As I stated in a previous posting ("What? You haven't read EVERY posting to date???"), I signed up to receive email updates from several campaigns: Clinton, Obama, Edwards on the Dem side; Guiliani, McCain, Romney from the GOP side of the aisle. I did this for several reasons:
First, I wanted to stay in touch with the campaigns most likely to still have funds by the time Marra and I got to NH;
Second, these candidates represented the top tier according to national polls;
Third, I want to see what issues each candidate highlighted throughout the campaign;
Four, no one writes to me so I needed the email traffic.
I would like to share with you excerpts from a few of the emails, accompanied by my witty commentary, of course:
John McCain: This guy is really pulling out all the stops for support. His latest email appeal came from his mother. Yes, John has rolled out his mommy to replenish his campaign war chest.
"My son, Senator John McCain, has been a leader his entire life. When he was a young boy, all of the kids knew me as "Johnny's mother" because he was the leader of the other children."
The guy has been in national politics since the '70s, and we're being told that his leadership of the other children qualifies him for the Top Job. Leadership as a child is nowadays referred to more commonly as 'bullying'.
John Edwards: This guy uses email to stay on the attack, but he sprinkles every attack with an emotional appeal about his love for us, the little people who need him. Shucks. Here's an email intro from wife Elizabeth:
"Dear Friend,
A lot of special moments happen out there on the campaign trail, as I travel across the country with John. I wanted to share one of them with you."
Then a link to a video clip about his commitment to universal health care. His campaign manager is Joe Trippi, the man responsible for Howard Dean's unlikely ascent during the 2004 campaign from unknown to presumptive nominee (for a few months, anyway). Because of Trippi influence, Edwards (not surprisingly) has been the most active emailer.
Some Edwards' more biting and targeted email excerpts:
"John Edwards knows America deserves better than crony out, crony in—and if Bush tries to replace one crony with another, John will lead the fight against their nomination just like he led the calls for Gonzales to resign more than five months ago."
"But there are those in the Democratic Party who are unwilling to end their addiction to money from federal lobbyists - they do not understand that people like you will help fund a party that is truly a party of the people."
Barack Obama: As you would imagine, his emails focus on joining the cause, the movement, the whatever-it-is-Obama-has. He just wants more people.
"To rebuild in the wake of Katrina and get our country back on course, we need to renew our commitment to one another. We need to return to this core principle of our great nation by honoring our responsibility to our fellow citizens.
I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper. And that foundation is what makes all of us stronger."
OK, Reverend. I hear ya. How about a big group hug?
Rudy Guiliani: Gotta love this guy. Not only is he playing the 9/11 leadership thing for all it's worth, his current emails show Yankee Stadium in the background. Yes, Rudy was actually responsible for all 26 World Championships while serving as mayor. Quite a record. His campaign is about Big Ideas (only 12 apparently) and for this, he needs Big Money:
"But I can't do it alone. I need your help to continue spreading my vision for keeping America safe, ensuring economic growth through fiscal discipline and securing our borders. Help me by making your donation today of $250, $100, $50 or $25. "
Hillary Clinton: Oddly enough, not too many emails from Hillary. But the few I've gotten mention EXPERIENCE, the one club she continually beats Edwards and Obama over the head with. She rarely mentions that Cheney and Rumsfeld had a lot of experience, too...
Mitt Romney: Strong Family Man who favors Strong Families. As a practicing Mormon, he is careful not to be in favor of multiple families, just strong SINGLE, heterosexual, two parent, June and Ward Cleaver families. His emails are focused in message and clear about one thing - there are many ways to give Mitt money for his mission trip to the White House.
In summary, none of these candidates has emailed me anything overboard, out of the mainstream, that I would hold it against him/her. It has mostly been a lesson in marketing on a viral scale, and it has opened my eyes to the power of the Internet, for organizing, fundraising, or just plain making money. So the real question is, will all these candidates vow to never tax the Internet?
JS
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Monday, August 27, 2007
The Last Campaign
It's all starting to happen so fast, it is hard to keep up!
The DNC has notified the Florida Democratic Party that its delegates are not welcome at the 2008 convention if the Florida primary takes place before February 5th. Leave it to the Democrats to act like their own mascot during the first campaign since 1976 when they are this heavily favored. Howard Dean, the Father of Internet Political Fundraising (and current head of the DNC) has to be blamed for allowing the argument to get this far. The Republican machine would never let things get this out of hand. The Dems need to learn some strong-arm tactics to control the state parties. This primary schedule business needs to be off the front pages, and the candidate messages back above the fold.
