The Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and former Governor of Vermont contrasted the two parties’ presidential candidates, saying that with a woman and an African-American as the two front-runners, the Democratic field “looks like America,” while the all-white male Republican field “looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s.”
http://www.georgetownvoice.com/2008-02-28/news/howard-dean-talks-politics-in-icc
Republicans in the 1850s: William Seward (anti-slavery), Salmon P. Chase (anti-slavery), John C. Fremont (anti-slavery).
Oh, and Abe Lincoln.
See, Howard Dean should stick to politics, or at least medicine.
I saw Dean speak right before the 2004 election. Then, I wrote about the "two Deans": the hyper-partisan, Democratic party hack, and the ideas guy who was kind of at odds with both parties. As DNC chair, of course, we see the first one of those guys. This statement didn't make any sense at all.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Obama, Again
In the department of not living up to his rhetoric, Barack Obama can imagine ANY options being on the table to reform social security, except privatization. Again, he's not really interested in compromise. He's interested in building support for a "progressive" agenda. Real compromise would involve raising the payroll cap, raising the retirement age, raising benefits, and allowing partial privatization.
So, I read this article, which reaffirmed part of what I have been thinking about:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120398899374792349.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
In different points, Obama has faced a few lines of criticism.
1. He is a lightweight with little experience.
2. He is overly liberal.
3. His speeches are short on substance.
4. He is a Muslim.
I would like to address each of these points, briefly.
1. Obama is no lightweight. This is an intelligent, contemplative person who is running for national office with a strong plan and a firm ideology, not just someone who accidentally found himself running for president. There is no doubt in my mind that Obama has the mental skills and capacity to be president. Watch him in the debates, or read his writing. This is not a stupid, incompetent person; this is a constitutional law expert with a strong academic background
2. Obama is a quintessential modern American liberal. Whether you think that is a good or a bad thing is entirely up to you. His record belies any attempts to classify him as anything else: he believes in wealth redistribution, and he is ultimately skeptical about modern America, its inequalities, and its practices. He also happens to believe in open government, which is a liberal position that happens to be more popular with the mainstream than most. Again, I am not making a judgment here. "Liberal" should not be the dirty word it is (Well, I'd like to retake liberal and recast it in its 19th-century definition, but...). It is just a representation of an ideology.
3. His speeches are short on substance, for the most part. Still, there is substance in the campaign and the candidacy. You just have to dig for it a bit, I think. He has not laid out anything in specific, but his ideology and his intelligence is well documented.
4. This is ludicrous criticism that should not matter at all. Of course, it does. If this is what sinks the Obama campaign in October and November, I will be infuriated with the Republican Party and its PACs.
Some of his plans (his health care plan, for one) seem a little short on substance, but make no mistake: minute specifics are largely irrelevant once Congress gets its hands on a proposal. We know what Obama would like to do as president, and we know what his general ideas are. On many issues, we have more specifics; you can just surf around his website for that sort of thing.
So, who is Barack Obama? He is an intelligent, articulate, liberal American who has run an utterly fantastic campaign and who has become stronger in the "debates" as the campaign has progressed. He is a formidable candidate.
But that doesn't mean you have to agree with him, or that you have to vote for him.
So, I read this article, which reaffirmed part of what I have been thinking about:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120398899374792349.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
In different points, Obama has faced a few lines of criticism.
1. He is a lightweight with little experience.
2. He is overly liberal.
3. His speeches are short on substance.
4. He is a Muslim.
I would like to address each of these points, briefly.
1. Obama is no lightweight. This is an intelligent, contemplative person who is running for national office with a strong plan and a firm ideology, not just someone who accidentally found himself running for president. There is no doubt in my mind that Obama has the mental skills and capacity to be president. Watch him in the debates, or read his writing. This is not a stupid, incompetent person; this is a constitutional law expert with a strong academic background
2. Obama is a quintessential modern American liberal. Whether you think that is a good or a bad thing is entirely up to you. His record belies any attempts to classify him as anything else: he believes in wealth redistribution, and he is ultimately skeptical about modern America, its inequalities, and its practices. He also happens to believe in open government, which is a liberal position that happens to be more popular with the mainstream than most. Again, I am not making a judgment here. "Liberal" should not be the dirty word it is (Well, I'd like to retake liberal and recast it in its 19th-century definition, but...). It is just a representation of an ideology.
3. His speeches are short on substance, for the most part. Still, there is substance in the campaign and the candidacy. You just have to dig for it a bit, I think. He has not laid out anything in specific, but his ideology and his intelligence is well documented.
4. This is ludicrous criticism that should not matter at all. Of course, it does. If this is what sinks the Obama campaign in October and November, I will be infuriated with the Republican Party and its PACs.
Some of his plans (his health care plan, for one) seem a little short on substance, but make no mistake: minute specifics are largely irrelevant once Congress gets its hands on a proposal. We know what Obama would like to do as president, and we know what his general ideas are. On many issues, we have more specifics; you can just surf around his website for that sort of thing.
So, who is Barack Obama? He is an intelligent, articulate, liberal American who has run an utterly fantastic campaign and who has become stronger in the "debates" as the campaign has progressed. He is a formidable candidate.
But that doesn't mean you have to agree with him, or that you have to vote for him.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
The Nader Effect
Ralph Nader last had a significant impact on an election way back in 2000. The key numbers, as follows:
NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE
Al Gore - 51,003,926 (48.4%)
George W. Bush - 50,460,110 (47.9%)
Ralph Nader - 2,883,105 (2.7%)
Others - 1,070,117 (1.0%)
FLORIDA
George W. Bush - 2,912,790 (48.8%)
Al Gore - 2,912,253 (48.8%)
Ralph Nader - 97,488 (1.6%)
Others - 40,579 (0.6%)
The simplistic approach to the question is to say, with a great deal of finality and purpose, that Nader cost Gore the election. You would have a point, certainly. Voters are supposedly rational actors, and Gore was certainly closer to Nader on the spectrum than Bush was.
Still, the truth is, many third party voters vote only because they are fond of the particular candidate. The best example of that this year is Ron Paul. People started to come to the realization that Paul had tapped into a heretofore untapped vein of electoral support. The question was asked often: where do those supporters go after their hero drops out? Most people came to the conclusion that those voters would go home.
But because Nader's voters aren't seen as insane, and Paul's are, Nader's voters were not usually considered to be "going home" if Nader weren't there. They were anticipated to vote.
The best academic look at this that I've seen was done by Priscilla D. Southwell at the University of Oregon, and she concluded that Nader's voters were likely to vote for Gore in a general, all while accounting for the fact that their turnout might have been more depressed. So, I think that the conclusion that was reached is sound, though I'm not happy with its slipshod nature.
Less talked about is Nader's own assertion, that he helped the Democrats' retake the Senate. I'll look at Washington State as an instructive example of this.
In the 50-50 split Senate, the Democrats courted moderate and maverick Republicans to switch allegiance in order to flip the Senate back to the Dems. If I'm not mistaken, Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chaffee, and John McCain were their targets. Jeffords became an independent and decided to caucus with the Dems, thus giving them their majority. But before that happened, they needed to tie the Senate, right?
Enter Washington:
Al Gore - 1,240,302 (49.7%)
George W. Bush - 1,101,621 (44.1%)
Ralph Nader - 101,906 (4.1%)
Others - 24,980 (1.0%)
A pretty significant win for Gore, no? He won by almost 6 percentage points, even before the Nader votes are taken into account.
Here's the Senate race:
Maria Cantwell (D) - 1,199,437
Slade Gordon (R-incumbent) - 1,197,208
Less than 2,500 votes separated the Senate winner from the Senate loser. The question is, did Nader increase the total of voters for Maria Cantwell by more than that number? For this, we have to go to the Exit Polls. I would much rather have the raw data here, but it's not available. What I'm about to do is speculative. I merely want to see if this theory is plausible.
Because the sample isn't big enough, our most critical question, "Who would you have voted for in a two-candidate race?" has no data. This is methodologically questionable, but I extrapolated the information on the national poll to get the splits on this: 31% of the people who would not have voted in the election if it had been a two-candidate race were Nader supporters. It's essentially 31% of 2%, which is .62% of the electorate. My estimate, ignoring significant digits and stuff like that, is that Nader increased turnout by .62% in Washington, which was a little over 16,000 new voters.
The question is, where would those voters go? Exit polls indicate that 7% of Cantwell's supporters voted Nader, and that 3% of Gorton's supporters voted Nader. But there was also a third party candidate running in the Senate election (a lonely libertarian), and he got 2.6% of the vote. Did the same iconoclasts vote for him as the ones that voted for Nader? How can we really trust the exit polls when they completely ignored Jeff Jared, the libertarian?
So, it's a tough question. I think Nader's claims about Washington are plausible, though.
This year? I would be very surprised if Nader netted more than 1% of the vote. I also don't think he will take very many votes away from Obama or Clinton; he will simply bring out more people who probably wouldn't vote for the mainstream candidate anyway.
So, in the end, I actually think Nader could help the Democrats. Nader voters, like he has claimed, often vote for the Democratic senatorial or House candidates. The Senate, which is very closely contested, might swing further to the Democrats' with the help of Nader voters.
My advice? Don't worry about Nader, if you're a Democrat. He's irrelevant and 40 years past his prime, but he actually might help out this year.
NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE
Al Gore - 51,003,926 (48.4%)
George W. Bush - 50,460,110 (47.9%)
Ralph Nader - 2,883,105 (2.7%)
Others - 1,070,117 (1.0%)
FLORIDA
George W. Bush - 2,912,790 (48.8%)
Al Gore - 2,912,253 (48.8%)
Ralph Nader - 97,488 (1.6%)
Others - 40,579 (0.6%)
The simplistic approach to the question is to say, with a great deal of finality and purpose, that Nader cost Gore the election. You would have a point, certainly. Voters are supposedly rational actors, and Gore was certainly closer to Nader on the spectrum than Bush was.
Still, the truth is, many third party voters vote only because they are fond of the particular candidate. The best example of that this year is Ron Paul. People started to come to the realization that Paul had tapped into a heretofore untapped vein of electoral support. The question was asked often: where do those supporters go after their hero drops out? Most people came to the conclusion that those voters would go home.
But because Nader's voters aren't seen as insane, and Paul's are, Nader's voters were not usually considered to be "going home" if Nader weren't there. They were anticipated to vote.
The best academic look at this that I've seen was done by Priscilla D. Southwell at the University of Oregon, and she concluded that Nader's voters were likely to vote for Gore in a general, all while accounting for the fact that their turnout might have been more depressed. So, I think that the conclusion that was reached is sound, though I'm not happy with its slipshod nature.
