Liberal College Kid

The last Democratic debate before Super Tuesday, and the first featuring solely Obama and Clinton, just ended. The most acute of us will have noticed an unusually frequent amount of shots of the crowd. Maybe it was because they were in an architecturally beautiful building, but the more likely explanation concerns the guests in attendance. Throughout most of the debate, my eyes were at the computer instead of the television screen, but it seemed as though every time I looked up, I had an equal chance of seeing Obama or Clinton as I did of seeing Stevie Wonder, Topher Grace, Diane Keaton or Rob Reiner. Of course, the debate was in Los Angeles, and celebrities are bound to show up in attendance. But the question I want to ask is, who cares?

 Why did CNN feel it necessary to be continuously flashing celebrity faces in the middle of an important and historic presidential debate? It could be that they wanted the audience at home to have an idea of how these celebrities were reacting to the stances of the candidates. If so, again, who cares? Why should the opinions of these people matter at all? How are they more qualified to make tricky political judgements?

The answer is: they shouldn’t matter, and they are not more qualified than the average citizen. At all. In fact, super-rich movie stars, living in the dream world of Hollywood, are the last people we should be looking towards for political opinion or advice. What do they know about the major issues facing Americans? They don’t have to worry about health care or being able to afford their kid’s education or pay their bills (well, it’s possible that they may have bill-paying problems, but we can all agree that its just a little different). Their children are not dying in Iraq. They make pretty speeches about energy conservation and global warming, written on coast-to-coast flights in their private jets.

USA Today pointed out that:

It’s fitting that tonight’s Democratic presidential debate will be held at Los Angeles’ Kodak Theatre, home of the Oscars and one of Hollywood’s most hallowed monuments to the stars.

Star power rocks on the campaign trail these days, with an unprecedented number of actors, entertainers and sports figures stumping for candidates

And it’s not only the phalanx of celebrities attempting to influence the primary races; it’s also what they’re doing. In years past, most stars have been content to endorse and bankroll candidates and make high-profile appearances. But this year, with the race still open and 22 states up for grabs on Super Tuesday next week, celebrities have been working in key states earlier, in greater numbers and more extensively than ever.

I know that most of these celebrities have pure and good intentions, and I do not mean to indict them: they are doing what they do best for the cause that they choose. There is nothing wrong with that. Their increasing participation could be a result of the celebrity-obsessed culture we live in, but maybe it’s just because people in general are getting involved in greater numbers this year, celebrities included. It can be hard to resist their influence. Anyone who has met a celebrity can tell you it can be exciting and make you act differently than you normally would. But when we let those star-struck feelings go unchecked, and assign more meaning to their presence at a debate or on the campaign trail than it truly has, it becomes a dangerous situation. We surrender our own powers of decision making and critical thought and allow our opinions to be swayed by which candidate people like Oprah or Tim Robbins think is the best choice for president.

Even endorsements from other politicians are being focused on too heavily. Now, compared to an endorsement by a celebrity, these make much better sense, since politicians are experts on these issues (or should be). But, it should still be largely irrelevant. Ted Kennedy has decided to back Barack Obama. Fine. But is Obama any different now than he was the day before Kennedy made that announcement? Has something epic changed in his stance on issues and his policy plans? Should the fact that a Kennedy endorsed a candidate really change our views on he or she? Polls, taken after the State of the Union address, show that, unfortunately, it very well may.

Ted Kennedy is one of the most respected members of the Democratic party, and I think most Democrats, rightly, value his opinion. But his endorsement should be noted, and then immediately discarded from our minds. The same goes for those celebrities that really are important parts of our culture and national identity (i.e. Toni Morrison, who has endorsed Obama, and Maya Angelou, who’s going for Clinton). If they have some well-thought out and insightful comments about their candidate as well, there is no harm in listening to them and considering their opinions carefully. But we must resist letting them have too strong of an effect on our own ideas. The American people are intelligent enough on their own without needing to be directed by larger than life personalities. We must think for ourselves, Oprah be damned.

• Leave a comment... (10)

• Leave a comment... (0)

OK, so I didn’t get it right last time… But that’s water under the bridge. Let’s talk NH.

