Due to strong responses over the course of the last two Democratic debates and recent poll results in Iowa, I've decided to extend coverage to presidential candidates Joe Biden and Mike Huckabee.
While Joe still doesn't show up much poll-wise in Iowa, a good chunk of Iowans remain undecided and he's getting a lot of mention (more than Richardson) both in the mainstream media and in the blogosphere...so I felt I ought to bring him back in. Besides, he's one of the few everyone agrees has the foreign policy experience and he'll likely play a significant role in the next administration, should it be Democratic.
Mike Huckabee is now nipping at Romney's heels in Iowa and shows real movement, so he had to be brought back in. While Thompson lags, Huckabee has momentum and promises an exciting caucus night there in Iowa for the Republicans.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Friday, September 7, 2007
I've Narrowed the Field
It wasnt' so easy on the Republican side, but I went ahead and made my choices for the top four candidates on both sides. For the Democrats: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson. For the Republicans: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and the new elephant in the room...Fred Thompson.
I went back and forth a bit between McCain and Mike Huckabee. After all, Huckabee did manage to come in second in the Iowa Straw Poll...and with very little money. But he still doesn't seem to have the name recognition nor the organization to really be a viable contender. And, while McCain seems to have spent most of his money, he's showing signs of life again (he always does better when his back is to the wall) and sounding more like his old "Straight Talk" self, so I gave him the nod.
Now, as long as nobody else decides to enter the race and muck things up even more, my plan is that, come next week, I will begin to parse these various candidates' policies on the important issues I noted in my last posting. First up on Monday: Iraq (and the Middle East in general).
I went back and forth a bit between McCain and Mike Huckabee. After all, Huckabee did manage to come in second in the Iowa Straw Poll...and with very little money. But he still doesn't seem to have the name recognition nor the organization to really be a viable contender. And, while McCain seems to have spent most of his money, he's showing signs of life again (he always does better when his back is to the wall) and sounding more like his old "Straight Talk" self, so I gave him the nod.
Now, as long as nobody else decides to enter the race and muck things up even more, my plan is that, come next week, I will begin to parse these various candidates' policies on the important issues I noted in my last posting. First up on Monday: Iraq (and the Middle East in general).
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Changes in the Electoral Landscape
This electoral race got started way too early, with way too much money, too many so-called "debates," and too many candidates. And now, way too many states are trying to leapfrog into the foreground in terms of their Primary Elections or Caucuses.
Seriously, it's given me a headache and caused me to do NOTHING on this blog for a number of months. I've been waiting, on the one hand, for the field on both sides to diminish...but only two candidates have dropped out so far--Jim Gilmore and Tommy Thompson--and both are on the Republican side. The holes their departures have left will almost surely be filled this next month by the long-awaited announcements from Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich (though he's still "iffy") that they are formally entering the Presidential Race. That's going to do nothing to ease my headache.
What will? Perhaps some clarity on both sides. But how can any of these candidates run a clear and well-organized campaign when they are forced to take part in these media-driven soundbite forums they're calling debates every other week or so? How can they know how and where to marshall their staff and volunteers when the rules of the game keep changing in the middle of the game? If we're not going to let Iowa and New Hampshire continue as the first election and caucus in the nation DURING the election year...then we may as well give up this system and go for a NATIONAL PRIMARY DAY! If not that, then at least a regional primary day in which every region would rotate turns at being the first in the country (i.e., the South for 2008, the West for 2012, the Midwest for 2016, etc.).
Ah, but Americans hate change. I guess we haven't been around long enough to understand how powerless we are against the currents of time and how inevitable change is. I say, embrace it. This is a crucial election. Let's vote for a change (and I don't mean that as an endorsement of Obama...I don't believe he's the only candidate for change).
In any case, since I am the master of this blog, come September there will be a change. Whether the fields have narrowed or widened, I'm going to choose the top 4 candidates in each party (a purely subjective choice based mostly on my judgement of those most electable), delete the rest of both fields, and delve into the positions of these 8 candidates in the following areas: Foreign Policy (Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Asia, in particular), Security, Health Care, Education, Energy, National Economy, Environment, Immigration Reform, Poverty, and the Power of the Executive Branch.
A clear plan and the ability to turn off all the media's spin meisters should finally get rid of this headache!
Seriously, it's given me a headache and caused me to do NOTHING on this blog for a number of months. I've been waiting, on the one hand, for the field on both sides to diminish...but only two candidates have dropped out so far--Jim Gilmore and Tommy Thompson--and both are on the Republican side. The holes their departures have left will almost surely be filled this next month by the long-awaited announcements from Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich (though he's still "iffy") that they are formally entering the Presidential Race. That's going to do nothing to ease my headache.
What will? Perhaps some clarity on both sides. But how can any of these candidates run a clear and well-organized campaign when they are forced to take part in these media-driven soundbite forums they're calling debates every other week or so? How can they know how and where to marshall their staff and volunteers when the rules of the game keep changing in the middle of the game? If we're not going to let Iowa and New Hampshire continue as the first election and caucus in the nation DURING the election year...then we may as well give up this system and go for a NATIONAL PRIMARY DAY! If not that, then at least a regional primary day in which every region would rotate turns at being the first in the country (i.e., the South for 2008, the West for 2012, the Midwest for 2016, etc.).
Ah, but Americans hate change. I guess we haven't been around long enough to understand how powerless we are against the currents of time and how inevitable change is. I say, embrace it. This is a crucial election. Let's vote for a change (and I don't mean that as an endorsement of Obama...I don't believe he's the only candidate for change).
In any case, since I am the master of this blog, come September there will be a change. Whether the fields have narrowed or widened, I'm going to choose the top 4 candidates in each party (a purely subjective choice based mostly on my judgement of those most electable), delete the rest of both fields, and delve into the positions of these 8 candidates in the following areas: Foreign Policy (Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Asia, in particular), Security, Health Care, Education, Energy, National Economy, Environment, Immigration Reform, Poverty, and the Power of the Executive Branch.
A clear plan and the ability to turn off all the media's spin meisters should finally get rid of this headache!
Saturday, May 5, 2007
How Best to Debate
Over the past two weeks, the American public has had the opportunity for a mere introduction to the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. I say "mere introduction" because the debate format followed by MSNBC in both cases limited candidates to 30-60 second responses...hardly enough time to get in a sound bite, let alone convey real substance. But what else can you do when you've got 8 Democratic and 10 Republican candidates taking their turn and vying for 90 minutes of our attention? Hardly a real chance for any of the second tier candidates to vault into the top tier.
During the next several months, we are bound to see the fields narrowing (even if Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich finally throw their hats in the ring) but, even so, there must be a better way to design these debates so that there is equal opportunity without sacrificing substance.
Wouldn't it be more effective to allow the top three candidates in each party (by polling) automatic entry in a debate and then take turns using one of the second tier candidates so that there are only four candidates on a stage in any given debate? That way we, the American public, can size him up against our front-runners and decide if we should re-think our favorites. It seems like they're having one debate a month, so we'd probably be able to get through the entire field on both sides by the end of summer or early fall (particularly since some are likely to drop out before then due to lack of funds, etc.).
In any case, once each party determines its nominee, I really hope the powers that be (nominees, party officials, and media) will decide to have some very substantive debates leading up to election day, much like those proposed by Gingrich and described in an earlier posting to this blog.
Marvin Kalb made an interesting suggestion along those lines in today's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/opinion/05kalb.html?ex=1336017600&en=2f82cbd351dd9cbd&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Let's take advantage of all these major networks and cable stations and make them all bow to their responsibility to inform the public.
During the next several months, we are bound to see the fields narrowing (even if Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich finally throw their hats in the ring) but, even so, there must be a better way to design these debates so that there is equal opportunity without sacrificing substance.