With every state looking to remain relevant in the primaries, I believe we are seeing the end of the New Hampshire/Iowa early race dominance in the presidential nominating process. And it will be a shame. The partisans in these early states raise the heat, and sometimes the cream comes to the top. Other times, the candidates are burned under the bright lights of voter inquisitions. One thing is for sure - whatever process replaces NH and IA in the front of the calendar someday had better accomplish the same result - battle test the character of the candidates, one voter at a time.
Perhaps Marra and I will be part of the Last Great Retail Campaign. The last campaign where candidates are actually forced to talk directly to voters on the streets and in the coffee shops. Perhaps the 2012 campaign will be known as the MySpace campaign, where voters need to interact virtually with declared candidates to learn about their platforms. Perhaps the domestic spying program will be so successful, that Americans will no longer need to organize and go to the polls for the person of their choice. The Justice Department will just announce the winners, based on our Internet activities and anticipated preferences. Market research results will drive elections, and will replace the traditional "pressing of the flesh" and the ceremonial kissing of the babies. And it will be done before we even realize it's an election year!
Wow. Good thing we're going to New Hampshire this year, huh?
JS
The DNC has notified the Florida Democratic Party that its delegates are not welcome at the 2008 convention if the Florida primary takes place before February 5th. Leave it to the Democrats to act like their own mascot during the first campaign since 1976 when they are this heavily favored. Howard Dean, the Father of Internet Political Fundraising (and current head of the DNC) has to be blamed for allowing the argument to get this far. The Republican machine would never let things get this out of hand. The Dems need to learn some strong-arm tactics to control the state parties. This primary schedule business needs to be off the front pages, and the candidate messages back above the fold.
With every state looking to remain relevant in the primaries, I believe we are seeing the end of the New Hampshire/Iowa early race dominance in the presidential nominating process. And it will be a shame. The partisans in these early states raise the heat, and sometimes the cream comes to the top. Other times, the candidates are burned under the bright lights of voter inquisitions. One thing is for sure - whatever process replaces NH and IA in the front of the calendar someday had better accomplish the same result - battle test the character of the candidates, one voter at a time.
Perhaps Marra and I will be part of the Last Great Retail Campaign. The last campaign where candidates are actually forced to talk directly to voters on the streets and in the coffee shops. Perhaps the 2012 campaign will be known as the MySpace campaign, where voters need to interact virtually with declared candidates to learn about their platforms. Perhaps the domestic spying program will be so successful, that Americans will no longer need to organize and go to the polls for the person of their choice. The Justice Department will just announce the winners, based on our Internet activities and anticipated preferences. Market research results will drive elections, and will replace the traditional "pressing of the flesh" and the ceremonial kissing of the babies. And it will be done before we even realize it's an election year!
Wow. Good thing we're going to New Hampshire this year, huh?
JS
Sunday, August 26, 2007
State of Emergency
I try to maintain a balanced reading listing of both liberal and conservative positions. I read Gary Hart's book on his recommended vision for the Democratic Party in this new century. I read Steve Forbes book on the benefits of the flat tax. I've even read an Ann Coulter book (but never again). So my liberal friends should not be surprised that I recently picked up State of Emergency, a new Pat Buchanan book, at the library. They should also not be surprised to hear that I couldn't finish it.
Immigration is a key issue in this political year, and it is bound to remain contentious through the presidential election. I have tried to avoid the issue, mainly because there is no perfect solution. I recognize that the only real solution will involve compromise, and that sort of middle ground tends to be a lonely piece of real estate during campaign season. Marra and I will be confronted with both sides of the immigration debate in NH, so I felt I had to start my education somewhere. So I picked up State of Emergency at the library.
Immigration is a key issue in this political year, and it is bound to remain contentious through the presidential election. I have tried to avoid the issue, mainly because there is no perfect solution. I recognize that the only real solution will involve compromise, and that sort of middle ground tends to be a lonely piece of real estate during campaign season. Marra and I will be confronted with both sides of the immigration debate in NH, so I felt I had to start my education somewhere. So I picked up State of Emergency at the library.
Before my comments, I offer full disclosure. While I consider myself fully qualified to review the contents, I did not finish the book. I survived approximately 80 pages before I couldn't take it anymore. Buchanan had a statistic for everything. The constant statistical barrage left me feeling like a terror suspect being broken down during interrogation. By the end of the first chapter, I was ready to agree with everything Buchanan wrote. I had no mind of my own left. "Anything, Pat, just no more statistics!!!"