New Hampshire is a very different state than Iowa with 65% listed as Independents. This means that they can vote in either primary, but not both. The two big candidates with Independents are McCain and Obama which, I think, has a lot to do with why they’re polling ahead of the pack.  Why New Hampshire should matter?  The fact that Independents have a choice in which party to cast their vote means that it may be a good predictor about which way Independents will vote nationally come November.  See, early primaries do matter!!  On to business:

Democrats:

1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. Edwards
4. Richardson
5. Kucinich

Its hard not to take Obama in this race. He polls well with Independent voters, he represents change, he looks strong coming out of Iowa, and to be honest the other campaigns just aren’t doing it for me. The Clinton campaign is struggling, slipping now to 29% in the last Reuter’s poll. Edwards also is not doing as well in New Hampshire as he would have liked, remaining in third place in the polling even after narrowly defeating Clinton in Iowa. Obama will take New Hampshire and the Clinton campaign will just have to hope that they can make some serious gains come Super Tuesday as the rest of the early primaries will more than likely go Barack’s way as well.

Republicans:

1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Huckabee
4. Paul
5. Thompson
6.Giuliani

McCain will take New Hampshire because voters are still convinced, no matter how many times McCain has supported everything Bush has done, that he is an Independent. A “maverick” as FAUX News has called him. McCain took New Hampshire in 2000 and he still has a strong presence there. He has also spent far more time and money in NH than he did in Iowa where he did better than expected. He has also now become somewhat of an underdog in the national race, which I believe will bring people out to vote for him. Romney beats Huckabee here only because New Hampshire doesn’t have the Evangelical vote that Iowa has. Don’t count Huckabee out of the nomination though. Right wing wackos who think the world is only 2000 years old have found their candidate and while Huck’s likely to finish third in NH he will likely rebound quite well in South Carolina.

As for the other candidates I think what happened to Kucinich is simply wrong.  Shame on ABC for excluding him from their debate.  This is not FOX, this is ABC and the fact that Dennis was left off the list of debaters tells me that ABC is endorsing candidates, not representing good journalistic view points and biasing the election.  I, for one, will not be watching any ABC news for a long time.

Paul will be interesting to watch in this race for New Hampshire.  This dark horse is likely to run on a Libertarian ticket once he’s out of the Republican race and that will cause some major headaches for Republicans, especially in Western states where much of Paul’s support lies.

Be sure and check back after the New Hampshire results for LCK’s analysis.  I know my predictions are a little on the safe side, it might be exciting to be wrong once again.

• Leave a comment... (0)

What a crazy year! Of course, I will especially remember 2007 for many reasons. One of which is certainly that LCK started in March of 2007. Rather than go through all of the stories we’ve posted on here, though, I thought I would go through the biggies whether or not anything about them appeared on our site.

* Where better to start than with the Presidential Election that seemed to kick off way too early?

This picture is great because it really shows that despite all of the added time this race has gotten it really hasn’t made that much difference. Well, maybe except in the case of Huckabee who inextricably is moving up the charts in the hearts and minds of Republicans. Other wise, though, the 08 race is exactly where it was at the start of 2007. Despite my best attempts, Kucinich is still waffling on the bottom of the heap and the Obama vs. Clinton match up that everyone was calling in January seems to be exactly what’s on the horizon.

* February was a great month in the news because of one person, Lisa Nowak. To be honest, I felt kind of bad for her. The story as I first heard it seemed like a love story of sorts, two astronauts who fell in love at zero gravity. How romantic right? That is, until it came out that she wore the adult diapers astronauts wear in space on her drive from Texas to Florida to stalk her man.  Nothing says I love you like a soiled diaper…

<Hottie!>

* Then of course is my pick for person of the year: Larry Seidlin. The infamous judge of the Anna Nicole Smith trial, who told stories of his days as a tennis player, his relationships in the past, orange juice, his college days… Words fail me, so here is a good highlight reel of the madness that was the Anna Nicole case:

* The story that perhaps most rocked college students this year was the Virginia Tech tragedy where Cho Seung Hui killed 32 of his peers and then killed himself. The way he went about it, however, is perhaps the most distressing. He sent his own press kit to NBC, depicting him with guns, in camouflage and many other violent and frightening images. The political fall out around this issue is of course unfortunate, with some on the right claiming that had other students been allowed to have guns on campus this killer would not have claimed so many victims. I don’t understand this logic at all, but, in 2007 everything whether it was political in origin or not, became political.