Wouldn't it be more effective to allow the top three candidates in each party (by polling) automatic entry in a debate and then take turns using one of the second tier candidates so that there are only four candidates on a stage in any given debate? That way we, the American public, can size him up against our front-runners and decide if we should re-think our favorites. It seems like they're having one debate a month, so we'd probably be able to get through the entire field on both sides by the end of summer or early fall (particularly since some are likely to drop out before then due to lack of funds, etc.).
In any case, once each party determines its nominee, I really hope the powers that be (nominees, party officials, and media) will decide to have some very substantive debates leading up to election day, much like those proposed by Gingrich and described in an earlier posting to this blog.
Marvin Kalb made an interesting suggestion along those lines in today's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/opinion/05kalb.html?ex=1336017600&en=2f82cbd351dd9cbd&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Let's take advantage of all these major networks and cable stations and make them all bow to their responsibility to inform the public.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Our Society's Sickness
While there are many wonderful aspects to our free government and society, there is also an inherent danger in the capitalism on which it's built...and one we must always guard against: that is that the almighty dollar may become more important than the people it is supposed to serve...it becomes the master, not the servant.
I have begun to think of this more and more with recent news coverage, particularly in light of the recent horror at Virginia Tech. This may seem a strange connection, but not if you read the articulate, well thought out essay by Alice Mathias, a Dartmouth college student, that was published in today's New York Times:
http://thegraduates.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/a-killers-media-wish-fulfilled/
Essentially, her point is this: the opportunity to make money off of any story or event will oftentimes lead us to make choices that are not necessarily for the best public good. Members of the media have an increasingly important responsibility to communicate news without, shall we say, "relishing" it.
And that's just what Fox, MSNBC, CNN and even the major network news shows do these days. They beat a story to death through sensationalism and, in the process, immunize us, the viewers, from its true effect. Why do they do this? Because they know it will appeal to all of our baser instincts. Like the ancient Romans gathering to the Coliseum to watch deadly games from a safe distance, we gather in our living rooms day and night to gaze at our televisions and catch all the news that is so often anymore not only not fit to print, but not fit to be seen.
When NBC dangled the killer's videotaped rant out there, how many of us resisted tuning in? I know I didn't. Am I the better for it? Not really. I think I'll begin tuning into ABC again where I hear they are taking a more responsible approach to news coverage.
So what does this have to do with presidential politics? Not much except that, for the most part, we get our view of these candidates through the media. So we should remember that they're likely to present what is most saleable...not necessarily what is most true about a candidate.
I have begun to think of this more and more with recent news coverage, particularly in light of the recent horror at Virginia Tech. This may seem a strange connection, but not if you read the articulate, well thought out essay by Alice Mathias, a Dartmouth college student, that was published in today's New York Times:
http://thegraduates.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/a-killers-media-wish-fulfilled/
Essentially, her point is this: the opportunity to make money off of any story or event will oftentimes lead us to make choices that are not necessarily for the best public good. Members of the media have an increasingly important responsibility to communicate news without, shall we say, "relishing" it.
And that's just what Fox, MSNBC, CNN and even the major network news shows do these days. They beat a story to death through sensationalism and, in the process, immunize us, the viewers, from its true effect. Why do they do this? Because they know it will appeal to all of our baser instincts. Like the ancient Romans gathering to the Coliseum to watch deadly games from a safe distance, we gather in our living rooms day and night to gaze at our televisions and catch all the news that is so often anymore not only not fit to print, but not fit to be seen.
When NBC dangled the killer's videotaped rant out there, how many of us resisted tuning in? I know I didn't. Am I the better for it? Not really. I think I'll begin tuning into ABC again where I hear they are taking a more responsible approach to news coverage.
So what does this have to do with presidential politics? Not much except that, for the most part, we get our view of these candidates through the media. So we should remember that they're likely to present what is most saleable...not necessarily what is most true about a candidate.
Monday, April 9, 2007
An Interesting Proposal
I came across an interesting idea from E. J. Dionne Jr. in last Monday's Washington Post: States have begun a movement to bypass the Electoral College by passing legislation that will lead to popular election of the president.
How would this work? The Maryland State Senate passed a bill at the end of March "that would commit Maryland's 10 electors to voting for the winner of the nationwide popular vote...The law would not take effect unless states representing a 270-vote electoral college majority pass similar laws. The idea is to create a compact among states genuinely committed to popular rule."
I have long felt frustrated by the Electoral College and particularly so in 2000 when Bush defeated Gore, even though he received 543,895 fewer votes across the country. How can we call ourselves a democracy when the will of the majority is so circumvented?
There is talk each presidential election year about doing away with the EC, but it never goes anywhere because, until now, it was thought that it would require a constitutional amendment. That, in turn, would require the approval of three-quarters of the states, so "only 13 sparsely populated states -- overrepresented in the electoral college -- could block popular election."
As Dionne puts it:
"The American way of electing presidents is antiquated, impractical and dangerous...The democratic solution is for legislatures to agree to use their electoral votes to support the winner nationally. Devised by John R. Koza, a consulting professor at Stanford University -- he also invented the scratch-off lottery ticket -- the idea has been advanced by the National Popular Vote compaign and, in Maryland, by state Sen. Jamie Raskin, a longtime champion of more democratic election and campaign finance laws. Comparable bills have been approved by one legislative chamber in Arkansas, Hawaii and Colorado.
"Opponents of popular election invent scary scenarios to continue subjecting our 21st-century nation to a system invented in the far less democratic 18th century. Most frequently, they warn about having to conduct a nationwide recount in a close election.
"But direct election of presidents works just fine in France and in Mexico, which managed to get through a divisive, terribly narrow presidential election last year. Are opponents of the popular vote saying our country is less competent at running elections than France or Mexico?
"Here's hoping Maryland sets off a quiet revolution that brings our nation's electoral practice into line with our democratic rhetoric. Individual citizens should have the right to elect their president -- directly."
I agree. What do you think?
How would this work? The Maryland State Senate passed a bill at the end of March "that would commit Maryland's 10 electors to voting for the winner of the nationwide popular vote...The law would not take effect unless states representing a 270-vote electoral college majority pass similar laws. The idea is to create a compact among states genuinely committed to popular rule."
I have long felt frustrated by the Electoral College and particularly so in 2000 when Bush defeated Gore, even though he received 543,895 fewer votes across the country. How can we call ourselves a democracy when the will of the majority is so circumvented?
There is talk each presidential election year about doing away with the EC, but it never goes anywhere because, until now, it was thought that it would require a constitutional amendment. That, in turn, would require the approval of three-quarters of the states, so "only 13 sparsely populated states -- overrepresented in the electoral college -- could block popular election."
As Dionne puts it:
"The American way of electing presidents is antiquated, impractical and dangerous...The democratic solution is for legislatures to agree to use their electoral votes to support the winner nationally. Devised by John R. Koza, a consulting professor at Stanford University -- he also invented the scratch-off lottery ticket -- the idea has been advanced by the National Popular Vote compaign and, in Maryland, by state Sen. Jamie Raskin, a longtime champion of more democratic election and campaign finance laws. Comparable bills have been approved by one legislative chamber in Arkansas, Hawaii and Colorado.
"Opponents of popular election invent scary scenarios to continue subjecting our 21st-century nation to a system invented in the far less democratic 18th century. Most frequently, they warn about having to conduct a nationwide recount in a close election.
"But direct election of presidents works just fine in France and in Mexico, which managed to get through a divisive, terribly narrow presidential election last year. Are opponents of the popular vote saying our country is less competent at running elections than France or Mexico?
"Here's hoping Maryland sets off a quiet revolution that brings our nation's electoral practice into line with our democratic rhetoric. Individual citizens should have the right to elect their president -- directly."
I agree. What do you think?
Romney Needs to Explain His Faith
With so much additional coverage now that he's a front-runner in terms of fundraising, Mitt Romney shouldn't wait much longer to delineate how and why his LDS faith will or won't impact on his ability to serve as President. Given a coming onslaught of publicity about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he can't afford to hang back much longer and hope American voters will ignore his membership in a church they know so little about.
