Pedestals

Apparently, the Bush administration doesn't like to deal with terrorists. Or people it claims are terrorists, based on very firm, but confidential, evidence. Or people it just gets a terrorist-ish vibe from. But not only do they not like to deal with them, they thingk that no one else should as well. Apparently, this includes well-meaning members of the opposition, such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is set to visit Syria on her tour of the region next Friday, as per the recommendations of the BIPARTISAN Iraq Study Group. You remember that one, the thing that Bush has already decided to completely ignore. Now, his administration has decided to criticize anyone who actually does what Congress recommends. A White House spokesman warned that Pelosi should consider the message that that would send to our allies.

Excuse me, but what allies?

We aren't fighting World War III here, but if Bush had his way, I think we would be. However, if we were, we would be in quite a bit of trouble. American support for the war is rapidly approaching zero, and the citizens of countries that are our allies, despite having elected some truly insane politicians that still side with Bush, feel much the same. The White House needs to stop criticizing those who are trying to diplomatically secure peace in the Middle East, to climb down from their Jesus-appointed pedestal, and to start trying to do the very same.

The Firsts

Rudy Giuliani recently stated in an interview that if he were elected president, his wife Judith would be welcome to sit in on any Cabinet meetings she would want to. One of Hillary Clinton's biggest strengths at this point in her campaign is her marriage to Bill. OK, so one of Hillary Clinton's ONLY strengths at this point in her campaign is that she is married to Bill. Either way, these are the two front runners in the presidential campaign, and both of them are already making concessions to the public about the involvement of their spouses. True, Giuliani's comments could merely be an attempt to convince the public that Mrs. Giuliani 3.0 does exist, but he is already talking about her taking an active role in the health department. Why? Because her being a nurse obviously qualifies her to do so. Either way the election goes, I think we will be seeing a lot more of the First Lady/dude in the next presidential term. Politicians are trying to court the public on their family values on both the left and the right sides of the ticket, and the only way to do that is to convince the public that they do, in fact, HAVE families. I can see a definite trickle down coming from that. I just hope I will be able to control my gag reflex when I hear, "I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank my wife/husband/thing" for the fortieth time in one night.

We'll Never Know

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly called for people to not think of her primarily as a woman when they cast their votes, but rather simply as a politician. However, her recent slogan and response to the question, "Can there ever be a woman president?" has been "We'll never know until we try." This is an argument that does not disregard the fact that she is a woman, but rather revels in it. It is also a good way for her ambitions to become marginalized. She is a strong politician, and a great candidate for the presidency, but at this point, her campaign is running on two things:

1. She is a woman.

2. She is married to an ex-president who was popular enough himself to survive the worst scandal since Watergate.

As such, these are the only things the average American voter knows about her are these. And, yes, the average American is an idiot for this, and, yes, this will probably get her past the primary, where her main competitor has a name that the average American will equate with a Middle Eastern dictator's. However, this will probably not get her past the actual election, in which her main competitor will probably be the man who led New York through one of its worst crises. And so, for the sake of the American people, please, please, Hillary, tell us more about yourself. You know what happened the last time a Democratic presidential hopeful couldn't take a convincing stand.

Who's On Fourth?

So we have our top-three in the already over-discussed 2008 Presidential Primary. On the Republican side, we have three candidates who seem to have muddled pasts when it comes to being the hardline conservative that republcian primary voters like to see. Guiliani, Romney 4.0, and McCain all have histories of not taking the actions a quintessential Republican would especially Romney (see Mitt Romney, Romney 2.0, Romney 2.1, Romney 3.0, and Romney 3.6).

On the Democratic side, we have Obama and Hillary, with John Edwards taking somewhat of a backseat in the media but still holding a strong third nationally. Remember, this is a man who has been running for president nonstop since mid-2002, and he presents a formidable challenge for such a sunshiny face and light rhetoric. Many Democrats are either decided or at the point of a coin toss between Hillary and Obama. I think they can both win, but that's a story for a different blog.