After the first few chapters, I was onto Buchanan's methods. Statistics can support any conclusion the writer wishes. I remember my favorite statistic from my college studies - 98% of all convicted killers drank milk as children. It's a dramatic fact, but no causal relationship exists between calcium intake and a life of crime. Still, it sounds impressive, and makes you think at least for a moment, "Maybe it IS the milk!" Buchanan's parade of numbers came with questionable conclusions for me.
He made some solid points at first. He almost had me ready to grab my pitchfork and march with him to the master's gate in armed protest. Then a simple thought kept coming into my head. I kept pretending that the book was written in 1870, and that instead of Mexicans and Latinos, the groups were the Irish, the Germans, the Jews. I kept thinking that Buchanan would have made the same arguments about the immigrant invasion 130 years ago, and reached the same conclusions - America is at a turning point, and if we don't start claiming our white, Western European heritage quick, our way of life will perish. But that's isn't the way it played out, is it?
Maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, but he could be wrong. Perhaps the immigrant flow will enrich our country, the way in which the immigrant flow of the 19th century did. I concede several points. It is true that there are more honors students in China than North American has students. It is also true that America is not producing replacement workers (having babies) as fast as the developing world. I appreciate Buchanan's paranoia, since we Americans will soon be even more outnumbered than we are today. At the same time this is happening, though, the largest English speaking country in the world will soon be China.
I don't claim to know what all this means, but I do know this - our next Leader of the Free World better get a handle on these global demographic shifts quickly. The statistics don't lie (even if the interpretations sometimes do).
As a final thought: at the same time I offer you this bleeding heart liberal love all people nonsense, I can't understand why we don't build a big wall. Why can't we stop illegal immigration? That should not be considered racist. I want the borders secure, and it should have been done years ago.
Marra and I will hear candidate opinions on the immigration issue, and we won't trust the first candidate who can speak Spanish, either. We want to hear compassion, yes, border control, yes, but fear - no.
100% of all candidates who try to harp on fear of immigrants to win votes will not get mine.
JS
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Travel Plans
I received a phone call from the "Obama for America" campaign yesterday. I had forgotten that I had written a little note on Obama's website when registering for their campaign email updates (I registered on 8 sites - 4 Dems, 4 GOP). Apparently, "Katie" from the campaign thought my planned trip to NH with my daughter was "awesome", and she's ready to put us to work. She even told me that she'd schedule us to work one of Obama's campaign stops if he was in town. Marra was very excited about that possibility, and that got me pretty excited, too. It's early yet, but he could be the RFK of the Gen Y-ers. It's fun to see Marra getting energized about all this. I hope her years of political cynicism are still many campaign cycles away.
More good campaign news - the Republicans are scheduled to debate in Manchester on Sunday, October 14th, and we'll be in town that day. Hopefully, that means all the GOP hopefuls will be doing stops in and around Manchester before and after the debate. More opportunities to mingle with the news makers, and check out Romney's slicked back hair up close.
JS
Side note: After accusing the Dems of using their own brand of divisiveness in the previous post, I get this email from the Edwards campaign with the following text:
"It is caution versus courage. Old versus new. Calculation versus principle. It is the establishment elite versus the American people."
Us vs. Them - divide and conquer, I guess...
More good campaign news - the Republicans are scheduled to debate in Manchester on Sunday, October 14th, and we'll be in town that day. Hopefully, that means all the GOP hopefuls will be doing stops in and around Manchester before and after the debate. More opportunities to mingle with the news makers, and check out Romney's slicked back hair up close.
JS
Side note: After accusing the Dems of using their own brand of divisiveness in the previous post, I get this email from the Edwards campaign with the following text:
"It is caution versus courage. Old versus new. Calculation versus principle. It is the establishment elite versus the American people."
Us vs. Them - divide and conquer, I guess...
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Us vs.Them
I did not watch the most recent Democratic debate (Sunday in Iowa). I can go online to view the show anytime I want. So far, I haven't wanted. I know, it's a little early for someone as engaged in this drama as I am to be suffering from election fatigue, but here I am. Maybe it's this summer cold that's been bouncing through our house, or maybe it's because I already know what each candidate is going to say.
"I will look out for working families..."
"I will fight Big Oil, Big Tobacco, and the Big Drug companies..."