A major PBS documentary (The Mormons) will air in two parts on April 30th and May 1st, taking a four-hour look at the nation's fourth largest religious denomination. Its director said her intent is to shatter all the stereotypes and clear up the ignorance that surrounds this church. And then there is the less-than-flattering feature film, September Dawn. Due out May 4th, it stars Jon Voight and deals with an embarassing and tragic chapter in the history of the church: the Mountain Meadows Massacre. While the former televised documentary is likely to be quite a bit more even-handed and accurate than this Hollywood depiction, PBS can never hope to get the size of audience that a violent feature film can...particularly when said film is tied to 9-11 the way this one has been.
So what should Romney do to maintain control of the message? (After all, in politics, it's always a good idea to get your own story out before everyone else does.)
As proposed in an Op-Ed piece in today's New York Times, since the former Massachusetts governor is scheduled to give the commencement address at Pat Robertson's Regent University in May, it would provide a perfect opportunity to outline his faith before an audience of conservative evangelicals:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/opinion/09woodward.html?ex=1333771200&en=097454d4ea769eea&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Up to now, he has been hesitant to do just that, thinking (and perhaps rightly) that a presidential candidate's personal faith should have no bearing on his/her ability to function in the White House. But with all polls indicating that Americans are far less likely to vote for a Mormon than for a woman or an African American, he needs to speak out and convince them that his faith should pose no barrier...otherwise, he cannot hope to be elected.
A major PBS documentary (The Mormons) will air in two parts on April 30th and May 1st, taking a four-hour look at the nation's fourth largest religious denomination. Its director said her intent is to shatter all the stereotypes and clear up the ignorance that surrounds this church. And then there is the less-than-flattering feature film, September Dawn. Due out May 4th, it stars Jon Voight and deals with an embarassing and tragic chapter in the history of the church: the Mountain Meadows Massacre. While the former televised documentary is likely to be quite a bit more even-handed and accurate than this Hollywood depiction, PBS can never hope to get the size of audience that a violent feature film can...particularly when said film is tied to 9-11 the way this one has been.
So what should Romney do to maintain control of the message? (After all, in politics, it's always a good idea to get your own story out before everyone else does.)
As proposed in an Op-Ed piece in today's New York Times, since the former Massachusetts governor is scheduled to give the commencement address at Pat Robertson's Regent University in May, it would provide a perfect opportunity to outline his faith before an audience of conservative evangelicals:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/opinion/09woodward.html?ex=1333771200&en=097454d4ea769eea&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Up to now, he has been hesitant to do just that, thinking (and perhaps rightly) that a presidential candidate's personal faith should have no bearing on his/her ability to function in the White House. But with all polls indicating that Americans are far less likely to vote for a Mormon than for a woman or an African American, he needs to speak out and convince them that his faith should pose no barrier...otherwise, he cannot hope to be elected.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Global Warming: A Must Issue
The person we elect as President in 2008 must be ready and able to deal with the issue of Global Warming. I believe it is no longer a matter of debate (even the Bush Administration is acknowledging it as a major concern) and we should take the time to find out now where each candidate stands on this issue.
An important barometer of the effect of global warming was released the other day by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and written up by all the major newspapers, including the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/science/earth/07climate.html?ex=1333684800&en=612362632f25e1ac&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
With our coastal cities at greater risk, increasing drought conditions in the American Southwest, and the threat of even more flooding in the Mississippi delta, our next American President cannot afford to ignore this issue...particularly because steps need to be taken immediately if we are to reduce the vulnerabilities. And that is only taking into consideration our own country. Many of the poorest areas of the world are going to be hit the hardest. It is time for the United States to take the lead at home and abroad in such a crucial effort.
An important barometer of the effect of global warming was released the other day by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and written up by all the major newspapers, including the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/science/earth/07climate.html?ex=1333684800&en=612362632f25e1ac&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
With our coastal cities at greater risk, increasing drought conditions in the American Southwest, and the threat of even more flooding in the Mississippi delta, our next American President cannot afford to ignore this issue...particularly because steps need to be taken immediately if we are to reduce the vulnerabilities. And that is only taking into consideration our own country. Many of the poorest areas of the world are going to be hit the hardest. It is time for the United States to take the lead at home and abroad in such a crucial effort.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
The Power of On-Line Democracy
Getting out the vote on-line is becoming more and more important, as evidenced by recently announced efforts on two well-known websites: www.moveon.org and www.myspace.com
The liberal Move On group is kicking off a short series of virtual town hall meetings with most of the candidates focusing on one topic at a time. First up is Iraq and it's scheduled for Tuesday, April 10th. It will feature all the candidates except Brownback, Gravel, Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo. In preparation, Move On contacted all its members, inviting them to submit audio recorded questions dealing with Iraq (and Iran), and then asked its members to vote on the best questions, tossing out those deemed off-topic or too impolite. Though I haven't done much with Move On lately, I was contacted and submitted 2 questions myself. It will be interesting to see if either of them made it to the final selection. Future topics include Global Warming and Health Care.
The organizers are also encouraging Move On members to host house parties for the April 10th on-line meeting, with 802 already organized across the country. I'll provide more details as they become available, or feel free to simply go to their website to learn more.
My Space is going straight for the vote and succeeding where other mere states have failed: they have scheduled their own Primary in advance of either Iowa or New Hampshire on January 1st and 2nd in 2008. Supposedly, 85% of My Space users are 18 or older, so all the candidates are taking this website very seriously and each has their own "space" on the site. By far, Barack Obama has the most "friends" currently and would likely win this Primary if it were held today. It will be interesting to see if his popularity holds up over the next eight months and whether this on-line Primary in any way foreshadows the others. (My guess is that it won't.)
I wouldn't be surprised, however, to see Move On do the same kind of thing and ask their members to vote in an on-line Primary early next year. Whatever happens, it's clear that on-line democracy is here to stay!
The liberal Move On group is kicking off a short series of virtual town hall meetings with most of the candidates focusing on one topic at a time. First up is Iraq and it's scheduled for Tuesday, April 10th. It will feature all the candidates except Brownback, Gravel, Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo. In preparation, Move On contacted all its members, inviting them to submit audio recorded questions dealing with Iraq (and Iran), and then asked its members to vote on the best questions, tossing out those deemed off-topic or too impolite. Though I haven't done much with Move On lately, I was contacted and submitted 2 questions myself. It will be interesting to see if either of them made it to the final selection. Future topics include Global Warming and Health Care.
The organizers are also encouraging Move On members to host house parties for the April 10th on-line meeting, with 802 already organized across the country. I'll provide more details as they become available, or feel free to simply go to their website to learn more.
My Space is going straight for the vote and succeeding where other mere states have failed: they have scheduled their own Primary in advance of either Iowa or New Hampshire on January 1st and 2nd in 2008. Supposedly, 85% of My Space users are 18 or older, so all the candidates are taking this website very seriously and each has their own "space" on the site. By far, Barack Obama has the most "friends" currently and would likely win this Primary if it were held today. It will be interesting to see if his popularity holds up over the next eight months and whether this on-line Primary in any way foreshadows the others. (My guess is that it won't.)
I wouldn't be surprised, however, to see Move On do the same kind of thing and ask their members to vote in an on-line Primary early next year. Whatever happens, it's clear that on-line democracy is here to stay!
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Elizabeth Edwards Cites Magic Johnson
I'm not as able as I once was to stay up late and watch ABC's "Nightline," so I missed the telecast last night of their interview with Elizabeth Edwards and her children. Fortunately, it's available online in their webcast and I checked it out today. Lo and behold, I found I wasn't too far off-base in comparing this fine lady with Magic Johnson in a recent column.
See for yourself by clicking on http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3002817 (that is, if you missed the broadcast like me).
