Oct 31, 2008 19:09:29 Enter the Lion I've got a number of problems with the McCain campaign, as you may have noted, and what's interesting to me is that it's so disappointing to me because the McCain I once knew was someone who I might have considered voting for. But he just hasn't been his old self pretty much since those latter days of the primary where he learned that the only way to beat Romney and Huckabee was to out-sleaze them. It's amazing how well it works, too. Just throw out vague innuendos which take something that has a smidge of truth in them, but which imply that your opponent adheres to the worst possible interpretation of those truths. Saying that things work better when you spread the wealth around is suddenly portrayed as marxism, when it's simply a truth that very American economists have believed for centuries. Saying that health of a woman has to be factored in when considering the legality of late term abortions makes you the "most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history". Here's an interesting one: McCain likes to repeat that Obama has spent more than any other presidential campaign in history! What he leaves out is that if it weren't for Obama's campaign, McCain's campaign would have that honor. What McCain is upset about is that Obama has outspent him. It's great that McCain is--sort of--adhering to his own campaign finance reform laws, but he's missing the point of them. It's not about leveling the playing field--that would be socialist, wouldn't it?--it's about making sure that corporate interests are not purchasing a new government. And while the total amount is astronomical, Obama's average donation is just $86.00, with over 600,000 first-time donors in September alone. That's not scandal. That's not breaking a promise. That's democracy in action. McCain seems to miss the point a lot. He made the famous stamement about the fundamentals of the economy being sound, and then he defended the statement, saying that he was referring to the American worker, the most innovative, productive worker in the world. I actually really appreciate this follow-up he gave, but he misses the tragedy in that statement. If we're more innovative than we've ever been, if we're more productive than we've ever been, why is it that so many of us are struggling to provide our families with food, shelter, education and health care? If my generation is twice as productive as my father's generation, why are we all working 60 hours a week instead of 30? Why do we have to choose between filling up our gas tanks and putting food on the table? And why is it that the corporations that the CEOs of the companies we work for are making 20, 30 or 40 times the money we are making, when we are responsible for bringing that money in? I wish I were a better artist, because I've got an idea for a political cartoon. If anyone wants to draw it and post it, please do so and just send me a copy. The idea is free! Here it is: A fat lion is standing in front of a podium, addressing a bunch of skinny, tired-looking lionesses and cubs. You can see the ribs on all of them except the main lion; they look tired from a recent hunt. The caption says, "Don't get me wrong; your productivity is better than ever. However, allowing you a bigger share would be bad for the pride!" In case you couldn't tell, McCain is the lion here.

Oct 26, 2008 15:30:37 OK, I know it's been a long time since I've written anything, but there are a few things that I've got to write about here. First, Barack Obama is not an Arab or a Muslim. Period. But even if he were, why should his religious or genetic heritage be an issue? We've had seven years of born-again Christians running this place; why shouldn't a Catholic or a Jew or a Muslim or Hindu get a chance to be in charge? Heck, I think the world would probably be a better place if more leaders were Buddhist. Second, he is indeed an American citizen, natural born. His mother was an American, and being born to one American parent makes you an American. Additionally, he was born on American soil, which is another way to achieve that. If he weren't provably American, he couldn't have run for President. Accusing him of being a non-American would be like accusing McCain (who, incidentally, was born in Panama) of not being a real citizen. Ridiculous! Third, changing the tax table and rolling back the cuts for the wealthiest people is not socialism or Marxism. It just isn't. You may disagree with Obama's plans, but to call it socialism or Marxism is to reveal your lack of understanding of economic theory. Now, Obama did refer to "spreading the wealth around," which may not have been the smartest choice of words, but truthfully, most economists would agree. An economy is like a body of water. When money flows, things are healthy. When they pool up, the economy gets stagnant and bad things happen for everyone. Fourth, small business just aren't going to suffer under Obama's tax plan. The idea is that the marginal income on business profit and/or personal income above $250K will get a 3% tax hike. That means that for someone bringing home $260K, that last $10K will be taxed an additional 3%, or $300.00. If you're making over a quarter mil, and you're complaining about $300.00, you aren't going to get too much sympathy for me. There are plenty of people who work very hard--taking your trash, keeping your sewers clean, patrolling your neighborhoods--who won't see $250k in five years. Finally, people need to take a civics class or something. The President doesn't enact tax laws. He can set the agenda, but laws and budget are in the control of the Congress. If Obama gets elected and you don't like his ideas on taxes, write your representative. They'll represent you; it's their job.

