Omaha, NE; Thursday, July 21, 2011. Traveling through America’s plain’s states, there is much to be learned about the distressing changes in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Some of it is reflective of the country-wide transition to the right; part is unique to America’s heartland, and part is just plain comical.

One of my first political memories is my father adorning me with “I like Ike” buttons. As a five-year-old, I applied all of my political acumen to advancing the presidential aspirations of Kansas’ favorite son. I was so successful at it that I did it again in 1956 and now was 2-0 in presidential races.

Nearly 60 years after my first campaign, I find that Dwight Eisenhower holds a fascination among some of our youngest and most politically active citizens. His reputation as an honest, fair-minded individual has survived and to many he has become a legend. He directed American forces in Normandy, France on D-Day. He adroitly lead America through an endless series of tricky challenges during the Cold War.

Friends who are 40 years my junior seem to know of Ike and some are even fascinated with him. Why they cotton to Eisenhower and not John Kennedy is a surprise to me. Maybe Ike just seemed more earthy and genuine. The fact that Ike’s wife, Mamie, almost defined the term, “wallflower” made her a sharp foil to Jacqueline Kennedy and Camelot. This may have strengthened Eisenhower’s reputation as a man of the people. Couple this with the fact that he could have had the nomination of either major party in 1952 and it is clear that his popularity was wide and deep in America. Curiously, the only potential candidate since Ike’s time who conceivably could have been the nominee of either party was also a retired general, Colin Powell.

While we’re speaking of elderly Kansas politicians who seem to have a magical appeal to citizens fifty years his junior, let’s not forget Bob Dole. His name sounds so mellifluous as it rolls off our lips. Dole was one of four candidates for president and vice-president from 1988-1996 who had both one syllable first and last names: Bob Dole, Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle, and Al Gore. America was in a hurry and who had time for a polysyllabic name? I guess the supporters of Bill Clinton.

What truly has endeared Dole to people of all generations is his obsession with referring to himself in the third-person singular. “Bob Dole will always support our veterans.” “Bob Dole knows the levers to push to make Congress work.” “Bob Dole will not be bullied by any foreign power.”

Dole became a warm fuzzy to many even though his policies did not always reflect that. He seemed reasonable and affable 95 percent of the time. In the remaining 5 percent, his acerbic wit was entertaining as well as seemingly nasty. Bob Dole may have been contagious. If I’m not mistaken, John McCain often used the third-person when he was in a maverick stage, and then devolved to the first person when pandering to the right wing.

I truly long for the days of Eisenhower and Dole, and I imagine that many Kansans do too. Something happened to Kansas later, and it was chronicled by Thomas Frank in his 2005 book, What’s the Matter with Kansas? Its political leaders seem to have the conservative flair for nastiness, and unlike Bob Dole, they are very humor impaired. Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, and others. Indeed something happened to Kansas, and Thomas Frank would argue that the whole country has become more bitter and unable to define its economic needs.

Nebraska has brought a variety of interesting politicians. My favorite is former St. Louis Cardinal pitcher Bob Gibson, but then again he never ran for president, or anything else political. But Democrat Bob Kerrey successfully ran for governor and senator and unsuccessfully for president. He was a Vietnam veteran who opposed most subsequent wars. He was compassionate but also had a sharp mathematical mind that helped him fashion Social Security reforms that,unfortunately, were not adopted. He may have been the only Midwestern governor who successfully cajoled a Hollywood starlet, Deborah Winger, to shack up with him in the governor’s mansion.

There was a time when Senator Roman Hruska was considered the bane of Nebraska. When Richard Nixon nominated Harrold Carswell of Florida, a rather ordinary man, to sit on the Supreme Court, Hruska said, “”Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance?”

Hruska was mocked at the time, and it was among the reasons that the voters of Nebraska soon had had enough of him. But maybe he was onto something. Perhaps we could use a few mediocre Supreme Court justices. Here’s a proposed trade: Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia for four mediocre judges to be named later. It could be one of the greatest transactions for human rights in U.S. history.

Comedian Johnny Carson was also from Nebraska. He truly bridged eras for stand-up comedians. Unlike Bob Hope or George Burns, he could have Dr. Martin Luther King or Senator Robert Kennedy as guests on his program and carry on an enlightening conversation. Jon Stewart could learn from Carson that if you have a strong guest, give him or her ample time to speak.

The political landscape in Nebraska seems to have sunk below mediocre. One Senator, Ben Nelson, is a Democrat who is best known for creating his “Cornhusker Kickback,” in which Nebraska would get a one-of-a-kind Medicaid reimbursement in return for his support of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. His Republican colleague in the Senate focuses on balancing the budget, without much concern for who pays the price for spending cuts.