* On August 1st a suspension bridge spanning the Mississippi River in Minnesota collapsed and killed 13 people. This tragedy came with some baggage though. Minnesota and the Twin City area in particular had just approved a tax payer funded new home for the Minnesota Twins. Money was going to building a new baseball stadium rather investing in infrastructure. Of course, immediately after this reports came out that perhaps as many as 3 in 4 bridges in America were not structurally sufficient which led me to one question: why can’t we be building bridges here and not just in Iraq?

* In August, Larry Craig made us all reconsider our public restroom behavior. There were two truly horrible things about this event. The first was how Craig handled the whole thing. He has been and continues to be a bigot actively campaigning against gay rights. And second, who wants to have sex in an airport bathroom? It’s hard enough to bring yourself to just use the facilities in an airport bathroom, you know? Despite all of this, he is staying in office… Good luck with your reelection Larry.

* The evil genius, the architect, Bush’s brain… Call him what you will 2007 saw the end of the great Bush & Rove partnership. Despite him being wrong, in my opinion, on virtually every political front, I will certainly give Karl his props here. He got an idiot elected Governor and then President, then convinced the entire nation that his party would be better for them because of “morals” and “values” which should have been read “profit margin” and “tax break.” Rove may be one of the most brilliant men to ever work in the White House, and he was never elected nor approved. Nonetheless, he was a terrible dancer and rapper. And Karl, for me you will always be MC Rove!

* Our boy Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize! How sweet is that? He won it, of course, for his work with An Inconvenient Truth and shared the award with the UN group responsible for coming out with the report on global climate change.  Gore has taken the issue beyond a partisan debate to make it a sticking point on both sides of the asile and he has now accomplished something very few Americans have: he is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.  You go Gore!

* And then finally and tragically 2007 ended in catastrophe in Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto was assassinated less than a month from the first formal election since 1999.  She was campaigning for that race when she was killed.  She had been living abroad for the last 8 years after General / President Musharraf seized control of the government in a military coup.  The two had reached an amnesty agreement and had agreed to restore democracy to the country.  Now, however, while the election appears to still be coming on January 8th questions still surround the assasination.  Of course Al- Qaeda is claiming it and there are numerous reports of their pressence in Pakistan.  However, Musharraf has had nothing but support from the US since he seized power and while Bush has condemned the act as cowardly it still bodes well for our strong military alliance in Pakistan as we continue the War of Terror.  Sorry, War on Terror.

Well folks, there it is!  2007 was our first year at LCK and while it had its ups and downs we hope that you will continue to read us from time to time, post some comments about how we’re too young to understand anything, and get into great debates about a Dennis Kucinich  Ron Paul campaign.  Cheers and Happy New Year!

• Leave a comment... (3)

Many people didn’t watch it, we didn’t even write about it yesterday, but it turns out there was a Democratic debate yesterday hosted by the AFL-CIO in Chicago. The one candidate not present was Mike Gravel, but honestly I don’t think that mattered very much to people.

< The Contenders…

Sure there were a few big moments. Obama continued to threaten a sovereign nation who is on our side in the war on terror, Hillary told us if we want a winner she’s our girl, and Kucinich got the second biggest round of applause when he called for the end of NAFTA and WTO (love that guy!!). But the truly great part of the debate happened off the stage.

A man named Steve Skvara had the line of the night. He said:

“After 34 years with LTV Steel, I was forced to retire because of a disability. Two years later, LTV filed bankruptcy. I lost a third of my pension, and my family lost their health care. Every day of my life, I sit at the kitchen table across from the woman who devoted 36 years of her life to my family, and I can’t afford to pay for her health care. What’s wrong with America and what will you do to change it?”

As he said it his voice cracked with emotion and the entire event paused and gave the man a standing ovation. Skvara’s story was proof that this election touches people. This is not simply a contest, nor is politics something that only effects those directly involved in the government. Our democracy effects each and everyone of us and there is more that we can do as a country to take care of one another.

Ask yourself several questions: What is more important, the war in Iraq or education? The war in Iraq or healthcare? The war in Iraq or stem cell research? The list can go on… What happened to our priorities? Perhaps the best question to be asking right now: is the infrastructure in Iraq more important than infrastructure here in America? The answer, I hope, is no. When did it become more important to rebuild another country instead of taking care of those of us at home?