In any case, I am more and more assured that this family will be fine, whether in the White House or not.
See for yourself by clicking on http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3002817 (that is, if you missed the broadcast like me).
In any case, I am more and more assured that this family will be fine, whether in the White House or not.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Like I've Said, Money Won't Cut It
Most of the first quarter fundraising figures are out among the Democratic contenders (except from Obama's camp and even that is estimated at around $21 million), and it seems Hillary, while setting a new record, has been unable to shake off her major competitors.
That's good in my book. I hate to see the democratic process bought and paid for in either party. In any case, as was proved in the last couple of election cycles, early money doesn't guarantee anything, at least in the primaries. Sure, Bush had all the big money behind him and ended up winning the election (barely), but something tells me the American public has had it up to here with big money's attempts to ram candidates down their throats. What is truly encouraging about the results of this 1st quarter fundraising effort is that so much of the money came from small donors ($100 or less). There also appears to be, in the manner of Dean's candidacy last time, real grass roots efforts in several of the campaigns when it comes to fundraising and spreading the word about their candidate. The more we can see of that, and the less we see of these big million-dollar fundraising events, the better off our electoral process will be.
That's good in my book. I hate to see the democratic process bought and paid for in either party. In any case, as was proved in the last couple of election cycles, early money doesn't guarantee anything, at least in the primaries. Sure, Bush had all the big money behind him and ended up winning the election (barely), but something tells me the American public has had it up to here with big money's attempts to ram candidates down their throats. What is truly encouraging about the results of this 1st quarter fundraising effort is that so much of the money came from small donors ($100 or less). There also appears to be, in the manner of Dean's candidacy last time, real grass roots efforts in several of the campaigns when it comes to fundraising and spreading the word about their candidate. The more we can see of that, and the less we see of these big million-dollar fundraising events, the better off our electoral process will be.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Should He or Shoudn't He?
It appears the announcement by John Edwards and his wife that, in spite of her recurrence of cancer, his campaign will "continue strongly" is throwing America into division or, at least, creating a discussion of how best to deal with such a diagnosis.
If you bother to read any of the blogs or comments posted in response to any story on the topic (and I have), it is apparent that approximately two-thirds of the country understands or, at least, respects the Edwards's decision. But another third see it as either a form of denial or craven ambition and neglect of wife and/or children.
There is a certain aspect to this that reminds me of the press conference when Magic Johnson announced he was HIV positive: he was such a popular and well-loved athlete that no one could dismiss him or his plight out of hand and it brought about a greater sympathy for those in similar circumstances. Likewise, Elizabeth Edwards is universally liked and respected (I haven't heard or read a single negative response about the woman from any public or private official). And so, as with Magic, the country's heart has gone out to her and her family in this moment.
I am certainly not comparing HIV/Aids with Cancer, except to say that both can be terminal, and both can strike indiscriminately in ways that sometimes seem most unfair. And, as Magic's high profile gave rise to a greater discussion of how to best deal with his ailment, so Elizabeth's recurrence and spread of cancer has already caused husbands and wives (who have not already had to deal with this...and many have) across the country to wonder: What would I do if my wife were so diagnosed? What would I want my husband to do if I were so diagnosed? What would be best for my family?
If you want a clearer understanding of all that went through the minds of John and Elizabeth, I suggest you read today's NYT article, "In the Hospital, Mrs. Edwards Set Campaign's Fate" at this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/us/politics/25edwards.html?ex=1332561600&en=135f9e32bd9cb07c&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Better yet, tune in to 60 Minutes tonight on CBS when Katie Couric interviews both of them for an hour.
We allow every person running for President their reasons to run, and we allow them their reasons to pull out. For each one of them, it is a personal decision and this is no different. Only the Edwardses know what is best for them. There were two quotes, in particular, from the article that hit me strongly:
"I expect to live a long time," Mrs. Edwards said. "I expect us to have lots and lots of years together. I do believe that. But if that's not the case, I don't want my legacy to be that I pulled somebody who ought to be president out of the race. It's not fair to me, in a sense...My feeling is, if we gave up what we have committed to as our life's work, wouldn't I be getting ready to die? That's what I'd be doing. This cause is not just John's cause, it's my cause."
When asked about the suggestion some have made that the continuing campaign is an act of supreme denial about her cancer, Mrs. Edwards looked momentarily struck. Then, with her husband looking on somewhat tensely, she hurled back: "Absolutely! I am not giving it anything. If it expects to be the boss of me it's gonna have to earn that...I am denying it control over how I spend the rest of my life."
Can we elect a man President whose wife essentially has a death sentence hanging over her head? Absolutely...if we can come to trust that, should her death occur while he is still in office, his performance of his duties will not be unduly impaired. As others have pointed out, FDR dealt with polio while being elected four successive times, Lincoln suffered from depression, JFK had Addison's Disease. There are enough American families affected by cancer and still going on with their lives that they should be testament enough to our ability to endure and overcome such an obstacle.
If you bother to read any of the blogs or comments posted in response to any story on the topic (and I have), it is apparent that approximately two-thirds of the country understands or, at least, respects the Edwards's decision. But another third see it as either a form of denial or craven ambition and neglect of wife and/or children.
There is a certain aspect to this that reminds me of the press conference when Magic Johnson announced he was HIV positive: he was such a popular and well-loved athlete that no one could dismiss him or his plight out of hand and it brought about a greater sympathy for those in similar circumstances. Likewise, Elizabeth Edwards is universally liked and respected (I haven't heard or read a single negative response about the woman from any public or private official). And so, as with Magic, the country's heart has gone out to her and her family in this moment.
I am certainly not comparing HIV/Aids with Cancer, except to say that both can be terminal, and both can strike indiscriminately in ways that sometimes seem most unfair. And, as Magic's high profile gave rise to a greater discussion of how to best deal with his ailment, so Elizabeth's recurrence and spread of cancer has already caused husbands and wives (who have not already had to deal with this...and many have) across the country to wonder: What would I do if my wife were so diagnosed? What would I want my husband to do if I were so diagnosed? What would be best for my family?
If you want a clearer understanding of all that went through the minds of John and Elizabeth, I suggest you read today's NYT article, "In the Hospital, Mrs. Edwards Set Campaign's Fate" at this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/us/politics/25edwards.html?ex=1332561600&en=135f9e32bd9cb07c&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Better yet, tune in to 60 Minutes tonight on CBS when Katie Couric interviews both of them for an hour.
We allow every person running for President their reasons to run, and we allow them their reasons to pull out. For each one of them, it is a personal decision and this is no different. Only the Edwardses know what is best for them. There were two quotes, in particular, from the article that hit me strongly:
"I expect to live a long time," Mrs. Edwards said. "I expect us to have lots and lots of years together. I do believe that. But if that's not the case, I don't want my legacy to be that I pulled somebody who ought to be president out of the race. It's not fair to me, in a sense...My feeling is, if we gave up what we have committed to as our life's work, wouldn't I be getting ready to die? That's what I'd be doing. This cause is not just John's cause, it's my cause."
When asked about the suggestion some have made that the continuing campaign is an act of supreme denial about her cancer, Mrs. Edwards looked momentarily struck. Then, with her husband looking on somewhat tensely, she hurled back: "Absolutely! I am not giving it anything. If it expects to be the boss of me it's gonna have to earn that...I am denying it control over how I spend the rest of my life."
Can we elect a man President whose wife essentially has a death sentence hanging over her head? Absolutely...if we can come to trust that, should her death occur while he is still in office, his performance of his duties will not be unduly impaired. As others have pointed out, FDR dealt with polio while being elected four successive times, Lincoln suffered from depression, JFK had Addison's Disease. There are enough American families affected by cancer and still going on with their lives that they should be testament enough to our ability to endure and overcome such an obstacle.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Edwards Still Running
When I heard that John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, had scheduled a press conference following days of testing with doctors, my heart sank. First, I feared her cancer had come back and, while nobody deserves cancer, she certainly has already faced more than her share of challenges...but cancer is unforgiving that way. Second, I feared we were going to lose a vibrant candidate among the Democrats, one who is enough of a threat to keep this from being a 2-horse race in the Primary. Besides, between the three--Clinton, Obama, and Edwards--I definitely lean toward Edwards.
