This article is simply too priceless to be allowed to die in obscurity. And yet, I cannot summon words to respond to it. Perhaps it simply speaks for itself.
"I'm the Ali of today. I'm the Marvin Gaye of today. I'm the Bob Marley of today. I'm the Martin Luther King, or all the other greats that have come before us. And a lot of people are starting to realize that now."
the death penalty
My feelings on the death penalty are conflicted. It's impossible to ignore the fact that a substantial aim of our judicial system is revenge -- and rightfully so. It is only just that somebody who inflicts pain and suffering on others receives a taste of their own medicine. I can say, in no uncertain terms, that if a member of my family or somebody relatively close to me was raped, murdered, etc. I would want to see them dead.
I'm not particularly troubled with the principle that the state can terminate human life. After all, our country has fought numerous wars in which our country has been willing to see astronomical death on our side and the side of the enemy. And retribution is an understandable and necessary motivation.
That said, I cannot support the death penalty for one crucial reason. There is no way that the state can guarantee, with 100 percent certainty, that every inmate on death row has received a perfectly fair trial with the best possible legal representation available. Death is the end. There is no greater punishment a person can receive. So if it is hypothetically possible, even in an abstract, theoretical sense, that even the worst of the worst monster criminals could have received a better legal defense and given 10 life terms without probation (as opposed to the death penalty), how can we justify killing that person? The fact is that every legal defense and trial is not perfectly fair. Even if the defense attorney is not grossly negligent, how can you guarantee that the attorney didn't provide the best possible defense? How can we guarantee that every single member of the jury wasn't at least, even to a miniscule degree, bias? How can we be sure police officers followed all protocol with perfection?
I think of the plethora of arguments made for and against the death penalty, but the argument made above is all that matters to me. Our fundamentally imperfect judicial system makes killing our own citizens unambiguously unjust.
I'm not particularly troubled with the principle that the state can terminate human life. After all, our country has fought numerous wars in which our country has been willing to see astronomical death on our side and the side of the enemy. And retribution is an understandable and necessary motivation.
That said, I cannot support the death penalty for one crucial reason. There is no way that the state can guarantee, with 100 percent certainty, that every inmate on death row has received a perfectly fair trial with the best possible legal representation available. Death is the end. There is no greater punishment a person can receive. So if it is hypothetically possible, even in an abstract, theoretical sense, that even the worst of the worst monster criminals could have received a better legal defense and given 10 life terms without probation (as opposed to the death penalty), how can we justify killing that person? The fact is that every legal defense and trial is not perfectly fair. Even if the defense attorney is not grossly negligent, how can you guarantee that the attorney didn't provide the best possible defense? How can we guarantee that every single member of the jury wasn't at least, even to a miniscule degree, bias? How can we be sure police officers followed all protocol with perfection?
I think of the plethora of arguments made for and against the death penalty, but the argument made above is all that matters to me. Our fundamentally imperfect judicial system makes killing our own citizens unambiguously unjust.
The Veto
The bill is unacceptable because it “substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgments of our military commanders,” the president said in a nationally televised address to explain why he was vetoing a bill that would also provide more than $100 billion in emergency spending for the war.
Remember when Bush used to claim that he based his decisions on the Iraq war on the judgement of the military commanders on the ground? That the war would not be run from Washington DC? The only problem was that General Casey disagreed with Bush's escalation strategy. Instead of following the advice of the military commander on the ground, Bush removed him and put Patreaus in his place -- a general who agreed with Bush's new Iraq strategy. It's all up to the generals... until they stop following orders from Washington. But it's the Democrats who aren't listening to the generals... or the rest of the world... or the American people.
Bush blamed Democrats for trying to send an empty political statement and added: “They’ve sent their message, and now it’s time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds.”
The executive branch and the legislative branch are two equal branches of government, but it's the fault of the Democrats, again, who just sent Bush the money he asked for. The Democrats are playing politics when they disagree with Bush and they must automatically defer to the executive when it concerns Iraq (and presumably anything else.) Bush has vetoed funding for our troops because the bill contained a provision he disagreed with. He has denied funding for the troops. This must be repeated over and over and over -- that Bush is holding up funds for troops on the battlefield.
So how is this conflict between Congress and Bush resolved? A compromise? A "compromise" in the eyes of Bush will be removing the provision for troops to be out in '08. It will mean receiving the same type of rubberstamped bill he has received in years past from the Republican Congress. So if Democrats remove the provision, their power in Congress will be rendered useless. There might as well be 100 Republicans in the Senate.
Congress is not "defying" (as the media repeatedly suggests) Bush. The Constitution has granted them equal power. I predict, however, that the Democrats will send Bush a generic bill with no timetables and the war will continue unabated. Expect no meaningful change until '09 at the earliest.
Remember when Bush used to claim that he based his decisions on the Iraq war on the judgement of the military commanders on the ground? That the war would not be run from Washington DC? The only problem was that General Casey disagreed with Bush's escalation strategy. Instead of following the advice of the military commander on the ground, Bush removed him and put Patreaus in his place -- a general who agreed with Bush's new Iraq strategy. It's all up to the generals... until they stop following orders from Washington. But it's the Democrats who aren't listening to the generals... or the rest of the world... or the American people.
Bush blamed Democrats for trying to send an empty political statement and added: “They’ve sent their message, and now it’s time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds.”
The executive branch and the legislative branch are two equal branches of government, but it's the fault of the Democrats, again, who just sent Bush the money he asked for. The Democrats are playing politics when they disagree with Bush and they must automatically defer to the executive when it concerns Iraq (and presumably anything else.) Bush has vetoed funding for our troops because the bill contained a provision he disagreed with. He has denied funding for the troops. This must be repeated over and over and over -- that Bush is holding up funds for troops on the battlefield.
So how is this conflict between Congress and Bush resolved? A compromise? A "compromise" in the eyes of Bush will be removing the provision for troops to be out in '08. It will mean receiving the same type of rubberstamped bill he has received in years past from the Republican Congress. So if Democrats remove the provision, their power in Congress will be rendered useless. There might as well be 100 Republicans in the Senate.
Congress is not "defying" (as the media repeatedly suggests) Bush. The Constitution has granted them equal power. I predict, however, that the Democrats will send Bush a generic bill with no timetables and the war will continue unabated. Expect no meaningful change until '09 at the earliest.
Moolade and Ebertfest
My wife and I were in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois over the weekend for Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival, and we had an absolutely wonderful time. We've been fans of Ebert's work for many years, and we wanted to pay our respects, particularly given Ebert's poor health. We saw some amazing movies on the big screen, including a beautiful print of Fellini's La Dolce Vita and a restored version of Sadie Thompson, a silent film starring Gloria Swanson that was accompanied by a live orchestra.