This presidential election in 2008 has the potential to forever change our country. We could see the full funding of healthcare for all Americans, real funding for education, campaign finance reform, real funding for stem-cell research, and the end of the greatest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam. America is a progressive nation, one that since it’s creation has set the standard for countries all over the world.  We had the first democracy in modern time, wrote a constitution that has become the standard to which other constitutional governments are measured against, and provided freedoms never before seen in the world.  What happened to our world leading spirit and initiative? We can reclaim our position as the nation that sets the standard that other countries strive to recreate. There is no reason we don’t have the best schools, brightest students, healthiest citizens, most fair elections, and most accomplished scientists.  If we truly are the leaders of the free world it’s time we start acting like it.

• Leave a comment... (6)

This political cartoon is a great representation of the ridiculous effort in America’s public schools to Un-separate church and state…to move hundreds of years backwards in our efforts to create a free democracy. This country was founded on the idea of religious freedom, but lately it seems that “the powers that be” are trying to make us forget that.

The teaching of the Theory of Evolution in public schools is a debate that should not even be a debate. There is no scientific debate that Evolution by Natural Selection and that changes in allele frequencies over generations of a population are the causes of speciation, including the divergence of our own species. Let me reiterate, because this concept can apparently be misleading…THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC DEBATE. Research done in fields of science is guided by evolution…Genetics, Conservation Biology, Ecology, Pharmaceuticals, etc, etc. There seems to be confusion about the fact that a Scientific Theory is not just someone’s WILD GUESS. . .

This is a great explanation of the true definition, which is NOT what most high schoolers are taught when they learn about Evolution in their schools (if they do at all)…

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity’s effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
Here’s a video excerpt that, ridiculous as it is, did not shock me that much, knowing the statistics of how many citizens of this country do not “believe” in evolution, even though it’s not a belief system to begin with, but rather a testable, working Scientific Theory.

Humans’ impact on environment is reaching its tipping point, and if the same politicians that claim to want to work for alternative fuel and new scientific innovation that will allow us to continue our society through major environmental change simultaneously say that they don’t “believe” in evolution then there’s no hope for our future….If they don’t recognize one of the most applicable scientific ideas of all time, how can they even think that they will be able to have an impact on the future of science? Or a better question, how can the citizens that are voting for these guys think that they aren’t utterly and completely full of …it?

WHO doesn’t Believe in Evolution? - GOP Debate show of hands….

Tancredo, Huckabee, Brownback…..Link to Tonight’s debate picture:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/03/who-doesnt-believe-in-evolution/

Because: That’s why they don’t believe in evolution - their leadership becomes less fit over time…..

ev_cartoon2.gif

• Leave a comment... (13)

This is an article I wrote that didn’t end up getting published last night because it was potentially going to appear on our network partner http://pajamasmedia.com They actually decided that the debate was so boring that they didn’t want to run anything on it. So, here is my piece on the debate that was too boring to report on:

The Republican Debate this evening was more or less what I expected. At first it seemed normal enough: Giuliani talked incessantly about his national security credentials, Romney sounded great if you didn’t listen to the words, and Mike Huckabee still doesn’t believe in evolution. Nothing that surprising right?

However, there were some very surprising moments that I as a bleeding heart liberal, actually found myself agreeing with.

Ron Paul, who has run as a third party candidate for the Libertarian party, is the only candidate of the 10 that has actually said anything to indicate that he is familiar with Iraq and our recent history there. His insistence on bringing the troops home and ending foreign policies that include our reliance on foreign oil and making the Iraqis govern themselves actually place him well on the left of the debate. This was especially illustrated when he answered a question from the audience about when Iraq would be ready for us to leave. It’s almost like I was thinking the answer and Ron Paul said it for me: We have to leave to give them a reason to stand up and be accountable for their own government. Really, I think Paul and I could get along swimmingly if it weren’t for his wanting to do away with income tax.

McCain, for me, won tonight’s debate. He spoke eloquently on immigration and truly stood up for his home state, Arizona. McCain’s best moments came when he described the Vietnam War Memorial having Hispanic names on it. He was able to make his support for his own immigration bill into something patriotic. This was especially crucial as he was the only one on the stage who actually supported the bill. McCain’s thoughts on this issue were especially heartening as his colleagues and opponents turned the immigration debate into a national security topic. Well, with the exception of Tom Tancredo who just plain hates immigrants and wants to not only end illegal immigration but all immigration to the United States.