As it turned out, the news was mixed: her cancer is back and no longer curable...but they're hopeful they caught it early and are not quitting the campaign. And if you missed the press conference but have a chance to watch a replay, I suggest you do so because it will show you, in a nutshell, why the Edwards campaign remains compelling. This is a couple whose public fight for the health of this country is now epitomized by their personal fight for the health of Elizabeth. We are fortunate that they discovered the cancer's spread early and that they are still willing and able to champion his ideas.
And if you think he's using his wife's illness to garner more attention and votes, then you are too cynical by half. Their love for each other and this country was all too apparent. Regardless of whether he lasts as a candidate, I, for one, appreciate his openness and dedication. I will certainly be praying for his wife's continuing treatments to be effective.
As it turned out, the news was mixed: her cancer is back and no longer curable...but they're hopeful they caught it early and are not quitting the campaign. And if you missed the press conference but have a chance to watch a replay, I suggest you do so because it will show you, in a nutshell, why the Edwards campaign remains compelling. This is a couple whose public fight for the health of this country is now epitomized by their personal fight for the health of Elizabeth. We are fortunate that they discovered the cancer's spread early and that they are still willing and able to champion his ideas.
And if you think he's using his wife's illness to garner more attention and votes, then you are too cynical by half. Their love for each other and this country was all too apparent. Regardless of whether he lasts as a candidate, I, for one, appreciate his openness and dedication. I will certainly be praying for his wife's continuing treatments to be effective.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
If We Leave Iraq, Does Al Qaeda Win?
The line put out by the White House, and by most of those who think we should stay in Iraq until we win, is that our leaving now would only give Al Qaeda the victory. To a certain point, they are right. As pointed out by Kevin Ferris in an editorial titled "Cheney Speaks Truth to Pelosi" in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, getting us out of Iraq is Al Qaeda's first goal:
During a trip to Asia last month, Vice President Cheney, in an ABC News interview, said the troop withdrawal ideas promoted by some leading Democrats were similar to al-Qaeda's plans for Iraq:
"If we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we'll do is validate the al-Qaeda strategy. The al-Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people - in fact, knowing they can't win in a stand-up fight, try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit... .
"You can't look at Iraq in isolation. You've got to look at it in terms of its impact, what we're doing in Afghanistan, what we're doing in Pakistan, what we're doing in Saudi Arabia. All those areas are part of the global battlefield... and you can't quit in one place and then persuade all your allies who are helping you in all those other theaters... to continue the fight."
How does he know the enemy's intent? They tell us.
Here's Osama bin Laden in a 2004 audio message: "The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad."
Bin Laden's right-hand man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, laid out a plan in a July 2005 letter: "The jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate - over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq. The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage:... the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity."
So Cheney was speaking a simple truth: Al-Qaeda wants the United States out of Iraq. And congressional calls to give up, regardless of conditions on the ground or what happens next in the wider war, validate that strategy.
But Ferris goes on to say that this doesn't necessarily end the debate.
That doesn't mean there can be no dissent to current policy. A free society debates issues, and there are plenty of reasons offered to quit: War itself is a mistake. The initial invasion was a mistake. The occupation has been a series of mistakes. Refereeing a sectarian struggle that goes beyond fighting al-Qaeda is a mistake.
People will advocate as conscience dictates. All Cheney did was point out that advocacy doesn't occur in a vacuum.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) called the vice president's remarks "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in." Wrong. This is precisely the debate we should be engaged in. Everyone wants the war to end, to see the troops safely home. The question is how? Under what terms?
In any case, our next President will have to think long and hard about how to disengage from Iraq in the near future without ceding the country to Al Qaeda and its long-term plans.
Personally, I don't believe Al Qaeda wins if only part one of their plan takes place. The terrorist organization is like a cancer looking to lodge anywhere a central government is destabilized and weak. Americans are wrong when they assume all Muslims are alike and share the same goals as this fundamentalist group. It never had a chance in Iraq until we invaded. If you doubt me, check the dates on those quotes from Osama Bin Laden and his deputy...after we had invaded. They were simply reacting to, and taking advantage of, our offensive. Once we leave and make it possible for Iraq (with the support of Iran, Syria, and other more secular neighboring countries) to sort out its own mess, let's make sure we don't weaken and destabilize any other Middle Eastern governments by any other hasty, pre-emptive moves.
During a trip to Asia last month, Vice President Cheney, in an ABC News interview, said the troop withdrawal ideas promoted by some leading Democrats were similar to al-Qaeda's plans for Iraq:
"If we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we'll do is validate the al-Qaeda strategy. The al-Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people - in fact, knowing they can't win in a stand-up fight, try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit... .
"You can't look at Iraq in isolation. You've got to look at it in terms of its impact, what we're doing in Afghanistan, what we're doing in Pakistan, what we're doing in Saudi Arabia. All those areas are part of the global battlefield... and you can't quit in one place and then persuade all your allies who are helping you in all those other theaters... to continue the fight."
How does he know the enemy's intent? They tell us.
Here's Osama bin Laden in a 2004 audio message: "The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad."
Bin Laden's right-hand man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, laid out a plan in a July 2005 letter: "The jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate - over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq. The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage:... the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity."
So Cheney was speaking a simple truth: Al-Qaeda wants the United States out of Iraq. And congressional calls to give up, regardless of conditions on the ground or what happens next in the wider war, validate that strategy.
But Ferris goes on to say that this doesn't necessarily end the debate.
That doesn't mean there can be no dissent to current policy. A free society debates issues, and there are plenty of reasons offered to quit: War itself is a mistake. The initial invasion was a mistake. The occupation has been a series of mistakes. Refereeing a sectarian struggle that goes beyond fighting al-Qaeda is a mistake.
People will advocate as conscience dictates. All Cheney did was point out that advocacy doesn't occur in a vacuum.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) called the vice president's remarks "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in." Wrong. This is precisely the debate we should be engaged in. Everyone wants the war to end, to see the troops safely home. The question is how? Under what terms?
In any case, our next President will have to think long and hard about how to disengage from Iraq in the near future without ceding the country to Al Qaeda and its long-term plans.
Personally, I don't believe Al Qaeda wins if only part one of their plan takes place. The terrorist organization is like a cancer looking to lodge anywhere a central government is destabilized and weak. Americans are wrong when they assume all Muslims are alike and share the same goals as this fundamentalist group. It never had a chance in Iraq until we invaded. If you doubt me, check the dates on those quotes from Osama Bin Laden and his deputy...after we had invaded. They were simply reacting to, and taking advantage of, our offensive. Once we leave and make it possible for Iraq (with the support of Iran, Syria, and other more secular neighboring countries) to sort out its own mess, let's make sure we don't weaken and destabilize any other Middle Eastern governments by any other hasty, pre-emptive moves.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The Next President Cannot Ignore the Palestinians
We are mainly concerned these days with Iraq and Iran, when it comes to the Middle East, but the issue that gave rise to both of these problem areas has yet to be resolved: a peaceful existence for Israel in the Middle East and a just solution to the Palestinian problem.
It is easy to ignore an essentially stateless people. But a grave danger is building in the Occupied Territories, as more and more hope is being sucked out of the lungs of their youth. Whoever gains the presidency in 2008 would do well to consider an article published two days ago in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/world/middleeast/12intifada.html?ex=1331438400&en=41c081f4be010bfe&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
It's tragic to read but, then, most Americans have no idea what daily life is like for Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. We can wag our fingers and shake our heads at the insanity of suicide bombings, but these are young people growing up without hope in this life and probably longing for any kind of afterlife.
