Terry McMahon's Awesome Blog

I've been saying "Happy Holidays" for weeks now, doing my part as a foot soldier in the all-important "War on Christmas." My arch-conservative readers must be furrowing their brows, wondering: how could someone who's been wishing people only happy holidays like some member of al-Qaeda now be wishing a Merry Christmas? It's all so confusing.

Here's a hint: It's Christmas! I hope everyone reading this, and even everyone not reading this, has a happy Christmas. If you're not Christian, that's okay, you can have a happy December 25th as you contemplate your future in the fiery pits of places you don't believe exist. I would offer happier tidings, but all the holiday cheer and this wonderful french toast casserole (!) confection that Peter made has forced me to expound all my good feelings already. Good times!

Now, here's the thing about "Happy Holidays," and why we've started this massive imaginary War on Christmas: "Happy Holidays" is the perfect thing to say during the Christmas season. Let me count the ways:

1. Most days during Christmas season, it's not Christmas. Christmas Eve, absolutely. Christmas Day, you'd be crazy to say anything else. But if you think I'm going to be wishing people a Merry Christmas on December 6th and November 27th, you got another thing coming, buddy.
   
2. I like to wish people "Happy Holidays" because I want them to have happy times during the holidays. I know this is going to be another calculus problem here, but a reference to "holidays" doesn't always amount to a rejection of Christianity. Sometimes I just hope that people have an enjoyable season that starts at Thanksgiving and continues through New Year's, with either Christmas or Hanukkah or Kwanzaa or whatever.
   
3. Some dipshits actually go and not be Christian. And since a lot of them celebrate holidays during this season anyway, "Happy Holidays" covers them too. "I like to include people" is just another of the hard-hitting truths you get here at Terry McMahon's Awesome Blog.

So to everyone: Merry Christmas!

Posted by Terry McMahon at 2:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I know, I know, I'm busy failing out of law school. But this is great.

“None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a former judge and close ally of the president who sits on the Judiciary Committee.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who has led a bipartisan filibuster against a reauthorization of the Patriot Act, quoted Patrick Henry, an icon of the American Revolution, in response: “Give me liberty or give me death.”

He called Cornyn’s comments “a retreat from who we are and who we should be.”

Until then, go 12(b)(6)!

Posted by Terry McMahon at 5:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I don't know if the anxiety of law school finals is making me imagine things, or it's making this actually happen, or if this is just happening naturally, but I was looking in the mirror and I'm pretty sure. It's happening.

I now have a great suggestion for anyone looking to get me a Christmas present.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 3:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

So there's a Democratic commission considering whether or not to redo the presidential primary process. In other words, people from other states are claiming a) it's unfair the same two states always get to go first, and b) there should be more diversity in the states that get to go early. The counter-argument is that Iowa and especially New Hampshire have been doing this for so long that their residents are really good at judging candidates, tossing out the frontrunners and making the prospective candidates answer hard questions instead of run TV ads. Also, the diverse states are usually big, and to win in small states you have to do person-to-person campaigning, which, they say, is how it should be.

These are fair points on both sides. My personal perspective is, as usual, that the two sides are talking past each other, and pretty much all of what they say is true. So we've got three situations here: what the New Hampshire primary protectionists want to do, what the primary progressives want to do, and what I want to do. Guess which one is best? More than which state goes first, my problem is with the frontloading of the primary process. Longtime observers will note that seriously contested primaries often continued until June of the election year, and those with shorter memories may recall that the 2004 Democratic nomination was probably decided on February 3rd and definitely by February 10th. For a November general election, that's pretty early. The argument in favor of frontloading is that an early nomination gives the party activists time to get going on the general election, but I honestly don't see it. I mean, the other party has just as much time to work against your nominee, right?

I believe stretching out the primary season is a much better idea. First off, no matter what there's going to be a segment of the campaign dedicated to the idea of a frontrunner and whether anyone can knock that frontrunner off. The question is whether it's going to take place the year before the primary (as it did the last time around, when the frontrunner was Howard Dean) or whether it's going to take place during the primary. Put another way, do you want the power to judge candidates going to the media and political establishment, or do you want it going to the voters? I'm not just being altruistic here; these guys have got to have the skills to win over voters if they're going to be any good in November.