Aug 29, 2008 23:50:24 The democratic convention is over, the republican convention is about to start, Obama has shored up the experience factor with a very capable VP nominee in Joe Biden, and McCain nominated... who? I've got a few things to say about Palin; I'll have more to say about her when I've had a chance to do some reading, since I know very little, but I'll start with what I do have. First, if--and I do say 'if'--he chose her just because she's a woman and he thought that he could pick up some angry Clinton voters, then, well, I hope that's not the case. It would be about the most cynical, dismissive, sexist thing he could do. So let's hope he's not pandering that way. Next, the good news for the right-wingers: she seems pretty hard-core, and I'm sure it'll shore up the conservative support that McCain has been missing. The downside, of course, for the repubs is that this means that she's not likely to get those Clinton voters. Anyone who really wanted Clinton to win wouldn't like a candidate--man or woman--who is not only anti-choice, but so stronly anti-choice that she feels that abortion should not be legal even in the case of rape, even if it is an incestuous rape. It seems pretty extreme. And anyone who really supported Clinton won't support a candidate--man or woman--who wants to move back 100 years and force creationism to be taught in our schools. Beyond Palin herself, and the meet-her-once process for choosing her, what's really amazing to me is how very cohesive the right-wing arm of the press corps still is. Flip through all the channels, and you'll find liberals and independents chewing over this most recent news, trying to find some sense in it, and you'll have some right-wing shill repeating the same talking points on every channel. The same smugness, the same rudeness, the same words. It's really disturbing. To point out my own bias, I'm a lifelong democrat; I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm even somewhat of a closet socialist. That having been said, I don't have any overall theoretical problem with republicans, and in fact, I am a strong believer in opposition parties. I think things could get pretty bad on either side if there is too much drinking of the cool-aid. That's certainly what we've seen the last seven years. But this new Rove-ian breed of pundits is baffling, and disturbing. And it's concerning to me that--at least they believe--that if you repeat the same talking points over and over again, those points become true, or at least true enough to win an election. Not all conservatives are like that. On CNN, one of my favorite commentators is David Gergen, who is very intelligent and experienced, and brings an interesting perspective to everything he talks about. I don't know what his party affiliation is, but he's worked for a wide range of administrations, including advising Reagan, the king of republicans. But he certainly doesn't buy into this new propaganda machine, and it seems like he's just as disturbed by it as I am. The strange thing about this method of communication is that it has no room for compromise. If Obama does something, it's wrong by definition. If the the republicans (Bush, McCain) then decide that it's a good idea, they insist that Obama was wrong, but they are right, sometimes even going so far as to change their nomenclature--timelines become anticipatory exit dates--so that they don't have to admit that they agree with the dem nominee, much less that he was on the right track first. It's bizarre, truly, and it's sadly balkanizing. I wish it weren't so; I'm sure that there are great reasons for McCain to have chosen Palin, but when one of these pundits can't simply answer the question Larry King asked of, "Were there truly no better qualified republicans?", without spouting nonsense about democrats being "dismissive of a great leader", it's disturbing. These pundits aren't reporters, they're not commentators; they're not even thinkers. They're shills, no more no less, and they have no place on major news networks.

Aug 10, 2008 23:14:38 OK, this is a little off-topic, but I can't leave this one alone. I've just been watching some of the summer olympics gymnastics, and during a break, none other than George W. Bush seized the bully pulpit of the NBC studio to talk about his agenda in the world, our relationship with China, and, well, a bunch of other stuff that was really difficult to listen to. He was clearly off-script, away from his handlers, and he couldn't have looked less presidential. It was a truly sad and embarrassing moment. And it seemed like it would never end. Like his presidency.

Aug 1, 2008 18:51:11 Now it's Obama's turn. Yesterday at a speech, Barack Obama was talking about how the Republicans will be attacking him, and he indicated that they would be attacking his faith ("They'll say, 'he's a Muslim.'"); that they would be attacking his heritage ("They'll say, 'he's got a funny name.'"); that they would be pulling the race card ("And by the way, isn't he black?"). The problem is, he wasn't talking about conservative talk show hosts. He wasn't talking about those swiftboat-esque groups that destroyed Kerry with lies. He wasn't even talking about the Republican party in general. If he had been talking about any of those things, he would have been right. Unfortunately, he was talking about the McCain campaign in particular, and they are not pursuing those lines of attacks. It was a stupid thing to say, clear and simple; it was wrong, and it's probably reasonable to compare that to the McCain "Britney" ads I wrote about last time. What's interesting to watch is the media, which is all in a tizzy because the McCain campaign has cried foul due to the amount of positive coverage that Obama has been getting. Watching CNN pundits last night, the conservatives were simply saying, "He should admit he was wrong." The liberals were practically falling over themselves to show that they could talk about Obama in a negative light. It was really pretty silly to watch, if not sad. Don't get me wrong; I think that a partisan mainstream news outlet is a bad thing, regardless of which party they are supporting, but after seven years of letting Bush and Co. run fast and loose, it's a little understandable if they are a little more interested in the guy who seems to represent the bigger change in the status quo, whether that appearance is right or wrong. But that aside, there's some room for McCain to take some real high ground here. If you all recall, at the beginning of the primary season, John Edwards said at one of the debates that, if there was anyone out there who did not want to vote for Obama because he is black, or does not want to vote for Clinton because she is a woman, then he (Edwards) does not want their vote either. McCain could demonstrate a lot of courage by saying this: "If there is anyone who does not want to vote for Barack Obama because he is black, or because his father was a Muslim, I do not want your vote either." He would risk the loss of the most radical-right voters, but he could stand very tall knowing he was taking a strong stand less likely to be seen as tacitly supporting a swift-boating effort. Obama could do something similar, but it might sound a little disingenuous: "If there is anyone who does not want to vote for John McCain because he is old and white, I do not want your vote either." It almost sounds comical. But as far as I'm concerned, there is some validity to it. I am sure that there are some people out there who are voting McCain because he's the white option, and there are some voting Obama because he's black. I'd prefer that those people didn't vote unless they could identify a more substantial reason for voting. Anyway, just to clarify all these points, Obama is a Catholic, not a Muslim, and even if he were Muslim, that shouldn't stop us from voting for him. His skin is indeed fairly dark, another thing which is safe to ignore when considering him for the role of President. And his name is a little funny, but once you've said it a few times, it's no more funny than "McCain". In fact, with just an extra apostrophe (O'Bama), they might even seem to come from neighboring countries...