Less talked about is Nader's own assertion, that he helped the Democrats' retake the Senate. I'll look at Washington State as an instructive example of this.
In the 50-50 split Senate, the Democrats courted moderate and maverick Republicans to switch allegiance in order to flip the Senate back to the Dems. If I'm not mistaken, Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chaffee, and John McCain were their targets. Jeffords became an independent and decided to caucus with the Dems, thus giving them their majority. But before that happened, they needed to tie the Senate, right?
Enter Washington:
Al Gore - 1,240,302 (49.7%)
George W. Bush - 1,101,621 (44.1%)
Ralph Nader - 101,906 (4.1%)
Others - 24,980 (1.0%)
A pretty significant win for Gore, no? He won by almost 6 percentage points, even before the Nader votes are taken into account.
Here's the Senate race:
Maria Cantwell (D) - 1,199,437
Slade Gordon (R-incumbent) - 1,197,208
Less than 2,500 votes separated the Senate winner from the Senate loser. The question is, did Nader increase the total of voters for Maria Cantwell by more than that number? For this, we have to go to the Exit Polls. I would much rather have the raw data here, but it's not available. What I'm about to do is speculative. I merely want to see if this theory is plausible.
Because the sample isn't big enough, our most critical question, "Who would you have voted for in a two-candidate race?" has no data. This is methodologically questionable, but I extrapolated the information on the national poll to get the splits on this: 31% of the people who would not have voted in the election if it had been a two-candidate race were Nader supporters. It's essentially 31% of 2%, which is .62% of the electorate. My estimate, ignoring significant digits and stuff like that, is that Nader increased turnout by .62% in Washington, which was a little over 16,000 new voters.
The question is, where would those voters go? Exit polls indicate that 7% of Cantwell's supporters voted Nader, and that 3% of Gorton's supporters voted Nader. But there was also a third party candidate running in the Senate election (a lonely libertarian), and he got 2.6% of the vote. Did the same iconoclasts vote for him as the ones that voted for Nader? How can we really trust the exit polls when they completely ignored Jeff Jared, the libertarian?
So, it's a tough question. I think Nader's claims about Washington are plausible, though.
This year? I would be very surprised if Nader netted more than 1% of the vote. I also don't think he will take very many votes away from Obama or Clinton; he will simply bring out more people who probably wouldn't vote for the mainstream candidate anyway.
So, in the end, I actually think Nader could help the Democrats. Nader voters, like he has claimed, often vote for the Democratic senatorial or House candidates. The Senate, which is very closely contested, might swing further to the Democrats' with the help of Nader voters.
My advice? Don't worry about Nader, if you're a Democrat. He's irrelevant and 40 years past his prime, but he actually might help out this year.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
McCain's Nascent Stump Speech
I think what we saw Tuesday night in Wisconsin was the beginnings of a stump speech for McCain. He retooled his message a bit, streamlining it for the general election. I wanted to go down the line and hash out what I think will be the core message for McCain going forward.
First off, the text of the speech:
McCain Feb. 19 Speech
And next, the outline of McCain's case for himself.
1. An historic moment: I've never heard of a presidential election being described as "unimportant," but in this particular year, there is a heavy focus on the historical implications of this election. McCain opens with this, a nod to the history being made around him.
2. "Eloquent but empty": Part 1 of the Barack Obama assault plan. McCain praises Obama for his ability to make speeches, but he quickly pivots into how the substance of those speeches is either lacking or just a rehash of standard liberal dogma.
3. "We live in a world of change": This is the McCain-ian equivalent to the "politics of fear" that people like to criticize Bush for practicing. McCain rattles off a litany of recent events in the international arena. He lists them with confidence, telling the voters that he knows about international affairs, and that no one is more qualified to manage them.
4. "The confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate": Part 2 of the Obama assault plan. McCain criticizes Obama for saying that he would possibly bomb Pakistan (an ally), and McCain criticizes Obama for supporting negotiations with Iran without "preconditions or clear purpose." Essentially, this builds off of point 3. McCain says, "compared to me, Obama is foolish and naive on foreign policy." McCain does well if the debate stays on foreign policy.
5. "Violent extremists who despise us": The 9/11 card, if you will. McCain lays out the threat: they are determined, effective, and driven by an apocalyptic zeal. How do we address this? Only by understanding the nature of the threat can the threat be handled: it requires military restructuring and the full force of American focus and determination.
6. "Rely on the common sense and values of the American people": This is the "I am not a liberal" argument. McCain is preaching that big government is a bad thing, even though that doctrine is growing a bit stale to many people (not me! I'm still here!). Still, he hits on some key points: free trade, school choice and accountability, tax simplification, private health care, and spending control.
7. I am a maverick: The second half of the McCain domestic agenda, of course, is where he differs from conservative convention. We might see campaign finance come back later in the campaign, as well as immigration reform, though both topics were ignored in this speech. He briefly hit upon alternative energy in the speech and the need to focus on it. This speech was still looking for conservatives, so we didn't see all of the agenda, I don't think.
8. Conclusion 1--"I am the most experienced": There's simply no other way to run this campaign. McCain is the warhorse. He's been around forever, and he's been in the federal government since Barack Obama was in college. He will be sure to focus on how he has also criticized the federal government while he was there. The freshness and dynamism of Obama cannot be topped. McCain can only hope to run his own angle on it.
9. Conclusion 2--"I owe America": With Michelle Obama under attack for her "proud of America" statement from a few days back, McCain can keep hitting on his own love for America and how he owes America far more than it could possibly owe him. McCain's patriotism cannot be questioned in middle America or anywhere; he was a freaking POW. Perhaps unfairly, Obama's patriotism will come into question (issues of flag pins, national anthems, and wife's statements are already surfacing). This is a winning issue for McCain, and it's a good way to end the speech.
I think the McCain stump speech this year will look a lot like this. It seems like it could be pretty effective, assuming Obama is the candidate. The speech will change significantly if Hillary Clinton surges back into frontrunner status.
McCain is fighting an uphill battle here. He can be tied to the president pretty closely, and the president is extremely unpopular. Republicans, in general, are extremely unpopular right now. It's very hard to hold the White House for 3 straight terms; it has happened once since 1952.
But if McCain is going to use this line of attack this year, I think he has a chance, and I think he'll keep it close.
First off, the text of the speech:
McCain Feb. 19 Speech
And next, the outline of McCain's case for himself.
1. An historic moment: I've never heard of a presidential election being described as "unimportant," but in this particular year, there is a heavy focus on the historical implications of this election. McCain opens with this, a nod to the history being made around him.
2. "Eloquent but empty": Part 1 of the Barack Obama assault plan. McCain praises Obama for his ability to make speeches, but he quickly pivots into how the substance of those speeches is either lacking or just a rehash of standard liberal dogma.
3. "We live in a world of change": This is the McCain-ian equivalent to the "politics of fear" that people like to criticize Bush for practicing. McCain rattles off a litany of recent events in the international arena. He lists them with confidence, telling the voters that he knows about international affairs, and that no one is more qualified to manage them.
4. "The confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate": Part 2 of the Obama assault plan. McCain criticizes Obama for saying that he would possibly bomb Pakistan (an ally), and McCain criticizes Obama for supporting negotiations with Iran without "preconditions or clear purpose." Essentially, this builds off of point 3. McCain says, "compared to me, Obama is foolish and naive on foreign policy." McCain does well if the debate stays on foreign policy.
5. "Violent extremists who despise us": The 9/11 card, if you will. McCain lays out the threat: they are determined, effective, and driven by an apocalyptic zeal. How do we address this? Only by understanding the nature of the threat can the threat be handled: it requires military restructuring and the full force of American focus and determination.
6. "Rely on the common sense and values of the American people": This is the "I am not a liberal" argument. McCain is preaching that big government is a bad thing, even though that doctrine is growing a bit stale to many people (not me! I'm still here!). Still, he hits on some key points: free trade, school choice and accountability, tax simplification, private health care, and spending control.
7. I am a maverick: The second half of the McCain domestic agenda, of course, is where he differs from conservative convention. We might see campaign finance come back later in the campaign, as well as immigration reform, though both topics were ignored in this speech. He briefly hit upon alternative energy in the speech and the need to focus on it. This speech was still looking for conservatives, so we didn't see all of the agenda, I don't think.
8. Conclusion 1--"I am the most experienced": There's simply no other way to run this campaign. McCain is the warhorse. He's been around forever, and he's been in the federal government since Barack Obama was in college. He will be sure to focus on how he has also criticized the federal government while he was there. The freshness and dynamism of Obama cannot be topped. McCain can only hope to run his own angle on it.
9. Conclusion 2--"I owe America": With Michelle Obama under attack for her "proud of America" statement from a few days back, McCain can keep hitting on his own love for America and how he owes America far more than it could possibly owe him. McCain's patriotism cannot be questioned in middle America or anywhere; he was a freaking POW. Perhaps unfairly, Obama's patriotism will come into question (issues of flag pins, national anthems, and wife's statements are already surfacing). This is a winning issue for McCain, and it's a good way to end the speech.
I think the McCain stump speech this year will look a lot like this. It seems like it could be pretty effective, assuming Obama is the candidate. The speech will change significantly if Hillary Clinton surges back into frontrunner status.
McCain is fighting an uphill battle here. He can be tied to the president pretty closely, and the president is extremely unpopular. Republicans, in general, are extremely unpopular right now. It's very hard to hold the White House for 3 straight terms; it has happened once since 1952.
But if McCain is going to use this line of attack this year, I think he has a chance, and I think he'll keep it close.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Last Night's Debate
Barack Obama has become a much better debater throughout this primary season. Clinton, who is better in the format, had her hands full last night in what was pretty entertaining political theatre.
But really, I feel like we have been numbed by the fact that these debates are such crap. There was literally one segment of the debate where the two candidates were really going at each other with substance: the health care debate. Obama and Clinton have differing views on health care, and both were making points back and forth in an effort to, you know, engage one another, rather than to engage a looming President Bush or lobbyists.
So, there was this great debate going on over health care policy for a few minutes. Clinton believes in mandates and potentially garnishing wages. Obama believes that controlling the costs more would encourage people to buy. They both made good points, and they legitimately disagreed on something.
And the moderators kept trying to steer the debate somewhere else.
I just don't get it at all. They actually get good, lively, exciting, substantive content, and they run away from it. No! If there is good policy debate going on, that is both exciting and substantive, throw the rest of the stuff out, and let it play out!
