The diva and the drama
The Republicans can't even run a fundraising dinner
The diva and the drama
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Many of you are probably familiar with the vicissitudes of family politics. Say, for instance, that you're planning a wedding; it quickly becomes clear that the rehearsal dinner has the potential to be a disaster. You'd like to invite sweet Uncle Joe, but if you do, that means you've also gotta invite his whacky sister Sadie, yet if you do that, you've got to dis-invite the nutcase cousin who has been feuding with Joe and Sadie since the Jimmy Carter administration. The nutcase cousin wants to give a toast, but he never knows when to sit down, yet if you stiff him on the toast, his father - the brother of the groom's dad - will probably storm out of the room. That kind of thing.
Actually, that sounds a bit like the big Republican fundraising dinner that was held last night in Washington. You have to wonder: How can these people presume to run a nation again, when they can't even put together a "party unity" dinner without the whole process devolving into farce?
Fund-raising dinners are what political parties are supposed to do. You hire a hall. You pick a date. You line up a keynote speaker. You send out a press release about the keynote speaker. You invite the big money donors. You hold the event. The speaker speaks. You count the money. End of non-story.
But that's not how the GOP does business in 2009. Granted, we might argue that a dinner is just a dinner, so whatever happens is no big deal. But the awkward melodramatics surrounding this particular dinner - the congressional wing's top money-raising event of the year - actually provide us with a window into the party's general dysfunction at this point in time.
This tale begins and ends with Sarah Palin. Naturally. Because this is also a tale about what happens when a leaderless party tethers itself to a diva with baggage.
Back in the early spring, Pete Sessions, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee (which is tasked with mapping the 2010 House races) invited Palin to deliver the keynote speech. As arguably the party's sole celebrity, Palin would surely maximize donor turnout. So went the thinking. And the NRCC people were thrilled to learn that she had accepted the invitation (or so they thought) - so thrilled, in fact, that they wrote up a press release announcing that Palin would indeed be the headliner, and sent it out to folks like me.
The problem was, Palin never actually communicated a definitive yes - in part because her staff back in Alaska is rarely in sync with her political action committee in Virginia. Which is a nice way of saying that, in terms of communications skills, Team Sarah operates with a cup and a string. Various stories about her semi-acceptance started to circulate: that she was hesitating for fear of being overexposed; that she didn't want to leave Alaska when the legislature was in session; that, as a self-styled outsider, she didn't want to be too closely identified with the GOP's insider wing on Capitol Hill.
So the insider wing waited. And waited. Still, no clarity from Alaska. And that began to rile the party's Washingtonians - many of whom have long believed (rightfully) that she was a drag on the '08 ticket, and that her alleged babeliciousness can't mask the fact that (a) she has nothing original to say about anything, and (b) much of what she does say is, as always, borderline incoherent. (Indeed, as one unnamed red-state Republican senator dished yesterday to a Capitol Hill newspaper, "She has to hunker down and govern and show she’s not a joke.")
Anyway, the insider wing finally gave up on her this spring and extended the keynote invitation to another '12 presidential hopeful, Newt Gingrich (which also tells us plenty about the party, since Newt's clout and national appeal peaked some time around 1995). Newt proceeded to make trouble, by declaring last week that Sonio Sotomayor is a "Latina woman racist," a smear so witless that the guy who chairs the 2010 GOP Senate campaign effort, Senator John Cornyn, reportedly threatened to revoke Newt's keynote invitation. Newt then tried to make amends, declaring on CBS this past Sunday that Sotomayor is not a racist; rather, he said, she is "a racialist, if you prefer."
Anyway, Newt still managed to keep his keynote slot...when suddenly Palin's handlers spread the word that the governor was going to be in the area and would love to drop by the Washington event. The insider wing said OK, and agreed to give her a secondary speaking slot - augmenting Newt, as it were. This was some time on Saturday. But then, suddenly, there was a hitch; NRCC chairman Sessions decided that if Palin got up to speak, it wouldn't be fair to Newt. Indeed, a spokesman said that the decision to disinvite Palin from speaking was reached "out of respect" for Newt.
So, late Saturday, the party insiders told Palin's people that her (second) speaking invitation was being rescinded. She was still being invited to come, and she could even sit at the head table, but she wouldn't be allowed to talk. Result? Palin's indignant aides spread the word on Sunday that she wouldn't show up at all (which is kind of what she had semi-indicated earlier in the spring anyway); worse yet, her people leaked the whole intraparty spat to the press, just to twist the knife.
So, all day yesterday, the sole buzz about the big party dinner was: Will she or won't she? Will she show, or will she blow town? The GOP even put out a mocking statement, just to twist the knife in return: "It is our hope that Gov. Palin will attend the dinner and be recognized, but we understand if her busy schedule doesn't permit her to do so." (Translation: "Buzz off, diva.")