Jul 31, 2008 15:39:30 Style vs. Substance I know it's been a long time since my last post, but some things are happening that I just can't ignore. McCain is really moving into some dirty territory, and I hope, for history's sake, that he stops. Truthfully, it's really just sad. One recent ad that slid into the mud pit was about off-shore drilling, which McCain and the republicans are clinging to as differentiators. Most people who understand the oil business and the economy know that any new drilling permissions are symbolic only, as there are plenty of territories where drilling is already allowed and leased out, but where big oil isn't drawing a drop of oil, coupled with the fact that any oil discovered today won't make a difference in the market for five years. This is, of course, all beyond the fact that people on both sides of the aisle are also now starting to believe that carbon emissions from human activities are accelerating global climate destabilization. Weaning ourselves from foreign oil is a good idea. Weaning ourselves from oil itself is an even better one. But instead, the republicans have been busily giving all sorts of breaks to oil companies, as well as promoting the sales of inefficient vehicles by offering business owners additional breaks for SUVs and the like which are now classified as "industrial trucks" in the tax code. While plenty of flower-mongering liberals are also driving gas guzzling minivans and Humvees, the folks in charge these last eight years have done more to promote the excess than to abate it. So this ad, about the offshore drilling, implicates Obama as being the one responsible for high gas prices. Not the 11 MPG Humvee drivers. Not the people who refuse to bike or walk or take the bus to work. Not the fact that China is joining the first world and starting to consume resources at a rate greater than 1/100 of what the US does. Not the fact that we are in an endless war that requires the constant fueling of jets, trucks, tanks, helicopters, carriers, jeeps and more. But Obama not wanting to drill is why we're paying more than $4.00 at the pump. That's a lot of power for a junior senator from Illinois! So after the crowds calm down ("Who's responsible for high gas prices?" "Obama! Obama!"), the next commercial starts up, and what is the McCain campaign saying? That Obama is all style and no substance, like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. It's crazy; the man who can't remember that Slovakia and the Czech Republic are two separate countries now and have been for 15 years, and who can't seem to remember what countries border Iraq, and who now seems to agree on Obama's time tables idea... he's saying that Barack is all style and no substance. And what's up with the Paris/Britney references anyway? That's so 2004! Doesn't McCain know that it's all about Miley Cyrus now?!

Jun 4, 2008 14:17:39 So Obama's basically got the nomination sewn up, McCain is saying that he's the real candidate for change, and Clinton is considering what to do next. I'm not sure that I agree with her decision not to make a decision, as she's really only got three options: concede, sue, or convince every single superdelegate to change their vote. I haven't done the math carefully, but I think if she pulled off that herculean task, she could eke it out. Some say that by not conceding, she's able to put pressure on Obama to promise her *something*. VP slot? Maybe. Cabinet position? Maybe. A secret back door into the oval office which she can use to gain access to him any time, 24 hours per day? Maybe. I don't know. If I were Obama, I would be hesitant to bow to such a public pressure. She should have figured out some way to do her bargaining behind closed doors. But it will probably be over in a day or two anyway. I don't think there's really a threat of a lawsuit or of all of the superdelegates being persuaded to move over. This will not drag on to the convention; I think she just needs a little time to digest the fact that she did not come in first. My wife and I discussed this in depth, and she had a very interesting perspective, which was to look at it in the context of history. In the 2000 election, with all of the shenanigans that happened in Florida, Al Gore promised to fight until the end, promised to make sure that every chad, be it dimpled, hanging, or, well, anything else, would be counted. Then suddenly, he gave up, leaving his supporters deflated. It's possible that this sort of defeatist attitude carried on and helped cause lackluster turnout for Kerry four years later. Similarly, when he lost, there were a lot of questions about shady activity in Florida and Ohio, as well as reports of votes being lost by the Diebold paperless systems that had gone into wide use. So my wife suggests that Clinton's hesitation to concede is a measured response, designed to let her support base down easy, to help ensure that they feel listened to, and appreciated, and to provide a forum through which she can ensure as much support for Obama as possible. Stay tuned; I'm intrigued as anyone to see how this all plays out.