The whole point of debate is for candidates to attempt to sell themselves and their ideas, relative to the other contenders. They are asked a question about a given issue, and they answer it. Someone else may poke holes in their answer and propose something different. Then they respond. Debates are a good way to test ideas, see how they stand up against criticism, and to lay out the differences in candidates. Obama and Clinton are both liberal Democrats, but they have some legitimate policy disagreements.
So last night, the concept of "debating" finally died, in my eyes. Not only does the format deliberately make engagement on issues difficult, but the moderators simply will not tolerate engagement on issues.
As an aside, I was thinking about the direction of this blog once the horse race stuff dies down a bit. I think I will do a lot of personal political stuff, talking about issues in particular, rather than politics as a whole. I think there are a lot of issues worth hashing out and looking into.
But really, I feel like we have been numbed by the fact that these debates are such crap. There was literally one segment of the debate where the two candidates were really going at each other with substance: the health care debate. Obama and Clinton have differing views on health care, and both were making points back and forth in an effort to, you know, engage one another, rather than to engage a looming President Bush or lobbyists.
So, there was this great debate going on over health care policy for a few minutes. Clinton believes in mandates and potentially garnishing wages. Obama believes that controlling the costs more would encourage people to buy. They both made good points, and they legitimately disagreed on something.
And the moderators kept trying to steer the debate somewhere else.
I just don't get it at all. They actually get good, lively, exciting, substantive content, and they run away from it. No! If there is good policy debate going on, that is both exciting and substantive, throw the rest of the stuff out, and let it play out!
The whole point of debate is for candidates to attempt to sell themselves and their ideas, relative to the other contenders. They are asked a question about a given issue, and they answer it. Someone else may poke holes in their answer and propose something different. Then they respond. Debates are a good way to test ideas, see how they stand up against criticism, and to lay out the differences in candidates. Obama and Clinton are both liberal Democrats, but they have some legitimate policy disagreements.
So last night, the concept of "debating" finally died, in my eyes. Not only does the format deliberately make engagement on issues difficult, but the moderators simply will not tolerate engagement on issues.
As an aside, I was thinking about the direction of this blog once the horse race stuff dies down a bit. I think I will do a lot of personal political stuff, talking about issues in particular, rather than politics as a whole. I think there are a lot of issues worth hashing out and looking into.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
NY Times Hits McCain
Interesting.
For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses its Own Risk
If this is the biggest scandal that McCain is going to face this year, he should be fine.
The article really is a gentle reminder that McCain does not have a spotless record in his 24 years in the federal government. They rehash a well-told story (the Keating Five), and they insinuated that he might have been having an affair with a lobbyist.
Just a few thoughts on the article:
1. My guess is that the Times spent a LOT of time doing the research on this piece. They didn't turn up much of substance, so they had to write it like this, a sort of chiding "there are rumours of some skeletons in his closet." I understand this; they spent a lot of time digging, and they want to get SOMETHING out of it.
2. I don't really, really think that this is a deliberately tactic by a liberal newspaper. I do think, though, that for whatever reason (perhaps b/c McCain is a little sanctimonious about ethics sometimes), they held McCain to a slightly higher standard than they would hold everyone else.
3. The best take on this article I've read came from the Talking Points Memo universe:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/02/about_that_time.php
Is this in bounds? I think so. Could there be more to this story? It's definitely possible.
Ask this question, though: if FOX News ran a similar report about Obama, what would DailyKos do?
My guess: utter outrage, cries of racism, Swift Boat allegations, the works.
As far as I am concerned, this is pretty poor journalism. It probably will occupy a few news cycles worth of time, but in the long run, I don't think it affects McCain.
Scandal stories have their place, but really, insinuation should never be allowed to enter into the elite discourse on politics. The US' paper of record should never get the ball rolling on this sort of story; it's irresponsible journalism.
More practically, though, if the Times really doesn't want McCain to get elected, their best bet is to sing his praises. A lot of middle America and conservative America really dislike the Times for its liberal slant. A war with the Times is a great way for McCain to play to the base.
For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses its Own Risk
If this is the biggest scandal that McCain is going to face this year, he should be fine.
The article really is a gentle reminder that McCain does not have a spotless record in his 24 years in the federal government. They rehash a well-told story (the Keating Five), and they insinuated that he might have been having an affair with a lobbyist.
Just a few thoughts on the article:
1. My guess is that the Times spent a LOT of time doing the research on this piece. They didn't turn up much of substance, so they had to write it like this, a sort of chiding "there are rumours of some skeletons in his closet." I understand this; they spent a lot of time digging, and they want to get SOMETHING out of it.
2. I don't really, really think that this is a deliberately tactic by a liberal newspaper. I do think, though, that for whatever reason (perhaps b/c McCain is a little sanctimonious about ethics sometimes), they held McCain to a slightly higher standard than they would hold everyone else.
3. The best take on this article I've read came from the Talking Points Memo universe:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/02/about_that_time.php
Is this in bounds? I think so. Could there be more to this story? It's definitely possible.
Ask this question, though: if FOX News ran a similar report about Obama, what would DailyKos do?
My guess: utter outrage, cries of racism, Swift Boat allegations, the works.
As far as I am concerned, this is pretty poor journalism. It probably will occupy a few news cycles worth of time, but in the long run, I don't think it affects McCain.
Scandal stories have their place, but really, insinuation should never be allowed to enter into the elite discourse on politics. The US' paper of record should never get the ball rolling on this sort of story; it's irresponsible journalism.
More practically, though, if the Times really doesn't want McCain to get elected, their best bet is to sing his praises. A lot of middle America and conservative America really dislike the Times for its liberal slant. A war with the Times is a great way for McCain to play to the base.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Quick Fire Wisconsin Update
The OVERALL split on the exits from Wisconsin:
Obama - 55%
Clinton - 43%
Not a guaranteed win, but that's a pretty big gap. They basically split women, and Obama dominated among men.
9:10 PM: Speaking of Obama, McCain is going after him pretty strongly in his victory speech.
9:15 PM: I am liking this new McCain. This is a good speech. He hit on pro-growth deficit reduction, flatter taxes, school choice, and his debt to America.
9:18 PM: FOX projects Obama.
Obama - 55%
Clinton - 43%
Not a guaranteed win, but that's a pretty big gap. They basically split women, and Obama dominated among men.
9:10 PM: Speaking of Obama, McCain is going after him pretty strongly in his victory speech.
9:15 PM: I am liking this new McCain. This is a good speech. He hit on pro-growth deficit reduction, flatter taxes, school choice, and his debt to America.
9:18 PM: FOX projects Obama.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Clinton Troubles?
I don't mind it when politicians change their views at all, really. All do. Some do it better than others. I think it's more acceptable when the public has clearly repudiated a particular measure, and it simply isn't tenable to continue to support it (the McCain immigration bill's failure is the best example I can think of). Also, switching one's views when it has become evident that your ideas about things were wrong, or that something you supported didn't work out like you wanted (Fred Thompson supporting McCain-Feingold; Clinton on the Iraq War, even).
Just arbitrarily switching your position based on a political whim, though, kind of bothers me... it's really tough to defend Hillary Clinton's shift on Social Security.
Here's an exchange on Social Security back at the Nevada debate in November:
OBAMA: So I've been very specific about saying that we should not privatize, we should protect benefits. I don't think the best way to approach this is to raise the retirement age. But what we can do is adjust the cap on the payroll tax. Right now, anybody who's making $97,000 or less, you pay payroll tax on 100 percent of your income. Warren Buffett, who made $46 million last year, pays on a fraction of one percent of his income. And if we make that small adjustment, we can potentially close that gap, and we can make sure Social Security's there.
Here's Clinton:
CLINTON: I do not want to fix the problems of Social Security on the backs of middle-class families and seniors. If you lift the cap completely, that is a $1 trillion tax increase. I don't think we need to do that. ...
I think that you meant a tax increase, because that's what it would be. ... it is absolutely the case that there are people who would find that burdensome. I represent firefighters. I represent school supervisors. I'm not talking -- and, you know, it's different parts of the country. So you have to look at this across the board and the numbers are staggering.
That was November 15. Here's Clinton's most recent rhetoric:
"It is OUTRAGEOUS that a teacher, a nurse, an assembly line worker, or a truck driver here in Ohio making fifty thousand a year pays a higher tax rate than some Wall Street investment manager making fifty million a year." - Ohio, 2/15
Again, political shifting is simply a way of life. But this is why Hillary Clinton is not a good politician. It is FAR too easy for me to point this out. On the one hand, she doesn't want to advocate raising the cap b/c it's a "tax on the middle class." On the other hand, the fact that the cap hasn't been raised is an outrage. These two lines are separated by only three months. It's silly to make that sort of shift so quickly.
Why? It's desperation, and her team just isn't good enough to find another way to go populist to keep up with Obama. So they figure that attacking FDR's system as not being enough of a welfare system is one way to do it.
Well, that and attacking him for plagiarizing from the speeches of his close political friend. Um, what is going on with the Clintons??
Just arbitrarily switching your position based on a political whim, though, kind of bothers me... it's really tough to defend Hillary Clinton's shift on Social Security.
Here's an exchange on Social Security back at the Nevada debate in November:
OBAMA: So I've been very specific about saying that we should not privatize, we should protect benefits. I don't think the best way to approach this is to raise the retirement age. But what we can do is adjust the cap on the payroll tax. Right now, anybody who's making $97,000 or less, you pay payroll tax on 100 percent of your income. Warren Buffett, who made $46 million last year, pays on a fraction of one percent of his income. And if we make that small adjustment, we can potentially close that gap, and we can make sure Social Security's there.
Here's Clinton:
CLINTON: I do not want to fix the problems of Social Security on the backs of middle-class families and seniors. If you lift the cap completely, that is a $1 trillion tax increase. I don't think we need to do that. ...
I think that you meant a tax increase, because that's what it would be. ... it is absolutely the case that there are people who would find that burdensome. I represent firefighters. I represent school supervisors. I'm not talking -- and, you know, it's different parts of the country. So you have to look at this across the board and the numbers are staggering.
That was November 15. Here's Clinton's most recent rhetoric:
"It is OUTRAGEOUS that a teacher, a nurse, an assembly line worker, or a truck driver here in Ohio making fifty thousand a year pays a higher tax rate than some Wall Street investment manager making fifty million a year." - Ohio, 2/15
Again, political shifting is simply a way of life. But this is why Hillary Clinton is not a good politician. It is FAR too easy for me to point this out. On the one hand, she doesn't want to advocate raising the cap b/c it's a "tax on the middle class." On the other hand, the fact that the cap hasn't been raised is an outrage. These two lines are separated by only three months. It's silly to make that sort of shift so quickly.
Why? It's desperation, and her team just isn't good enough to find another way to go populist to keep up with Obama. So they figure that attacking FDR's system as not being enough of a welfare system is one way to do it.
