Where’s Ainsley Hayes When The Left Needs Her?
When the fictional administration of Democratic President Jed Bartlett – formerly the nations’ most liberal chief executive – found itself stuck in a left-leaning rut, it turned to a “blonde, leggy Republican” to provide some much-needed balance.
Her name? Ainsley Hayes.
And while she technically didn’t exist, her example is one that the real-life administration of President Barack Obama would be wise to emulate if it hopes (or even wants) to make some clearly-needed course corrections following Tuesday’s stinging electoral rebuke.
A fixture for several seasons on the award-winning TV drama The West Wing, Hayes’ appointment marked a nod to the Hegelian Dialectic, the notion that from every thesis and antithesis comes a “synthesis.”
The last time this notion played itself out substantively on the national stage was in 1994, when an overreaching Democratic President, Bill Clinton, got his ass handed to him in his first midterm elections. Wisely, Clinton decided right then and there that his future wasn’t going to be tied to unions and socialized medicine, but rather to capital gains tax cuts and welfare reform. Not surprisingly, record prosperity and rare government surpluses ensued from that course correction.
In fact, Clinton proved to be a much more fiscally conservative president than his “Republican” successor, George W. Bush – as the fiscal recklessness of Bush and his fellow RINO’s is what paved the way for Obama and his now non-existent “middle class tax cuts.”
While it’s doubtful that Obama – whose political hard-wiring is far more radical than Slick Willie’s ever was – will have a Clinton-style “awakening,” the results of Tuesday’s elections would suggest that a Clinton-esque course correction is the only way for him and his party to hold on to power against a wave of revulsion with the socialist direction this nation is taking.
Sure, in a nod to its 2008 servility, the mainstream media is playing down the “Barry O” factor in Tuesday’s races but the takeaway is as unambiguous as it is unavoidable.
“Washington, we have a problem.”
So what’s the solution?
Well, in addition to a fundamental “re-wiring,” we would recommend that Obama fire a few of his foaming-at-the-mouth socialists (like Valerie Jarrett) and hire people more like Ainsley Hayes.
Oh, and actually listen to what they have to say every once in awhile …
Sadly, Emily Procter – the drop dead gorgeous actress who played Hayes – has traded the mellifluous poetry of Aaron Sorkin’s screenplays for the mindless cliche-babble of CSI Miami, a.k.a. “Acting Hell.”
Nevertheless, in our ongoing effort to “synthesize” the political and the pulse-pounding in life, here’s a few shots of the 41-year-old (North Carolina-born) hottie …
(click on each thumbnail for a high resolution image)
Comments
By Hal I. on November 4th, 2009 at 10:05 am
haha the only “stinging rebuke” was to the teaparty style of conservatism in the NY-23 race. Both big Rep. victories were for state gov’t, not federal gov’t, so tying them to Obama is a stretch at best. Not to mention most voters who were exit polled said Obama DID NOT factor into their decisions, and those that did split fairly evenly along whether they approved or disapproved of his job performance (like most national polls).
Nationally the country still favors a public option, they still identify as Democrats 2 to 1 over Republicans (w/ a majority share of independents), and Obama’s executive and judicial appt’s ALREADY include a gracious number of concessions to the minority party, especially given the way Democrats were virtually ignored during Bush’s terms. I’m not saying there isn’t room for ANOTHER Ainsley Hayes…
By Skidmarks on November 4th, 2009 at 11:34 am
I don’t want to disagree with you, Hal I., but jobs and the economy are a big problem for all incumbent Dems.
The Dems are getting another HR vote. I hope that signals the President and Congress to quit trying to play nice and to ram through their programs.
All is far from rosy for the GOP. The vote in NY was a big time repudiation of Mr. & Mrs. Republican: Palin and Limbaugh.
By Mike Traynor on November 4th, 2009 at 11:48 am
What a great clip.
By sid on November 4th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
In reality, Republicans got more votes than the Democrat in NY-23. The problem was that someone got all upset when things didn’t go her way, so she had a hissy fit and decided to endorse the person she had been running against for months. Who does that? The real conservative, however, got a higher percentage of the vote than the fake conservative ever polled. Had the fake conservative never been on the ballot, the real conservative would have won. This was a unique race, with all sorts of weirdness involved, but little to do with Barry. The seat will go back to Republicans next November. That’s a guarantee.