The so-called values of fairness and self-reliance seem to be very prevalent in the Plains States. However, as Thomas Frank suggests  these fine Midwesterners seem to put aside the economic needs when they enter the voting booth and succumb to the politics of distraction that conservatives have heaped upon them. Ah, for the days of Ike and even Bob Dole.

The post Curious history of politicians in Plains states appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In one of the most accurate of sweeping political generalizations, Democrats have been calling Republicans “the party of no.”  It was only a matter of time until the Republicans turned the tables with questionable logic.  Whether the response of the GOP is unique to Republicans or politics of any party, the GOP chose to take something true and convert it into a falsehood.  That will work when all or part of the citizenry are either ill-informed or not paying attention.

First Newt Gingrich said that Republicans are the “party of yes.”  Technically, this statement might be true if applied to any of the following actions. Republicans are the party of yes when it comes to:

• Protecting wealthy people from paying their fair share of taxes.
• Running huge deficits as a result of ill-advised tax cuts.
• “Starving the beast;” i.e. ensuring that worthwhile programs cannot be funded because of large budget deficits.
• Using wedge issues to distract people from essential economic, environmental and energy issues.

Yes they can; the Republicans can turn no into yes and say it without batting an eyelid.  Now former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum has taken this form of “new speak,”  a step further by calling the Democrats the “party of no.”  Unlike Gingrich’s semantic games, Frum’s words go beyond “up is down and down is up.”  In essence he says that judgment on an issue doesn’t matter.

In a column on the CNN website, Frum says:

Party of no? When it comes to Supreme Court nominations, the GOP is a flock of baby lambs compared with their opposites on the Democratic side.

His assertion is that Democrats are much more effective at rejecting Supreme Court nominees offered by Republican presidents.  And on the face of it, he’s right.  The last Supreme Court justice nominated by a Democratic president to be rejected was in the 19^th century.  Two of President Grover Cleveland’s nominees failed to receive Senate confirmation in 1894.  This means that we have had a streak of eight straight Democratic presidents (Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson[1], Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) whose nominees for the Supreme Court have been confirmed by the Senate.

Frum states:

The past two Democratic presidents have named three justices between them: Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. All glided painlessly to confirmation.

Compare that with the mayhem inflicted on Republican choices. Two of President Nixon’s nominees were rejected by the Senate. Ditto for one of Ronald Reagan’s choices (another withdrew shortly after he was nominated). One of President George H.W. Bush’s choices, Clarence Thomas, was confirmed after a fight that still ranks as perhaps the most vicious in confirmation history.

When Frum says that the Democrats are “the party of no” with regard to Supreme Court nominees from Republican presidents, he seems to be forgetting something; the qualifications of the nominee to serve on the Supreme Court.

Among the Supreme Court justices nominated by the eight Democratic presidents listed above are Louis Brandeis (Wilson), Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, and

Robert H. Jackson (Roosevelt), Tom Clark (Truman), Byron White and Arthur Goldberg (Kennedy), Thurgood Marshall (Johnson), Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer (Clinton) and Sonia Sotomayor (Obama).  Jimmy Carter did not have an opportunity to nominate a justice to the Supreme Court.

Let’s give credit where credit is due.  In the 1950s, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed three outstanding justices to the court: Earl Warren, John Marshall Harlan, and William J. Brennan.  George H.W. Bush also gave us David Souter.

Is Frum upset that the Senate rejected Clement Haynsworth, who was  nominated by Richard Nixon?  As a federal judge, Haynsworth  had repeatedly ruled in favor of laws enforcing segregation, and he was reflexively anti-labor.  He also  ruled in cases where he had apparent financial interests.

Nixon then nominated Harold Carswell, who supported racial segregation during his unsuccessful election bid in 1948.  His nomination was doomed by a “with friends like this, who needs enemies?” remark.  Republican Senator Roman Hruska from Nebraska stated, “Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance?”  Carswell’s nomination was defeated 51 to 45.

At the risk of generalizing, many Republicans seem to have blind spots when it comes to  assessing certain individuals’ lack of intellectual gravitas to hold high office.  In less than twenty years, their national tickets have included Dan Quayle, George H.W. Bush, and Sarah Palin.  It may be the Republicans who are smart,  because among the three of them, they have been victorious in three of the five elections in which they have run.  Intelligence and wisdom may not be important factors to Americans as they assess leaders.  If so, Frum’s criticism may convince some that the Democrats are the “party of no.”  And if that argument holds, the starting point for educating the American people is teaching that up really is up and down really is down.

[1] In 1968, Johnson nominated associate justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as chief justice.  Because of some of Fortas’s extrajudicial activities, Johnson withdrew his nomination for chief justice, but Fortas remained on the bench as an associate justice.

The post Who’s calling whom the party of no? appeared first on Occasional Planet.