Well, that and attacking him for plagiarizing from the speeches of his close political friend. Um, what is going on with the Clintons??
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Obama and Che
A recently-opened Obama office in Houston had the following on the wall:
Obama/Che Picture
So, what is Obama to do? This is a picture of Che Guevara superimposed over the flag of Cuba, a US enemy. Granting that Obama had nothing to do with this, I feel like we've seen this before.
It reminds me an awful lot of the Paul flaps over the racist things written in his newsletter (author unknown), or of Paul being called on to reject the funding of white supremacist groups. I remember that Paul, an absolute fringe candidate, was hammered over those issues. The Obama campaign responded to the story like so:
"This is a volunteer office that is not in any way controlled by the Obama campaign. We were disappointed to see this picture because it is both offensive to many Cuban-Americans -- and Americans of all backgrounds -- and because it does not reflect Senator Obama’s views. Barack Obama has been very clear in putting forward a Cuba policy that is based on one principle: freedom for the Cuban people."
I am a bit miffed that the response to Obama's campaign has been relatively muted (excepting a few very angry conservatives), while Paul dealt with fire from many sides, but that's just me being a spiteful sympathizer of Ron Paul's. The Obama campaign has been very, very good at handling these stories, and I think that they did a good job with it. I don't know what else Obama's campaign could be expected to do about this; these things happen, and they handled it well.
Che was not the most... pro-American of revolutionaries, if you will; one of his quotes was, "Our every action is a battle cry against imperialism, and a battle hymn for the people's unity against the great enemy of mankind: the United States of America." He's an odd person to support, if you're working on an American political campaign.
Really, the question is, why is Obama attracting support from this kind of person, the one who won't only wear the Che t-shirt, but the one who will literally hang his flag in their office? It's a difficult question. I would like to pose a couple of suggestions:
1. Many of Obama's supporters are idiotic young people. Oftentimes, idiotic young people support Che Guevara. Thus, some of Obama's supporters support Che Guevara. Simple syllogism, there.
2. Obama, as a black man, is seen as distinctly qualified to work against the structures of white power that led to the imperialism that Che Guevara so opposed.
3. While every candidate speaks of "change" as a good thing, Obama's "change" message is at the very center of his campaign. Thus, he is the closest candidate to supporting an outright "revolution," other than the quixotic Ron Paul.
I think, though, that a lot of it stems from the basis of Obama's campaign about the "audacity of hope." Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal made some good points in this editorial.
The obvious thing that I have missed in the Obama campaign is how the underlying themes are pervasively negative. Obama's "change" isn't an empty message; it's based on a view of Washington as an utter disaster, the present-day US as a land of empty promises, and capitalism as a flawed system. Obama's "hope" is to change the system that he views as so flawed. His "Yes, We Can" ideology is that the system can be changed. But it's not just a series of empty rhetorical devices at all. It's real.
I've written that Obama can't really pull people together with an unabashedly liberal record, but then again, that's not entirely true: if he can convince people of the flaws in the system, he can pull people together.
So, why would the Che supporters drift to Obama? I think it's pretty simple, actually: Obama is charismatic, like Che, and he is negative about the effects of capitalism, like Che. Hillary Clinton is only one of these things. I don't recall Bill Clinton and Al Gore being quite so angry about capitalism. It's a new old thing in American politics.
Obama/Che Picture
So, what is Obama to do? This is a picture of Che Guevara superimposed over the flag of Cuba, a US enemy. Granting that Obama had nothing to do with this, I feel like we've seen this before.
It reminds me an awful lot of the Paul flaps over the racist things written in his newsletter (author unknown), or of Paul being called on to reject the funding of white supremacist groups. I remember that Paul, an absolute fringe candidate, was hammered over those issues. The Obama campaign responded to the story like so:
"This is a volunteer office that is not in any way controlled by the Obama campaign. We were disappointed to see this picture because it is both offensive to many Cuban-Americans -- and Americans of all backgrounds -- and because it does not reflect Senator Obama’s views. Barack Obama has been very clear in putting forward a Cuba policy that is based on one principle: freedom for the Cuban people."
I am a bit miffed that the response to Obama's campaign has been relatively muted (excepting a few very angry conservatives), while Paul dealt with fire from many sides, but that's just me being a spiteful sympathizer of Ron Paul's. The Obama campaign has been very, very good at handling these stories, and I think that they did a good job with it. I don't know what else Obama's campaign could be expected to do about this; these things happen, and they handled it well.
Che was not the most... pro-American of revolutionaries, if you will; one of his quotes was, "Our every action is a battle cry against imperialism, and a battle hymn for the people's unity against the great enemy of mankind: the United States of America." He's an odd person to support, if you're working on an American political campaign.
Really, the question is, why is Obama attracting support from this kind of person, the one who won't only wear the Che t-shirt, but the one who will literally hang his flag in their office? It's a difficult question. I would like to pose a couple of suggestions:
1. Many of Obama's supporters are idiotic young people. Oftentimes, idiotic young people support Che Guevara. Thus, some of Obama's supporters support Che Guevara. Simple syllogism, there.
2. Obama, as a black man, is seen as distinctly qualified to work against the structures of white power that led to the imperialism that Che Guevara so opposed.
3. While every candidate speaks of "change" as a good thing, Obama's "change" message is at the very center of his campaign. Thus, he is the closest candidate to supporting an outright "revolution," other than the quixotic Ron Paul.
I think, though, that a lot of it stems from the basis of Obama's campaign about the "audacity of hope." Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal made some good points in this editorial.
The obvious thing that I have missed in the Obama campaign is how the underlying themes are pervasively negative. Obama's "change" isn't an empty message; it's based on a view of Washington as an utter disaster, the present-day US as a land of empty promises, and capitalism as a flawed system. Obama's "hope" is to change the system that he views as so flawed. His "Yes, We Can" ideology is that the system can be changed. But it's not just a series of empty rhetorical devices at all. It's real.
I've written that Obama can't really pull people together with an unabashedly liberal record, but then again, that's not entirely true: if he can convince people of the flaws in the system, he can pull people together.
So, why would the Che supporters drift to Obama? I think it's pretty simple, actually: Obama is charismatic, like Che, and he is negative about the effects of capitalism, like Che. Hillary Clinton is only one of these things. I don't recall Bill Clinton and Al Gore being quite so angry about capitalism. It's a new old thing in American politics.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Recent VP History
I saw a Facebook poll on John McCain the other day:
If he wins the Republican nomination, whom should John McCain pick as his running mate?
Someone Else - 60%
Mike Huckabee - 28%
Joe Lieberman - 7%
Tim Pawlenty - 2%
Charlie Crist - 2%
21,110 responses
An unscientific look at the suggestions posted by some of the "someone else" responders posted unrealistic names like Jesus, Hitler, Satan, and the like. The less irritating people of the Facebook universe posted names like Rudy Giuliani, and, most commonly, Mitt Romney.
The vast majority of people seem to think that the VP nominee has to come from people who sought the nomination in their own right. But it's just not true. I'd like to go down the list of VP selections going back to 1976.
1976 (Dems) - Walter Mondale: Essentially the entire Democratic party ran for president in 1976. Mondale was one of the earlier candidates to drop out, but I think he counts.
1976 (GOP) - Bob Dole: Did not challenge the sitting president.
1980 (GOP) - George H.W. Bush: He was a primary rival for Reagan.
1984 (Dems) - Geraldine Ferraro: As a third-term Congresswoman, she did not campaign for president at all, though at the time, many people saw her as a potential future candidate. Two losses in Senate elections pretty much ended her hopes.
1988 (GOP) - Dan Quayle: Undistinguished career as a senator. He was chosen to invigorate a somewhat-stale candidacy; his youth and good looks were seen as assets. He later became ridiculed for lacking intelligence. He had not sought the presidency in 1988.
1988 (Dems) - Lloyd Bentsen: Had run for president way back in 1976, but he was not considered a candidate for the presidency in 1988. Chosen as a Southern balance for the ticket.
1992 (Dems) - Al Gore: Gore ran for president in 1988, but he was not in the running in 1992.
1996 (GOP) - Jack Kemp: Kemp ran back in 1988, but he was not a candidate in 1996. He was chosen for his libertarian credentials; Dole was somewhat criticized on taxes.
2000 (GOP) - Dick Cheney: As I mentioned before, Cheney was part of the Bush campaign and headed a committee to sift through potential VP nominees for Bush. Bush later asked Cheney to be the nominee. He had not run for president.
2000 (Dems) - Joe Lieberman: Picked partially for being a "trailblazer," Lieberman was a solid moderate Democrat from the Northeast. He had not sought the presidency.
2004 (Dems) - John Edwards: He was an opponent of Kerry's for the nomination.
So, breaking it down since 1976, we have the following:
Primary rivals - 3
Others - 8
Now, we can't rely exclusively on the past to predict the future, of course, but in the recent past of "running mate" selection, more often than not, non-competing figures end up getting the spot. If you want to massage the data a bit, only once since 1980 has the VP also been a primary rival (Edwards). With that in mind, coupled with the nature of the campaigns and the respective weaknesses of the Republican presidential candidates this year, I think that Romney and Huckabee are both less likely than someone that didn't seek the nomination. Pawlenty and Crist are more realistic.
For that matter, the same goes for the Democrats. I think that an Obama-Hillary ticket is extremely unlikely, considering his whole focus on how Clinton cannot bring change. A Hillary-Obama ticket is not out of the question, though it depends on how much spite the Clinton campaign would have after such a hard-fought campaign.
With that said, I think it remains MORE likely for one of the early fringe candidates to get the spot on the Dems' ticket than Hillary getting a slot on the ticket. I think Obama-Biden is quite a strong possibility.
If he wins the Republican nomination, whom should John McCain pick as his running mate?
Someone Else - 60%
Mike Huckabee - 28%
Joe Lieberman - 7%
Tim Pawlenty - 2%
Charlie Crist - 2%
21,110 responses
An unscientific look at the suggestions posted by some of the "someone else" responders posted unrealistic names like Jesus, Hitler, Satan, and the like. The less irritating people of the Facebook universe posted names like Rudy Giuliani, and, most commonly, Mitt Romney.
The vast majority of people seem to think that the VP nominee has to come from people who sought the nomination in their own right. But it's just not true. I'd like to go down the list of VP selections going back to 1976.
1976 (Dems) - Walter Mondale: Essentially the entire Democratic party ran for president in 1976. Mondale was one of the earlier candidates to drop out, but I think he counts.
1976 (GOP) - Bob Dole: Did not challenge the sitting president.
1980 (GOP) - George H.W. Bush: He was a primary rival for Reagan.