The most important movie we saw, however, was Ousmane Sambene's Moolade, a 2004 film about female genital mutilation. The film is rich, detailed, and literate, and it provides one of the most striking portraits of human courage that I've ever seen in a movie.
Anyway, in the panel discussion after the film, the head of U.S. distribution said that the movie was intended primarily for African audiences. Sambene wanted African moviegoers to appreciate the harm that the procedure causes, and to recognize that a woman's capacity as a wife, mother, and head of the family does not depend on whether she has been "purified." He made a movie to promote a social goal. Unfortunately, the film has only been screened three times on the African continent to this point, largely because Sambene is a pariah to many African political leaders.
Another comment the speaker made was that Sambene wanted to portray Africa in an honest way. Many people have no idea what life in Africa really looks like; one anecdote I heard was that a young child, after visiting Africa with her American mother said on the plane home: "Mom, when are we going to get to Africa?" Her images of what African life really looks like were so deeply formed by television cliches that she had no idea of the reality she saw with her own eyes.
This got me thinking about American movies. It is so profoundly rare that our movies present an accurate portrait of what American life is really like. Most of us get married, have a job, children, and treasure the weekends. Our life is about enjoying the moment, and working toward long-term goals we define for ourselves. Yet our films portray sex and violence with a nihilism that doesn't reflect our daily experience, and the demands of film narrative seem to turn the focus from a realistic portrayal of the American experience to an emphasis on the unusual and uncommon. As many foreign observers have noted about our movies, they are like "dreams." We present ourselves not as we are, but how we would like to be or how me might be under different circumstances.
So, what I'm wondering about is this: since Americans are now hated around the world as a result of our foreign policies, do filmmakers have a new responsibility to present American life as it actually is? Of course, many of them already do, but their work is rarely shown at the multiplexes. Or is it in the nature of things that our cinema is destined to focus on our occasional serial killers, police shoot-outs, and drunken orgies? I suppose these things are rather appealing to audiences in a commercial medium, but given our new circumstances I wonder if American cinema could do better P.R. for American life.
The most important movie we saw, however, was Ousmane Sambene's Moolade, a 2004 film about female genital mutilation. The film is rich, detailed, and literate, and it provides one of the most striking portraits of human courage that I've ever seen in a movie.
Anyway, in the panel discussion after the film, the head of U.S. distribution said that the movie was intended primarily for African audiences. Sambene wanted African moviegoers to appreciate the harm that the procedure causes, and to recognize that a woman's capacity as a wife, mother, and head of the family does not depend on whether she has been "purified." He made a movie to promote a social goal. Unfortunately, the film has only been screened three times on the African continent to this point, largely because Sambene is a pariah to many African political leaders.
Another comment the speaker made was that Sambene wanted to portray Africa in an honest way. Many people have no idea what life in Africa really looks like; one anecdote I heard was that a young child, after visiting Africa with her American mother said on the plane home: "Mom, when are we going to get to Africa?" Her images of what African life really looks like were so deeply formed by television cliches that she had no idea of the reality she saw with her own eyes.
This got me thinking about American movies. It is so profoundly rare that our movies present an accurate portrait of what American life is really like. Most of us get married, have a job, children, and treasure the weekends. Our life is about enjoying the moment, and working toward long-term goals we define for ourselves. Yet our films portray sex and violence with a nihilism that doesn't reflect our daily experience, and the demands of film narrative seem to turn the focus from a realistic portrayal of the American experience to an emphasis on the unusual and uncommon. As many foreign observers have noted about our movies, they are like "dreams." We present ourselves not as we are, but how we would like to be or how me might be under different circumstances.
So, what I'm wondering about is this: since Americans are now hated around the world as a result of our foreign policies, do filmmakers have a new responsibility to present American life as it actually is? Of course, many of them already do, but their work is rarely shown at the multiplexes. Or is it in the nature of things that our cinema is destined to focus on our occasional serial killers, police shoot-outs, and drunken orgies? I suppose these things are rather appealing to audiences in a commercial medium, but given our new circumstances I wonder if American cinema could do better P.R. for American life.
High speed pursuits
I don't understand why police are permitted to engage in high speed pursuits with suspected criminals. Is it really that difficult to write down the plate number, set up a check point down the road, or notify surrounding municipalities' police departments of the suspected vehicle? I understand these things are sensational and exciting and we want to get the bad guy, but people actually get killed with these things.
Discomfort with some pro-abortion arguments
I've been finding lately that a lot of the pro-choice talking points are extreme, unreasonable, and frankly, inhumane. While I support a woman's right to abortion during the first trimester, I'm troubled by some of the arguments advocating the right to choose:
1. "The child would have lived a miserable life anyway"
We frequently hear the argument that had the fetus not been terminated and had the mother carried out the pregnancy, the child would have lived in a broken home or a foster home, suffered from abuse and neglect, and a general life of misery. This may or may not be true. There is ample evidence of children who were raised by terrible parents who overcame adversity and lived incredible lives. There is also plenty of evidence that these types of kids turned into criminals and monsters. Either way, it doesn't seem ethical to support the termination of this hypothetical kid's existence simply because his or her life looked like it was going to be difficult. Though life can be hard, I am glad to be alive rather than dead.
I really don't think I'm going too far by saying that the "child would have lived a miserable life anyway" argument implies that all children living in broken homes, foster homes, etc. might as well not be alive.
2. "Old men on the bench shouldn't be deciding what women can do with their bodies"
I particularly hate this argument. My sister says this all the time. As long as America continues to be a democracy, we maintain our constitution, and men are permitted to sit on the Supreme Court, men will have a voice on the abortion debate. There are issues in society that predominantly effect women. There are issues that predominantly effect men. The American people elect representatives who appoint judges who make rulings on many of these issues. Until a Constitutional amendment is passed which prohibits the male gender from ruling on abortion, proponents of this argument will not be satisfied.
This argument also ignores the fact that men on the bench authorized abortion with Roe v. Wade. White men also passed civil rights legislation in the 1960s, passed legislation to protect women from sexual discrimination in the workplace, etc. etc. Of course, minorities pressured white men to enact these laws. That's exactly the point of our democracy. I'm not saying we shouldn't have more minorities in positions of power, but our system generally forces representatives to be held accountable to the people who vote them into power.
3. "illegalizing abortion will result in many women dying from back alley abortions"
This might be true, but if the government passed a law, it is the responsibility of the citizenry to obey that law. If an individual chooses to resort to an obviously dangerous practice to abort their child, it is exclusively their fault for the harm they bring to themselves -- not the government.