Our next President will have to convince Israeli and Palestinian leaders that it is no longer acceptable to deny these Palestinian youth a basic hope by refusing to make concessions without unacceptable stipulations, walling them in, separating them from each other and the world, taking their land, keeping them unemployed, and inciting them to violent death.
It is easy to ignore an essentially stateless people. But a grave danger is building in the Occupied Territories, as more and more hope is being sucked out of the lungs of their youth. Whoever gains the presidency in 2008 would do well to consider an article published two days ago in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/world/middleeast/12intifada.html?ex=1331438400&en=41c081f4be010bfe&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
It's tragic to read but, then, most Americans have no idea what daily life is like for Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. We can wag our fingers and shake our heads at the insanity of suicide bombings, but these are young people growing up without hope in this life and probably longing for any kind of afterlife.
Our next President will have to convince Israeli and Palestinian leaders that it is no longer acceptable to deny these Palestinian youth a basic hope by refusing to make concessions without unacceptable stipulations, walling them in, separating them from each other and the world, taking their land, keeping them unemployed, and inciting them to violent death.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Where Is Our William Wilberforce?
Last night, I saw the newly released movie, "Amazing Grace," which movingly details one British politician's long concerted effort to bring about the abolition of the Slave Trade in the British empire. It took William Wilberforce and his supporters 18 years from the date of his first speech in Parliament until his bill finally became law in 1807. As we left the theatre, my husband and I discussed the irony that, while we fought to be free from Great Britain, they freed the slaves decades before we did. I find myself wondering this morning if we aren't still trailing the British when it comes to certain political causes (such as getting out of Iraq).
I was interested, then, to read a guest editorial in today's New York Times by Rory Stewart, entitled "Politics Lite: No Sacrifice, No Substance, No Success," giving a British perspective on what is needed in politics today. Part of it reads as follows:
The Labor Party continues to invest in child poverty, but three weeks ago a U.N. agency ranked Britain 18th out of 18 rich countries in a study of children’s well-being. (The United States was 17th.) Islamist terror is answered with unprecedented levels of money and troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and comparatively little investment in intelligence and security, community relations and politics at home.
In Kabul I work with a local government councilor called Aziz, who was a champion wrestler. For 40 years, he has dealt with war, pogroms and government. He is assessed by members of his community on whether he is generous to the poor, courageous even in the face of death, a powerful representative of their interests and able to keep his promises. He and they believe that leadership is an exercise in moral virtue and courage, that politics should be a noble profession and politicians virtuous. A British voter might think that is naïve. But I believe Aziz is right.
It is patronizing to assume that voters can’t handle demanding, imaginative and risky policies. More Britons voted for the contestants on the TV programs “Big Brother” and “Pop Idol” last year than in the national elections. But the way to persuade people to vote is to make politics less, not more, like “Big Brother.”
I believe we need a William Wilberforce in American politics today. He saw what was wrong with his country and, with passion, dedication, and courage, set about changing it. Who will step forward to change our health care crisis, our education crisis, our energy crisis, our poverty crisis, and, most of all, our security crisis? Or are we waiting for the country that gave us "American Idol" to wake up, take the lead again, and show us the way back to a more noble political process, the process envisioned and championed by our own founding fathers?
I was interested, then, to read a guest editorial in today's New York Times by Rory Stewart, entitled "Politics Lite: No Sacrifice, No Substance, No Success," giving a British perspective on what is needed in politics today. Part of it reads as follows:
The Labor Party continues to invest in child poverty, but three weeks ago a U.N. agency ranked Britain 18th out of 18 rich countries in a study of children’s well-being. (The United States was 17th.) Islamist terror is answered with unprecedented levels of money and troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and comparatively little investment in intelligence and security, community relations and politics at home.
In Kabul I work with a local government councilor called Aziz, who was a champion wrestler. For 40 years, he has dealt with war, pogroms and government. He is assessed by members of his community on whether he is generous to the poor, courageous even in the face of death, a powerful representative of their interests and able to keep his promises. He and they believe that leadership is an exercise in moral virtue and courage, that politics should be a noble profession and politicians virtuous. A British voter might think that is naïve. But I believe Aziz is right.
It is patronizing to assume that voters can’t handle demanding, imaginative and risky policies. More Britons voted for the contestants on the TV programs “Big Brother” and “Pop Idol” last year than in the national elections. But the way to persuade people to vote is to make politics less, not more, like “Big Brother.”
I believe we need a William Wilberforce in American politics today. He saw what was wrong with his country and, with passion, dedication, and courage, set about changing it. Who will step forward to change our health care crisis, our education crisis, our energy crisis, our poverty crisis, and, most of all, our security crisis? Or are we waiting for the country that gave us "American Idol" to wake up, take the lead again, and show us the way back to a more noble political process, the process envisioned and championed by our own founding fathers?
Friday, March 9, 2007
The Need for Real Dialogue
While most of my more conservative friends will probably faint at what I'm about to write here, I must admit that at least one of Newt Gingrich's ideas has captured my imagination. Even though he has not yet announced a run for the presidency in '08 (I'm firmly convinced he still intends to), he has definitely entered the campaigning environment through his new web site www.americansolutions.com (a site I highly recommend, at least for one of its recommendations).
At least Newt and I have one thing in common: we're disgusted with the way this whole election process has been revved up, money'd up, and basically taken away from the vast majority of Americans.
His idea: once the candidates of each major party have been selected through the primary system, then have them sit down, once a week for 9 weeks beginning after Labor Day, in a televised dialogue about a particular issue. These dialogues would not resemble what we've come to see as Presidential debates (designed for short, sound bite material with a journalist firing questions...something a candidate now has to "prep" for), but more so the type of Lincoln/Douglas debates from years ago at Cooper Union in New York with no reporter or moderator and a more lengthy time period in which each party's candidate, uninterrupted, can lay out his/her ideas, thinking, and proposals.
If you want a good idea of what this might look like, I suggest you go to www.americansolutions.com and click on the video of Gingrich engaging Mario Cuomo in just such a discussion, with a brief question period by Tim Russert. The result is that you come away with a much broader view of the speakers, their priorities, strategies, how they think and operate.
I know we live in a fast-paced society and that the news media think Americans only have a short attention span. We probably do, for inconsequential things like advertising and entertainment. But electing our next president is so far from inconsequential (witness all the reverberations from the last election throughout our country), that I believe the American people are thirsting for just such a dialogue.
At least Newt and I have one thing in common: we're disgusted with the way this whole election process has been revved up, money'd up, and basically taken away from the vast majority of Americans.
His idea: once the candidates of each major party have been selected through the primary system, then have them sit down, once a week for 9 weeks beginning after Labor Day, in a televised dialogue about a particular issue. These dialogues would not resemble what we've come to see as Presidential debates (designed for short, sound bite material with a journalist firing questions...something a candidate now has to "prep" for), but more so the type of Lincoln/Douglas debates from years ago at Cooper Union in New York with no reporter or moderator and a more lengthy time period in which each party's candidate, uninterrupted, can lay out his/her ideas, thinking, and proposals.
If you want a good idea of what this might look like, I suggest you go to www.americansolutions.com and click on the video of Gingrich engaging Mario Cuomo in just such a discussion, with a brief question period by Tim Russert. The result is that you come away with a much broader view of the speakers, their priorities, strategies, how they think and operate.
I know we live in a fast-paced society and that the news media think Americans only have a short attention span. We probably do, for inconsequential things like advertising and entertainment. But electing our next president is so far from inconsequential (witness all the reverberations from the last election throughout our country), that I believe the American people are thirsting for just such a dialogue.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
The Power of the Presidency
Under the Bush Administration, few will argue that presidential power has been stretched as much as possible (the most recent example being the firing of U.S. Prosecutors so that other more desirable candidates can be put in place without congressional interference)...and, mostly, at the urging of Vice President Cheney. Whether or not that stretching has proven successful is debatable but, nevertheless, there has been a real constant tension between this White House and the Legislature as the Administration has tried to extend its grasp in order to establish and carry out its agenda.