May 30, 2008 16:59:22 Clinton's latest strategy is to show that she's the most fiscally responsible candidate, because she has explained exactly how she is going to pay for all of her plans. The math isn't that hard: stop the war, end the tax cuts for the wealthy, and kill congressional pork. Some of her detractors point to her campaign being in serious debt, and others point to the volume of earmarks that she's gotten for her constituents in NY state as indications that she's not all that she says she is. But I'd tend to be somewhat wary of the comparison. As Scott McClellan indicates in his book, our current administration is a shining example of one which runs in "constant campaign" mode; a campaign is different from a presidency, and being a senator is different from being a president. To wit: if a candidate truly feels they are the best possible person for the job, then it's their responsibility to continue running, as best as they can. If you let cash flow issues stop your candidacy, you're ceding the running of the government to the moneyed gentry. As a senator, part of your job is to look at the nation's pie and get as much of that pie for your constituents as possible. A senator is a state's most powerful representative in the Federal government, and they have to operate in that state's best interests. As a president, you are shepherding the whole country; your goals are different from those of a candidate or a senator, and as such, your actions should be different. Based on the plans she's laid out, she may indeed be the most fiscally responsible. The question is whether or not you believe her, and I guess that's what the detractors are trying to do: sow seeds of doubt. One of the earmarks that some people are pointing out as poignant to this race is her request for a million dollars for a museum dedicated to the Woodstock music festival. McCain decried that proposal, indicating that he felt that "Woodstock was a cultural and pharmaceutical event." He went on to say that he did not attend, because he was "tied up at the time." So this brings me to something that has been bugging me. Per my last post, I feel that Mac is and has been trying to wring as much as possible out of his service along with the fact that he was imprisoned and tortured as a POW. Now, I respect his service, and I believe that the nation owes him a debt of gratitude for his pain and suffering during that service. But what the nation owes him more is an apology. The Vietnam war was ill-conceived and unjust, and our involvement meant that thousands of our soldiers were killed, injured, traumatized, imprisoned, tortured and more for a cause which was, to say the least, questionable. What's troubling for me is that McCain can't seem to see the parallels here. Instead of learning from the experience and becoming the leader who will do his damndest to keep our troops out of harm's way, it appears that he's more interested in trying again to win an unwinnable war. How many young men and women have to die, be maimed, be captured, imprisoned, raped, before we finally withdraw like we did in Vietnam? And Iraq's not the end of it: he's joked about bombing Iran in a capricious manner which did not sound at all presidential (bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb-Iran, he sang). Unless he's planning on flattening the region with nuclear weapons, I don't know how he plans to have anything resembling a victory there. Bush came into office wanting revenge for Hussein's attempt on his father's life. It seems like McCain is trying to get into a position where he can vindicate the US's crushing defeat in Vietnam. Once upon a time, I thought that McCain might be an acceptable president, but unless he really changes his tune, that ship has sailed.

May 28, 2008 12:13:44 OK, it's been a long time since I've posted anything, but enough is going on now that it's difficult for me to put this all off any longer. In the months since I've posted an entry here, McCain has become the presumptive Republican nominee, and Obama is just barely edging out Clinton for the Democratic nomination. To wrap up a bunch of things that people seem to feel are in dispute here between the two dems, I'd like to weigh in that... - There's no reason for Clinton to back out now. Let's wait for June 3, m'kay? I mean, it's pretty clear what's going to happen, but sheesh; what's the rush? This is encouraging more voters to participate than ever--both dems who want to support their candidate and repubs who want to keep the dems off-balance. It's good politics, and while I voted for Obama, I salute Clinton's efforts to stay in. - Clinton's RFK reference may not have been the wisest thing, but it wasn't a threat, nor was it a show-stopper for her campaign. The numbers will tell the story at the end, and heck, people, compare that statement with just about anything Bush has said over the last 7 years. At least it was grammatically correct. - McCain's age should not be an issue. His experience, his record, and his stance on the matters effecting us today--the war, global warming, the economy, etc...--are what people should be considering. Perhaps his VP choice will reflect the concerns that he knows people have about his ability to complete a four- or eight-year term. What's telling these days is that McCain is clearly campaigning against Obama, and Obama against McCain, while Clinton is campaigning against those who say she should drop out. In a recent exchange where Obama berated McCain for not supporting a bipartisan measure to provide better education funding for veterans of the US armed forces, McCain claimed that nobody who did not serve has the right to criticize him for his positions on veteran's affairs. This is patently ridiculous; I respect McCain's service and the debt owed him for his time as a POW, but he's wrong on the education issue, and he's wrong to say that anyone who hasn't served can say that he's wrong. Should Obama say that McCain can't talk about race issues? Idiocy. McCain's campaign finally released his health records and his wife's tax records. As I mentioned above, I'm not significantly concerned about his health; that's his issue. His wife's taxes are kind of interesting, but what I think is more interesting is her involvement in the alcoholic beverage industry. I wonder how that flies with the religious right? I wonder if anyone is going to examine how her company advertises and sells in poor neighborhoods? I wonder if, were he elected, the alcohol lobby would get the same red-carpet treatment that the oil industry has under GWB? On a closing note, I'm excited to read about the revelations from Scott McClellan in his new book about working for the GWB administration. I thought about running right out and buying the book, but I realized that I did not want that man to get a penny of my money. According to the quick summary in the NY Times, he paints himself as an innocent patsy, and points out everyone else's failings. But I used to watch him, knowing that he was lying, and that he knew he was lying. It was all over his face and in his body language. He should have quit early and publicly. He called the news media complicit enablers, which may be, but he managed that process, and his hands are stained. Maybe his quitting couldn't have stopped the invasion of Iraq, but he should have tried. Well, he won't be working for any Republicans soon; of course, based on what the GWB administration has done to the party, that may be a moot point for a little while.

