|
In some faraway day, books will be written about the Allen-Webb campaign. None of them will consider it the zenith of American democracy.
Seven days ago, Allen was accused (and that is the proper word for it given the tone and demeanor) of having Jewish blood coursing through his veins by a reporter during a televised debate. Fairly or not, the way Webb’s blogging surrogates pounced on the story suggested at the very least an unseemly eagerness on their part to make an issue of this. More suspicious minds suspected the whole thing was a smear job coming from the Webb campaign.
In retrospect, it’s no surprise that Allen handled the plucky reporter’s accusation with the same lack of panache that distinguished his maladroit efforts to defuse August’s macaca-gate. While I thought his personal rage at the question was justified, and his initial fumbling of it forgivable, his subsequent assurances that his mother made a great pork chop and that he loved a good ham and cheese sandwich were strange at best, obnoxious at worst. (A few emailers actually thought the preceding Allen quip was funny; safe to say they’re a distinct minority.)
But I didn’t think that it really mattered to Allen’s re-election hopes, and I still think it matters only tangentially. After the Meet the Press debacle, I thought Allen was in trouble. I thought the tone-deaf reporter and Webb’s eager blogging abettors tossed Allen a life line.
Americans’ don’t expect their politics to be beanbag. We don’t mind a certain rough style. But you leave the opponent’s family alone. Even though this “issue” might be an interesting subject for inquiry, especially for future biographers, it’s one that most voters will consider out of bounds.
Webb’s entire campaign is based on the heroic attributes he possesses as a man; it is truly baffling how the people running the show at Webb HQ could be so blind to the damage they do to this narrative by running a gutter campaign similar to John Quincy Adams’ campaign to convince America that Andrew Jackson’s wife was a bigamist.
THERE IS ACTUALLY AN EXPLANATION as to how both campaigns have been so inept. In the era of the blogosphere, a politician never has to look too far to find an analyst who will tell him every engagement was a victory, every tactic a stroke of genius. Yesterday Bill Clinton went on Fox News and made a fool of himself. But if he wishes to believe to the contrary, the Kos Kidz will help him out.
Both the Allen and the Webb campaigns have suffered from an undue amount of credulity where their respective sycophants are concerned. Allen was being told that the “macaca” comment would blow over. Even at this late date, a month after the incident, the Allen campaign is sticking with the excuse that Allen just made up some silly-sounding word.
If that happens to be the truth (giggle), someone should have still have had the stones to tell the Senator, “Boss, that won’t fly. We’ll have to think of something else.” An unconditional apology, sort of like the one Mel Gibson gave in the days after his outburst, would have been nice. Alas, the Allen HQ decided to go in a different direction.
As for the Webb campaign, Lord only knows what Webb’s advisors are whispering in their candidate’s ear. If anyone there thinks that focusing on Allen’s forebears is a dangerous strategy, I see no evidence betraying such astuteness. Even though I’m an extremely partisan Republican, I find the Webb campaign to be especially disappointing. Webb is a great man, a bona fide hero with guts. And yet the campaign that bears his name has opted for tactics that are consistently scurrilous and cowardly.
THE LATEST SCANDAL REVOLVES around a Salon.com exposé that Allen used the n-word while in college. To me, this smacks of a smear job. The principal witness is a former football teammate of the Senator’s who later became a political opponent.
But you know what? I really don’t have the energy to delve into whether or not George Allen said the n-word 35 years ago or shoved a deer’s head into a mailbox back then. Jon Henke’s rebuttal over at the Allen site seems to my eyes more persuasive than the Salon story but again, I just can’t find the resolve to enter this one. My race was baited last week; I’m still working through that one. (Maybe we could just compromise and say he used the word “Shvartze” back in college?)
The fact that this story is being discussed is bad news for both candidates. Allen’s racial attitudes have become and remain an issue thanks to his own ongoing clumsiness and dubious past associations. The Webb campaign engages in or tacitly endorses gutter politics of the lowest kind. Neither candidate wins this news cycle. Of course, Allen’s cumulative conduct is creating the impression that he has issues regarding race, and if that impression is allowed to further harden his national ambitions are over (which they probably already are, anyway), and he’s quite likely toast in Virginia in November.
If there’s any room for candor in the Allen campaign, some intrepid insider might suggest it would help to actually get ahead of a news cycle. You know, just for a change of pace. His campaign and his career have big problems - it’s time for a “Checkers” speech.
But hey, no reason to listen to that guy. There are surely a bunch of others sitting around HQ patting themselves on the back for another rapid response masterpiece.
And why pay any heed to those negative nay-sayers, anyway?
Compliments? Complaints? Email me at Soxlog@aol.com
|