Giuliani continued to rely on his national security talking points to guide his way through the debate. This got me thinking though, what experience with national security does he actually have? Sure he was the Mayor of New York City on September 11, 2001 but that hardly classifies as national security. I didn’t see Giuliani announcing that we would be going to Afghanistan or anything like that? So what experience is he actually referring to? And I know that this stuff shouldn’t matter, but I know the right would point it out if it were a Democrat running: he has a lisp! I already feel bad, but it’s true.

I think life will be toughest for Romney after this evening, comparatively. The right came after Kerry for being a “flip-flopper” in 2004 on issues like the war in Iraq and his military service. Many Vietnam vets came out against the war, and many Democrats voted for the war initially and changed their position after we found out that Iraq never had WMD and never actually posed a threat to us. Compare that to Romney: he’s reversed his positions on gay rights, being pro-choice, and on immigration. Ouch.

The rest of the candidates did not do enough to really separate themselves this evening and really can be hard to keep track of. To help others keep them straight here’s my cheat sheet:

Tancredo is the one who hates immigrants the most.

Hunter makes it sound like he personally built a wall in California to keep immigrants out. It’s all he talks about.

Tommy Thompson looks like he has no idea where he is half the time and struggles with the batteries for his hearing aid.

Brownback loves life. Life life life. So long as its not an illegal immigrant.

Huckabee is a minister, who doesn’t believe in evolution.

Gilmore, well he’s just kind of the other guy.

My favorite part of the whole night though, was when the candidates were asked what the biggest mistake George W. Bush has made as President. Most of the candidates said something about spending, but not Tancredo. For him, the worst thing Bush has done as president, was govern as a liberal. Uh, what?

• Leave a comment... (4)

Well one thing is certain; the Republicans sure do appear to like each other more than the Democrats do. The Republican debate last night in New Hampshire illustrated the difference between the parties as both attempt to try and find the right individual to nominate for the 2008 election. Two nights removed from the Democratic debate- one filled with sideways jabs and outright confrontation as the second and third tier candidates tried to pull the front-runners off of their pedestals- the Republicans were downright cordial with each other, perhaps illustrating the extent to which the race is still wide open

The candidates tonight acted like a group of individuals with no real front-runner. They also acted like a group of men not wanting to distance themselves, too far at least, from the current administration; apparently the endorsement of President Bush- even with approval ratings scraping rock bottom- is still something all of these candidates (well, maybe not Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo) want.

The debate opened with the perfunctory Iraq/Iran/War on Terror questions and all of the candidates except Paul, who said “the sooner we get home the better”, felt that staying in Iraq is a necessity. Tommy Thompson did, however, add the caveat that if the Iraqis vote us out of Iraq we should pack up and leave and Senator Brownback was the only individual to propose partitioning Iraq into three separate states, one for each major ethnic group. The opening round of questions gave the Republicans a chance to lay the groundwork for the rest of their answers throughout the night; namely that almost any issue that America faces today can be linked back to national security. By the time Wolf Blitzer got around to asking the candidates about their views on abortion I found myself trying to figure out how Rudy Giuliani would be able to link a woman’s right to choose to 9/11 as most of his answers up to that point had invoked the terrorist attacks in 2001.

Giuliani was joined in his beating of the terror drum throughout the debate by the rest of the candidates as they were able to tie such diverse categories as immigration reform, global warming and gay rights to national security. The first issue to be looked at through a national security lens was immigration where the expected firework between Mitt Romney and John McCain never materialized. Romney, saying that McCain is his friend, wouldn’t take on directly take on the Senator from Arizona as many had expected, opting, rather, simply to say that the laws that are currently on the books should be enforced and that it is unfair for those who are in the process of legally gaining citizenship to allow those already here to effectively cut to the front of the line. Tom Tancredo did his best to advance his one issue candidacy as much as he could on this topic by saying that the United States is being torn apart by the increase of bilingual citizens and that we may not “survive as a nation” if illegal aliens are not stopped from entering the country. The rest of the field took issue with the McCain immigration reform plan and advocated a secure border first and immigration reform second approach to the problem. McCain for his part looked, in my opinion, very un-presidential like saying that the bill he is currently sponsoring “isn’t the bill [he] would have written” but, in effect, that it’s better than nothing. McCain was also the only candidate to oppose making English the official language of the United States, a sharp contrast to the Democratic debate in which only one candidate (Mike Gravel) approved of making English America’s national language.