Feb 14, 2008 13:18:58 This just in, from CNN's web site: Former Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney will announce today that he is backing Sen. John McCain in his bid for the Oval Office. I wonder whether McCain will accept his support, or whether he will reject it, calling Romney a flip-flopper, as he did so many times during their campaign. And I wonder if Romney will gloss over all of the negative campaigning he did against McCain, or if his official announcement will be honest, using phrases like "lesser of two evils," or something similar. This is actually one of my biggest problems with negative campaigning. It's disingenuous. It's dishonest. It polarizes where polarization is convenient for the winners, but where actual education and thinking would be more helpful for the nation as a whole. And it burns bridges. How can anyone take Romney seriously now? He basically made it clear that he thought McCain would be bad for our nation, and now he's endorsing him? Should we have believed him then, or should we believe him now? Or should we figure that he's just thinking he might get a VP nod or a sweet cabinet position? Personally, this sort of quick-change act makes Romney irrelevant. There are real issues to consider, and none of the candidates are perfect on either side of the table. But the difference, say, between McCain's ideas on immigration reform and Romneys are not and never were enough to make one's administration a potential disaster and the other's a utopia. There are so many different ways to interpret the word "conservative" that it is impossible to say that one is more or less conservative than the other. The current administration may be focused on war, religious and business interests, but they can hardly be called conservatives from a traditional American political perspective. The point is Romney's sudden support for his erstwhile enemy is laughable. And it's a situation of his own making; if he had treated McCain with respect throughout the campaign, he probably would have gotten the same from his foe, and his support would be worth more than just a trading currency for votes. On a related note, it's been shown that it's not possible for Huckabee to get enough delegates to get the nomination, and he's made the point that he's not in the business of math, but rather the business of miracles. I don't know if he's waiting for McCain to be struck by lightning, but unless the former governor of Arkansas is able to call in some major favors with the big guy upstairs, he may as well drop out now. Of course, if something were to happen to McCain and Huck got that nomination, we would all have to be afraid. Very, very afraid.

Feb 7, 2008 13:30:29 Good riddance, Governor Romney. As you all know by now, Mitt Romney has taken himself out of the running for President of the United States. He leaves behind him a legacy of attack ads, name calling, mud slinging, and strange, divisive messages. Pretending that McCain is not a true conservative because he does not blindly approve all tax cuts was inappropriate. Misrepresenting the statistics regarding Governor Huckabee's record on crime was inappropriate. And being a pot and calling the kettle black in a way that was sure to turn American against American was also inappropriate. Romney represented a trend among politicians towards presenting their beliefs based on what they think will get them hired (elected), rather than what they will truly follow once they are president. Our current president did that--compassionate conservative indeed--and we can see how that turned out. I hope that as the electorate matures, people learn to recognize this sort of person and turn away from him or her. I'd like to think for a minute on what Mitt might mean by "conservative", that he thinks John McCain isn't. I guess that Romney thinks that conservative means "unthinking", as considering the effects of a tax cut on an economy where spending is going up significantly is not acceptable. I guess that Romney thinks that conservative means "America is not subject to the same rules as everyone else", as he was unwilling to take a strong stance against torture in general, and the known procedure of waterboarding in particular. I guess that Romney thinks that conservative means "simple answers to complex solutions", but I guess I can't fault him for that. All the repubs seem to think that building a wall to border Mexico will solve all of our problems. Of course, they're ignoring the fact that a significant portion of the wall already built was put up by day laborers who themselves were undocumented. More soon, but thankfully, not from Romney.

Jan 31, 2008 21:42:46 So the democratic debate just ended, and it was totally, completely, 1000% different from the republican debate last night. They took some swipes at each other, but for the most part, what we were looking at were two people who respect each other, respect each other's service, and who would happily work with the other to make this country a better place. It was so different from the debate last night, where if you were for McCain or Huckabe, you'd think that Romney is a total sleaze. If you're for Romney, you think that McCain is incompetent, and if you were for Paul, you'd think that all the other candidates are pawns for the military-industrial complex. Personally, if I were a republican, I'd be annoyed that my choice had to be between the least sleazy, the least nutty, the least religiously fanatic, or the least nutty. To be honest, while I don't support him, I don't think McCain would be the most terrible president ever, and I think he stands head and shoulders above the other republican candidates. However, when it comes to presentation, he was no better than anyone in terms of looking like a child spoiling for a fight. But the dems basically had the message that they really believe in working together to make change, to repair the damage of the last seven years. The most aggressive attacks they both made were against the current administration; they were even relatively respectful of the OWGs who are competing for the GOP ticket. To me, this was the kind of debate I'd like to see on both sides of the aisle. No person is perfect, but focusing on the ad hominem attacks and picking apart occasional mistakes and misstatements. This wasn't old-boy-network false collegiality; it really seemed like they were working together, while trying to show reasons why they themselves would be the best choice for the number one position. And the most interesting part of the night was at the end, where neither of them would rule out the possibility of offering the other one the number two position. We'll see what happens. It's Thursday, but Tuesday's coming!