"I am against tax cuts for the wealthy..."
"The Cheney/Rove policies have failed us..."
Blah, blah, blah. The Democrats have become the party of Us vs. Them. Rich vs. Poor. Those who control the means of production, and those oppressed masses that are systematically denied access to the American Dream. For a party that bellyaches so loudly against the divisiveness of the Bush/Cheney/Rove agenda, it certainly seems to have taken a page from their playbook. Instead of dividing Us by Patriot vs. Traitor (a GOP talk radio favorite), the Democrats are dividing Us by Class, into little IRS tax brackets. It's a simple political calculation really. There are more voters who make less than $200,000 per year than make more. So let's be sure the under $200K crowd is for Us!
I know that's a bit simplified. I recognize how recent government policies have impacted the wage gap in this country, and I understand that the widening income gap can spell trouble for Us as a nation. But let's not dumb it down to the point where equitable income distribution is the goal. You see, sometimes, I'm a Them.
Thems recognize that industry supplies the jobs that supply the wages and the health care for the Democratic Us. Thems are working families, too. Thems may drive nicer cars and live in bigger houses, but Thems sacrifice to provide for their families, too. Thems aren't all part of the vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Many Thems are just people like Us who took a financial risk, worked hard, and succeeded while the Us were content to watch from the sidelines. Not all of Us were denied the chance at financial reward. Some of Us just had other priorities.
And never let Us forget, it's the Thems that are funding most of the campaigns we're watching!
Is there a Democratic candidate who will reach beyond Us vs. Them, and embrace both rich and poor, black and white, Christian and atheist? Didn't the populist rhetoric backfire on Gore in 2000? Didn't the populist rhetoric look silly when being trumpeted by silver-spooned Kerry? Why do they continue to draw from that well?
So I have to explain all these pearls of rhetoric to Marra, which leads me to ask the Democrats a simple question: How should I differentiate for her Republican divisiveness from Democratic divisiveness? ...without telling me, "But their brand is worse than our brand"? Just a thought.
And while you're at it, how about the pros and cons of a flat tax?
JS
"I will look out for working families..."
"I will fight Big Oil, Big Tobacco, and the Big Drug companies..."
"I am against tax cuts for the wealthy..."
"The Cheney/Rove policies have failed us..."
Blah, blah, blah. The Democrats have become the party of Us vs. Them. Rich vs. Poor. Those who control the means of production, and those oppressed masses that are systematically denied access to the American Dream. For a party that bellyaches so loudly against the divisiveness of the Bush/Cheney/Rove agenda, it certainly seems to have taken a page from their playbook. Instead of dividing Us by Patriot vs. Traitor (a GOP talk radio favorite), the Democrats are dividing Us by Class, into little IRS tax brackets. It's a simple political calculation really. There are more voters who make less than $200,000 per year than make more. So let's be sure the under $200K crowd is for Us!
I know that's a bit simplified. I recognize how recent government policies have impacted the wage gap in this country, and I understand that the widening income gap can spell trouble for Us as a nation. But let's not dumb it down to the point where equitable income distribution is the goal. You see, sometimes, I'm a Them.
Thems recognize that industry supplies the jobs that supply the wages and the health care for the Democratic Us. Thems are working families, too. Thems may drive nicer cars and live in bigger houses, but Thems sacrifice to provide for their families, too. Thems aren't all part of the vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Many Thems are just people like Us who took a financial risk, worked hard, and succeeded while the Us were content to watch from the sidelines. Not all of Us were denied the chance at financial reward. Some of Us just had other priorities.
And never let Us forget, it's the Thems that are funding most of the campaigns we're watching!
Is there a Democratic candidate who will reach beyond Us vs. Them, and embrace both rich and poor, black and white, Christian and atheist? Didn't the populist rhetoric backfire on Gore in 2000? Didn't the populist rhetoric look silly when being trumpeted by silver-spooned Kerry? Why do they continue to draw from that well?
So I have to explain all these pearls of rhetoric to Marra, which leads me to ask the Democrats a simple question: How should I differentiate for her Republican divisiveness from Democratic divisiveness? ...without telling me, "But their brand is worse than our brand"? Just a thought.
And while you're at it, how about the pros and cons of a flat tax?