But the top three rarely stay that way this far out (remember Gephardt) . There's always a little suffling, and usually a second-tier candidate breaks in at some point in a favorite-son primary. An people love insurgents (especially NH independents), and with this much name recognition being generated this far out, none of the top tier candidates will seem "insurgent" to voters. So that leaves an open door.

Republicans? I don't think the Republcian field is finished filling up yet, with Hagel, Gringrich, and Fred Thompson all considering later runs. But currently, those unhappy with the present field (a group I predict will get much larger when the former positions of the top-tier start getting news and attack ads fly) have found solace in Senator Brownback, a self described "bleeding heart conservative" from Kansas. Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is another good candidate (and a governor, we love them!) who totes the conservative line well. These two may pull a Howard Dean and rally up the base like no other candidates in the field. I hope they do; I think people are at their best when they're voting their ideals and not just for a winner (even if they are voting anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc.)

Democrats? Richardson is probably the most likeable and the most "worthy" to be our next president. He's gone up the ranks: US Rep, Amabassador to the UN, Secretary of Energy, and now re-elected governor of New Mexico with 69% of the vote in 2006. He could make nice with the rest fo teh world well; he's also a Hispanic and might lock up that growing democraphic for the Democrats. But he is very Washington, and that probably won't resonate well with voters; he is as slick a politician as they come. Joe Biden is getting a lot of press, especially with southern and western Democrats; indeed, the man was elected senator as soon as he was old enough to be. And he ran for President in 1988, back when he was still practically a rising star. But the man won't keep quiet; he talks to much for his own good and listens too little. Sounds like a good senator to me. Chris Dodd evokes the same emotion Richard Gephardt did: he's experienced beyond belief, he served his time, he's a nice guy, and he has core Democratic values; he could probably run the country very well. But he's just not that exciting. Kucinich; I love the guy, but sorry. Vilsack could've been on fourth; a midwestern governor with a great energy policy could bring the party and the country to where it needs to be, but an honest, hardworking midwesterner like Vilsack rarely has as much money as the East Coast big city folks. Poor guy, I liked him.

Of all the candidates who looked like good contenders for this election, one sticks out in my mind as the most likely to have won this election, no matter who he was running against: Mark Warner. I still have a draft Warner pin from when I saw him speak. He was impressive, a Caucasian male businessman with centrist ideas, a Democrat from a Red State that loved him, and a very good speaker. It's just too bad he didn't stick it out.

Now we've got some powerful people still waiting in the wings on the Democratic side. Wesley Clark visited New Hampshire recently, but he hasn't shown much other indication. He may make the same mistake as last time and enter too late. Even if he did, I think he'd do better than Edwards. His great speech at the 2004 Convention and his centrist, pro-defense, and pro-globalist positions would make him hard to beat.

Then there's Al Gore. He's my personal favorite. The best part is, he's already won a presidential election. Imagine, a candidate who won an Oscar, a Nobel Peace Prize, had a strong message, was somewhat of an outsider, a populist southerner, and a charismatic speaker with "movie-star" fame. Sounds like a good candidate to me. Al Gore is (with the exception of the Nobel Peace Prize, which he's in the running for) all of those things.

So who's on fourth? You can't say yet, but if someone gets there, they may very well have hit a homerun.

Thank you for reading.

Come and Get Them

I finally took the advice of, well, everyone I know, and went and saw 300. At first I was reluctant to financially support something that the National Review called "Real All-American stuff," but I relented once I heard that there were at least three slow-mo decapitations. I talked to my mother about it before I went, and was mildly irritated by her insistence on calling it "the 300," though I could not explain why. I can certainly see why people insist on seeing political overtones in a movie where an overmatched Western general tells the religious Middle Eastern zealot despot that he is fighting for freedom and dies a glorious death on the battlefield. However, I have a hard time believing that there is anything that highbrow in a movie in which one of the aforementioned slow-mo decapititations comes at the hands of an eight foot tall monster that has had its forearms replaced with massive swords. No, the message of the movie is not political, it is ideological, and much simpler. It is just the idea that you can stand up against much greater forces, and triumph if you stick to your guns. Or swords, if you like. Or pens. The real reason that I was irritated by my mother calling it "the 300" is that that title implies that the film is about 300 specific men. It isn't. It is about any man or woman who refuses to abandon their principles in the face of defeat, which is exactly what Barack Obama is doing. More money has already been raised in this election cycle than any before, but Obama is sticking to his principles, and not giving in and accepting lobbyists' donations. Now that is real All-American stuff.