1984 (Dems) - Geraldine Ferraro: As a third-term Congresswoman, she did not campaign for president at all, though at the time, many people saw her as a potential future candidate. Two losses in Senate elections pretty much ended her hopes.
1988 (GOP) - Dan Quayle: Undistinguished career as a senator. He was chosen to invigorate a somewhat-stale candidacy; his youth and good looks were seen as assets. He later became ridiculed for lacking intelligence. He had not sought the presidency in 1988.
1988 (Dems) - Lloyd Bentsen: Had run for president way back in 1976, but he was not considered a candidate for the presidency in 1988. Chosen as a Southern balance for the ticket.
1992 (Dems) - Al Gore: Gore ran for president in 1988, but he was not in the running in 1992.
1996 (GOP) - Jack Kemp: Kemp ran back in 1988, but he was not a candidate in 1996. He was chosen for his libertarian credentials; Dole was somewhat criticized on taxes.
2000 (GOP) - Dick Cheney: As I mentioned before, Cheney was part of the Bush campaign and headed a committee to sift through potential VP nominees for Bush. Bush later asked Cheney to be the nominee. He had not run for president.
2000 (Dems) - Joe Lieberman: Picked partially for being a "trailblazer," Lieberman was a solid moderate Democrat from the Northeast. He had not sought the presidency.
2004 (Dems) - John Edwards: He was an opponent of Kerry's for the nomination.
So, breaking it down since 1976, we have the following:
Primary rivals - 3
Others - 8
Now, we can't rely exclusively on the past to predict the future, of course, but in the recent past of "running mate" selection, more often than not, non-competing figures end up getting the spot. If you want to massage the data a bit, only once since 1980 has the VP also been a primary rival (Edwards). With that in mind, coupled with the nature of the campaigns and the respective weaknesses of the Republican presidential candidates this year, I think that Romney and Huckabee are both less likely than someone that didn't seek the nomination. Pawlenty and Crist are more realistic.
For that matter, the same goes for the Democrats. I think that an Obama-Hillary ticket is extremely unlikely, considering his whole focus on how Clinton cannot bring change. A Hillary-Obama ticket is not out of the question, though it depends on how much spite the Clinton campaign would have after such a hard-fought campaign.
With that said, I think it remains MORE likely for one of the early fringe candidates to get the spot on the Dems' ticket than Hillary getting a slot on the ticket. I think Obama-Biden is quite a strong possibility.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Maryland Exit Polls
Political junkies love exit polls. They're like drugs, I think: it's a veritable high of information. The splits and splits on splits are extremely cool.
One of the ones that interests me in the Democratic primary is the "is the country read for..." question. I love the arrogance of the answer behind the question: "Yes, I believe that the country is 'ready for' an African-American president; we have 'grown up' enough, and I am impartial enough to make that observation," or "No, I do not believe that the country is 'ready for' an African-American president; we retain a certain degree of skepticism about race and bridging racial divides in this country."
The bottom line is that: no one really knows for sure. But still, the answers and the splits are interesting to me.
First off, CNN's exit poll for Maryland is available at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#MDDEM.
Now, there are two questions:
1. Is the US ready to elect a black president? (81% yes, 19% no)
2. Is the US ready to elect a woman president? (83% yes, 17% no)
Those percentages are awfully high for those pessimistic questions, and I imagine it's because of the field: it's a poll of highly-educated Democrats, for the most part. They're also optimistic about their chances this year because of the failures of the Bush Administration.
More interesting, though, is in how people vote:
Is the US ready to elect a black president?
Is the US ready to elect a woman president?
First off, there's a cause/effect relationship going on here. Are voters more likely to vote for a candidate because they believe that they can be elected, or are they more likely to believe that the candidate can be elected b/c they support them? I definitely lean towards the latter. The personal bias of "my candidate can break through" makes sense, because part of the reason we fervently support a particular candidate is because we perceive them as unique.
More interestingly, though, is the negativity of right around 20% of the voters. 17% of voters don't believe that Hillary Clinton can be elected (b/c of her gender), and yet 21% of those people will still vote for her! Likewise, 19% of voters don't think that Obama can be elected (b/c of his race), and yet, fully 35% of those people are going to vote for him!
I had a hard time figuring this out at first, but here's what I think: I think that most of the SAME people were pessimistic about the status of American prejudice on both issues. Those people (probably many academics, considering we're talking about Maryland) are operating with a "damned either way" mentality, so they just picked their preferences. My guess is that most of the 35% of the Obama voters who don't think the country is ready for him don't think that the country is ready for a woman president or a black president. Likewise, the 21% of Clinton voters who don't think the country is ready for her don't think that the country is ready for Obama, either.
One of the ones that interests me in the Democratic primary is the "is the country read for..." question. I love the arrogance of the answer behind the question: "Yes, I believe that the country is 'ready for' an African-American president; we have 'grown up' enough, and I am impartial enough to make that observation," or "No, I do not believe that the country is 'ready for' an African-American president; we retain a certain degree of skepticism about race and bridging racial divides in this country."
The bottom line is that: no one really knows for sure. But still, the answers and the splits are interesting to me.
First off, CNN's exit poll for Maryland is available at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#MDDEM.
Now, there are two questions:
1. Is the US ready to elect a black president? (81% yes, 19% no)
2. Is the US ready to elect a woman president? (83% yes, 17% no)
Those percentages are awfully high for those pessimistic questions, and I imagine it's because of the field: it's a poll of highly-educated Democrats, for the most part. They're also optimistic about their chances this year because of the failures of the Bush Administration.
More interesting, though, is in how people vote:
Is the US ready to elect a black president?
| Yes (81%) | No (19%) | |
| Clinton | 33% | 58% |
| Obama | 63% | 35% |
Is the US ready to elect a woman president?
| Yes (83%) | No (17%) | |
| Clinton | 42% | 21% |
| Obama | 57% | 64% |
First off, there's a cause/effect relationship going on here. Are voters more likely to vote for a candidate because they believe that they can be elected, or are they more likely to believe that the candidate can be elected b/c they support them? I definitely lean towards the latter. The personal bias of "my candidate can break through" makes sense, because part of the reason we fervently support a particular candidate is because we perceive them as unique.
More interestingly, though, is the negativity of right around 20% of the voters. 17% of voters don't believe that Hillary Clinton can be elected (b/c of her gender), and yet 21% of those people will still vote for her! Likewise, 19% of voters don't think that Obama can be elected (b/c of his race), and yet, fully 35% of those people are going to vote for him!
I had a hard time figuring this out at first, but here's what I think: I think that most of the SAME people were pessimistic about the status of American prejudice on both issues. Those people (probably many academics, considering we're talking about Maryland) are operating with a "damned either way" mentality, so they just picked their preferences. My guess is that most of the 35% of the Obama voters who don't think the country is ready for him don't think that the country is ready for a woman president or a black president. Likewise, the 21% of Clinton voters who don't think the country is ready for her don't think that the country is ready for Obama, either.
Another Politics Blog: Opener
Thus begins my fourth blog.
Greetings! I have entered into the realm of political blogging, a highly-saturated field already. Why? Because I've been doing this for a few years, even before "political blogging" really became a big deal. I have a LiveJournal, where I have polluted my friends' pages with little about me personally and things mainly about my obsessions over the past few years. Of late, mine has been politics. (I relocated baseball stuff to baseball-babble.blogspot.com, then BeyondtheBoxScore.com, and now MetsGeek.com, first.)
I am most interested in the nominating process for the presidency, so my fun, for the most part, has passed. I do, however, follow politics everywhere, so we'll have Supreme Court stuff, presidential action, and Congressional stuff, too. Sometimes, I'll go to the state level.
Full disclosure, as is warranted on a political blog: I am a registered Republican from New Jersey. My political ideology transformed from "mainstream social conservative" to "George Will-ian traditional conservative with libertarian tendencies" during my senior year of high school and into my freshman year of college. Generally speaking, that's where I am.
Of course, processes interest me more than advocacy, so I will try to take a step back and look at everything. I have been more accurate in reading the Democratic race this year, certainly, than the Republican race.
My goal is to back-update political ramblings from an older livejournal here, time-stamped correctly, if possible. In other words, anything dated before February 13, 2008 is from an older blog, and everything else is original content here.
Greetings! I have entered into the realm of political blogging, a highly-saturated field already. Why? Because I've been doing this for a few years, even before "political blogging" really became a big deal. I have a LiveJournal, where I have polluted my friends' pages with little about me personally and things mainly about my obsessions over the past few years. Of late, mine has been politics. (I relocated baseball stuff to baseball-babble.blogspot.com, then BeyondtheBoxScore.com, and now MetsGeek.com, first.)
I am most interested in the nominating process for the presidency, so my fun, for the most part, has passed. I do, however, follow politics everywhere, so we'll have Supreme Court stuff, presidential action, and Congressional stuff, too. Sometimes, I'll go to the state level.
Full disclosure, as is warranted on a political blog: I am a registered Republican from New Jersey. My political ideology transformed from "mainstream social conservative" to "George Will-ian traditional conservative with libertarian tendencies" during my senior year of high school and into my freshman year of college. Generally speaking, that's where I am.
Of course, processes interest me more than advocacy, so I will try to take a step back and look at everything. I have been more accurate in reading the Democratic race this year, certainly, than the Republican race.
My goal is to back-update political ramblings from an older livejournal here, time-stamped correctly, if possible. In other words, anything dated before February 13, 2008 is from an older blog, and everything else is original content here.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Political Ramble
Contrary to the absurd media line that Hillary Clinton halted Barack Obama's momentum on Super Tuesday, the correct storyline should have been Obama's rapid ascent up the polls to pull virtually even with Hillary by the big day. The idea that Obama's loss in Massachusetts was a "disappointment" was ridiculous. That he pulled close to even in exit polls was a major victory in a state where he was down by double digits in the weeks before the big day.
InTrade.com recognizes this. Here's the Dem nomination:
Obama - 65.1
Hillary - 35.9
And here's the general, which takes a few more things into account....
Obama - 43.5
McCain - 34.0
Hillary - 21.5
So, Hillary's chances are diminishing, it seems. Obama is on the verge of some serious momentum, going seven for seven in contests during a single week. That's a good run, and it might convince some superdelegates to abandon ship. Moreover, as Obama continues to seem more viable against McCain, he should pick up steam.
So, my opinion? Obama is winning this race largely because his January fundraising. It proved his viability and grassroots popularity and it gives him freedom nationally. His rapid surge to pull even on Super Tuesday has thrust him into the lead. Obama is winning the delegate race, actually; it remains the superdelegates who are holding back.