Jan 30, 2008 20:56:52 So the republicans just finished their final-pre-super-duper-Tuesday debate, and it was crazy. Snark attacks left and right, picking apart the details of things people have said, without regard to context, over the last several months, years and decades. And the winner of the debate was... Ronald Reagan! Apparently, Reagan is the gold standard against which all of these guys measure themselves, although only one of them--Ron Paul--actually believes in the gold standard. 90% of the discussion was fighting between McCain and Romney, with the occasional question going to Ron Paul, and poor Huckabee, way off at the end, whimpering and whining that he was being left out. My opinion is that Romney seemed the most polished, McCain seemed the most snarky, Huckabee was the whiniest, and--this is the strange one--Ron Paul was the one with the most interesting, intelligent messages. Please note, I'm not a Paul supporter; I think he's a nut job. But tonight, he said a lot of interesting things about the Republican party going the wrong way on the war. So McCain's most memorable moment was when Romney was complaining about below-the-belt campaign tactics, and he came back by saying that it was ironic that Romney was complaining about that, and that his friend Governor Huckabee would agree that Romney was not one to judge on that topic. Romney had a bunch of memorable moments, though. Not good ones, in my eyes. When talking about taxes, he went strongly after entitlements, including social security, which we all pay directly into. While doing so, he indicated strongly that we need to steal from the poor to give to the rich. Taxing the top 20% of wage-earners would not cover all of our costs, he said. Effectively, it's the poor people who have to bear the burden of their poverty. Robin Hood indeed. My favorite, though, was when Romney talked about how people don't look to senators for the presidential role, but rather governors, since they have executive experience. He then went on to talk about great leaders, such as Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln, as we all know, was the junior senator from Illinois when he ran. Y'know, like Barack Obama. Last, but not least, he made the case that, while he respect's McCain's experience, he doesn't feel that that experience is necessary to be the president, but rather experience in business. To this, Ron Paul reminded him that the president is the commander-in-chief of our armed forces, not the commander-in-chief of our economy. But again, the real winner was Ronald Reagan. I don't know about you folks out there in blog-reader-land, but I remember the Reagan era. It was a time when there was explosive growth in military spending, war on the middle class, skyrocketing deficits and rubber-band tight tensions with the USSR. It was not a good eight years; the great majority of people in the US ended those years worse off than they started. But his name was mentioned at least ten times per answer, and often twice or more per question. I'll leave it at that, as tempting as it is to go further down that road. Suffice to say, Reagan is no longer with us; I wish these guys would look forward rather than back and let Reagan rest in peace.

Jan 8, 2008 17:20:34 Last Saturday's double-header debate was a fun one, with the Republicans ganging up on Mitt Romney for being a flip-flopper, and Obama and Edwards tag-teaming Clinton for having attributed a quote from her own campaign staff to the Associated Press to give it an air of legitimacy. Children, all of them. But to be fair to the folks on the left, after that early sniping, which came out in the first 15 minutes of the debate, the remaining time was very respectful, and I left with the feeling that they would all be willing to work together if they needed to, regardless of who won the presidency. I think that Barack and Hillary both came across as intelligent, focused, passionate and presidential. Edwards was very passionate, and I care about his cause, but his focus on fighting the corporations is, I feel, too narrow for a president. I wish he had stayed in the Senate, where he could probably do a lot of good under a sympathetic president. Richardson was also there, and he's definitely a smart cookie, but he might as well have been wearing a t-shirt asking the others to "Pick MEEEE for VEEE PEEEE!" If Hillary gets the nod, I'll bet she goes with Richardson. If Obama gets the nod, I hope he doesn't go with Edwards, but Richardson or Biden, people with foreign policy experience than himself. One interesting thing to note is the level of gender politics going on in the outside world. I think Hillary Clinton is not only electable, but smart, experienced, and capable of pulling us out of the current quagmire. She's not my number one choice, but she's definitely up near the top, and I'd be perfectly happy with her there. However, there's a lot of talk about her likability, and questioning of her emotions. In some forums, people talk about her being too weak, others too strong. In some, she's referred to as being too closed and in others she's insincere. Lastly, there are people on-line referring to her with slurs reserved for women, mostly those beginning with b- and c-. And I wonder where this stuff is coming from. Many men and women both have shown this sort of reaction to Clinton, judging her harshly and personally on criteria that male candidates don't appear to be subject to. Is she a bad person because her husband cheated on her? Or because she stayed with him? Does that make her a bad family-values candidate? Maybe it was the "cookies" comment a decade and a half ago, but I've never heard anyone ask Barack Obama whether he feels bad that he didn't stay home to take care of his children. It's a little bizarre to me. If you're reading this, if you don't like Hillary Clinton, I'd encourage you to write to me with your reasons. Convince me if you can, that she's not good for the country, and if it's a reasoned, convincing argument, I'll be happy to post and attribute it. Ad hominem attacks need not apply. Back to the conservatives, it was clearly a day to attack Mitt Romney. But even more so, all of them were scrambling to compare themselves to Obama. They all indicated how pro-change they were, not long after most of them indicated that they were going to stick for the most part to the Bush doctrine of increased security and vigilance in the war on terror. The strangest moment was when Ron Paul indicated that he thought that he was like Obama because they're both young men. At that moment, I wished I had Tivo, because I just wasn't sure I had understood him. All the other repubs looked at him, well, quizzically. So as I type, the good people of New Hampshire are busy casting their primary ballots. At midnight EST last night, the first district cast their ballots and voted overwhelmingly for Obama, less so for McCain, and not at all for Clinton. This morning, Bill Clinton came out swinging at Obama, claiming that his campaign isn't all positive, and that the press just isn't covering some of the underhanded activities. I'll look into that further, but for the moment, it sounded a little like desperation. I hope that Clinton picks up enough votes that the campaign can stay on the high ground. If Bill's tirade is any indication of where things are going, then this race might be over sooner than we all thought.