So what's my solution? First, let's address when we want the primary resolved? I say late June, but my point here more broadly is that with a nominating convention in late July or August, we can afford to have the primary season extend several months past February. We could start the primary season with the Iowa caucuses in March, the New Hampshire primary two weeks later. Still with me? Then we can go with another small-state primary two weeks after that; I say Rhode Island for the sake of argument (and that it's small enough for personal campaigning, has mostly Democrats, and has an ethnically diverse population), though you could go with any number of other choices.* Then you can go with another small-state primary two weeks after that, like, say, New Mexico, which is still small, home to a lot of Hispanics, and a swing state to boot. (And lest we worry that there aren't enough small states to get the coveted after-NH positions, other states with as many or fewer congressional districts as Iowa include Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont, Maine, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Oklahoma, and Mississippi, off the top of my head.) Once we've covered small-state and diverse primaries, then we can acknowledge the reality that we can't do 50 primaries every two weeks and still have time for an actual general election. I like the suggestion that we should go with regional primaries; I'd say four regions, each primary two weeks after the other. Every four years, the order of each region can vary, so every 16 years, say, the South will count as Super Tuesday, then four years after that it's the western states. Sound good?

First off, I should say my idea is a markedly improved version of the idea espoused by Salon Washington bureau chief Walter Shapiro, so, blame him. This is a massively complicated process, with lots of people wanting pieces of the pie, so it's understandable that, while we should usually absolutely take my ideas and implement them without question, the primary schedule is open for debate. But why can't we resolve the Iowa & NH vs. everyone else problem by spreading out the primary season with single-shot primaries in a few diverse states after the first two states, and then go by region? The small-state, person-to-person tradition is worth keeping: not because it's tradition, but because it's the best idea, for the party and the presidency.

* Seriously, would anyone oppose a Hawaii primary right after spending winter in New Hampshire?

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I got a letter published in the Louisville Courier-Journal a while ago. When I lived out there last year, letter-to-the-editor links were never permanent, but this one seems to be.

In any event, here's the full text. The title is not mine, the rest is.

Scared off challengers

I noted with interest David Hawpe's column concerning the likelihood that U.S. Rep. Anne Northup will "get a pass this next election." Hawpe cites several of Northup's less popular positions -- such as support for the ill-advised war in Iraq, tax cuts for the rich, and privatizing Social Security -- suggesting that these stands could become a campaign liability.

But Northup held all of those positions during the last campaign, too, with not a peep from Hawpe during the 2004 campaign season. Hawpe casually dismisses Tony Miller, Northup's 2004 opponent, implying without backup that Miller failed to demonstrate the "courage, conviction and commitment" that Hawpe longs for in a Democratic candidate.

Perhaps if certain prominent progressive Louisvillians had better promoted the Democratic cause in 2004, Northup's margin would not have sufficed to scare off potential challengers for 2006. Northup owes Hawpe a debt of gratitude.

TERRY McMAHON
2004 Press Secretary
Tony Miller for Congress
New York, N.Y. 10012

Oh, snap. He really deserves this too. In 2002, Jack Conway ran for Congress against Anne Northup. (For the record, he almost won, and if Bush hadn't announced the then-popular Iraq war at an event in Louisville for Northup, he probably would have. He also would have won if Northup hadn't implied he's a pedophile, but that's neither here nor there.) David Hawpe, the preeminent progressive commentator for Louisville's only major newspaper, wrote a ton of columns supporting Conway and, more often, disparaging Northup. In 2004, on the other hand, not so much. I arrived in Louisville at the end of April, and he never wrote a positive column about Tony Miller or a negative column about Anne Northup while I was there. I believe he stopped in January. (Fortunately, the paper did write unfair editorials holding Tony to an impossible standard and Anne to no standard. I only wish that were neither here nor there.)

On the one hand, Tony Miller lacked some skills as a candidate, he, alas, did not have a very good press secretary, and I suspect a lot of the Louisville Democratic establishment had it in for him. On the other hand, the issues involved (i.e., the ones Hawpe cites himself that I quote in the letter) are important enough that a less petty progressive might suck it up and help out Tony regardless. I remember one volunteer on our campaign who once told me she didn't really agree with Tony on everything, but she agreed with him on a lot, and he was so much better than Northup it wasn't funny. She was awesome.