Insiders

Plenty of people have been speculating recently about what make Barack Obama so popular. Is it the fact that he seem sort of like a black JFK: Young, energetic, attractive, and extremely intelligent?

I think not.


The real reason Obama is now duking it out for the frontrunner position in the uber-crowded Democratic nomination run is one of the things his detractors list as a flaw: his relative lack of political experience. After years of autocratic rule by a man who got elected because of his name, and reelected because he started a war, the American people are ready for someone who doesn't have the Washington ties that most career politicians do. They want someone that they can trust to do what is right for them, or at the very least someone they can think will do what is best for them. Like I said before, Obama is an extremely intelligent man; he knows this. This is why he chose to make a pledge to not take lobbyists' money. He is keeping himself a Washington outsider, and in this election, he might actually be one. That is why he is doing so well with a name that the average American might mistake for that of a man preaching the murder of US troops in Iraq. And, ultimately, that is why he will pull ahead of Hillary, and take the Democratic Party nomination for the presidential ticket.

Huckabee Misses the Mark on Healthcare

This past Thursday the Concord Monitor ran an article outlining the positions of Former Arkansas Governer and 2008 GOP candidate Mike Huckabee. It was quite an eye-opening read. What I found most surprising was his views on health care...

According to the Governor, America's healthcare system is fundamentall backwards (which it is). Huckabee however does not endorse the same type of universal healthcare plan called for by democratic candidates. His plan would reward those who live cautious, healthy lifestyles and elimate subsidies for smokers and those less fortunate. In his mind people will be more "economical" about their healthcare needs if they are forced to pay for them out-of-pocket. Huckabee goes on to explain that this will eliminate frivolous and expensive medical tests. I'm sorry, Mr. Governor but in this age where early diagnosis can be the difference between life and death we must encourage routine tests, not shun them just to save the government money. Apparently if individuals are responsible for themselves they will work harder to keep in shape. I don't want to be the one to tell the single mother of two who can't afford a doctor that she should just pack her kids an apple a day. Leaving people to fend for themselves in no way to motivate society to become more physically fit. Huckabee (along with many other conservatives), seem to agree that health care is a personal matter and the government shouldn't be held accountable to provide it. If he wants to complain about a system that is backwards he should take a look in the mirror. We cannot afford to treat our healtcare system like a field experiment in natural selection. This is America and we owe reasonably prices, quality healthcare to all our citizens. Society should not be such that you can only see a doctor if you are healthy enough to begin with. Don't just leave our weakest members to suffer. I don't care if you smoke or never wear your seatbelt. I'll certainly ask you to stop, but I'm not going to deny you the medical attention you deserve.

National Primary

5 February is Election Day. That is the earliest date either political party is allowing states to move up to through their own discretion. The few built-in exemptions to this rule include Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Last cycle's New hampshire Primary was 27 January, a full week after Iowa and a week before any other contest (South Carolina bunched in with several other states came on the next Tuesday). Now, Saturdays and Thursdays are being considered as election days in states, as the bunching up front gets into the half and quarter-week separations between states holding elections. "Super Tuesday" was 3 March last cycle, with about two dozen states, including New York, all voting on the same day. This year, it looks like it's going to be 5 February.

California just moved their primary up to 5 February, and about half the states in the Union are considering moving their primary or caucus up to this day. They all want as much influence as Iowa and new Hampshire, so their are drowning themselves in their own crowded first week.