As the conversation moved on to global warming the issue of national security was again brought up with many of the candidates paying lip service to, or avoiding all together, the question of whether or not global warming is occurring and instead choosing to focus on the need to have energy independence. Giuliani and Romney both harkened back to the Apollo Project and said that a similar project needed to be launched to promote the advancement of alternative fuels to achieve energy independence. Many of the candidates also said that energy independence is a matter of national security and insinuated that an America that does not rely on foreign oil would be a safer America. On a side note: I couldn’t help but find it ironic that throughout the evening the candidates touted the advantages of nuclear power as a clean, safe and efficient source of energy while also assailing the nuclear program in Iran (which Iran claims to be for purely peaceful purposes).

National security was on the tips of the candidates tongues again as they answered questions about gays in the military. None of the candidates felt that gays should be able to serve openly in the military and many of them said that it would be wrong to reevaluate the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy while in a war. Other candidates (Paul and Huckabee in particular) argued that anything that causes a problem in the military (i.e. a solider knowing his fellow solider is a homosexual) should be dealt with and felt that the current policies are doing that well enough.

Another area of agreement last night was the recent Scooter Libby trial. None of the candidates appeared in any way inclined to not pardon the recently sentenced former Cheney aide. Brownback argued that Libby never committed a crime in the first place and Tommy Thompson compared Libby’s punishment to the punishment of former President Clinton saying that the two were nowhere near equal. The “Let’s All Just Get Along” theme continued into the healthcare arena as well. While some of the proposed policies differed in the detail (from Romney’s personalized system to Tommy Thompson’s wellness and prevention system) all of them seemed to agree that what the Democrats has proposed a few nights ago was nothing short of socialized medicine, and the Republicans wanted nothing to do with that.

Overall I would have to say that most of the candidates failed to make a big splash or do anything to advance or solidify their candidacy tonight. McCain was especially awkward on stage for most of the night and looked nothing like the invigorating maverick candidate he managed to be a few years ago. His one shining moment came near the end of the debate as he spoke eloquently and passionately about Hispanic immigrants enriching his home state of Arizona. I also felt that Giuliani persisted in deflating his chances of getting the Republican nod by continuing to bring up 9/11 every chance he got. Giuliani needs to realize that when the media has already accused the current President of fear mongering by continually referring to 9/11 using that same tact is not a way to get the keys to the White House. Instead of running as a candidate that could win against a Democrat Giuliani has apparently decided to narrow his focus and run almost entirely on a national security platform; the problem with this is that it raises the obvious question of “how does being Mayor of New York City, even if it was during 9/11, give an individual national security credentials?”. Ron Paul appeared to score some points with a markedly more boisterous crowd (as compared to the Democratic debate crowd) by pushing his Libertarian agenda and I also felt that Sam Brownback bounced back nicely from a weak first debate. Mitt Romney still continues to impress me the most in the Republican field and he, again, wins the “Most Presidential Appearance” award even if he did avoid answering certain questions, especially about Iraq, directly.

This debate presents the republicans with an interesting problem; if Romney continues to do as well as he has thus far and ends up being the clear leader going into the Convention, do they nominate him? I would have a hard time believing that the Republicans would, in the end, nominate Romney as his religious views would almost certainly result in a Democratic White House in 2009. At this point though, they don’t have much of an alternative. McCain has never felt like he’s gotten out of first gear despite announcing his candidacy about 37 different times and Giuliani refuses to appeal to the base of the party on social issues, instead hoping his tough-on-terror position alone can get him the nomination. Tancredo is too conservative on immigration even for the Republicans, Brownback is too stiff, Tommy Thompson never appears to know exactly what he will say next, Huckabee is an ordained minister (another non-starter when it comes to the national election) and Ron Paul is a Libertarian. The only other candidate this leaves is Gilmore and he hasn’t made enough noise in the debates to be viewed as a threat to the front-runners. With the very real possibility of Newt Gingrich tossing his hat in the ring and the virtual certainty that Fred Thompson will declare his candidacy in the coming weeks the Republican race shows no signs of getting clearer any time soon.

• Leave a comment... (2)

If the Democratic primary was tomorrow I’d be voting for Joe Biden, and I don’t even like Joe Biden. I find him to be a little too sarcastic and rough around the edges, he’s the type of guy I think I might like to hang out with, but not the individual I want running our country. However, after the debate tonight in New Hampshire he’s getting my vote (at least until the next news cycle) because of the answers he and the other Democratic candidates gave to a single question, a question about Darfur. I’ll get to my logic for being pro-Biden, for the time being at least, soon enough but first I want to talk about why a single question is now able to decide whom I would vote for.

