not allow others to disagree with Sarah. Either you were in favor of everything Sarah was doing or had a black mark by your name.'"


To think that Sarah Palin was a giggly schoolgirl caught completely off-guard by a phone call from John McCain putting her in the running for VP is to completely underestimate this woman of towering ambition and powerful political skills.  You can bet that, from their first meeting, she was seducing him, saying exactly what she thought he wanted to hear, stroking his ego, preparing him to need her.

Now that he has taken her into his political bed, she has snuck in under cover of darkness, sliced off his manhood, and raced off to throw it out the window, positioning herself for the Oval Office, if not soon after he's elected and succumbs to heart disease or melanoma or whatever else is likely to shorten his life, then in 2012.

Sarah Palin is now the power of the Republican ticket.

And while I and most of my progressive buddies were in panic-mode over the Bobbittizing of John McCain, my alpha-male husband was sitting quietly, saying, "Just wait."

Even if John McCain does not see what has happened to him, you can bet his wife is figuring it out.

And she's not going to stand for a colonel's house, so to speak, when she's got the White House in mind.

In Frank Rich's op-ed, he seems to make the case that the Obama campaign needs to take the Palin threat more seriously.

I think they have--but not in the way he thinks they should.

By turning the focus--and the hot spotlight--off of Sarah Palin and on to John McCain, Obama is doing two things at once: 

First, he's reminding America that it is, after all, John McCain who is this year's Republican candidate for president, and therefore, his opponent...

And second, by focusing on McCain, Obama is, in effect, pointing out what a weak and powerless candidate McCain really is.

Once McCain realizes what happened to him while he was sleeping, he will move to push Palin to the back of the room, because his ego won't tolerate such a loss of power.

But it will, by then, be too late.

As far as Palin is concerned, my Political Advisor husband does not anticipate a big future for her in national politics.  He thinks she's gone too far, too fast, and that her star will fade along with McCain's, especially when most of the thinking public realizes how shallow her depth of knowledge really is.

I hope he's right.

In the meantime, keep watching, but with a discerning eye. 

Things may not always be what they seem.


*This is my latest HuffingtonPost.com effort.  If you'd like to see as many people as possible read it, go ahead and click onto this link, even though you've read it, because they count the hits when deciding how long to leave up a post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deanie-mills/john-mccains-lorena-bobbi_b_126568.html

And at TPM Cafe, a recommendation will keep it up longer:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/deanie-mills/

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments

    • 9/16/2008 4:05 PM stillidealistic wrote:
      Another great post...We came to the same conclusion a few days ago...

      The good news is, he needs for them to campaign together, which cuts the # of appearances in 1/2...funny, the media doesn't seem to be picking up on WHY they are together...Even Chris Matthews thinks they are campaigning as a cute couple, which he thinks is a good thing, rather than seeing it for what it really is...a cover for his inadequacy.
      Reply to this
      1. 9/16/2008 4:23 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
        Well said, stillidealistic!
        Reply to this
    • 9/16/2008 5:15 PM Linda wrote:
      Molly Ivins lives on!

      I read the Wolf's Paw post when I start to feel depressed. You are a good writer.

      Why are women flocking to her? Why aren't all voters concerned that every word from her mouth is scripted? And the sole Cliff Notes interview with ABC. Yikes.

      Obama asks "do they think you're stupid?"

      I fear that Americans really are "stupid" and definitely racist.

      I subcribed to your blog. You really rock!
      Reply to this
      1. 9/16/2008 7:21 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
        WOW!  Thanks!

        Sometimes I worry about the same things you mentioned, but I think it's early yet.  Give it time for the bloom to fade from the rose.  I think the only women still ga-ga for her will be conservatives who will worship her no matter what.

        Thinking women will figure out that they've been conned.

        There are plenty of stupid and racist Americans, but I think the times, they are a changin'.  People are better informed these days, due to cable and the Internet.  And the racist thing is more generational, I think.  And that goes for hellfire and brimstone black preachers prejudiced against whites, too.  Younger people, from 40 on down, are much less likely to be bothered by racism or prejudice against gays or whoever.  More of them come from blended families like Obama's; more of them date different races and marry into them.

        I've always believed this is a generational election.  Boomers are hanging on to power with their cold, dead hands, so to speak, but the old-guard Democrats who backed Hillary had to give way to the new generation, and I believe the old-guard conservative Republicans will have to back down and listen more to the moderates after this election.  If they don't...well, fine.  That just means Dems will be in power longer, and have more time to undo the terrible damage done to this nation under Rep rule.
        Reply to this
    • 9/16/2008 5:48 PM Linda wrote:
      I commented on the Wolf's Paw post on Huff that I see him as The Manchurian Candidate of the far right.

      Some of the comments from the Obama Campaign have led me to believe that they see that also.

      Consider: "hang wringing and bed wetting", "you've seen this movie before" and the "original movie is always better than the sequel".