It is not difficult to brainstorm a plethora of stupid laws the government has passed and how the laws have created more harm than good. Of course, different people agree and disagree on what constitutes a "stupid law." That's why we have three branches of government and rules of the game to sort out whose opinion prevails. Not everybody can win. With abortion, two sides fundamentally disagree with one another and there really is no compromise to be made. Either the practice is permitted or it is not and thus criminalized. Basically, if abortion is criminalized, women will be responsible for carrying out their pregnancies and, for those who disagree with the law, operating through the appropriate channels to change the law.
It is very easy for each side to become carried away in this debate. It is easy to make extremist and unreasonable arguments in support of a cause one passionately believes in. But it's important not to lose sight of why we are in favor of a certain policy. I, myself, support abortion because a pregnancy will ruin the life of some women. At the age of 20, pursuing a college degree with lots of goals in life, a child would be utterly unnacceptable at this point for me. I believe individuals should have the freedom to terminate unwanted pregnancies that could literally destroy their lives.
1. "The child would have lived a miserable life anyway"
We frequently hear the argument that had the fetus not been terminated and had the mother carried out the pregnancy, the child would have lived in a broken home or a foster home, suffered from abuse and neglect, and a general life of misery. This may or may not be true. There is ample evidence of children who were raised by terrible parents who overcame adversity and lived incredible lives. There is also plenty of evidence that these types of kids turned into criminals and monsters. Either way, it doesn't seem ethical to support the termination of this hypothetical kid's existence simply because his or her life looked like it was going to be difficult. Though life can be hard, I am glad to be alive rather than dead.
I really don't think I'm going too far by saying that the "child would have lived a miserable life anyway" argument implies that all children living in broken homes, foster homes, etc. might as well not be alive.
2. "Old men on the bench shouldn't be deciding what women can do with their bodies"
I particularly hate this argument. My sister says this all the time. As long as America continues to be a democracy, we maintain our constitution, and men are permitted to sit on the Supreme Court, men will have a voice on the abortion debate. There are issues in society that predominantly effect women. There are issues that predominantly effect men. The American people elect representatives who appoint judges who make rulings on many of these issues. Until a Constitutional amendment is passed which prohibits the male gender from ruling on abortion, proponents of this argument will not be satisfied.
This argument also ignores the fact that men on the bench authorized abortion with Roe v. Wade. White men also passed civil rights legislation in the 1960s, passed legislation to protect women from sexual discrimination in the workplace, etc. etc. Of course, minorities pressured white men to enact these laws. That's exactly the point of our democracy. I'm not saying we shouldn't have more minorities in positions of power, but our system generally forces representatives to be held accountable to the people who vote them into power.
3. "illegalizing abortion will result in many women dying from back alley abortions"
This might be true, but if the government passed a law, it is the responsibility of the citizenry to obey that law. If an individual chooses to resort to an obviously dangerous practice to abort their child, it is exclusively their fault for the harm they bring to themselves -- not the government.
It is not difficult to brainstorm a plethora of stupid laws the government has passed and how the laws have created more harm than good. Of course, different people agree and disagree on what constitutes a "stupid law." That's why we have three branches of government and rules of the game to sort out whose opinion prevails. Not everybody can win. With abortion, two sides fundamentally disagree with one another and there really is no compromise to be made. Either the practice is permitted or it is not and thus criminalized. Basically, if abortion is criminalized, women will be responsible for carrying out their pregnancies and, for those who disagree with the law, operating through the appropriate channels to change the law.
It is very easy for each side to become carried away in this debate. It is easy to make extremist and unreasonable arguments in support of a cause one passionately believes in. But it's important not to lose sight of why we are in favor of a certain policy. I, myself, support abortion because a pregnancy will ruin the life of some women. At the age of 20, pursuing a college degree with lots of goals in life, a child would be utterly unnacceptable at this point for me. I believe individuals should have the freedom to terminate unwanted pregnancies that could literally destroy their lives.
I hate the double standard.
I'd actually never heard of Don Imus until recently. When I heard some dude made some sort of racial slur, I had initially thought he was a politician. As I've been bored and watching CNN while I clean my kitchen today, was getting quite frustrated with the hypocrisy of the media.
As I hear it, eighteen major advertisers have pulled their ads from Imus' radio show. And while I don't like, condone, or defend idiotic shock jock radio, it really pisses me off to hear that companies have a "media standard," when a white guy says something stupid, but have no problem what so ever with billboard top 40 ads.
I read a wonderful article today that sums it up far better than I could, but if people have a problem with an old white dude who makes one comment, why don't they have any issues with rap music?
Go read this article, then come back to me, although I warn you, there's some language, but that's the point.
I don't know what kind of radio show Imus has, but it isn't a stretch of the imagination to think that he could have played the new hot track by R. Kelly, and it's terribly sad that whilst it is perfectly acceptable for him to play and promote a degrading song, but as soon as he opens his fat mouth to say something far cleaner, he's a villain.
As I hear it, eighteen major advertisers have pulled their ads from Imus' radio show. And while I don't like, condone, or defend idiotic shock jock radio, it really pisses me off to hear that companies have a "media standard," when a white guy says something stupid, but have no problem what so ever with billboard top 40 ads.
I read a wonderful article today that sums it up far better than I could, but if people have a problem with an old white dude who makes one comment, why don't they have any issues with rap music?
Go read this article, then come back to me, although I warn you, there's some language, but that's the point.
I don't know what kind of radio show Imus has, but it isn't a stretch of the imagination to think that he could have played the new hot track by R. Kelly, and it's terribly sad that whilst it is perfectly acceptable for him to play and promote a degrading song, but as soon as he opens his fat mouth to say something far cleaner, he's a villain.
White House looking for "War Czar"
According to the Washington Post:
I though that we already had a "high-powered czar to oversee the wars" who had "authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies."
The article continues:
Some sort of "commander-in-chief," perhaps? Somebody who can bridge the military and Executive Branch chains of command?
Nah.
The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.Gee.
I though that we already had a "high-powered czar to oversee the wars" who had "authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies."
The article continues:
To fill such a role, the White House is searching for someone with enough stature and confidence to deal directly with heavyweight administration figures such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.Hm. Stature and confidence.
Some sort of "commander-in-chief," perhaps? Somebody who can bridge the military and Executive Branch chains of command?
Nah.
My Old Beat
The reporter covering my old stomping grounds in suburban New Jersey wrote a nice piece on the way local houses of worship are contending with the debate over global warming. There's been quite a bit of press lately about the rift between Richard Cizik and people like James Dobson over global warming, including a PBS Frontline special and several subsequent features in high-profile dailies and newsmagazines.