Richard Nixon popularized the theory that candidates appeal to the base of a party to get nominated and then run back towards the center as quickly as they can once nominated. I think that it’s already pretty clear that this approach has, abruptly, come to an end. With the amount of fundraising and advertising that is already going on by both the Democrats and the Republicans the frontrunners for both parties are already (a full 232 days before the first primary) strongly entrenched in the middle. The set up for tonight’s debate said as much when CNN stuck Obama, Clinton and Edwards next to each other in the middle with Gravel and Kucinich on the ends and the rest of those who will, in the end, show up on the “also ran” list (Dodd, Biden and Richardson) filling in the intermediate spaces. The answers the candidates gave looked as if they were taking cues from their placement on the stage as Kucinich and Gravel were the only individuals who really pushed the debate forward philosophically while the other candidates remained about as middle of the road as one could get at a Democratic debate in front of Democratic voters and sympathizers.

The debate kicked off, anticlimactically enough, with questions about Iraq and the only real fireworks here were delivered by John Edwards as he stood on his soapbox and derided Clinton and Obama for their timidity when it came to their vote against the funding bill for the war in Iraq. Edwards also said that the Democrats were given a mandate when voted into office in 2006 to end the war and that the Congress had let down the American people by not pulling out of the conflict. Obama shot back at Edwards by saying that he is “four and a half years late on this issue” and made it clear that he has always been a staunch opponent to the war. Clinton acted like the front-runner that she is by choosing to focus on how the Republicans are to blame for the entire mess and that the Democrats need to stick together in opposing the war. Gravel and Kucinich played up their anti-establishment cards by saying (respectively) that the Democrats facilitated the war and that they have failed the American people by not stopping it. What really bothered me during the round of Iraq/Terrorism questions was that Clinton trotted out her old “if I knew then what I know now” pony when pressed about why she voted to authorize the war, on the other hand Edwards showed some chutzpah by saying flat out “I was wrong” and then went on to talk about needing to reestablish trust with the country.

The candidates all stuck to the same script when answering questions about immigration, all of them were in favor of a pathway to citizenship and none of the candidates, except Mike Gravel, wanted to make English the National Language. Chris Dodd gained some points in my book when he talked about needing to increase the amount of foreign language education in this country but other than that most of the candidates stayed away from saying anything too outside of the mainstream. The Democratic candidates’ love affair with the center was best illustrated when healthcare was brought up. Of course all of the candidates want everyone in this country to be insured. Of course they all think drug and insurance companies are raking in too much money. Of course they all want children to be covered. I think Wolf Blitzer could have pretty much skipped all the healthcare questions and simply held up a big “Dems Love Healthcare” sign and we would have gotten the same message. The only disagreement came when the question of funding was raised and the candidates were split into two camps: the “we’ll raise taxes on the rich to pay for it” camp and the “we’ll save enough money cutting the fat that we won’t need to raise taxes” camp… talk about high drama. Kucinich was a great foil for the blandness that had at this point enveloped the discussion when he proposed what, to me at least, sure sounded a lot like socialized healthcare (huzzah!) before retiring back to “Tralotia Land of the Elves” which I hear is what he was calling his podium.

I personally want to start a campaign to fund Kucinich and Gravel all the way up to the nomination because of what they do for the Democratic Party. If it weren’t for them there wouldn’t have been any real substantial or theoretical difference between the people on the stage tonight. The other candidates are so concerned with not losing the nomination this early in the game that they aren’t willing to step out on a limb and say anything different. Kucinich and Gravel, who surely know just as well as the rest of us that they have no shot at getting the nomination, realize their only real way to impact the future of this country is by forcing the discussion of ideas which don’t get talked about if they’re not around. Gravel sat of the right side of the stage like an angry old man and picked apart the rest of the candidates -he really laid into Obama about the V.A. Hospital- and what he saw as their weaknesses. Kucinich was, in my mind at least, extremely smart in waiting to comment until most of the other candidates had their turn to speak (and basically agreed with one another) and then juxtaposed his ideas with theirs and more often than not sounding like the individual with the best ideas. The fact that these two almost-third-party candidates were the only one’s saying something unique tonight is why I was able to be swayed by a single question about Darfur.