      You included "hand wringing" in your post also. Am I reading this all wrong?
      Reply to this
      1. 9/16/2008 7:30 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
        What they meant by "hand-wringing and bed-wetting," which was, I believe, a quote from David Plouffe, was that the Democrats just panic over every little thing.  Far from drinking Kool-Aid like the Republicans, who support their guy and their gal no matter HOW outrageous, twisting themselves into pretzels to double-back on their own positions in order to do so, repeating talking-points like some kind of mantra...Democrats do just the opposite--they form a sort of circular firing-squad and attack their own people.  (This is especially true when a Dem is a die-hard Hillary supporter who resents that she not only didn't get the nomination but wasn't chosen for VP.)  So they'll come out and just savage the Obama campaign over every little blip on the radar.

        Plouffe says, Hey, guys, CALM DOWN.  We have a plan.  We've had a strategy in place for months.  We heard the same kind of thing when we went up against Hillary, but we stuck to the plan and we won.  We are going to do so again.  Just give it some time.

        Plouffe says they'd always intended, from the beginning, to come on much stronger against McCain after 9-11, when the conventions were over, VP's in place, and so on.

        The tactic of using Hillary--not in a catfight with Palin but on-message--has been worked out mutually by both her people and Obama's.   And Joe Biden has also sharpened his attacks.

        They're asking us to trust them, and to stop attacking them, and to instead, launch our missiles at the REAL opponent:  JOHN McCAIN!
        Reply to this
        1. 9/17/2008 5:45 AM Linda wrote:
          Good Morning,
          You are obviously keeping a clear head. Me not so much!

          I am not a conspiracy theorist. That said, David Plouffe did make the "hand wringing" remark. I still find it odd. People hyperventilate when they are nervous. They do not bed wet. Why not "hand wringing and hyperventilating"? His statement called to mind the famous McCain visual in the bed wringing his hands. Nuf' said. I'll drop it!

          Carly Fiorina = under the bus!
          Reply to this
          1. 9/17/2008 10:16 AM Deanie Mills wrote:
            Oh, he was just being flip.

            When I was a little girl, I had a bed-wetting problem, and it was a source of deep humiliation and a feeling of helplessness to me.  And even I didn't find his remarks offensive.

            I knew what he meant.  At the time he made the remark, there was a current of hysteria running through the Democratic blogosphere, op-eds, and even some commentators.  Everybody was all full of advice on what Obama should be doing and what he wasn't doing and how we were going to lose if he didn't do what they thought he should do!!!  And everybody thought he should do something different!!!

            So Plouffe just made that remark as a joke, as a way of calming people down.  It didn't bother me; I thought it was funny.

            We all gotta lighten up a little sometimes, dontcha think?
            Reply to this
    • 9/17/2008 10:47 AM stillidealistic wrote:
      Back in the day when I was a conservative Republican we called you guys Commie, pinko, bed-wetters...the term has been around forever.
      Reply to this
      1. 9/17/2008 11:23 AM Deanie Mills wrote:
        lol!  Really?

        I told my moderate-Republican husband once that, if it weren't for bleeding-heart liberals there wouldn't BE any Doctors Without Borders, or people working to clean up land mines, or AIDS/tuberculosis clinics in Africa, or inner-city mentor/tutor programs, or Nature Conservancy and wildlife protection groups...You name it.  They can make fun of us for caring too much but without us, it would be a cold world indeed.

        In fact, it was a bleeding-heart liberal who created things we take for granted now, like social security and Medicaid, and a bleeding-heart liberal who gave us the Civil Rights Act.

        Both of them them were fought against, viciously, by conservative Republicans.

        I think most folks fall pretty much in the middle and swing a bit to either side depending upon the issue.  I think there's room for strong defense without war-mongering, and room for health care for everyone without a huge government bureaucracy, and regulation to protect our kids' toys and Wall Street without socialism.

        Everybody just needs to calm down and search for solutions in the middle, and that is why I am such a strong supporter of Barack Obama.
        Reply to this
        1. 9/17/2008 11:32 AM Linda wrote:
          I also comment on Huff as LovesMaine. Just FYI

          I just volunteered at the local Obama phone bank on Tuesday mornings. Deep breath... I feel better.
          Reply to this
          1. 9/17/2008 6:29 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
            WAY TO DEAL WITH STRESS!!

            I highly recommend it.  VOLUNTEER FOR OBAMA!!!

            I love Maine, too, BTW.  Never been there, but love it.  Back in my 20's, when I was new to West Texas and hadn't learned to appreaciate its rugged beauty (I'd gone to college in the Deep East Piney Woods of Texas and was used to following trails through the pines to get to class)--I discovered an author, Elizabeth Ogilvie, who set all her books on the Maine coast, usually on an island.

            I absolutely LOVED her descriptions of that beautiful state.  I loved her books, even though they were dated--even by 70's standards--but I still loved them.  I read every one of her books I could find.  And it made an indelible impression on me.  I'd love to visit someday.
            Reply to this
            1. 9/19/2008 2:56 PM Linda wrote:
              I was born and raised in Maine. I live in upstate NY now. My sister still lives on the Maine coast and she has all of Elizabeth Ogilvie's books.

              Small world!
              Reply to this
              1. 9/19/2008 3:40 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
                It is a small world, isn't it?  Cool.  Tell your sister a Texan loves Ogilvie too!
                Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Name (required)

     Email (will not be published) (required)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.