I think it boils down to this: this may be Hillary Clinton's last shot. She'll be 60 by the general election. Obama winning this year would ensure that she wouldn't be able to run again until she were 68. It's not out of the question, but a lot can happen in eight years. New political stars will rise. The Clintons will seem AWFULLY stale 24 years after Bill took the inauguration, particularly after this cycle. In other words, this is pretty much it for her. She's been planning it for a while. It was either '08 or '12 the whole time.
And even though McCain seems to have bucked that age threshold, he's probably not going to beat the younger, more dynamic Obama.
So the Clinton mindset is probably something like: Obama should wait his turn; he's still a young guy. I would have put him on my ticket if he hadn't run this campaign. He'd get it in 2016, easily!
And, although Obama probably would be extremely well positioned to win the presidency if he just accepted a spot on the Hill ticket rather than run his own campaign, Obama saw he had a moment, and his chance for "change" will never be greater than it is now. It's why I thought running made more sense than not running during this cycle. I think the war has a lot to do with his rise. That war might not be an issue in the next electoral cycle.
Here's the way I see the scenarios:
If Obama wins the presidency:
- Mission accomplished, for him. The Democratic era of Clinton is probably over.
If Obama wins the nomination and loses the presidency:
- This is an interesting proposition. Only Richard Nixon managed to lose one presidential election and then win another, at least in the last 120 years or so.
- I have no idea how this would work. He would probably be back at some point.
If Hillary wins the presidency:
- Obama may/may not be on the ticket.
- If things hold, Obama is a legitimate star for 2016. He will have experience (either as VP or as governor of Illinois for a term) and an unthinkably strong fundraising base.
- The only thing that would hold him back would be if the country sours on government, or if the Hillary VP slips into successful "heir apparent" mode.
If Hillary wins the nomination and loses the presidency:
- Obama will probably be the nominee in 2012. There will be little debating him as the frontrunner, unless he somehow loses his Senate seat in 2010.
So, it's all pretty interesting. I almost feel like the LEAST likely thing to happen would be for Obama to never lead a Democratic ticket.
What about the Republicans? Let's face it: the GOP is floundering right now. They don't have a standard-bearer. Hell, their ideology appears to be floating dead in the water. In some ways, an electoral defeat is just what they need to reinvigorate themselves.
Because the future of the GOP is an attractive, 43-year old mother of four who is running the nation's largest state. Yep, it's Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska.
In a year deadly to Republicans (2006), Sarah Palin shot through the ranks of Alaska by attacking corruption and ethics violations in a notoriously corrupt state. As Fred Barnes said, commentators talk of the "body count" of rivals who have crossed Palin. She had approval ratings hovering around 90% last year (yes, 90%; that's high even in Alaska). She line-item vetoed 13% of the Alaska capital projects budget, which is amazingly high. She supports low taxes and limited government. She is pro-life, and she is pro-gun. This is the future of the GOP.
Palin needs to establish this for a fact. It should start this summer in Minnesota: Palin should be given a prime-time speaking slot at the convention. Her speech should be a sort of rebuttal to Obama's '04 speech: not downplaying unity, but saying that there are legitimate differences between the parties. Not downplaying people's concerns, but offering a full-throated defense of classical liberalism, federalism, and governmental honesty as the means to political success. The convention this summer might be a bit problematic for the GOP. There won't be much energy, certainly not with Huckabee and McCain as the two leading figures. Palin should be enlisted to rescue it.
Assuming the speech is well received, Palin will get covers and stories in Time, Newsweek, US News, National Review, etc. This, of course, is how you build a candidacy from the ground up.
We'll see what happens.
InTrade.com recognizes this. Here's the Dem nomination:
Obama - 65.1
Hillary - 35.9
And here's the general, which takes a few more things into account....
Obama - 43.5
McCain - 34.0
Hillary - 21.5
So, Hillary's chances are diminishing, it seems. Obama is on the verge of some serious momentum, going seven for seven in contests during a single week. That's a good run, and it might convince some superdelegates to abandon ship. Moreover, as Obama continues to seem more viable against McCain, he should pick up steam.
So, my opinion? Obama is winning this race largely because his January fundraising. It proved his viability and grassroots popularity and it gives him freedom nationally. His rapid surge to pull even on Super Tuesday has thrust him into the lead. Obama is winning the delegate race, actually; it remains the superdelegates who are holding back.
I think it boils down to this: this may be Hillary Clinton's last shot. She'll be 60 by the general election. Obama winning this year would ensure that she wouldn't be able to run again until she were 68. It's not out of the question, but a lot can happen in eight years. New political stars will rise. The Clintons will seem AWFULLY stale 24 years after Bill took the inauguration, particularly after this cycle. In other words, this is pretty much it for her. She's been planning it for a while. It was either '08 or '12 the whole time.
And even though McCain seems to have bucked that age threshold, he's probably not going to beat the younger, more dynamic Obama.
So the Clinton mindset is probably something like: Obama should wait his turn; he's still a young guy. I would have put him on my ticket if he hadn't run this campaign. He'd get it in 2016, easily!
And, although Obama probably would be extremely well positioned to win the presidency if he just accepted a spot on the Hill ticket rather than run his own campaign, Obama saw he had a moment, and his chance for "change" will never be greater than it is now. It's why I thought running made more sense than not running during this cycle. I think the war has a lot to do with his rise. That war might not be an issue in the next electoral cycle.
Here's the way I see the scenarios:
If Obama wins the presidency:
- Mission accomplished, for him. The Democratic era of Clinton is probably over.
If Obama wins the nomination and loses the presidency:
- This is an interesting proposition. Only Richard Nixon managed to lose one presidential election and then win another, at least in the last 120 years or so.
- I have no idea how this would work. He would probably be back at some point.
If Hillary wins the presidency:
- Obama may/may not be on the ticket.
- If things hold, Obama is a legitimate star for 2016. He will have experience (either as VP or as governor of Illinois for a term) and an unthinkably strong fundraising base.
- The only thing that would hold him back would be if the country sours on government, or if the Hillary VP slips into successful "heir apparent" mode.
If Hillary wins the nomination and loses the presidency:
- Obama will probably be the nominee in 2012. There will be little debating him as the frontrunner, unless he somehow loses his Senate seat in 2010.
So, it's all pretty interesting. I almost feel like the LEAST likely thing to happen would be for Obama to never lead a Democratic ticket.
What about the Republicans? Let's face it: the GOP is floundering right now. They don't have a standard-bearer. Hell, their ideology appears to be floating dead in the water. In some ways, an electoral defeat is just what they need to reinvigorate themselves.
Because the future of the GOP is an attractive, 43-year old mother of four who is running the nation's largest state. Yep, it's Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska.
In a year deadly to Republicans (2006), Sarah Palin shot through the ranks of Alaska by attacking corruption and ethics violations in a notoriously corrupt state. As Fred Barnes said, commentators talk of the "body count" of rivals who have crossed Palin. She had approval ratings hovering around 90% last year (yes, 90%; that's high even in Alaska). She line-item vetoed 13% of the Alaska capital projects budget, which is amazingly high. She supports low taxes and limited government. She is pro-life, and she is pro-gun. This is the future of the GOP.
Palin needs to establish this for a fact. It should start this summer in Minnesota: Palin should be given a prime-time speaking slot at the convention. Her speech should be a sort of rebuttal to Obama's '04 speech: not downplaying unity, but saying that there are legitimate differences between the parties. Not downplaying people's concerns, but offering a full-throated defense of classical liberalism, federalism, and governmental honesty as the means to political success. The convention this summer might be a bit problematic for the GOP. There won't be much energy, certainly not with Huckabee and McCain as the two leading figures. Palin should be enlisted to rescue it.
Assuming the speech is well received, Palin will get covers and stories in Time, Newsweek, US News, National Review, etc. This, of course, is how you build a candidacy from the ground up.
We'll see what happens.
Friday, February 8, 2008
McCain's Veep...
For once, InTrade.com is pretty useless. I want to work through the various vice presidential options for John McCain and try to come up with something. The leading contract on InTrade for vice presidents? "Field," meaning, "None of the Above." So, to put my list together, I used various sources, including the InTrade.com list. There really is no favorite for the spot, now.
First off, what are the options for vice presidents?
1. Political confidant - This is a political friend, one who is trusted for advice and leadership. Vice presidents are sometimes just symbolic, and sometimes imperative. Cheney is the best example of this; if I'm not mistaken, he was put at the head of a committee to pick a VP nominee for Bush, and the committee settled on Cheney.
2. Primary rival - This one happens a lot, but it's not necessarily the case. Reagan picked GHW Bush; Kerry picked Edwards; JFK picked LBJ. This is part of the "healing process" of putting the party back together after a contentious nomination fight.
3. Swing state assistant - Vice presidential nominees are normally useful only for putting states in play that wouldn't normally be in play, or for giving your ticket an edge in a swing state. If McCain were to pick a Floridian as the VP, the Republicans might have a slightly better chance in Florida.
4. Demographic Trailblazer - Geraldine Ferraro was the VP candidate for the Dems in 1984, mostly because they needed something to bring some buzz to a floundering campaign. Reagan won easily, but Ferraro did make history.
5. Issue assistant - If a president is seen as having a weakness on a particular type of issue, nominating a specialist on that issue would help. Back in 1996, Bob Dole nominated Jack Kemp, hero of economic conservatives, because Dole did not have a spotless record on taxes and had faced criticism of his tax positions in previous elections.
6. "Hatchet man" - Spiro Agnew was known as "Nixon's Nixon," because Agnew was an extremely effective political attack dog. There are many different forms of this character.
7. "First alternate" - The vice president needs to be someone that people can see as president. Dan Quayle didn't qualify, once people learned how inept he was in certain ways. Al Gore certainly did.
Vice presidents can be any or all of these things at the same time. There are probably a few things I am missing completely in this evaluation, all open for debate.
Ideally, McCain needs a swing state assistant, in what looks to be a close election, an issue assistant on economics, and, potentially, a demographic trailblazer to counter the Democrats' nominating either the potential first woman or the first African American president. He also needs someone with an acceptable level of experience to assume the presidency in case of McCain needing to step aside for health reasons, but that person needs to be somewhat young and vibrant. He ALSO needs someone who will appeal to the conservative base that hates McCain so much. I don't think you can get all of these in a single package.
So, let's start looking for potential choices:
Charlie Crist (Governor, Florida)
Positives: Extremely well-liked in Florida, to the point where Florida would probably be more than a razor-thin win for Republicans. Will be 52 years old for the election, a full generation younger than McCain. Is probably the most likely person on this list to be president someday.