I'm rather interested in this topic, for three reasons. First, as a student of American Politics, I'm very interested in any issue that threatens to disrupt entrenched partisan voting patterns. One of the top indicators of vote choice in the U.S. is church attendance -- if you attend once a week or more, you're quite likely to vote Republican, while if you never attend church, you are very likely to vote for a Democrat. So, if religious organizations begin to take climate change seriously, that change could induce many voters who are currently voting for Republicans to cast ballots for Democrats. According to very consistent National Election Study survey research, voters from both parties overwhelmingly agree that Democrats are more likely to take steps to protect the environment. So increases in concern about the environment would seem likely to benefit only one of the two parties.
Second, as a very cynical observer of the Republican Party, I'm interested to see how members of the party attempt to deal with global warming from a policymaking perspective. One of the reasons why Republicans have been less eager to deal with global warming is because their ideology offers them very few practical solutions to solve the problem. Since the real core of the issue is finding ways to reduce carbon emissions, it is evident to most observers that the solution will involve some combination of regulation and externally-imposed incentives geared toward reducing consumption. A party with a libertarian regulatory outlook inherently detests many of the solutions that global warming makes unavoidable. Rather than adopt a pragmatic approach that would compromise their policymaking orientation, Republicans are simply attempting to deny that climate change represents a real threat, or even that it is even being caused by human actions. A revolt on the issue by the religious right would emphasize in bold the major ideological differences between the two major coalitions that hold the Republican Party together. It is logical that if Republicans are ever going to come around on global warming, it is the religious right that would lead the way, not the libertarian right.
Last, I'm an environmentalist. So, to see groups on the religious right potentially come on board with my primary policy interest is encouraging. Unfortunately, I suspect that most of the impetus behind the recent interest in climate change from people of faith comes from the religious left, which for some reason never manages to get much press. I suspect that when I'm done crunching data on churchgoers' attitudes on the environment between 2000 and 2008 I won't find any meaningful change from today's attitudes.
I'm rather interested in this topic, for three reasons. First, as a student of American Politics, I'm very interested in any issue that threatens to disrupt entrenched partisan voting patterns. One of the top indicators of vote choice in the U.S. is church attendance -- if you attend once a week or more, you're quite likely to vote Republican, while if you never attend church, you are very likely to vote for a Democrat. So, if religious organizations begin to take climate change seriously, that change could induce many voters who are currently voting for Republicans to cast ballots for Democrats. According to very consistent National Election Study survey research, voters from both parties overwhelmingly agree that Democrats are more likely to take steps to protect the environment. So increases in concern about the environment would seem likely to benefit only one of the two parties.
Second, as a very cynical observer of the Republican Party, I'm interested to see how members of the party attempt to deal with global warming from a policymaking perspective. One of the reasons why Republicans have been less eager to deal with global warming is because their ideology offers them very few practical solutions to solve the problem. Since the real core of the issue is finding ways to reduce carbon emissions, it is evident to most observers that the solution will involve some combination of regulation and externally-imposed incentives geared toward reducing consumption. A party with a libertarian regulatory outlook inherently detests many of the solutions that global warming makes unavoidable. Rather than adopt a pragmatic approach that would compromise their policymaking orientation, Republicans are simply attempting to deny that climate change represents a real threat, or even that it is even being caused by human actions. A revolt on the issue by the religious right would emphasize in bold the major ideological differences between the two major coalitions that hold the Republican Party together. It is logical that if Republicans are ever going to come around on global warming, it is the religious right that would lead the way, not the libertarian right.
Last, I'm an environmentalist. So, to see groups on the religious right potentially come on board with my primary policy interest is encouraging. Unfortunately, I suspect that most of the impetus behind the recent interest in climate change from people of faith comes from the religious left, which for some reason never manages to get much press. I suspect that when I'm done crunching data on churchgoers' attitudes on the environment between 2000 and 2008 I won't find any meaningful change from today's attitudes.
Our "Balanced" Media
Whammo! Pow! Shocker! Obama is finished!
As I've been pointing out, there is a crisis in our mainstream media.
As I've been pointing out, there is a crisis in our mainstream media.
Public opinion vs. conventional wisdom
I've never seen anybody get flamed this bad in the blogging world. It's especially alarming given the fact that it's Joe Klein's very own blog. He really had no clue what he was getting himself into.
The problem with Joe Klein (and I don't hate his articles as much as the liberal bloggers do -- I find some of them to be pretty enlightening) is along the lines of what Brad was talking about with The New Republic. A lot of these pundit, elitist writers have totally lost touch with American politics. Their "conventional wisdom" often seems more applicable to a distant galaxy.
Take, for instance, the "conventional wisdom" on cutting off funding for the Iraq War. Any casual reader of all the mainstream media outlets would unquestionably be led to believe that the party that voted to strip the commander in chief of his powers and use the Congressional power of the purse to stop the Iraq War would be committing political suicide. I've been arguing on and on for a while now, that public opinion is often misguided and irrelevant, but that what people are really looking for is strong leadership and passionate, entrenched beliefs (though not entrenched to the point of stubborness). So regardless of what the American people think of cutting off funds, they clearly oppose the war, oppose Bush, and want our troops out within the next year. So how could it be politically detrimental for Democrats to stand up and use their Constitutional power to its full capacity to force an end to the war? Wouldn't the American people see this, at the very least, as an act of courage?
Despite the elitist consensus that cutting off funds in unthinkable, a Fox News poll shows that the non-binding resolution is a waste of time and that half of Americans would support cutting off funds to end the war. Even when Democrats have public opinion behind them, they still refuse to act on specifically what it is mandating. Why? Because of pundits like Joe Klein, The New Republic, etc. who have driven it into their heads that they would be writing their political obituaries.
Still, it's nice to have public opinion on your side, but it doesn't mean its always right. Doing what is right and what you believe should always take precedence. But why do what you don't believe when public opinion is on your side?
The problem with Joe Klein (and I don't hate his articles as much as the liberal bloggers do -- I find some of them to be pretty enlightening) is along the lines of what Brad was talking about with The New Republic. A lot of these pundit, elitist writers have totally lost touch with American politics. Their "conventional wisdom" often seems more applicable to a distant galaxy.
Take, for instance, the "conventional wisdom" on cutting off funding for the Iraq War. Any casual reader of all the mainstream media outlets would unquestionably be led to believe that the party that voted to strip the commander in chief of his powers and use the Congressional power of the purse to stop the Iraq War would be committing political suicide. I've been arguing on and on for a while now, that public opinion is often misguided and irrelevant, but that what people are really looking for is strong leadership and passionate, entrenched beliefs (though not entrenched to the point of stubborness). So regardless of what the American people think of cutting off funds, they clearly oppose the war, oppose Bush, and want our troops out within the next year. So how could it be politically detrimental for Democrats to stand up and use their Constitutional power to its full capacity to force an end to the war? Wouldn't the American people see this, at the very least, as an act of courage?