We cannot blame them for wanting as much influence as Iowa and New Hampshire. But we can blame them for screwing up a system that already works. Front-loading decides nominees far to early, are unhealthy for the party, and unhealthy for the political campaigning process. A primary in California will mean just filled gymnasiums and TV ads. A primary in New Hampshire is a tried and true process, where visiting little town centers and making pitstops at corner stores are musts. An educated, interested, rural, and small population ensures that a candidate needs more than just money and has to do some legwork. NH voters evaluate candidates face-to-face, and they've been good at it since the process started to matter in the nomination process in the 1950s.

It's now up to Bill Gardener to save us. He is an amazing, strong but softspoken man who has many stories to tell of his time in office. He's been New Hampshire's Secretary of State since the 1970s, and he keeps getting re-elected by the legislature and kept by governors, no matter what party or political affiliation. And with good reason. He's still fairly young, since he took office in his 20s, and he has the sole authority to set the NH Primary date.

Our laws say that the NH Primary must be at least one week before any similar contest. Iowa has been grandfathered in (we don't mind them being in front, since they are a caucus, and what good is a caucus) and we've not tried to one-up them. But if too many elections are in front of us (even if they are caucuses, or cauci, or whatever), that threatens the FIRST IN THE NATION PRIMARY. Folks, NH does this primary thing pretty well. I'm hoping that Bill Gardener sets the Primary date for late December 2007. Of course, Wyoming is considering a law that would state that their primary is on the same day as New Hampshire's, whenever New Hampshire's is...which seems outlandish to me....

The thing is though, NH aside, having primaries spread out is a good thing. Otherwise, Parties rush to a nominee because people move like sheep and all vote for the candidate that's popular that week (see John Kerry, 2004). A drawn out primary process keeps the press interested, makes states able to make their individual decisions on their own primary day, and makes sure the correct nominee is chosen (see Howard Dean, 2004). Front loading kills all this, and that isn't good. Instead of declaring your candidacy a year early and campaigning for a long time for a week of 50 successive elections, candidates should declare in late summer and fall of the year before and be battling it out in the primaries for a couple months. That's the way the process should be.


In short, we're in trouble this year. Let's hope 5 February is a good day for a good candidate.

Thank you for reading.

Lawyers...

The Republicans, and more specifically the Bush Administration, have done it again: the Federal government is now dealing with another scandal. Apparently, even Republicans have seen the need to distance themselves from the administration, as our much-loved GOP senator John Sununu became the first Republican to call for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. It has come to light that the recently fired US Federal prosecutors may have been fired for political reasons, and that assertion is becoming more and more likely every day. The White House is, of course, running the spin machine at full blast, but even that, it seems, will not suffice to cover it up this time. The e-mails released are making the situation nastier and nastier. White House Counsel Harriet Miers suggested firing all the US attorneys and replacing them to bring "new blood" in. What she meant when she said "new blood" was actually "red blood." This move was later refuted by Gonzales's chief of staff Kyle Sampson, who said that the idea would backfire because "The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys... are loyal Bushies." Of course, we all know that the primary prerequisite for a prosecutor is political alleigance. One of the administration's correspondents even suggested using the Patriot Act to bypass the confirmation for the newly instated "Bushies." The Senators calling for Alberto Gonzales's resignation are completely justified. Not only has he created another scandal, he has done so using one of the most commonly used tools in the administration's toolbox, lying to the public. With this, the administration as a whole has lost just about all of its credibility, but Gonzales has lost everything that made him appealing in the first place. It's time for some new blood higher up on the chain.

The Most Cautious Politician in New Hampshire

You guessed it: John Lynch. Despite the largest margin of victory in state gubernatorial history and strong allies in the majority in the House, Senate, and on the Executive Council. Many are wondering (including the Concord Monitor in last Sunday's paper) if Lynch will remain bipartisan, slow-moving, and extremely moderate (what an oxymoron) throughout his entire tenure in office. Democrats are especially anxious for Lynch to take action, because they realize just how precarious their rare majority in both the houses of the General Court and on the Executive Council are, and they want us to catch up to the rest of solid-blue New England.