JS
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Spinning to Victory
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee scored a solid second place 'victory' in the GOP Iowa straw poll last weekend, placing him in strong contention as the leading top tier bottom tier candidate. One has to wonder if the sound of "President Huckabee" is working against him. It would seem like a "President Huckabee" would have an administration with Barney Fife as Attorney General and Gomer Pyle as Secretary of Defense, but maybe it's just me. Not sure how far Huckabee can go with his human interest story of losing 110 pounds, although he is now the front runner for Jared's spot in future Subway ads. His quick, self-deprecating wit, much like Bruce Babbitt's from 1988, will play for a few more campaign episodes before he gets cancelled by a lack of name recognition. Marra and I will still read up on him, though. Seems like a smart, sincere fellow. He's probably a very good minister.
The real story, however, is Ron Paul - if you listen to Ron Paul. He scored an under-reported landslide victory over Mitt Romney in today's Strafford County, NH GOP straw poll, with a whopping 73% of the vote. Romney was a sad second place with a mere 26 votes.
Wait a minute. If Romney was second with 26 votes, how big was this straw poll? Facts are these: Strafford County has approximately 43,000 households (97% white, but I did say it was in New Hampshire), and Paul motivated 208 voters to cast their lot with him. Impressive.
But he not only swept to victory in the Northeast, he dominated in the South on the same day!!! The West Alabama Republican Assembly picked Paul as their candidate of choice by a margin of 202 votes. Sounds close, but the totals were Paul 216, Romney 14. A veritable landslide. Good lesson, Marra - statistics can support whatever story one chooses to tell.
I kid these longshots, but I am glad that they are in the race. It's good for America to have a Republican in the debates who is against the war in Iraq, and expresses his view passionately and coherently (Ron Paul). It is good for America that we have a solid citizen like Mike Huckabee running, and we get to hear his genuine sincerity and reasonable viewpoints. I wish the money would hold out for these guys. While we can question all day whether or not either could handle the daunting responsibilities of Leader of the Free World, we should not question the importance of considering their opinions, and following their examples of public service with honor.
Sure, access to the top candidates in NH will be tough for Marra and me. But seeing, meeting and talking with candidates like Paul and Huckabee (and Kucinich, Dodd and Biden) will make the journey meaningful and profitable for both of us.
Two months to go.
JS
The real story, however, is Ron Paul - if you listen to Ron Paul. He scored an under-reported landslide victory over Mitt Romney in today's Strafford County, NH GOP straw poll, with a whopping 73% of the vote. Romney was a sad second place with a mere 26 votes.
Wait a minute. If Romney was second with 26 votes, how big was this straw poll? Facts are these: Strafford County has approximately 43,000 households (97% white, but I did say it was in New Hampshire), and Paul motivated 208 voters to cast their lot with him. Impressive.
But he not only swept to victory in the Northeast, he dominated in the South on the same day!!! The West Alabama Republican Assembly picked Paul as their candidate of choice by a margin of 202 votes. Sounds close, but the totals were Paul 216, Romney 14. A veritable landslide. Good lesson, Marra - statistics can support whatever story one chooses to tell.
I kid these longshots, but I am glad that they are in the race. It's good for America to have a Republican in the debates who is against the war in Iraq, and expresses his view passionately and coherently (Ron Paul). It is good for America that we have a solid citizen like Mike Huckabee running, and we get to hear his genuine sincerity and reasonable viewpoints. I wish the money would hold out for these guys. While we can question all day whether or not either could handle the daunting responsibilities of Leader of the Free World, we should not question the importance of considering their opinions, and following their examples of public service with honor.
Sure, access to the top candidates in NH will be tough for Marra and me. But seeing, meeting and talking with candidates like Paul and Huckabee (and Kucinich, Dodd and Biden) will make the journey meaningful and profitable for both of us.
Two months to go.
JS
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Raising an Independent Thinker
What follows is a reprint of an editorial by Catherine Rampell that appeared in the August 11th Washington Post. I graciously allow Ms. Rampell to take over the blog for this evening because I believe that there is a place in our country for young people to learn that reasonable and ethical political dialogue between competing agendas is not only responsible, it's the right course. We reap what we sow.
Raising a Political Bigot
By Catherine Rampell
Saturday, August 11, 2007; Page A17
A message to my elders: Grow up.
For a while now you've been trying to drag the voting-age members of my generation, the so-called MySpace Generation, into your festering pool of partisanship. Now, apparently, you're going after our generation's youngest members.