Jan 5, 2008 17:30:26 Counting down the hours until the double-header debates come on, I'm hearing that the Clinton camp is giving some indication that they will be "providing additional contrast" between herself and Dem front-runner Barack Obama. We'll see if she can keep her boots out of the mud for a couple of hours. Meanwhile, there's starting to be a bit of buzz around Biden. Apparently, lots of Democratic movers and shakers feel that he'd be the best VP choice for Obama, and his team apparently agrees, so his dropping out was a calculated move that wouldn't have happened had Obama not won so handily in Iowa. He's throwing his hat into the ring for the #2 spot. On the red side, I've seen some of the dirty ads that Romney put out regarding Huckabee. They're about changes in Arkansas laws during Huck's tenure, as well as actions taken by Huckabuck himself, which make him appear to be "soft on crime", a common Republican refrain. While the ads are technically accurate, what he doesn't include is the fact that Arkansas law had been way out of line with much of the rest of the US, and even the "weakened" laws remained more conservative than similar laws enforced by Romney in his own state of Massachusetts. And while Huck commuted a large number of sentences of convicted criminals, my understanding is that he also carried out the death penalty more often than any non-Texan governor in history. I'm still checking the facts on that last one, so don't quote me, but that's what I understand at this time. I'm not using this forum to support the death penalty, nor am I trying to indicate that freeing career criminals is something that I support. The main message here is that the situation is always more complex than can be portrayed in a 30-second ad. However, purposefully creating ads that leave out important contextual information in order to misrepresent the truth is nothing but mud. It reminds me of a time when a friend of mine was running for City Council in Redwood City, CA. One of the issues that was brought up during the campaign was an electricity tax. When asked about it, all of the Republicans took a firm stance against it. The Dems took a wide range of stances, and my friend in particular said that he did not think it was necessary at this time, but that he would not take it off the table if the city needed another source of revenue. Two days before the election, his opponents sent out an RNC-funded mailer showing televisions, washing machines and vacuum cleaners, stating in big, bold print, and big, bold colors, that my friend wanted "to tax you when you watch TV. He wants to tax you when you do your laundry. He wants to tax you when you clean your house." Exit polls indicated that the tax issue was a major deciding factor, and he came up just shy of a victory, less than 300 votes, if I recall correctly. And all this based on the purposefully incorrect implication that my friend had decided that the tax needed to be implemented, which he clearly indicated was not his intention. Lying by omission is lying, and we shouldn't elect anyone--from city council on up through President--who is willing to resort to that sort of practice. The folks in Iowa took a stand and voted for Huckabee over the negative Romney. Let's hope that voters continue the trend of shunning the bad guys (and gals) going forward.

Jan 3, 2008 21:26:37 Well, the Iowa caucuses are almost over, and Huckabee is way out in the lead on the Republican side, and Obama has a pretty safe lead over towards the left. There are a couple of things to take away from this one. First and foremost, negative campaigning doesn't work. From all accounts, Romney spent a lot of money on huge number of negative ads, and he couldn't make it happen. Another thing to remember is that this is just one caucus. It's important, and if Obama, Huckabee, Edwards, Romney and a few others couldn't make a showing there, it'd be essentially over for them. Clinton's a campaigning machine, and even if she had come in dead last in Iowa, she'd have still had a good chance going forward. The Dems have had a three-candidate race for some time; this pretty much makes it official. The Republican field is still filled with wild cards, though, with even Thomson coming in ahead of Giuliani and McCain, surprisingly enough. So Iowa's an interesting start, but while I don't want to minimize its impact, I think New Hampshire will look very different. Things will get even more interesting on Tuesday, January 8. And don't forget that ABC and Facebook are hosting a double-whammy debate at 7pm (6pm Central) on Saturday. Check it out, stay informed, talk to your friends, and most of all, when it's your turn, VOTE!

Jan 2, 2008 14:21:55 Ringing in the new year, Huckabee is being called clever by some, cynical by others. His team wrote an anti-Romney ad, which was approved--presumably by the Hucks himself--for production. The ad was produced and polished, and made ready for distribution, at which time Huckabee decided instead to make a confession. He had sinned, he wanted people to know, but he was repenting, and he would not be showing this ad on television. But he made this confession in front of dozens of reporters, including television people with cameras. This ad, which his team would refuse to air, was shown to the reporters, and has gotten more attention than it probably would have had it just aired. So Huckabee is not against negative campaigning; he is just against paying for air time for his negative ads. He'd prefer the viral approach, even if he has to spoon-feed his content to the media, all the while decrying Romney for "buying" the local vote by outspending him 20-to-1. I don't like negative campaigning, and I'd like to see it go away altogether, but if you're going to do it, my feeling is that you should at least pay for the air time. Over on the Dem side, Obama is doing a lot of complaining about negative campaigning in his requests for contributions, and as mentioned elsewhere in this blog, it's turned into his own sort of negative campaign. I appreciate the sentiment, but it's starting to look just as bad. Additionally, after the assassination of Bhutto in Pakistan, one of his advisors made a poorly-thought-out comment about how the event may affect the campaign, and many people took his comment to mean that he felt that Clinton was responsible for Bhutto's death. While that probably wasn't the intent, the comment was cynical, thoughtless, and unwise. When someone on Clinton's team brought up Obama's drug use, he was summarily let go. Obama should do the same for people on his team who take swings below the belt. Bhutto was a great leader, a brilliant woman, and underneath it all, a human being. Her untimely end is a tragedy for her friends and family, for her nation and the world. The reporter asking for comments may have posed a stupid question, but Obama's team members should know to not respond in-kind. The proper answer is that Bhutto's tragedy should not be used as a tool in this campaign, and that it should remind us all of what can happen when people let their greed put their own need for power over what is right for the people of their country and the world.