Despite the elitist consensus that cutting off funds in unthinkable, a Fox News poll shows that the non-binding resolution is a waste of time and that half of Americans would support cutting off funds to end the war. Even when Democrats have public opinion behind them, they still refuse to act on specifically what it is mandating. Why? Because of pundits like Joe Klein, The New Republic, etc. who have driven it into their heads that they would be writing their political obituaries.
Still, it's nice to have public opinion on your side, but it doesn't mean its always right. Doing what is right and what you believe should always take precedence. But why do what you don't believe when public opinion is on your side?
I don't get it
Ann Coulter at the Conservative Political Action Committee:
I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.
Okay, the comment is definitely offensive. Check. It was unwise for Mitt Romney to promote her and he should condemn her remarks. Check. Ann Coulter is an insufferable douche bag. Check. But does anybody actually get it?
I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.
Okay, the comment is definitely offensive. Check. It was unwise for Mitt Romney to promote her and he should condemn her remarks. Check. Ann Coulter is an insufferable douche bag. Check. But does anybody actually get it?
The Decline of the New Republic
I'm a bit late coming to this piece of news, but apparently The New Republic has gone biweekly. I can't say it's a surprise to me, since the magazine's circulation has declined by 40% in about six years. But for a long time, TNR was one of the elite voices of American Politics, the center-left equivalent of National Review.
According to Franklin Foer, TNR's biweekly move represents a reconfiguration of the publication's resources. Going forward, TNR will focus more on web-based content, and it will publish a "glossier" and "more visual" magazine. Both decisions probably have merit; I think that the age of news weeklies might be coming to an end, since most of the stories that show up in Time or Newsweek tend to be pretty stale by the time they make it to people's mailboxes. And I think there is a demand for web-based magazine-style reporting, for the simple fact that more readers are getting their news online now. I commute to work and into the city primarily on trains and subways, where one might think that the newspaper and magazine format would be fairly convenient. Yet, I find them cumbersome and annoying. Maybe I'm alone in that, maybe not.
As to the idea of making a substantive magazine more visual, well, I don't have any sympathy for that orientation. But if that's what TNR wants to do, I imagine their consultants and circulation people have their reasons.
Why do I care about all of this? I was a subscriber to TNR for more than a year, and I abandoned the subscription because I believed so many of the magazine's writers are transparent egotists. The articles always seemed to consciously stake out the middle ground on controversial issues, and tried to appear radical by endorsing conventional wisdom or the status quo. When TNR endorsed the Iraq invasion, its editors thought they were being counterintuitive by bucking the left-wing consensus that invading Iraq was a mistake. But their arguments were ultimately not very complicated or interesting. They were just following the mainstream media's consensus.
And that's the thing about TNR that led me to finally abandon the magazine. I don't have a problem with right-wing views, centrist views (whatever that means), or left-wing views. But I do have a problem with elitism, especially when it serves to reinforce hollow ideas. Reading almost anything written by Marty Peretz at this point drives me insane.
So, by chance, I happened to be reading Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion (on the train!) today, when I encountered this passage:
"Only by insisting that problems shall not come up to him until they have
passed through a procedure, can the busy citizen of a modern state hope to deal
with them in a form that is intelligible. For issues, as they are stated
by a partisan, almost always consist of an intricate series of facts, as he has
observed them, surrounded by a large fatty mass of stereotyped phrases charged
with his emotion. According to the fashion of the day, he will emerge from
the conference room insisting that what he wants is some soul-filling idea like
Justice, Welfare, Americanism, Socialism. On such issues the citizen
outside can sometimes be provoked to fear and admiration, but to judgment
never. Before he can do anything with the argument, the fat has to be
boiled out of it for him."
passed through a procedure, can the busy citizen of a modern state hope to deal
with them in a form that is intelligible. For issues, as they are stated
by a partisan, almost always consist of an intricate series of facts, as he has
observed them, surrounded by a large fatty mass of stereotyped phrases charged
with his emotion. According to the fashion of the day, he will emerge from
the conference room insisting that what he wants is some soul-filling idea like
Justice, Welfare, Americanism, Socialism. On such issues the citizen
outside can sometimes be provoked to fear and admiration, but to judgment
never. Before he can do anything with the argument, the fat has to be
boiled out of it for him."
Why would I care about this quote in the context of TNR? Well, Lippmann became a founding editor of the magazine in 1913. Hard to believe, but TNR has retained this attitude through the intervening century. The "truth" must be correctly interpreted by the self-appointed geniuses who can interpret the intricate series of facts into lean and easily digestible bits of facts for all of us idiots who leaf through their writings. If you ask me, this attitude is why TNR is failing, not only the effects changing media and boring swaths of white paper and words.
Thank god TNR was here to tell us we should trust our President.
John Solomon Strikes Again
Okay, I know nobody cares about this topic, but something has seriously got to be done about John Solomon. That the guy is a right-wing political operative masquerading as a journalist is one thing. Fine. There are plenty of these folks writing for all of the major national publications. There are reporters with liberal political views that also misrepresent themselves as objective arbiters of the truth. It's "balance," right?
But this guy's work is just breathtakingly bad. And for the second time in about a month, the Washington Post has given an embarrassing non-story by Solomon front-page coverage. At some point, even Insight magazine types have to start presenting facts that substantiate their bizarre fantasy narratives.
Seriously. How many left-wing flacks are writing for the New York Times or Washington Post at the moment, and how many of them get high-profile space to publish simple DNC opposition research talking points? The Liberal Media charge, which might have had its day in court fifteen or twenty years ago, is simply not credible anymore.
UPDATE: Kevin Drum on Solomon's latest "story."
VERY LATE UPDATE: The New York Times does its best imitation of Fox News and John Solomon. There is a crisis in today's mainstream media, and it has been caused by reporters' and editors' willingess to print Republican opposition research as if it were actual journalism. The results are startling.
But this guy's work is just breathtakingly bad. And for the second time in about a month, the Washington Post has given an embarrassing non-story by Solomon front-page coverage. At some point, even Insight magazine types have to start presenting facts that substantiate their bizarre fantasy narratives.
Seriously. How many left-wing flacks are writing for the New York Times or Washington Post at the moment, and how many of them get high-profile space to publish simple DNC opposition research talking points? The Liberal Media charge, which might have had its day in court fifteen or twenty years ago, is simply not credible anymore.
UPDATE: Kevin Drum on Solomon's latest "story."
VERY LATE UPDATE: The New York Times does its best imitation of Fox News and John Solomon. There is a crisis in today's mainstream media, and it has been caused by reporters' and editors' willingess to print Republican opposition research as if it were actual journalism. The results are startling.