Negatives: Isn't really a conservative standard-bearer as much as part of the "post-partisan" movement. Liberal on environmental issues. Has repeatedly attacked the insurance industry. Not a trailblazer.
Prognosis: Would be a strong pick for swing state help. Might not want to attach himself to a campaign that might seriously flounder, particularly when his future prospects are so bright.
Mike Huckabee (Fmr. Governor, Arkansas)
Positives: Affable as hell; did you see him playing air hockey with Colbert the other night? Would net social conservative interest and evangelical vote.
Negatives: Vice presidents are heir apparents for the GOP; many people in the establishment are afraid of a President Huckabee. For a president who needs a VP strong on economics, Huck sure doesn't help, there.
Prognosis: The conservative establishment dislikes BOTH Huckabee and McCain, for their various sins. I would be very surprised if McCain went this route.
Mitt Romney (Fmr. Governor, Massachusetts)
Positives: Could bring in the talk radio folk. Ostensibly, a true conservative.
Negatives: It seems like these two guys hate each other. There was probably too much negativity in the campaign to make this work.
Prognosis: I would be extremely shocked if this happens.
Condoleezza Rice (Secretary of State)
Positives: STILL has high approval ratings, seemingly the only one who has survived the Bush Administration. Conservative reputation. Intelligent, competent. "Trailblazer" thing again.
Negatives: Attached to the Bush Administration and could probably be attacked in various ways because of the lead up to the Iraq War. Foreign policy expertise overlaps with McCain.
Prognosis: Not going to happen.
Mark Sanford (Governor, South Carolina)
Positives: Adored by fiscal conservatives, part of the Gingrich Revolution of 1994. Left Congress after 3 terms. Younger than most of our parents (he's 47). Obvious conservative candidate and unifier.
Negatives: From South Carolina, which is a virtual guarantee for the GOP (unless most Republicans stay home). Voted in favor of campaign finance reform once, which is a negative for the conservative base.
Prognosis: I would put the smart money here. Sanford might not want a spot on the ticket, though; he had said he's not running for reelection, and, again, we don't know if he wants to be tied to a dying campaign.
Tim Pawlenty (Governor, Minnesota)
Positives: The convention is in Minnesota, and Pawlenty has absolutely been a vocal McCain supporter in this campaign. The same age as Sanford. Has refused to raise taxes to balance budgets. Socially conservative. Pretty staunchly opposed to illegal immigration. Would probably make conservatives happy. Might put traditionally-blue Minnesota in play.
Negatives: Staunch opposition to illegal immigration makes the ticket less friendly to the center. Is Minnesota really that important?
Prognosis: A safe choice, I think.
Phil Gramm (Fmr. Senator, Texas)
Positives: Economics guy, to the point where he's advising the McCain campaign on economics matters. Pretty extensive senatorial experience. Got out of Washington before things went to hell, in the public mind. Good experience in the Senate. Pretty staunch conservative.
Negatives: A bit old and stale. From Texas.
Prognosis: Likely Secretary of the Treasury in a McCain administration. Probably not getting up to VP, though.
Fred Thompson (Fmr. Senator, Tennessee)
Positives: Almost a "sinless" conservative, except for campaign finance reform, which he has said was a mistake. He was definitely the most acceptable conservative candidate in the race but rapidly lost viability once it all started. Close friend of McCain.
Negatives: Has potentially life-threatening condition (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) which is apparently entirely non-life threatening, but we're looking at a presidential campaign where age and health will be significant issues, and I don't know if McCain wants to deal with that. Perceived lackluster campaign.
Prognosis: Most likely of the "big 5" candidates in the Republican race to get on the ticket (besides McCain). Still unlikely.
Sarah Palin (Governor, Alaska)
Positives: EXTRAORDINARILY high approval in her home state; she is extremely well-liked. Mostly conservative record.
Negatives: At 42, she's extremely young, and I find it hard to believe that people could picture her as president, sadly. Her record, overall, is successful but limited.
Prognosis: Interesting. Could be Dan Quayle II, or a JFK choice. I would love to see Palin broaden her horizons a bit and really form a political specialty. Palin needs more experience at her age; a senatorial term or a Cabinet post would help her a lot. I could definitely see Palin down the line, but half a term as governor of Alaska isn't really very much experience.
These are just a few of the names that I've been thinking about. Some things that are perceived as "positives" are really "negatives" and vice versa. I'm missing a pretty significant bunch of names... I might keep up on this theme if I find a few more names being kicked around. I would certainly suspect Sanford or Pawlenty or Crist over Huckabee, though.
[on edit]: On this list, I am certainly partial to Sanford. I like interesting stories, though, and Palin is certainly the most interesting of the bunch. More on her later.
First off, what are the options for vice presidents?
1. Political confidant - This is a political friend, one who is trusted for advice and leadership. Vice presidents are sometimes just symbolic, and sometimes imperative. Cheney is the best example of this; if I'm not mistaken, he was put at the head of a committee to pick a VP nominee for Bush, and the committee settled on Cheney.
2. Primary rival - This one happens a lot, but it's not necessarily the case. Reagan picked GHW Bush; Kerry picked Edwards; JFK picked LBJ. This is part of the "healing process" of putting the party back together after a contentious nomination fight.
3. Swing state assistant - Vice presidential nominees are normally useful only for putting states in play that wouldn't normally be in play, or for giving your ticket an edge in a swing state. If McCain were to pick a Floridian as the VP, the Republicans might have a slightly better chance in Florida.
4. Demographic Trailblazer - Geraldine Ferraro was the VP candidate for the Dems in 1984, mostly because they needed something to bring some buzz to a floundering campaign. Reagan won easily, but Ferraro did make history.
5. Issue assistant - If a president is seen as having a weakness on a particular type of issue, nominating a specialist on that issue would help. Back in 1996, Bob Dole nominated Jack Kemp, hero of economic conservatives, because Dole did not have a spotless record on taxes and had faced criticism of his tax positions in previous elections.
6. "Hatchet man" - Spiro Agnew was known as "Nixon's Nixon," because Agnew was an extremely effective political attack dog. There are many different forms of this character.
7. "First alternate" - The vice president needs to be someone that people can see as president. Dan Quayle didn't qualify, once people learned how inept he was in certain ways. Al Gore certainly did.
Vice presidents can be any or all of these things at the same time. There are probably a few things I am missing completely in this evaluation, all open for debate.
Ideally, McCain needs a swing state assistant, in what looks to be a close election, an issue assistant on economics, and, potentially, a demographic trailblazer to counter the Democrats' nominating either the potential first woman or the first African American president. He also needs someone with an acceptable level of experience to assume the presidency in case of McCain needing to step aside for health reasons, but that person needs to be somewhat young and vibrant. He ALSO needs someone who will appeal to the conservative base that hates McCain so much. I don't think you can get all of these in a single package.
So, let's start looking for potential choices:
Charlie Crist (Governor, Florida)
Positives: Extremely well-liked in Florida, to the point where Florida would probably be more than a razor-thin win for Republicans. Will be 52 years old for the election, a full generation younger than McCain. Is probably the most likely person on this list to be president someday.
Negatives: Isn't really a conservative standard-bearer as much as part of the "post-partisan" movement. Liberal on environmental issues. Has repeatedly attacked the insurance industry. Not a trailblazer.
Prognosis: Would be a strong pick for swing state help. Might not want to attach himself to a campaign that might seriously flounder, particularly when his future prospects are so bright.
Mike Huckabee (Fmr. Governor, Arkansas)
Positives: Affable as hell; did you see him playing air hockey with Colbert the other night? Would net social conservative interest and evangelical vote.
Negatives: Vice presidents are heir apparents for the GOP; many people in the establishment are afraid of a President Huckabee. For a president who needs a VP strong on economics, Huck sure doesn't help, there.
Prognosis: The conservative establishment dislikes BOTH Huckabee and McCain, for their various sins. I would be very surprised if McCain went this route.
Mitt Romney (Fmr. Governor, Massachusetts)
Positives: Could bring in the talk radio folk. Ostensibly, a true conservative.
Negatives: It seems like these two guys hate each other. There was probably too much negativity in the campaign to make this work.
Prognosis: I would be extremely shocked if this happens.
Condoleezza Rice (Secretary of State)
Positives: STILL has high approval ratings, seemingly the only one who has survived the Bush Administration. Conservative reputation. Intelligent, competent. "Trailblazer" thing again.
Negatives: Attached to the Bush Administration and could probably be attacked in various ways because of the lead up to the Iraq War. Foreign policy expertise overlaps with McCain.
Prognosis: Not going to happen.
Mark Sanford (Governor, South Carolina)
Positives: Adored by fiscal conservatives, part of the Gingrich Revolution of 1994. Left Congress after 3 terms. Younger than most of our parents (he's 47). Obvious conservative candidate and unifier.
Negatives: From South Carolina, which is a virtual guarantee for the GOP (unless most Republicans stay home). Voted in favor of campaign finance reform once, which is a negative for the conservative base.
Prognosis: I would put the smart money here. Sanford might not want a spot on the ticket, though; he had said he's not running for reelection, and, again, we don't know if he wants to be tied to a dying campaign.
Tim Pawlenty (Governor, Minnesota)
Positives: The convention is in Minnesota, and Pawlenty has absolutely been a vocal McCain supporter in this campaign. The same age as Sanford. Has refused to raise taxes to balance budgets. Socially conservative. Pretty staunchly opposed to illegal immigration. Would probably make conservatives happy. Might put traditionally-blue Minnesota in play.
Negatives: Staunch opposition to illegal immigration makes the ticket less friendly to the center. Is Minnesota really that important?
Prognosis: A safe choice, I think.
Phil Gramm (Fmr. Senator, Texas)
Positives: Economics guy, to the point where he's advising the McCain campaign on economics matters. Pretty extensive senatorial experience. Got out of Washington before things went to hell, in the public mind. Good experience in the Senate. Pretty staunch conservative.
Negatives: A bit old and stale. From Texas.
Prognosis: Likely Secretary of the Treasury in a McCain administration. Probably not getting up to VP, though.
Fred Thompson (Fmr. Senator, Tennessee)
Positives: Almost a "sinless" conservative, except for campaign finance reform, which he has said was a mistake. He was definitely the most acceptable conservative candidate in the race but rapidly lost viability once it all started. Close friend of McCain.
Negatives: Has potentially life-threatening condition (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) which is apparently entirely non-life threatening, but we're looking at a presidential campaign where age and health will be significant issues, and I don't know if McCain wants to deal with that. Perceived lackluster campaign.
Prognosis: Most likely of the "big 5" candidates in the Republican race to get on the ticket (besides McCain). Still unlikely.