But how far should it extend without upsetting the precarious system of checks and balances outlined by our founding fathers? This is a pivotal question for those already campaigning for the office (as well as those waiting in the wings, biding their time before they make a formal announcement). As suggested yesterday by Deputy Editor Daniel Henninger in The Wall Street Journal, Americans should make certain they know where each candidate stands when it comes to the role of the President:
"For the purposes of picking the next president, we should be glad that Democrats have made the presidency itself--its foreign-policy decisions and the use of presidential authority (Guantanamo, wiretapping, the war decision)--the core of their criticism. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are their standard bearers. Logically, one wonders: What do they think a presidency should be? What are their views on the exercise of presidential authority? Let's find out now, before it's too late.
"Historically, a U.S. president's tools are two: soft power and hard power. Soft power is diplomacy. Hard power is the military. The question that one wants answered soon is: Have the Democrats become a soft-power-only party? Hillary Clinton especially has berated the Bush presidency for not being willing to "talk" to the likes of Iran and Syria. Reading Democratic foreign-policy intellectuals of late, it is hard to find the conditions under which they would deploy U.S. military resources. The military option may be on the Democrats' table, but it's buried beneath a foot-high pile of talking points. Have the Democrats, in their opposition to the Bush Doctrine, forced anyone seeking their nomination into a soft-power-only corner? Someone should ask them.
"This matter links unavoidably to presidential authority.
"Presidents and the Congress live in perpetual tension over the uses and limits of presidential authority. Nothing new there. And with George Bush, both Republicans and Democrats have sought to rein in presidential power, notably in their dispute over wiretaps and the FISA statute. But the Democrats have gone further. The current Murtha proposal in the House on troop deployments is a hard challenge to presidential authority. They also have tried to thwart less controversial exercises of presidential authority--refusing votes on judicial nominees and putting holds on executive-branch appointments.
"Sen. Clinton, as president, would you assent to these limits on executive power, or would you refuse to abide them? Sen. Edwards, is Carl Levin's reading of the FISA statute on the wiretapping of suspected terrorists your reading of that statute? Sen. Obama, do you support the Murtha proposal on Iraq? Could you all elaborate your understanding of the term, "commander in chief"? Or the War Powers Resolution. Or the pardon power.
"Congressional ambivalence toward presidential authority is likely a large part of the fact that no sitting senators other than John F. Kennedy and Warren G. Harding have ascended to the presidency. Rudy Giuliani may be outstripping John McCain because voters see Sen. McCain as a creature, however eminent, of Congress. Bill Clinton established the outer limits of domestic presidential authority. Would Clinton-44 settle for less? Not likely, but someone should ask her.
"Even if you argue that Mr. Bush brought this on himself, the fact remains that presidential authority is in a hole. At this rate of erosion, there will be such lack of clarity about the presidential role come January 2009 that any new president will spend an entire term merely reestablishing his or her authority. A Democratic president who hasn't drawn a line in the presidential sand will be in hock to the party's pacifist left. Absent a vigorous debate on these matters, we are likely to elect a weak President, no matter who wins.
"There is no bigger campaign issue than the proper role of the presidency. On current course, our winner the morning of Nov. 5, 2008 may be uttering Robert Redford's famous last line in "The Candidate": "What do we do now?" As with the primaries, let's move up the answer to that question from too late to very early."
But how far should it extend without upsetting the precarious system of checks and balances outlined by our founding fathers? This is a pivotal question for those already campaigning for the office (as well as those waiting in the wings, biding their time before they make a formal announcement). As suggested yesterday by Deputy Editor Daniel Henninger in The Wall Street Journal, Americans should make certain they know where each candidate stands when it comes to the role of the President:
"For the purposes of picking the next president, we should be glad that Democrats have made the presidency itself--its foreign-policy decisions and the use of presidential authority (Guantanamo, wiretapping, the war decision)--the core of their criticism. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are their standard bearers. Logically, one wonders: What do they think a presidency should be? What are their views on the exercise of presidential authority? Let's find out now, before it's too late.
"Historically, a U.S. president's tools are two: soft power and hard power. Soft power is diplomacy. Hard power is the military. The question that one wants answered soon is: Have the Democrats become a soft-power-only party? Hillary Clinton especially has berated the Bush presidency for not being willing to "talk" to the likes of Iran and Syria. Reading Democratic foreign-policy intellectuals of late, it is hard to find the conditions under which they would deploy U.S. military resources. The military option may be on the Democrats' table, but it's buried beneath a foot-high pile of talking points. Have the Democrats, in their opposition to the Bush Doctrine, forced anyone seeking their nomination into a soft-power-only corner? Someone should ask them.
"This matter links unavoidably to presidential authority.
"Presidents and the Congress live in perpetual tension over the uses and limits of presidential authority. Nothing new there. And with George Bush, both Republicans and Democrats have sought to rein in presidential power, notably in their dispute over wiretaps and the FISA statute. But the Democrats have gone further. The current Murtha proposal in the House on troop deployments is a hard challenge to presidential authority. They also have tried to thwart less controversial exercises of presidential authority--refusing votes on judicial nominees and putting holds on executive-branch appointments.
"Sen. Clinton, as president, would you assent to these limits on executive power, or would you refuse to abide them? Sen. Edwards, is Carl Levin's reading of the FISA statute on the wiretapping of suspected terrorists your reading of that statute? Sen. Obama, do you support the Murtha proposal on Iraq? Could you all elaborate your understanding of the term, "commander in chief"? Or the War Powers Resolution. Or the pardon power.
"Congressional ambivalence toward presidential authority is likely a large part of the fact that no sitting senators other than John F. Kennedy and Warren G. Harding have ascended to the presidency. Rudy Giuliani may be outstripping John McCain because voters see Sen. McCain as a creature, however eminent, of Congress. Bill Clinton established the outer limits of domestic presidential authority. Would Clinton-44 settle for less? Not likely, but someone should ask her.
"Even if you argue that Mr. Bush brought this on himself, the fact remains that presidential authority is in a hole. At this rate of erosion, there will be such lack of clarity about the presidential role come January 2009 that any new president will spend an entire term merely reestablishing his or her authority. A Democratic president who hasn't drawn a line in the presidential sand will be in hock to the party's pacifist left. Absent a vigorous debate on these matters, we are likely to elect a weak President, no matter who wins.
"There is no bigger campaign issue than the proper role of the presidency. On current course, our winner the morning of Nov. 5, 2008 may be uttering Robert Redford's famous last line in "The Candidate": "What do we do now?" As with the primaries, let's move up the answer to that question from too late to very early."
Perhaps this is one of the first issues the candidates ought to debate because, let's face it, they can't fulfill any of their campaign promises without real cooperation between the different branches of government.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Disheartening Smear Tactics So Early
You would think that with the presidential election still 20 months away, any campaigning at this point would be civil, polite, and issues-oriented. And, generally speaking, it has been (except for that brouhaha raised by David Geffen's less than complementary remarks concerning the Clintons...which seems to have died away since both Senators Obama and Clinton appeared to behave cordially to each other in their joint appearance yesterday in Selma, Alabama).
But you must never discount Ann Coulter's appetite for slash and burn commentary in her quest for coverage, book sales, and...oh, yes, the conservative cause. She's like the Republican Party's personal pet pit bull. Watch out for her bite! It's hard to dismiss the notion that they let her and others somewhat like her (because, really, no one is QUITE like Ann Coulter) do the dirty work for them. Who needs negative attack ads when she's prancing from show to show, traveling city to city, slandering/slaughtering any Democratic candidate they may deem most dangerous? (John Edwards is beginning to look better and better to me since they obviously fear him.)