I'm referring to a few highly publicized children's books that deal with partisan politics, the most well-known being "Why Mommy is a Democrat" and "Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed!" These books (which have sold 22,000 and 30,000 copies, respectively) teach young kids which party is the bringer of goodness and light and which is the party of destruction and the devil, all with the help of a few cuddly animals and some less cuddly caricatures. Both have been Internet sensations, with a seemingly endless supply of fawning and fuming customer reviews on Amazon.com and other heavily trafficked sites. Both have messages about sharing, fairness, safety and greed. And both, oddly enough, have Web sites that prominently feature a testimonial from Rush Limbaugh (one positive and one negative, of course). Support from such partisans has inspired follow-up books, including "Help! Mom! The 9th Circuit Nabbed the Nativity!"
Now, I don't begrudge parents the ability to teach kids their "moral values," whatever they may be. There's also nothing wrong with parents' putting politics in the mouths of babes. Even Dr. Seuss's books were brimming with political lessons and allegories, from "The Lorax" (about environmentalism) to "Yertle the Turtle" (modeled on Hitler). More recently, books such as "Heather Has Two Mommies" have created healthy national dialogues, exposing kids to different points of view.
But the more overtly partisan books are not teaching kids values. They're teaching them labels.
Right now, Generation Y has the chance to escape the curse of staunch political labeling. Surveys have shown young people today disproportionately self-identify as political "independents"; an April poll from the Harvard Institute of Politics, for example, found a plurality of Americans ages 18 to 24 consider themselves "independent." This may be because we don't fit neatly into traditional party thinking. We treat our politics the way we treat our music and our clothes (and often our religion): as good consumer-citizens, we mix and match. It's a political supermarket. As a New York Times-CBS-MTV survey demonstrated in June, we lean left on many issues, such as gay rights and health-care coverage. But most of us also support many traditionally Republican positions, such as limiting or banning abortion and staying relatively optimistic about the Iraq war. Our political beliefs, like our music, aren't bundled the way our elders' are. You older types buy into albums and political platforms; we prefer hit singles.
It's not necessarily that we're centrist. We're just eclectic.
In contrast, these children's books emphasize political brand loyalty. They divisively equate political labels with rightness or wrongness, goodness or evil. Yes, children's books should teach about sharing and caring -- but such traits should not be the means to the end of becoming a member of the "correct" political party. These books are illustrative of a broader post-Sept. 11 cultural directive: claim righteousness through some label (political, religious or racial), and vilify anyone who doesn't identify with that label, regardless of any common concern for the human condition. The political climate beckoning our generation is eerily reminiscent of late-19th-century politics; back then, party organs ruled, and Americans often rooted for a political team whose only accepted definition was "not them." And partisanship for the sake of partisanship, as reformists determined before the 1896 realignment of the party system, leaves people behind.
Gen-Y juniors should know they can escape the yoke of partisanship and silly, hateful labels. Sure, today's parties can be rejiggered to fit whatever new loose bundles of beliefs come from emerging generations. Certainly the positions of the big parties have changed in the past. But why go that route? Politics shouldn't be an us-vs.-them death match. Government is supposed to be about the people's values, not their parties. Or so I learned in elementary school.
Instead of these party-line picture books, I'd advise parents to invest in copies of my favorite children's book, "The Sneetches." It's a lesser-known Seussian masterpiece about creatures who despise each other solely because of the presence or absence of a star on their bellies. Only after they've been scammed by a sleazeball salesman, who capitalizes on their mutual hatred and fear, do the Sneetches realize how equally, identically, indistinguishably childish both sides had really been.
The writer is a member of the editorial page staff. Her e-mail address is rampellc@washpost.com.
What will Marra learn in New Hampshire, and what political leader will step forward to capture her loyalty and respect? And will they be the winner? Does it matter?
JS
Raising a Political Bigot
By Catherine Rampell
Saturday, August 11, 2007; Page A17
A message to my elders: Grow up.
For a while now you've been trying to drag the voting-age members of my generation, the so-called MySpace Generation, into your festering pool of partisanship. Now, apparently, you're going after our generation's youngest members.
I'm referring to a few highly publicized children's books that deal with partisan politics, the most well-known being "Why Mommy is a Democrat" and "Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed!" These books (which have sold 22,000 and 30,000 copies, respectively) teach young kids which party is the bringer of goodness and light and which is the party of destruction and the devil, all with the help of a few cuddly animals and some less cuddly caricatures. Both have been Internet sensations, with a seemingly endless supply of fawning and fuming customer reviews on Amazon.com and other heavily trafficked sites. Both have messages about sharing, fairness, safety and greed. And both, oddly enough, have Web sites that prominently feature a testimonial from Rush Limbaugh (one positive and one negative, of course). Support from such partisans has inspired follow-up books, including "Help! Mom! The 9th Circuit Nabbed the Nativity!"