Baldacci's School Consolidation Plan
And now, for something I know absolutely nothing about. Gov. Baldacci was in Presque Isle yesterday trying to sell his educational consolidation plan, which seems to have won him mixed reviews. The plan, as I understand it, involves reducing school administrative units from the current 290 down to just 26 units. The thought of eliminating redundant school administrators makes me tingle with excitement, particularly since the governor's staff claims they can realize $44 million in savings from the plan.
On the other hand, local control would appear to be a casualty of any such consolidation. It's my sense, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the plan would effectively disband municipal boards of education in favor of a more regional elected body which would oversee each of the 26 units. The same core proposal was floated in New Jersey over the past month or two (can't find a link), but the overwhelmingly hostile reaction forced Gov. Corzine and NJ Democrats to abandon the idea.
My view is that redundant school administration is a problem, but the most important cause of skyrocketing property taxes in Maine and New Jersey is health insurance costs. When these costs grow by 10 to 20 percent each year, and the public sector provides insurance to the majority of its employees, one way or another those costs will find their way into your property tax bill. Why do health insurance costs grow as much as they do every year? Now there's something to debate.
Thoughts on Baldacci's plan? Counterproposals? I'm all ears.
On the other hand, local control would appear to be a casualty of any such consolidation. It's my sense, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the plan would effectively disband municipal boards of education in favor of a more regional elected body which would oversee each of the 26 units. The same core proposal was floated in New Jersey over the past month or two (can't find a link), but the overwhelmingly hostile reaction forced Gov. Corzine and NJ Democrats to abandon the idea.
My view is that redundant school administration is a problem, but the most important cause of skyrocketing property taxes in Maine and New Jersey is health insurance costs. When these costs grow by 10 to 20 percent each year, and the public sector provides insurance to the majority of its employees, one way or another those costs will find their way into your property tax bill. Why do health insurance costs grow as much as they do every year? Now there's something to debate.
Thoughts on Baldacci's plan? Counterproposals? I'm all ears.
Bickering
Yahoo! Canada had an interesting headline/question today: Do politicians bicker too much?
My initial response was, "No. Ideally, we should elect people who will bicker on our behalf." Hence, Taxfighter Smith's anger against taxes did little for him around Presque Isle this fall. We want people who have proven action, people with the interests of the public and, in a perfect world, an interest in the greater good.
Then I remembered that we aren't living in an ideal world. The fact is, many of our politicians bicker for their self-preservation. Despite some personal feelings on parties supported by Rush Limbaugh (who is the poster child for self-preservation), this is really a trans-partisan problem. I think part of why Clinton and Obama have risen to the top of many lists is because they do both. I think both candidates have proven action in the government, much of which has supported the greater public (not my) opinion and has made an attempt at keeping the US on top globally. Still, they know how to play the game. A lot of their bickering is against other people, simply to remind everyone of how good they are.
Now, before I make this into more Clinton - Obama discussion, I'm going to broaden this. What politicians can we think of who have bickered in a good way? (I think of people like FDR, one of my favorites.) What about people who just bicker? What is the likelihood that we can get good bickering in the White House and national legislature in 2008?
My initial response was, "No. Ideally, we should elect people who will bicker on our behalf." Hence, Taxfighter Smith's anger against taxes did little for him around Presque Isle this fall. We want people who have proven action, people with the interests of the public and, in a perfect world, an interest in the greater good.
Then I remembered that we aren't living in an ideal world. The fact is, many of our politicians bicker for their self-preservation. Despite some personal feelings on parties supported by Rush Limbaugh (who is the poster child for self-preservation), this is really a trans-partisan problem. I think part of why Clinton and Obama have risen to the top of many lists is because they do both. I think both candidates have proven action in the government, much of which has supported the greater public (not my) opinion and has made an attempt at keeping the US on top globally. Still, they know how to play the game. A lot of their bickering is against other people, simply to remind everyone of how good they are.
Now, before I make this into more Clinton - Obama discussion, I'm going to broaden this. What politicians can we think of who have bickered in a good way? (I think of people like FDR, one of my favorites.) What about people who just bicker? What is the likelihood that we can get good bickering in the White House and national legislature in 2008?
Senators vote away souls + jobs
Senator Collins flip flops on today's vote for cloture on the non-binding (already pitifully cowardly) resolution asking Bush politely and sheepishly to stop with his Iraq policy. Initially, I thought this resolution was utterly pointless and typical of a weak-kneed Democratic party afraid to lead and reveal who they really are. Turns out, this vote will have astronomical repercussions for '08. All the Republicans up for re-election in '08 will own this war and be held to account for it by the voters.
I realize politics is politics and partisans will recognize when something is politically advantageous. Ultimately, this vote is a bad thing because it eliminates debate and procedural efforts to check Bush's authority. It is souless, immoral, and wrong. All of the senators who voted to cut off debate have blood on their hands. By the same token, Republicans have made themselves more vulnerable in '08 and given voters all the more reason to elect Democrats who will do the right thing. I try not to look at these situations from a politically kaniving perspective and try not to divorce myself from doing what's right. I wish the pundits, bloggers, strategists, electected officials, etc. would do the same and just follow their gut, but it must be acknowledged in this case that there are deep political ramifications even though more people will be killed because of this vote.
As for Collins and Snowe, they once again revealed what pitiful, subordinate, and spineless cowards they are. Collins has been Bush's waterboy on this war since day one and only voted with the Democrats to save her hind in '08. She's well aware that Tom Allen poses a credible challenge to her re-election bid. I don't want to speculate on the dynamics of an Allen-Collins race at this point (we'll have plenty of time in the future) but suffice to say, Allen is one of the top 2 Democrats in Maine that could beat Collins (I guess that's not saying much... we're talking about the Maine Democratic party here!) And Snowe... glad I voted for Hay Bright. It's distressing and an injustice that a liberal state like Maine has somebody like Snowe poisoning our reputation. But hey, at least we're a bunch of "independents" and mavericks who have the eagles eye view over all this silly partisan squabbling. We sure are enlightened here in Maine.
I realize politics is politics and partisans will recognize when something is politically advantageous. Ultimately, this vote is a bad thing because it eliminates debate and procedural efforts to check Bush's authority. It is souless, immoral, and wrong. All of the senators who voted to cut off debate have blood on their hands. By the same token, Republicans have made themselves more vulnerable in '08 and given voters all the more reason to elect Democrats who will do the right thing. I try not to look at these situations from a politically kaniving perspective and try not to divorce myself from doing what's right. I wish the pundits, bloggers, strategists, electected officials, etc. would do the same and just follow their gut, but it must be acknowledged in this case that there are deep political ramifications even though more people will be killed because of this vote.