State Democrats, I contend that John Lynch is just what we need. Sure it is annoying to have majorities everywhere and reform in the air, but no action. However, let us not forget the Republicans have essentially held complete control over the state since the formation of the GOP in the 1850s. But historically, moderate and libertarian Republicans have been elected in NH, not hard right-wingers. The anti-tax (and generally anti-government) sentiment has favored the Republicans heavily. The defeat of Mark Fernald in 2002 again showed that a pro-income tax and reformist candidate cannot easily win a general election.

But this election cycle, Republicans did not know what to do with anti-income tax, anti-sales tax, moderate, libertarian Democrats under the leadership of John Lynch. The usual attacks failed, and Governor Lynch gave the party a centrist image that couldn't not appeal to the population. With the national image of the Republican Party going to the hard right, and the Democrats going to the center, independents (who are quickly becoming the dominant block of voters in NH) split in favor of the Dems. This gets people, many of whom used to be (and still are) registered Republicans, used to voting for Democrats (a new thing in this state). And look, Democrats are in office, and the world did not end! We aren't living in trees, there's no income tax, there aren't Orwellian telescreens everywhere, and John Lynch can now do essentially what he wants.

Of course, it would've been nice if he had campaigned for Executive Council candidate Paul Martineau (44%) and State Senate candidate Bob Backus (49%), as his support could have tipped the balance and given them the majorities they needed (But he didn't want to have to deal with angry Republican incumbents). Also, Lynch could at least share his opinions on civil unions or parental notification laws.

But Lynch focuses on what needs to get done, not what is commonly argued. There are things that deserve more attention, that are often lost in the fray. Lynch has made these his priorities: raising the dropout age, raising the minimum wage, banning the burning of toxic materials, etc. These are all things that should have been done long ago, and it takes someone like John Lynch to step back and take care of business.

So lets support the governor, re-elect him and give him a majority again, and maybe he'll show a little more backbone. Of course, the next race will be harder: watch out for Lynch vs. Bass in 2008.

Thank you for reading.

Gingrich, why????

Apparently, as long as someone confesses to having an affair, the religious right will quit ranting about their "family values," and rally right back around them. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family infamy, recently helped counsel Newt Gingrich through an admission that, while he was persecuting Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky, he was engaging in an affair of his very own. It apparently slipped by Gingrich, ever one to stand up for the family values that evangelicals hold dear, such as: the inborn hatred of homosexuals, the inborn hatred of minorities, and the inborn desire to take away women's rights, that affairs destroy marriages, and therefore families. However, because he still believes in the hatred of homosexuals and minorities, the evangelicals are more than willing to stand by him. Jesus decried hypocrites and liars; his supposed followers stand by Gingrich, who says that he is not a hypocrite for criticizing Clinton, thereby proving himself a liar. This is not the first time in recent news that supporters of "family values" have shown their true colors; Ted Haggard, a prominent pastor, then-president of the National Association of Evangelicals, and well-documented hatemonger, was recently outed by the man he had a three-year affair with and also, charmingly, bought methamphetamines from. This is the man who, allegedly, had weekly telephone conferences withe the president, and directed the political future of evangelism in America. Now, that future could fall to Newt Gingrich, who is supposedly clearing the air for a 2008 presidential run. The message to America: "Caveat emptor."

Rudy in 2008? Are they nuts?

In terms of his political positions, Rudy Giuliani should be my favorite candidate for the Republican nomination in 2008 (wait, we're starting the 2008 campaign already?...that's a topic for another day). Yet he irks me to no end, and I believe he will go on to irk many more people. Here's why:

Amoung likely Republican primary voters, he has been polling higher than former shoo-in John McCain or Mitt Romney 4.0 (earlier versions sold only in Massachusetts). In the latest issue of Newsweek, Rudy's stern face graces the entire front cover. He has been given the title "America's Mayor" (which he occasionally shares with current NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg, although I'm sure he does so begrudgingly), and it has been said that during the three days after 9/11, when the White House was still in shock, Giuliani was virtually our President (without the powers vested by that office, thankfully). He managed the crisis in New York beautifully in the immediate aftermath, and earned the image of a protector and a strong leader.