As dusk drew near, the tension mounted. Ultimately, she did show up. And she stayed mum - which was probably a blessing for the attendees, since she and Newt say pretty much the same stuff anyway. In fact, here was Palin in a speech last week: "Ronald Reagan never won any arguments in Washington. He won the arguments by resonating with the American people." And here's Newt, back in 2005: "Reagan never won an argument in Washington. Reagan won his arguments in the country with the American people."
When Palin indulged last week in the requisite party nostalgia, did she plagiarize Newt? It would be fairer to say that she borrowed liberally, as our elected leaders are wont to do. But it speaks volumes about the state of the GOP today that it invited and disinvited and reinvited and semi-disinvited and semi-reinvited a politician who recycles lines from another recycled politician.
And in the end, at the fundraiser last night, we got this gem of a line, courtesy of Pete Session's welcoming speech: "Together, we are showing America that we are a unified party."
Insert pithy joke here.
Liberal- I do not think liberalism works. It ends up bankrupting the country. I would argue that liberalism extended the great depression just as it is extending this recession. Precription drug, social security, medicaid,medicare are all broke. We would be better off with out these programs. We would be better off taking care of our parents when they get old like we did a hundred years ago. Just my opinion. You can lambaste me as you wish.- peteike- actually quite the opposite. It was the regulation of the Community Reinvestment Act that caused the mess. Who beter to know who to lend to than the banking industry. That was until Barney Frank and his liberal career politicians decided they knew better.
- "It was the regulation of the Community Reinvestment Act that caused the mess." --- This is the BIG LIE that I cannot stand. Not for a second do I buy this canard that banks were FORCED to lend money to less than credit-worthy borrowers. The CRA was designed to get them to stop withholding loans to worthy borrowers. The bankers took shortcuts and sold worthless paper to Wall Street on their own from their own GREED. Anyone who thinks that you can compel bankers to lend money hasn't been paying attention to the crisis brought about since Sep 2008. The current economic near collapse is because banks won't even lend money to one another!! Oh but, sure, they were *forced* to lend to sub-prime individual borrowers. Bullspit! Stop believing the disinformation being spoon fed to you by the ultra wealthy! It's the same lame logic that says we're being Socialized. If it's Socialism, then the money would have been taken from the banks and given to the people. Last I checked, TARP did just the opposite!!!— Phrossty
- More evidence of liberal media bias: Newsweek's Evan Thomas, and editor, in 2007 said "Our job is to bash the president" now has changed his prime directive and calls Obama as "sort of God."— CD75
Comment removed.- I like how Polman thinks he is better than a tabloid, but his writing today is so silly and trivial it is actually less sophisticated than a super market tabloid.— CD75
- Well Phrossty, Vernon Hill of Commerce Bank fame would disagree with you. You should read his interview in Philly magazine.
- phrossty- and banks do lend. I am living proof. I refinaced in March of this year. It can be done. What I noticed is they did their due dilligence this time by verifying the information.
- The barney frank excuse is a copout. When Madoff can go from a 10 mil scheme to a 50 billion scheme, someones not doing their job. Just a small example of lack of oversight.— peteike
- "The political consensus in Europe is far to the left of ours. European conservatives like De Gaulle or Sarcozy would easily fit in the Democratic party here." And as Obama said, the British don't torture, so why should we? Wait a minute..."Metropolitan Police officers subjected suspects to waterboarding, according to allegations at the centre of an anti-corruption inquiry. The torture claims are part of an investigation which also includes accusations that evidence was fabricated and suspects’ property was stolen. It has already led to the abandonment of a drugs trial and the suspension from duty of several officers. However, senior policing officials are most alarmed by the claim that officers in Enfield, North London, used the controversial CIA interrogation technique, in which water is poured on to a cloth covering the suspect’s face, causing them to feel they are on the point of suffocation." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6466430.ece— Vandy
- peteike- yep Madoff was a major oversite. Hey why do you think he was donating to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the DNC? Who's favor do you suppose Maidoff was trying to curry?
- "The CRA was designed to get them to stop withholding loans to worthy borrowers. The bankers took shortcuts and sold worthless paper to Wall Street on their own from their own GREED. Anyone who thinks that you can compel bankers to lend money hasn't been paying attention to the crisis brought about since Sep 2008." Wait a minute, Phrossty. On the one hand, you say that it's ludicrous to think legislation can compel bankers to lend money, but in the first sentence, you say the CRA was intended to compel bankers to lend money (to "worthy" borrowers, in your terms).— Vandy
- The blue state of California is now considering drastic cuts to state welfare in order to reduce the 23.4 billion dollar deficit. It was these same entitlement programs that helped to drive up the debt. Even in blue states, the glaring failures liberalism cannot be ignored, even by politicians who would rather ignore them. Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-california-social-contract,1,4886675.story— camtheman
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