As for Collins and Snowe, they once again revealed what pitiful, subordinate, and spineless cowards they are. Collins has been Bush's waterboy on this war since day one and only voted with the Democrats to save her hind in '08. She's well aware that Tom Allen poses a credible challenge to her re-election bid. I don't want to speculate on the dynamics of an Allen-Collins race at this point (we'll have plenty of time in the future) but suffice to say, Allen is one of the top 2 Democrats in Maine that could beat Collins (I guess that's not saying much... we're talking about the Maine Democratic party here!) And Snowe... glad I voted for Hay Bright. It's distressing and an injustice that a liberal state like Maine has somebody like Snowe poisoning our reputation. But hey, at least we're a bunch of "independents" and mavericks who have the eagles eye view over all this silly partisan squabbling. We sure are enlightened here in Maine.
The Worst Reporter in the United States
Further evidence for why Adam Nagourney is one of the three worst reporters in the United States. He joins the incompetent and wilfully misleading John Solomon, and the fact-free administration stenographer Elisabeth Bumiller atop this pyramid of failed journalists.
Who else should be considered for this dubious distinction?
Who else should be considered for this dubious distinction?
Happy Birthday, Compromise of 1850.
Let's all thank Henry Clay that Texas wasn't any bigger than it had to be.
Waiting For Democratic Courage
Democrats need to grow a sack. Last election, voters expressed dismay with the status quo and Bush's handling of Iraq. Recent polling shows that 70 percent of the public opposes the escalation plan and a majority want Democrats to use their majority power for Congressional oversight. Further, I think it was pretty clear from the '04 presidential election that Democrats lost, in part, because voters believed Democrats lacked courage, didn't have an easily understandable, coherent party platform, and would say whatever they had to to get elected. Notice that Democrats are far more concerned with the "electability" of their presidential candidates, but Republicans just go with the candidate they like the best. In short, Democrats need to toughen up and make courageous decisions regardless of what conventional wisdom, the punditry, and the right-wing attack machine has to say about it.
Democrats have a number of options with Iraq. Still, they have created an imaginary paralysis in which they feel helpless to influence decision making until Bush leaves office in January 2009. They appear terrified of taking positions that could leave them vulnerable Rove-Republican attack machine.
The conventional wisdom and perceived options: cutting off funding for the war is a radical option, not wise or prudent to exercise in the near future, and likely political suicide. Cutting off funding would show Democrats don't "support the troops" and would hurt the party in '08. Therefore, only two sensible options remain: the least popular is the Kennedy position and bill he has introduced which caps troop numbers at their current level (pre-escalation) and deprives funding for any extra troops. The more popular option, and the bill likely to be passed within the next couple of weeks, is to symbolically condemn Bush's new plan and show Congress's and the American people's disapproval.
Frankly, I am irritated by the second and more popular proposal. Bush does not care. The resolution will have zero impact on how he conducts the war over the next couple of years. He has "made his decision." If there's anything we've learned from the last six years, and particularly since the Iraq war, Bush and his administration have their own ideas of how best to lead the country and what policies to implement, and they are uninterested in what the opposition has to say about it. Of course Bush knows his plan is unpopular, but it's the defining issue of his presidency and he's not going to abandon his mission just because public opinion has mounted against him. Therefore, this resolution has no teeth and will have no impact on policy. It doesn't even force members of Congress to account to their constituencies because they have already made public statements on how they feel about Bush's plan. In short, I believe this resolution is an act of cowardice and a futile political ploy to pretend that Congress is exercising its power.
If I were a member of Congress, I would introduce a bill (along with Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT) to set a date for the military to be out of Iraq and cut off funding beyond that date. Like Brad said in earlier posts, the date could be arranged in consultation with the generals on the ground to determine the most expeditious and safest way to carry out the withdrawal. This resolution would give Bush extended notice to comply with Congress to prevent American forces stranded in Iraq without the resources they need. The way this option is framed conventionally, it seems, is that if Congress votes to cut off funding, they are the ones that would be undermining the troops. But What if the resolution gave Bush months to prepare for withdrawal and he still didn't comply? Wouldn't he be the one keeping troops in Iraq when he knows they will be deprived of resources by a specific date?
Memo to Democrats: it would be nice if you could reach down and pull your genitals to the proper place in front of your body instead of continuing to look down and being deceived by a vaginal-type presence.
Democrats have a number of options with Iraq. Still, they have created an imaginary paralysis in which they feel helpless to influence decision making until Bush leaves office in January 2009. They appear terrified of taking positions that could leave them vulnerable Rove-Republican attack machine.
The conventional wisdom and perceived options: cutting off funding for the war is a radical option, not wise or prudent to exercise in the near future, and likely political suicide. Cutting off funding would show Democrats don't "support the troops" and would hurt the party in '08. Therefore, only two sensible options remain: the least popular is the Kennedy position and bill he has introduced which caps troop numbers at their current level (pre-escalation) and deprives funding for any extra troops. The more popular option, and the bill likely to be passed within the next couple of weeks, is to symbolically condemn Bush's new plan and show Congress's and the American people's disapproval.
Frankly, I am irritated by the second and more popular proposal. Bush does not care. The resolution will have zero impact on how he conducts the war over the next couple of years. He has "made his decision." If there's anything we've learned from the last six years, and particularly since the Iraq war, Bush and his administration have their own ideas of how best to lead the country and what policies to implement, and they are uninterested in what the opposition has to say about it. Of course Bush knows his plan is unpopular, but it's the defining issue of his presidency and he's not going to abandon his mission just because public opinion has mounted against him. Therefore, this resolution has no teeth and will have no impact on policy. It doesn't even force members of Congress to account to their constituencies because they have already made public statements on how they feel about Bush's plan. In short, I believe this resolution is an act of cowardice and a futile political ploy to pretend that Congress is exercising its power.
If I were a member of Congress, I would introduce a bill (along with Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT) to set a date for the military to be out of Iraq and cut off funding beyond that date. Like Brad said in earlier posts, the date could be arranged in consultation with the generals on the ground to determine the most expeditious and safest way to carry out the withdrawal. This resolution would give Bush extended notice to comply with Congress to prevent American forces stranded in Iraq without the resources they need. The way this option is framed conventionally, it seems, is that if Congress votes to cut off funding, they are the ones that would be undermining the troops. But What if the resolution gave Bush months to prepare for withdrawal and he still didn't comply? Wouldn't he be the one keeping troops in Iraq when he knows they will be deprived of resources by a specific date?
Memo to Democrats: it would be nice if you could reach down and pull your genitals to the proper place in front of your body instead of continuing to look down and being deceived by a vaginal-type presence.