Dec 13, 2007 18:14:56 Coming from the "What were they thinking?" department, Mike Huckabee made a statement, posed as a question, indicating that in Mitt Romney's faith, God and the devil are brothers. I don't know much about Romney's church (Mormon/Church of Latter Day Saints), although I've spent some time in Salt Lake City and done the tour of the temple. If you get a chance, you should do it yourself; the retelling of the story of the miracle of the seagulls is something to behold. But the point is this: regardless of LDS' stance on the relationship between God and the devil, it's clear what Huckabee was trying to do: he was trying to put the question in the minds of his core base of support--evangelical Christians--as to whether or not Romney is an unholy man. Again, I don't know much about the Mormon church, but there are a lot of ways that "brotherhood" could be a misinterpretation. In many religions, the duality of good and evil is not quite as pronounced as in some sects of Christianity, with the relationship being shown as essentially two sides of the same coin. And even if you look at the old testament--the foundation for the Christian bible--you'll find the story of Job, in which Lucifer is sitting at God's side. No matter what the interpretation, this was a cheap shot, and Mr. Huckabee should be ashamed of himself. He should also remind himself that this is not an evangelical Christian nation; there are many people of faith similar and dissimilar to his own, and this sort of attempt at divisiveness is reprehensible for someone who claims to want to lead the country forward.

Dec 4, 2007 21:22:52 Well, Karl Rove is pulling a ballsy maneuver from his "perception is reality" playbook. He's been going to news outlets like Fox and their ilk, and planting the idea that the Democrats were the ones pushing for the Iraq war, ignoring the fact that any Dem support for the war was due to lies told by Bush and Co. about WMDs and connections between Hussein and Al Qaeda. I guess he's found that if you say anything often enough, people are likely to believe it. Maybe not the first or second time, but if it's consistent enough, after a few times, some might think when hearing a story that they've heard it before, so it must be true. I guess this is a tacit admission that the Repubs have screwed the pooch on this one, and that if he wants to work again in DC, he's going to need to change the perception of the party. Of course, it probably doesn't occur to him that an approach of honesty and ethical behavior might work wonders.

Dec 4, 2007 15:08:14 It looks like someone else shares my read on the Obama camp's attacks on Clinton's attacks. Just because someone else thinks that negative campaigning is "the fun part", it doesn't mean you have to. Rise above, man. Rise above. Over on the Repub side of the ring, Mitt's getting hit with the label of flip-flopper, panderer and more, mostly because he was once pro-choice and is now officially anti-choice. The Repubs are all standing as tall as possible, quoting their credentials on conservatism, claiming to be heirs to the Reagan-era ideals. Of course, they're all forgetting that Reagan, like him or not, made it clear that Republicans should never go after their own. I'm just waiting for the day that one of them quotes a kindergarten essay from another saying that they want to some day be president and appoint judges that will overturn Roe v. Wade.

Dec 3, 2007 22:37:51 This first entry makes me a little sad, since it's about a candidate I like and support, but it looks like nobody is above negative campaigning. I got an email from the Obama campaign titled "When Hillary attacks," about some negative campaigning coming from the Clinton camp. But it's kind of funny, and ironic, because, it's just a wee bit negative itself; the Obama folks sent out this notice to thousands of people differentiating their guy from his opponent not based on great things he's done or said, but based on bad things that she's supposedly done. So they're trying to turn it to their advantage, doing a two day fund drive called "the cost of negative campaigning", trying to turn a few statements from the Clinton camp into a quarter million dollars of funding. I understand, and certainly agree that we need to find ways to remove the incentive to use negative campaign strategies. However, this particular pledge request seems just a wee bit cynical to me; I only hope that, if Barack Obama's team believes so strongly that negative campaigning is a bad thing, they choose to practice what they preach going forward.

Dec 3, 2007 22:26:25 We're less than a year away from the 2008 presidential election, and we've got sixteen candidates lined up and ready to fight for your vote. Some are fighting fair, some are fighting dirty, and some are just, um, a little out there. It's not just the president's race that's rife with intrigue; other races, from city to state to federal level positions, and I'm going to try to write about any of them that I hear about where people are focusing on the negative. Of course, I can only track so much myself. If you hear of a case of negative campaigning that's not logged here, drop me a line at submissions@mudwatch.com and I'll write it up.