Sarah Palin (Governor, Alaska)
Positives: EXTRAORDINARILY high approval in her home state; she is extremely well-liked. Mostly conservative record.
Negatives: At 42, she's extremely young, and I find it hard to believe that people could picture her as president, sadly. Her record, overall, is successful but limited.
Prognosis: Interesting. Could be Dan Quayle II, or a JFK choice. I would love to see Palin broaden her horizons a bit and really form a political specialty. Palin needs more experience at her age; a senatorial term or a Cabinet post would help her a lot. I could definitely see Palin down the line, but half a term as governor of Alaska isn't really very much experience.
These are just a few of the names that I've been thinking about. Some things that are perceived as "positives" are really "negatives" and vice versa. I'm missing a pretty significant bunch of names... I might keep up on this theme if I find a few more names being kicked around. I would certainly suspect Sanford or Pawlenty or Crist over Huckabee, though.
[on edit]: On this list, I am certainly partial to Sanford. I like interesting stories, though, and Palin is certainly the most interesting of the bunch. More on her later.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Obamania and its Discontent (Me)
Out of all the arguments I've heard for Barack Obama, only one resonates with me at all:
"Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can." - Andrew Sullivan
This is a logical argument with which I struggle. His point is sound. My problem is, it defies everything I believe in about judging candidates on their merits and policy positions.
But more practically, political scientists love to talk about "symbolic representation" as a core element of what can and should define Congress. I feel like Obama would have that sort of global presence as a symbolic figure. I suppose I could give him a few points on a random scale for this sort of "symbolic" power. It's not ideal, but it's practical.
Still, the rest of the record just infuriates me.
The AP's "centrist" had the most liberal voting record in the Senate in 2007, according to the non-partisan National Journal. Yet he advocates what he deems "practical, common-sense solution[s]" without giving any specifics (he used this terminology in the debate about immigration reform and drivers' licenses). It has been at the very core of his campaign to avoid giving specifics on issues. My assumption, based on his voting record, is that he would pursue liberal solutions to problems. He has shown no effort or capacity to actually reach across the aisle, practically, to enact change. I think Obama's vision is one of using his rhetoric to push his own liberal worldview on people who don't really share it. He is a strong speaker; he might be able to get enough support that way.
Mostly, though, this is what really gets me about Obama:
"We want change from George Bush but we also have to have change that brings the country together..."
"And part of the reason I think that they have failed is we have not been able to bring Democrats, Republicans together to get it done."
"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist -- (applause) -- the American people in this process, and overcoming the special interests and the lobbyists who are -- Senator Clinton is right; they will resist anything that we try to do."
"Instead we should pull the country together to get this economy back on track."
"And in each instance, what I have found is is that the leadership that's needed is the ability to bring people together who otherwise don't see anything in common; the ability to overcome the special interests -- and I passed both in Washington and in Illinois comprehensive ethics reform that opened up government so that the American people could be involved; and talking straight to the American people about how we're going to solve these problems, and putting in the hard work of negotiations to get stuff done."
See, this was all from one two-hour debate. He is a broken record on the "bringing people together" thing. But really, what about him can bring people together? Can Obama solve the extreme polarization caused by abortion? Certainly not with his ardent pro-choice stance. He's also strongly pro-affirmative action. Will that help bridge the divide between spiteful, resentful whites and the minority "beneficiaries" of affirmative action? He voted against John Roberts, who had an utterly impeccable record. Does he really believe in coming together, if he voted against such a qualified jurist? And it wasn't even like he was trying to achieve balance on the Court; Roberts was nominated to replace arch-conservative William Rehnquist as Chief Justice, by the time the vote had come around.
Obama has a particular vision for the country. Political philosophers would deem that he strongly believes in "positive liberty" (freedom to do things) and leans towards the "equal outcomes" end of the "equal processes"/"equal outcomes" debate. I am on the exact other end of that. I believe in "negative liberty" (freedom from government restrictions) and strongly lean towards the "equal processes" end of that debate.
I believe that bringing people together requires more than just good speaking skills, political sex appeal, and an interesting personal story. It requires, in essence, a more balanced vision of politics than Barack Obama can possibly bring to the table as a hard-core Chicago liberal. Obama is an excellent speaker, a strong politician, and an extremely intelligent person. But he's no centrist, and I can't vote for him in good conscience.
So, on Obama: I think he's genuine, and I think he legitimately believes that he could bring people together. But I don't believe it works that way, and I'd rather it not work that way.
"Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can." - Andrew Sullivan
This is a logical argument with which I struggle. His point is sound. My problem is, it defies everything I believe in about judging candidates on their merits and policy positions.
But more practically, political scientists love to talk about "symbolic representation" as a core element of what can and should define Congress. I feel like Obama would have that sort of global presence as a symbolic figure. I suppose I could give him a few points on a random scale for this sort of "symbolic" power. It's not ideal, but it's practical.
Still, the rest of the record just infuriates me.
The AP's "centrist" had the most liberal voting record in the Senate in 2007, according to the non-partisan National Journal. Yet he advocates what he deems "practical, common-sense solution[s]" without giving any specifics (he used this terminology in the debate about immigration reform and drivers' licenses). It has been at the very core of his campaign to avoid giving specifics on issues. My assumption, based on his voting record, is that he would pursue liberal solutions to problems. He has shown no effort or capacity to actually reach across the aisle, practically, to enact change. I think Obama's vision is one of using his rhetoric to push his own liberal worldview on people who don't really share it. He is a strong speaker; he might be able to get enough support that way.
Mostly, though, this is what really gets me about Obama:
"We want change from George Bush but we also have to have change that brings the country together..."
"And part of the reason I think that they have failed is we have not been able to bring Democrats, Republicans together to get it done."
"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist -- (applause) -- the American people in this process, and overcoming the special interests and the lobbyists who are -- Senator Clinton is right; they will resist anything that we try to do."
"Instead we should pull the country together to get this economy back on track."
"And in each instance, what I have found is is that the leadership that's needed is the ability to bring people together who otherwise don't see anything in common; the ability to overcome the special interests -- and I passed both in Washington and in Illinois comprehensive ethics reform that opened up government so that the American people could be involved; and talking straight to the American people about how we're going to solve these problems, and putting in the hard work of negotiations to get stuff done."
See, this was all from one two-hour debate. He is a broken record on the "bringing people together" thing. But really, what about him can bring people together? Can Obama solve the extreme polarization caused by abortion? Certainly not with his ardent pro-choice stance. He's also strongly pro-affirmative action. Will that help bridge the divide between spiteful, resentful whites and the minority "beneficiaries" of affirmative action? He voted against John Roberts, who had an utterly impeccable record. Does he really believe in coming together, if he voted against such a qualified jurist? And it wasn't even like he was trying to achieve balance on the Court; Roberts was nominated to replace arch-conservative William Rehnquist as Chief Justice, by the time the vote had come around.
Obama has a particular vision for the country. Political philosophers would deem that he strongly believes in "positive liberty" (freedom to do things) and leans towards the "equal outcomes" end of the "equal processes"/"equal outcomes" debate. I am on the exact other end of that. I believe in "negative liberty" (freedom from government restrictions) and strongly lean towards the "equal processes" end of that debate.
I believe that bringing people together requires more than just good speaking skills, political sex appeal, and an interesting personal story. It requires, in essence, a more balanced vision of politics than Barack Obama can possibly bring to the table as a hard-core Chicago liberal. Obama is an excellent speaker, a strong politician, and an extremely intelligent person. But he's no centrist, and I can't vote for him in good conscience.
So, on Obama: I think he's genuine, and I think he legitimately believes that he could bring people together. But I don't believe it works that way, and I'd rather it not work that way.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Ron Paul Strikes Again?
"From 1933 until the now, our country has doubled the amount of goods and purchases that are available for purchase -- goods and services. In that same period we have multiplied the money supply by 23 times. So eleven and a half dollars are now chasing what one dollar used to chase. And that's all that inflation is: a depreciation of the value of money."
"And yet, in spite of all the evidence that points to the free market as the most efficient system, we continue down a road that is bearing out the prophecy of the Frenchman who came here 130 years ago -- de Tocqueville. He was attracted by the miracle that was America. Think of it, our country was only 70 years old and already we had achieved such a miracle of standard of living and of productivity and prosperity that the rest of the world was amazed. So he came here and he looked at everything he could see in our country, trying to find the secret of our success and then went back and wrote a book about it. But even then, 130 years ago, he saw signs that prompted him to warn us, that if we weren't constantly on guard we would find ourselves covered by a network of regulations controlling every activity. And he said, if that came to pass we would one day find ourselves a nation of timid animals, with government the shepherd."
Those quotes absolutely sound like Ron Paul. But they're not Ron Paul, and they're not from this campaign. Nope, these go back to the Carter years...
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganhillsdalecollege.htm
Yes, a candidate for president said these things. His descendants frequently try to claim his mantle, but in reality, I don't think they know very much about what he actually said. And there's just no chance in hell that anyone would come out with such a firm defense of the market and profit in this day in age, except Ron Paul. Huckabee, McCain, and Romney would not say this.
The remnants of the Reagan Revolution have essentially punted away this legacy. There is no longer an ardent defense of the markets or a criticism of what government tries to do. Candidates pay lip service to the ideas, but nothing more than that.
I love this speech.
Back to work...
"And yet, in spite of all the evidence that points to the free market as the most efficient system, we continue down a road that is bearing out the prophecy of the Frenchman who came here 130 years ago -- de Tocqueville. He was attracted by the miracle that was America. Think of it, our country was only 70 years old and already we had achieved such a miracle of standard of living and of productivity and prosperity that the rest of the world was amazed. So he came here and he looked at everything he could see in our country, trying to find the secret of our success and then went back and wrote a book about it. But even then, 130 years ago, he saw signs that prompted him to warn us, that if we weren't constantly on guard we would find ourselves covered by a network of regulations controlling every activity. And he said, if that came to pass we would one day find ourselves a nation of timid animals, with government the shepherd."
Those quotes absolutely sound like Ron Paul. But they're not Ron Paul, and they're not from this campaign. Nope, these go back to the Carter years...
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganhillsdalecollege.htm
Yes, a candidate for president said these things. His descendants frequently try to claim his mantle, but in reality, I don't think they know very much about what he actually said. And there's just no chance in hell that anyone would come out with such a firm defense of the market and profit in this day in age, except Ron Paul. Huckabee, McCain, and Romney would not say this.
The remnants of the Reagan Revolution have essentially punted away this legacy. There is no longer an ardent defense of the markets or a criticism of what government tries to do. Candidates pay lip service to the ideas, but nothing more than that.
I love this speech.
Back to work...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)