But that one point is really all he has going for him. (Yes, he reduced welfare rolls, and he reduced crime in New York, but I'm sure he did some back alley deals with mob bosses to pull some of ir off) Pages could be written about what he has going against him. Here are a couple of highlights:

- he's pro-choice
- he's pro-gay marriage (in fact, he lived with a gay couple for a while after a messy divorce, and yes, this was while he was mayor...by the way...)
- he's had two divorces
- he's pro-gun control
- photo's of him dressed as a female have been published (in that very same newsweek article)

Now tell me that members of today's Republican Party would vote for someone with that record. Primary voters are notoriously more extreme than the general constituents of their party, and with the religious right and evangelicals at such heights of power in the party, I can't imagine Republicans nominating Giuliani for President. On top of that, New York City got sick of Giuliani after several scandals, and they were looking forward to electing a successor by mid-2001. Of course, Giuliani tried to give his term in office a several month extension under "emergency circumstances" and tried to alter the New York City Constitution to allow him to run for another turn. That will not be good press later this year, when the campaigns are in full swing and the mud is flying.

Also, HELLO, he's only been the mayor of a city. Sure, its a city of 8 million people, and he made the city prettier and happier, but mayor of 8 million to president of 300 million is a pretty big step in my mind. Even the governor of Wyoming, who represents a population of around 500,000, is the head of a government with is very likely more similar to the national government than any city's system (even if it is New York).

Now, almost every conflict has had its hero presidents. Washington for the Revolutionary War; Jackson for the War of 1812; W.H. Harrison with his "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" slogan; Zachary Taylor from the Mexican-American War; Grant, Hayes, Arthur, Benjamin Harrison and McKinley all served in the civil war with at least the rank of Colonel; Teddy Roosevelt gained fame in the Spanish-American War; Eisenhower was catapulted to popularity by World War II; and even Colin Powell may have been president thanks to the Gulf War I. Will Rudy be the War on Terror's president?

I sure hope not. But it's pretty much all he has going for him. His campaign has already started to focus on the dangers we face, trying to use the same method Dick Cheney made so successful: scare people into voting for you by assuring them you're the only one who can protect them. Only this time, people don't have to hear it through Cheney's scowl, which is dangerous enough on its own.

But before I close, Rudy's got one other thing going for him, and this is probably the scariest thing of all: people think he can win. If he entire Republican electorate chooses him over other candidates who better reflect their ideals, it shows the degradation of politics to a mere power struggle. I wouldn't vote for Joe Lieberman simply because he can win Republican votes; I vote based on my ideals, opinions, and who I think would be best for the nation. If I just vote for who I think can win because I want my party to be the sole body in power, I'm betraying my fellow citizens and myself.

Newsweek pulled several sentences out of the article to put in bold along the bottom (for those skimmersout there). One in particular caught my eye: "Rudy excels when presented with a crisis; left to his own devices, he creates crises for himself." What if his "own devices" are those of the office of President of the United States?

Thank you for reading.

Finally.

It seems that the House is finally beginning to listen to the American people: The military spending committee has determined to put a bill to the floor that will limit the amount of troops in Iraq based upon the Iraqi government's ability and/or willingness to meet the conditions their US counterparts play. The Senate is stepping it up as well, with their Budget Committee moving to use the Congressional Budget Office's estimates for the Iraq/ Afghanistan budget. However, they are also planning on troop presence for at least another five years. What do the American people have to do to get their message across here? Dems, there is only one reason you have a majority; your constituencies want their troops OUT NOW. Joe Biden and Carl Levin are taking it to the Senate, with a proposal to bring our troops home by March of 2008. Though this seems like it is mainly a publicity stunt, it will at least get the notion that it is possible into the heads of our representatives, and they will hopefully move soon after. If the Democrats want to maintain the momentum they need to get one of their own into the White House in 2009, they need to do what the voters want, and what that is is plenty clear at this point.