As for independents, they abandoned Barry and the Dems in droves in VA and NJ. That is a stinging rebuke. Barry, The-One-and-done-One, should be very concerned. More concerned should be those Dems who won races on Barry’s coattails last year. More one-and-dones to come.
By Hal I. on November 4th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
“I don’t want to disagree with you, Hal I., but jobs and the economy are a big problem for all incumbent Dems.:
I think it’s a problem for all incumbents, not just Dems. Hope so, anyways.
“As for independents, they abandoned Barry and the Dems in droves in VA and NJ. That is a stinging rebuke. Barry, The-One-and-done-One, should be very concerned. More concerned should be those Dems who won races on Barry’s coattails last year. More one-and-dones to come.”
First, a large portion of voters who elected Obama stayed home in these elections; the minority turnout looks to be very low. Second, Corzine sank his own ship w/ his scandals. There was hope for reelection given the political make-up of the state, but invariably too many scandals will sink you no matter what party you represent (need another reference point? Look to our own state).
Also you’d be wise not to conflate independents w/ moderates. The stats aren’t there to back this up yet, but I’d be willing to wager that a great many of the “independents” who voted for the two Rep. candidates previously identified as Rep’s before Bush’s second term. When people shed party ID they don’t just disappear, they get reconstituted into an independent voting bloc. It’s a rather unsurprising turn of events for Reps to garner independent votes in a statewide election.
By sid on November 4th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Nobody said anything about independents being the same as moderates. Just last year, though, everyone talked about two big reasons Barry won. One was all the new “Dem” voters, who I would say were duped into believeing that Barry was some sort of savior (small “s”, not big). They stayed home, either because Barry wasn’t on the ticket, or because they have become disillusioned.
The other reason was the support of those who identified themselves as independents. Now, one year later, those who identify themselves as independents overwhelmingly rejected the candidates Barry supported. You could speculate that it had more to do with the poor quality of the candidates. That will make hard-core lefties feel better. But you could also speculate that it had more to do with a rejection of Barry and his lefty agenda/failed policies (thus far). It’s likely a decent mix of the two, and next November may tell us more.
Nonetheless, yesterday’s defeat of the top two Dems on the ballot should cause all lefties considerable concern. I’d rather they ignore the results as having nothing to do with Barry, so they, and he, will continue to push his lefty agenda. That will push even more folks away from the Dems. More likely, though, he and his cabal will regroup, soften the message, but never acknowledge he was at least somewhat of a liability. I think he was a tremendous liability, but to say he was not one at all is simply silly.
By OnNoNotAgain on November 4th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Come quick. Sam’s getting his ass kicked by a girl.
Get the popcorn.
Now there was a president.
You see, textbooks are important, if for no other reason than to correctly note that George W. Bush is Bill Clinton’s successor, not his predecessor.
By Hal I. on November 4th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
“Nobody said anything about independents being the same as moderates. Just last year, though, everyone talked about two big reasons Barry won. One was all the new “Dem” voters, who I would say were duped into believeing that Barry was some sort of savior (small “s”, not big). They stayed home, either because Barry wasn’t on the ticket, or because they have become disillusioned.”
The presumption was that since in the past the term independent has been synonymous w/ moderates, that you’re assuming Republicans are now able to draw support from moderates. I find little evidence to support that theory (especially w/ the rightward lurch of the party), but we’ll know more in the coming days. In any event, neither Rep. candidate represented the polarizing tea-party wing of the establishment. If we’re to assume that they did draw in moderate support, it’s b/c they trended more leftward than right.
Second, I already noted that many Obama voters stayed home in this election. To somehow draw the inference that they did so out of disillusionment is, to me, unfounded. Deeds can’t turn them out, so what? Obama has already demonstrated he can, and it stands to reason he can do so again.
“You could speculate that it had more to do with the poor quality of the candidates. That will make hard-core lefties feel better. But you could also speculate that it had more to do with a rejection of Barry and his lefty agenda/failed policies (thus far). It’s likely a decent mix of the two, and next November may tell us more.”
As I’ve noted before, Obama still has a majority approval rating and so do many of the items on his “lefty” agenda, including a public option. Also the election was a statewide one, not a federal one, and as such bears little relation to Obama’s actual policies. In fact the Rep. candidate in VA praised Obama following his Nobel win, and neither Rep. from either state ran against Obama or his policies. It’s not a decent mix, it’s not even close. The Dems ran two poor candidates, the Rep’s took advantage of it. Similar patterns played out across the country (I must’ve overlooked where you inferred that NY-23 is a vote IN FAVOR of Obama’s policies… an actual federal election).