Happy New Year; Early Predictions
So it's January 22nd, and here I am ringing in the new year for Across the Aisle. I assume everyone leads a far more interesting life than I (besides Chris, perhaps, who has also noted the considerable sloth-like activity during the past few weeks)...
While I will be likely posting about the whole American Samoa/Minimum Wage issue soon, I thought a good first post of January would be about the upcoming Presidential campaigns. Some more people have thrown their hats into the ring of late, and I would be interested to hear everyone's early predictions as to how the primaries and general election will go.
From wikipedia, here are the candidates who have filed, formed committees, or declared serious interest - official filers are denoted with an asterisk:
Democratic Party:
- Sen. Christopher Dodd (CT)*
- F-Sen. John Edwards (NC)*
- F-Sen. Mike Gravel (AK)*
- Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH)*
- Gov. Tom Vilsack (IA)*
- Sen. Joe Biden (DE)
- Sen. Barack Osama Bin Hussein Obama (IL)
- Sen. Hilary Rodham Clinton (NY)
- Gov. Bill Richardson (NM)
- F-Gen. Wesley Clark (AR)
- Sen. John Kerry (MA)
- Rev. Al Sharpton (NY)
Republican Party:
- Sen. Sam Brownback (KS)*
- John H. Cox (IL)*
- Michael Charles Smith (OR)*
- F-Gov. Jim Gilmore (KS)
- F-Mayor Rudy Guliani (NY)
- Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA)
- Sen. John McCain (AZ)
- F-Gov. Mitt Romney (MA)
- Rep. Ron Paul (TX)
- Rep. Tom Tancredo (CO)
- F-Gov. Tommy Thompson (WI)
- F-Rep. Newt Gingrich (GA)
- Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE)
- F-Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR)
- F-Gov. George Pataki (NY)
At this point both races are quite interesting, although I think the Democratic primary seems to be more of a clash of the titans at this point. Dodd, Clinton, and Edwards are well established and Obama has made himself the face of emergent Democratic politics. Edwards was my favorite in the Democratic party in '04, and I have heard many Democrats have a "we should have picked Edwards over Kerry" mentality. As far as a running mate, Obama's surge in popularity may make him an ideal name for the ticket, and the southeast/midwest ticket would bring many intriguing electoral college scenarios to the table.
The Republican side is far less crystallized at this point. McCain, one would think, is the early front runner, but with the state of the party at present, there could be a surprise candidate who plays the primaries right. The Republican party will be split between those looking for someone who represents the moderates who were silenced in 2000 but have gained momentum in the face of Dubya's decline and those looking for a conservative to be proud of and to rally around after being kicked in the dirt the last few years. I give the edge to the latter and have selected Sen. Brownback as my early pick, but think a moderate from a blue state would be the best idea for a running mate. Rudy Guiliani would be ideal for these purposes and his name on the ticket would help regain the Republican party's former advantage the homeland security department, but this is an impossible marriage of social opposites... I'll go with another New Yorker, George Pataki, making a surprise run on Super Tuesday to gain the VP nod.
I think the general election may hinge on how America views the job the Democratic congress does over the next year... if pressed to pick a winner in my mock '08 standoff I would say Edwards-Obama def. Brownback-Pataki. Edwards-Obama would be a fresh face and a media darling, surely a force to reckoned with in an election as open as '08 is looking to be.
If the Republicans go moderate, I'd say McCain-Guliani brings about some interesting scenarios but will still lose against Edwards-Obama because of weakness in the southeast. It's very hard for a Republican to win these days without FL, NC, etc. in their pocket.
While I will be likely posting about the whole American Samoa/Minimum Wage issue soon, I thought a good first post of January would be about the upcoming Presidential campaigns. Some more people have thrown their hats into the ring of late, and I would be interested to hear everyone's early predictions as to how the primaries and general election will go.
From wikipedia, here are the candidates who have filed, formed committees, or declared serious interest - official filers are denoted with an asterisk:
Democratic Party:
- Sen. Christopher Dodd (CT)*
- F-Sen. John Edwards (NC)*
- F-Sen. Mike Gravel (AK)*
- Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH)*
- Gov. Tom Vilsack (IA)*
- Sen. Joe Biden (DE)
- Sen. Barack Osama Bin Hussein Obama (IL)
- Sen. Hilary Rodham Clinton (NY)
- Gov. Bill Richardson (NM)
- F-Gen. Wesley Clark (AR)
- Sen. John Kerry (MA)
- Rev. Al Sharpton (NY)
Republican Party:
- Sen. Sam Brownback (KS)*
- John H. Cox (IL)*
- Michael Charles Smith (OR)*
- F-Gov. Jim Gilmore (KS)
- F-Mayor Rudy Guliani (NY)
- Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA)
- Sen. John McCain (AZ)
- F-Gov. Mitt Romney (MA)
- Rep. Ron Paul (TX)
- Rep. Tom Tancredo (CO)
- F-Gov. Tommy Thompson (WI)
- F-Rep. Newt Gingrich (GA)
- Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE)
- F-Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR)
- F-Gov. George Pataki (NY)
At this point both races are quite interesting, although I think the Democratic primary seems to be more of a clash of the titans at this point. Dodd, Clinton, and Edwards are well established and Obama has made himself the face of emergent Democratic politics. Edwards was my favorite in the Democratic party in '04, and I have heard many Democrats have a "we should have picked Edwards over Kerry" mentality. As far as a running mate, Obama's surge in popularity may make him an ideal name for the ticket, and the southeast/midwest ticket would bring many intriguing electoral college scenarios to the table.
The Republican side is far less crystallized at this point. McCain, one would think, is the early front runner, but with the state of the party at present, there could be a surprise candidate who plays the primaries right. The Republican party will be split between those looking for someone who represents the moderates who were silenced in 2000 but have gained momentum in the face of Dubya's decline and those looking for a conservative to be proud of and to rally around after being kicked in the dirt the last few years. I give the edge to the latter and have selected Sen. Brownback as my early pick, but think a moderate from a blue state would be the best idea for a running mate. Rudy Guiliani would be ideal for these purposes and his name on the ticket would help regain the Republican party's former advantage the homeland security department, but this is an impossible marriage of social opposites... I'll go with another New Yorker, George Pataki, making a surprise run on Super Tuesday to gain the VP nod.
I think the general election may hinge on how America views the job the Democratic congress does over the next year... if pressed to pick a winner in my mock '08 standoff I would say Edwards-Obama def. Brownback-Pataki. Edwards-Obama would be a fresh face and a media darling, surely a force to reckoned with in an election as open as '08 is looking to be.
If the Republicans go moderate, I'd say McCain-Guliani brings about some interesting scenarios but will still lose against Edwards-Obama because of weakness in the southeast. It's very hard for a Republican to win these days without FL, NC, etc. in their pocket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