In general, cutting off your nose to spite your face will naturally progress towards missing your nose. To wit, the Louisville Democratic establishment abandoned Tony, and then Tony lost by so much that Northup appears unbeatable. If the 2004 race had been decided by four or five points again, plenty of challengers would be eager to enter a race against Northup in what appears a much more favorable campaign year. But now that Tony lost 60-38, it's not as easy for a Democrat to claim s/he has a realistic shot at winning. In other words, if David Hawpe had written three or four columns (he writes two or three a week) to help us out during the 2004 season, he might have avoided not having a candidate now. You get what you pay for.

This is why I'm not that upset that Jack Conway has to skip the race. Conway was a terrific candidate and will be in the future, but throughout 2004, I always had the impression that he wanted us to lose, so he could run again in 2006. He refused, for example, to speak at events immediately before or after Tony, he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do fundraising for us, and he wouldn't do campaign ads for us. I wrote a blog entry a long time ago that alluded to a future post that would excoriate the guy blocked by this photo. That guy was Conway, then the Kerry-Edwards state chair, who everyone expected would challenge Northup in 2006. As the plan went, I would write a quick endorsement post, explaining both why he's a jerk and why we should support him anyway. Now Tony Miller lost by a far greater margin than anyone ever had to Northup before, and Conway's got too high a hill to climb. Tough deal. Wonder if there's anything he could have done?

As long as I'm disparaging prominent Louisville Democrats, the third person my letter alludes to when I say "certain prominent progressive Louisvillians" is Mayor Jerry Abramson. Abramson was mayor for about 12 years before being term-limited in the late 1990s, but when Louisville merged with the surrounding counties earlier this decade, he became eligible again. Now, thanks to his approval ratings in the mid-80s, he's presumably mayor until 2014. You can see where he gets the nickname "Mayor for Life." He's a Democrat.

Abramson supported Jack Conway heavily in his 2002 race against Northup. His support for Tony Miller, however, was mixed. He did not donate to Tony personally, but his campaign committee did put in $1000. Since Abramson never has to contest his elections, apparently that campaign fund only had one fundraiser, ever. So, you could argue that, instead of Jerry Abramson, the guy who was actually supporting Tony was whoever hosted the event and convinced the donors to give. And yes, that guy was Tony Miller. At least, that's what I heard. Thanks, mayor!

But no, Jerry Abramson supported Tony. He said so! The Tuesday before the election, Tony had a fundraiser in downtown Louisville with U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer, the House Minority Whip. Given the presence of prominent campaign donors and Washington Democrats, looks like the mayor couldn't resist, and he came on in to make everyone stand up when he entered. He told the assembled guests that it was crucial that we elected Tony to Congress, and he asked that we all support Tony as strongly as he was. (To his credit, he didn't add that supporting Tony as strongly as he was would be not at all.) I was already pissed at the hypocrisy, but, fortunately, it would only get worse.

One of Northup's perpetual campaign gimmicks is that she's so awesome at bringing federal money back to Louisville. Yes, this is pork. She sits on Appropriations, with only about 35 other members of Congress ahead of her in seniority, and she does an average job of bringing money back for local works projects. She is, however, a fantastic self-promoter, and when another one of these federal-money announcements came down the pike towards the end of the campaign, she insisted that the two officials who had worked hardest for this money get together to announce it jointly. That's right: Anne Northup and Democratic Mayor Jerry Abramson.

Those of us on Team Tony submitted to the mayor and his staff that he could decline to appear in public with our opponent the last week of the campaign, lest it appear that the mayor actually supported her. We never got a satisfactory answer, for reasons that will soon become clear. So it happened, and Northup and Abramson held a joint event to compliment each other, and the assembled press asked only about whether this means the mayor actually supports Northup instead of his fellow Democrat Tony Miller. Abramson said he supported Tony but there were two great candidates in the race. Northup said that she and Abramson got along great together, and the fact that he was standing there with her said something. Abramson didn't respond.

There were other classic moments in the history of Jerry Abramson trying to distance himself from Tony Miller, but we didn't know the extent of it until after the election, when the son of a bitch told Newsweek that he voted for Northup.

In conclusion, what a dick. Now you guys are stuck with Northup through at least 2008, because you refused to help Tony when you didn't feel like it and couldn't see how it helped you. Now you're stuck, and it's your own damn fault.

Posted by Terry McMahon at 9:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)