On a tangential note, why do you call him Barry? Is that some too clever by half sideswipe at the unconventianality of his birth name? Color me curious.
By Mike Traynor on November 4th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Bartlett was a terrible president. All about the image–no substance.
Ooops, that was just TV.
By She Was the Best on November 4th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
She was by far the best part of the West Wing. A great show with great writing. No matter if you agree with the politics or not.
By sid on November 4th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
“The presumption was that since in the past the term independent has been synonymous w/ moderates, that you’re assuming Republicans are now able to draw support from moderates.”
That’s, apparently, your presumption and assumption, not mine. I didn’t say it, or imply it. I spoke solely about self-identified moderates, who were given a great deal of the credit for Barry’s win last year. Now, self-identified moderates abandoned him and went with the Republicans.
“In any event, neither Rep. candidate represented the polarizing tea-party wing of the establishment. If we’re to assume that they did draw in moderate support, it’s b/c they trended more leftward than right.”
You clearly don’t have a clue about Bob McDonnell, then. He ran a strong, fiscally conservative campaign, which is the basis of the tea-party movement, and has strong conservative credentials in virtually every other (depending on your viewpoint) catagory. The NJ R ran on being fiscally conservative. Again, that’s what the tea-party movement is all about.
“Second, I already noted that many Obama voters stayed home in this election. To somehow draw the inference that they did so out of disillusionment is, to me, unfounded.”
Then explain it.
“Deeds can’t turn them out, so what? Obama has already demonstrated he can, and it stands to reason he can do so again.”
No, Barry tried to turn them out, and failed. He campaigned for Deeds, appeared in ads for Deeds, and had operatives in the commonwealth for Deeds. Some of the pro-Deeds ads were just Barry, for the beginning, looking like his Presidential campaign, then Deeds comes in at the end. You can spin it all you want, but Barry failed to get his base out, as did Deeds.
“As I’ve noted before, Obama still has a majority approval rating and so do many of the items on his “lefty” agenda, including a public option.”
Numbers that have sunk more rapidly than any president I can remember so early in his term. They will continue to sink, and some polls, at times, show him below majority approval. Likewise, many of his agenda items. At times, public option has had a plurality opposed, according to polls. So what?
“Also the election was a statewide one, not a federal one, and as such bears little relation to Obama’s actual policies.”
Now you’re just being naive. People regularly project national issues onto statewide or local races. Whether it’s because of his policies, or just him, people in VA and NJ rejected the candidates Barry supported, and committed time and energy to help. That, in my opinion, is a rejection of Barry. But you are entitled to your own views.
“neither Rep. from either state ran against Obama or his policies.”
Barry’s policies include more government, more government spending, and more taxes. Both candidates campaigned against such policies.
As for NY-23, for an education on that race, see other posts on this site.
As for calling him Barry, is there something wrong with that? I don’t get it. He used to go by Barry, and I’m sure some still call him that. But I don’t get why this seems to cause you concern. Personally, I like the sound of “President Barry.” It sounds so in touch with the common man. Isn’t that what he’s supposed to be? Or are you saying he’s not in touch with the common man? Or are you trying to imply something else. You seem to misread a great deal, so perhaps you are misreading something with my calling him Barry.
By OnNoNotAgain on November 4th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
The politics? He was across the board.
Wanted every little liberal thing, but was a bigger military interventionist than George W.
The guy lived in the Sit Room. And not Blitzer’s, either.
By William on November 5th, 2009 at 9:05 am
state elections and gubernatorial elections in states with strong executive structures rarely ever deal with local economic conditions. There is a plethora of research on this form John Chubb at the Hoover Institute, WD Nordhaus from the Brookings Institute and Susanne Laohman at UCLA just to name a few. Additionally, voters in general have extremely unsophisticated political views on specific items such as “the role of the government in funding education increases the horizontal equity of the entire population.” However they are typically more attenuated to specific opinion related issues, such as “less government spending is good,” or “the war in Afghanistan is good.” This is supported by empirical evidence from Ansolabehere, et al. from MIT. However to presume that specific issues can portend or even explain an election result is to use pure conjecture. It i politically popular to do so because it allows a candidate to make a statement of a mandate, even when one does not exist. In reality though it means very little.