Now, I don't begrudge parents the ability to teach kids their "moral values," whatever they may be. There's also nothing wrong with parents' putting politics in the mouths of babes. Even Dr. Seuss's books were brimming with political lessons and allegories, from "The Lorax" (about environmentalism) to "Yertle the Turtle" (modeled on Hitler). More recently, books such as "Heather Has Two Mommies" have created healthy national dialogues, exposing kids to different points of view.
But the more overtly partisan books are not teaching kids values. They're teaching them labels.
Right now, Generation Y has the chance to escape the curse of staunch political labeling. Surveys have shown young people today disproportionately self-identify as political "independents"; an April poll from the Harvard Institute of Politics, for example, found a plurality of Americans ages 18 to 24 consider themselves "independent." This may be because we don't fit neatly into traditional party thinking. We treat our politics the way we treat our music and our clothes (and often our religion): as good consumer-citizens, we mix and match. It's a political supermarket. As a New York Times-CBS-MTV survey demonstrated in June, we lean left on many issues, such as gay rights and health-care coverage. But most of us also support many traditionally Republican positions, such as limiting or banning abortion and staying relatively optimistic about the Iraq war. Our political beliefs, like our music, aren't bundled the way our elders' are. You older types buy into albums and political platforms; we prefer hit singles.
It's not necessarily that we're centrist. We're just eclectic.
In contrast, these children's books emphasize political brand loyalty. They divisively equate political labels with rightness or wrongness, goodness or evil. Yes, children's books should teach about sharing and caring -- but such traits should not be the means to the end of becoming a member of the "correct" political party. These books are illustrative of a broader post-Sept. 11 cultural directive: claim righteousness through some label (political, religious or racial), and vilify anyone who doesn't identify with that label, regardless of any common concern for the human condition. The political climate beckoning our generation is eerily reminiscent of late-19th-century politics; back then, party organs ruled, and Americans often rooted for a political team whose only accepted definition was "not them." And partisanship for the sake of partisanship, as reformists determined before the 1896 realignment of the party system, leaves people behind.
Gen-Y juniors should know they can escape the yoke of partisanship and silly, hateful labels. Sure, today's parties can be rejiggered to fit whatever new loose bundles of beliefs come from emerging generations. Certainly the positions of the big parties have changed in the past. But why go that route? Politics shouldn't be an us-vs.-them death match. Government is supposed to be about the people's values, not their parties. Or so I learned in elementary school.
Instead of these party-line picture books, I'd advise parents to invest in copies of my favorite children's book, "The Sneetches." It's a lesser-known Seussian masterpiece about creatures who despise each other solely because of the presence or absence of a star on their bellies. Only after they've been scammed by a sleazeball salesman, who capitalizes on their mutual hatred and fear, do the Sneetches realize how equally, identically, indistinguishably childish both sides had really been.
The writer is a member of the editorial page staff. Her e-mail address is rampellc@washpost.com.
What will Marra learn in New Hampshire, and what political leader will step forward to capture her loyalty and respect? And will they be the winner? Does it matter?
JS
Monday, August 13, 2007
Am I Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?
I believe that every parent, deep down inside, wants to relive parts of their lives vicariously through their children...by force, if necessary. There's a long line of Little League Dads and Stage Moms out there to support my theory. That's why I'm signing Thomas up for hockey in the fall...and eventually sending Lucy away to acting school...and bringing Marra to New Hampshire with me. I guess I'm no different, albeit more subtle. I want Marra to experience what I didn't, and I want to watch the seeds of political interest grow within her. You might say, I plan to consistently provide the fertilizer to help those ambitions flower within her.
I remember staying up til after 12 midnight to watch George McGovern draw the short straw and become the Democratic sacrificial lamb for President in 1972. I remember Tom Eagleton withdrawing from the ticket because of 'shocking' revelations of his past psychiatric treatments. I remember my older brother making a cassette tape recording from the television the night Nixon announced his resignation. It was history, and I was there.
I don't want Marra to grow up watching history on TV without at least once living it. Perhaps in New Hampshire, we can capture a moment together. She'll be living it, while I try to relive it.
In my few quiet moments, I do wonder if I'm rushing her a bit. Could the complexities of national policy be over her head? Then I recall my own politic awakenings, when I was only 10 or 11.