After Coulter referred to Edwards as a "faggot" in a new low at the recent CPAC meeting, you would think she'd had her fill because she's certainly been slammed right and left for her behavior. But, no. According to Editor and Publisher, she's now laying into his campaign manager:
"Coulter: Edwards' Campaign Manager 'Fronting for Arab Terrorists' By E&P Staff Published: March 05, 2007 11:00 AM ET
"NEW YORK Ann Coulter, fresh from implying that John Edwards is a "faggot," now has a statement on her Web site saying Edwards campaign manager David Bonior "is fronting for Arab terrorists."Coulter made the homophobic slur about Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, during a Friday speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference.Soon after, Bonior announced he was sending out a fund-raising letter seeking "Coulter Cash" to "show every would-be Republican mouthpiece that their bigoted attacks will not intimidate this campaign."A copy of Bonior's letter was posted on Coulter's Web site, with this note underneath: "It's always good to divert Bonior from his principal pastime which is fronting for Arab terrorists." Bonior was elected to Congress 13 times in Michigan, and served in the U.S. Air Force from 1968 to 1972. Universal Press Syndicate distributes Coulter's weekly newspaper column. A spokesperson there told E&P today that Universal would not comment about something Coulter said outside her column. The syndicate also declined to comment on what steps it might be taking if Coulter had used the "N" word instead of the "F" word.Coulter's Friday remark went as follows: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I -- so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."Audience members at the conservative gathering initially appeared startled, but then many of them laughed and applauded Coulter's slur."
At least, Edwards had the sense and decency not to descend to her level and simply ignored her. But I must say I am disheartened that such smearing has begun so early. I am even more disheartened to realize there is actually a public out there who applauds what she says and the way she says it.
But you must never discount Ann Coulter's appetite for slash and burn commentary in her quest for coverage, book sales, and...oh, yes, the conservative cause. She's like the Republican Party's personal pet pit bull. Watch out for her bite! It's hard to dismiss the notion that they let her and others somewhat like her (because, really, no one is QUITE like Ann Coulter) do the dirty work for them. Who needs negative attack ads when she's prancing from show to show, traveling city to city, slandering/slaughtering any Democratic candidate they may deem most dangerous? (John Edwards is beginning to look better and better to me since they obviously fear him.)
After Coulter referred to Edwards as a "faggot" in a new low at the recent CPAC meeting, you would think she'd had her fill because she's certainly been slammed right and left for her behavior. But, no. According to Editor and Publisher, she's now laying into his campaign manager:
"Coulter: Edwards' Campaign Manager 'Fronting for Arab Terrorists' By E&P Staff Published: March 05, 2007 11:00 AM ET
"NEW YORK Ann Coulter, fresh from implying that John Edwards is a "faggot," now has a statement on her Web site saying Edwards campaign manager David Bonior "is fronting for Arab terrorists."Coulter made the homophobic slur about Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, during a Friday speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference.Soon after, Bonior announced he was sending out a fund-raising letter seeking "Coulter Cash" to "show every would-be Republican mouthpiece that their bigoted attacks will not intimidate this campaign."A copy of Bonior's letter was posted on Coulter's Web site, with this note underneath: "It's always good to divert Bonior from his principal pastime which is fronting for Arab terrorists." Bonior was elected to Congress 13 times in Michigan, and served in the U.S. Air Force from 1968 to 1972. Universal Press Syndicate distributes Coulter's weekly newspaper column. A spokesperson there told E&P today that Universal would not comment about something Coulter said outside her column. The syndicate also declined to comment on what steps it might be taking if Coulter had used the "N" word instead of the "F" word.Coulter's Friday remark went as follows: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I -- so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."Audience members at the conservative gathering initially appeared startled, but then many of them laughed and applauded Coulter's slur."
At least, Edwards had the sense and decency not to descend to her level and simply ignored her. But I must say I am disheartened that such smearing has begun so early. I am even more disheartened to realize there is actually a public out there who applauds what she says and the way she says it.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Obama or Clinton? Giuliani or McCain? Not so fast there...
I believe the media, as much as money, is doing its best to force a very early primary decision on the American people and I, for one, won't stand for it. Since I won't stand for it, then I have to do something and I figured this blog might be my best response.
In the last couple of days, with new polls out, I hear everyone from Wolf Blitzer to Chris Matthews marginalizing everyone but the two front-runners in each party. Well, I'm sorry, but there's no such thing as a CNN Primary, an MSNBC Primary, or a FOX News Primary. The first state primary in our country is several months away and, as far as I'm concerned, anything can happen over such a span of time.
The problem: media and money are working hand in hand. The money is flowing to those candidates capturing the most media attention. And the media is awestruck over those candidates pulling in the biggest donations. Let's face it. All the media wants is a bigger audience, so they're going to push whoever pulls in the biggest audience. America's real problems are secondary. It all boils down to money. A bigger audience means more money. Of course they're going to cover every little catfight (like the recent dust-up between the camps of Hillary and Barack...and the oncoming one on Sunday when they're both seeking the black vote in Selma, Alabama just a block away from each other) and ignore discussing the positions of "lesser" candidates, until they have to deal with them in one of the few scheduled debates.
I'm probably fighting a losing battle here, but this will be one small corner of the media where all announced candidates will be looked at, reviewed, and given a chance to communicate their message. I don't care so much about charisma, looks, or experience. After all, although he was an excellent speaker, I would guess Abraham Lincoln had the charisma of a log, the looks of...well, I needn't go there, and not a whole lot of experience. But he was a tremendous President. What I do care about (and what I believe most Americans care about) is HONESTY, VISION, REAL AND PRACTICAL IDEAS, and a sense that the candidate can actually DO half the stuff that he/she promises.
This blog will also try to reflect our current and developing political climate. After all, these candidates' positions need to be evaluated in some kind of context. Some posts will have nothing to do with any particular candidate, but merely be a reaction to some current political issue because, after all, once the election has come and gone there will still be a certain group of people running the country. And they need oversight.
Aren't we glad we live in a country where the common citizen can speak, write, or blog freely? I know I am.
In the last couple of days, with new polls out, I hear everyone from Wolf Blitzer to Chris Matthews marginalizing everyone but the two front-runners in each party. Well, I'm sorry, but there's no such thing as a CNN Primary, an MSNBC Primary, or a FOX News Primary. The first state primary in our country is several months away and, as far as I'm concerned, anything can happen over such a span of time.
The problem: media and money are working hand in hand. The money is flowing to those candidates capturing the most media attention. And the media is awestruck over those candidates pulling in the biggest donations. Let's face it. All the media wants is a bigger audience, so they're going to push whoever pulls in the biggest audience. America's real problems are secondary. It all boils down to money. A bigger audience means more money. Of course they're going to cover every little catfight (like the recent dust-up between the camps of Hillary and Barack...and the oncoming one on Sunday when they're both seeking the black vote in Selma, Alabama just a block away from each other) and ignore discussing the positions of "lesser" candidates, until they have to deal with them in one of the few scheduled debates.
I'm probably fighting a losing battle here, but this will be one small corner of the media where all announced candidates will be looked at, reviewed, and given a chance to communicate their message. I don't care so much about charisma, looks, or experience. After all, although he was an excellent speaker, I would guess Abraham Lincoln had the charisma of a log, the looks of...well, I needn't go there, and not a whole lot of experience. But he was a tremendous President. What I do care about (and what I believe most Americans care about) is HONESTY, VISION, REAL AND PRACTICAL IDEAS, and a sense that the candidate can actually DO half the stuff that he/she promises.
This blog will also try to reflect our current and developing political climate. After all, these candidates' positions need to be evaluated in some kind of context. Some posts will have nothing to do with any particular candidate, but merely be a reaction to some current political issue because, after all, once the election has come and gone there will still be a certain group of people running the country. And they need oversight.
Aren't we glad we live in a country where the common citizen can speak, write, or blog freely? I know I am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