The question about the Genocide in Darfur came after about half an hour of rather routine audience posed quandaries and said a lot, a whole lot, about these candidates. Joe Biden was the first to elaborate on what he would do, were he in charge, about Darfur and he said that he would impose a strict no-fly zone and introduce NATO troops to quell the Janjaweed. I had figured the rest of the candidates would pretty much follow his lead and say basically the same thing which is why I was shocked every single candidate (led by Clinton) balked when Blitzer posed his 72nd hypothetical question of the night, asking which candidates would introduce U.S. troops to help the embattled region. While the entirety of the stage was muttering objections to the question Clinton was saying “ask us about a no-fly zone Wolf, ask us about a no-fly zone”. Oh, right, I guess I didn’t realize he was supposed to be lobbing softballs up there for them, my bad. She then went on to say that it’s tough to answer hypothetical questions despite the fact that she was fine answering them before they were about the killing of innocent civilians. Bill Richardson said that he wouldn’t use force to stop the Genocide and then said he would threaten to pull the U.S. out of the Olympics in 2008 if China didn’t pressure Sudan to stop the violence. At the time I thought it was a cop out for Richardson to say that he’d threaten to use backing out of the Olympics as a bargaining chip… that is before Chris Dodd felt that backing out of the Olympics would be too great of a reaction to try and stop a Genocide. That’s right, Chris Dodd thinks it’s more important to throw a discus around than it is to prevent the slaughter of innocent people… fantastic. Both Edwards and Obama used some ridiculously feeble excuse about the U.S. not having the moral authority to lead a fight in Sudan because of Gitmo and the way Bush has fought the war in Iraq with Edwards tacking something on about how he wants to increase elementary level education (how that will help in Darfur, I have no idea). I literally watched this section of the debate with my mouth gaping wide open and instantly fell in love (for the time being) with Biden when he basically told the candidates to f-off and delivered the most moving and passionate moment of the night speaking about his efforts to stop the Genocide in Bosnia and the necessity of stopping the horrors in Sudan.

This debate illustrated two main things to me. The first is that there has been a fundamental shift in the way a candidate goes about getting nominated now. If you listen to polls or to interviews with average citizens they are looking to nominate the “most electable” candidate. This effectively rules out a dark horse candidate from making a strong push a la Howard Dean in 2004, it also rules out any real groundbreaking campaign promises or policy initiatives. The second thing is that, despite the innumerable pledges of “never again” the U.S. is still refuses to attempt to stop Genocide. It still refuses to act unless there is an economic advantage to be gained by acting (and a poor African country doesn’t offer much of an economic incentive, especially when most of their oil goes to China). This debate will go down in the books as furthering the candidacies of Clinton, Obama and Edwards because they were the front-runners and they managed to score some good points and avoid any big mistakes. In my book, though, it will go down as the debate in which the Democrats pandered for the Nevel Chamberlain vote.

• Leave a comment... (3)

When my good friend asked me to contribute to his well-meaning liberal blog, I hesitated. While my positions on litmus-test issues are certainly in line with those of many liberals, I’m wary to identify myself as a member of a community that so consistently frustrates me. Indeed, the state of political discourse in this extraordinary nation disappoints me daily.

I submit to you that most of us Americans, independent of political leaning, have wrapped ourselves so tightly in our own beliefs that we’ve forsaken the goals of public debate and robbed democracy of its power. Though these political ideals are surely lofty, it doesn’t follow that we should resign ourselves to narrow-minded punditry. Yet all too often, we do.

If our calls for progressive change are sincere, our methods of engagement with those we hope to convince are deeply flawed. Do we truly feel as though we’re winning over hearts and minds?

Lest we forget, our “opponents” are motivated by factors equally deserving of respect and tolerance as our own. We may find their opinions disagreeable and at times morally reprehensible, but we ought not forget that they too are entitled to a position. We must remember that their reactions stem from their beliefs as well as their personal and social circumstances. As such, they are fully worthy of our empathy. Why don’t we give it to them?

After all, if we want them to listen to us, we have to listen to them.

Thus, in my inaugural post, I urge members of this blog to consider the persuasions and arguments of those with whom we might disagree. We must recognize the duality of our partisan politics, seeking to reconcile our views and work toward constructive change.

America is tragically divided. Let’s work on that. After all, e plurbis unum—right?

• Leave a comment... (1)