In the early Seventies, I remember racing home from St. Joseph the Carpenter grammar school in Roselle, NJ to watch the Watergate hearings being televised in the afternoon. I watched Peter Rodino and Sam Ervin grill witness after witness. I watched in spectacular black-and-white as articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon were voted out of committee. I had no idea what was going on, when I look back. It was clear that history was being made, though. Why else would after school game shows like Match Game be preempted?I remember staying up til after 12 midnight to watch George McGovern draw the short straw and become the Democratic sacrificial lamb for President in 1972. I remember Tom Eagleton withdrawing from the ticket because of 'shocking' revelations of his past psychiatric treatments. I remember my older brother making a cassette tape recording from the television the night Nixon announced his resignation. It was history, and I was there.
I don't want Marra to grow up watching history on TV without at least once living it. Perhaps in New Hampshire, we can capture a moment together. She'll be living it, while I try to relive it.
Then again, maybe she is too young. My sister was kind enough to send me history essay question responses from sixth graders, and it raises some doubts for me. Here are 2 samples:
"Delegates from the original 13 states formed the Contented Congress. Thomas Jefferson, a virgin, and Benjamin Franklinn were to 2 singers of the Declaration of Independence. Franklin discovered electricity by rubbing two cats backward and declared, "a horse divided against itself can not stand." Franklin died in 1790 and is still dead."
"Abraham Lincoln was America's greatest precedent. Lincoln's mother died in infancy, and he was born in a log cabin which he built with his own hands. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves by signing the Emasculation Proclamation . On the night of April 14, 1865, Lincoln went to the theater and got shot in his seat by one of the actors in the moving picture show. They believe the assinator was John Wilkes Booth, a suposingly insane actor. This ruined Booth's career."
I'd better start quizzing her on US history now.
JS
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Thinning the Herd: Tommy Thompson, We Hardly Knew Ya!
The first non-event event of the presidential nominating season is over. The Iowa Straw Poll, a thinly veiled Iowa Republican party fundraiser masquerading as an election, has gone to the man who bought the most votes, mulit-millionaire Mitt Romney. He is now considered the top candidate among the lower tier of candidates, the most formidable of the future also-rans. He must be very proud. For every $35 ticket he purchased for the masses to attend the straw poll and cast a vote for him, he received at least ten times the return in free national press. Maybe the White House is for sale.
The worst news coming out of this poll is that Tommy Thompson, former two-term governor of Wisconsin, former Secretary of HHS, and godfather of welfare-to-work, is reportedly ready to fold his campaign. This is not bad news because the country will miss out on his extraordinary leadership qualities and his charismatic speaking style. We won't. It is bad news because the field for New Hampshire is getting smaller. Marra and I want to see LOTS of candidates, and every candidate who drops out makes each October campaign event a tougher ticket for us. Of course, Tommy Thompson wasn't going to draw half of McCain's crowd from a Manchester town hall meeting, but someone would attend. Now that someone will be in OUR way, as we jockey for a good seat close to the stage. People were bound to quit eventually, but we were hoping it would happen after our trip, not before.
T. Thompson isn't the first to fall. Several fell out of contention before the election season even got going. Bill Frist chickened out last year. George Allen got "macaca-ed". Tom Vilsack of Iowa practically announced and withdrew the same day. Evan Bayh and Russ Feingold decided to wait for a veep phone call rather than raise money for 2 years in a losing effort. George Pataki? That guy dropped off the map completely. All were contenders according to the pundits. Now they are all pretenders in the history books. When the story of the 2008 election is written, these names barely make the prologue.
Perhaps things will turn in our favor, and the field will expand before October 13th. Fred Thompson could replace Tommy Thompson. Newt Gingrich could bring his kinder, gentler professorial style to the race. Who knows? Maybe the Bloomburg-Hagel independent ticket will begin its exploratory committee work in time for our trip. Now that would be fun. One can always hope.
JS
The worst news coming out of this poll is that Tommy Thompson, former two-term governor of Wisconsin, former Secretary of HHS, and godfather of welfare-to-work, is reportedly ready to fold his campaign. This is not bad news because the country will miss out on his extraordinary leadership qualities and his charismatic speaking style. We won't. It is bad news because the field for New Hampshire is getting smaller. Marra and I want to see LOTS of candidates, and every candidate who drops out makes each October campaign event a tougher ticket for us. Of course, Tommy Thompson wasn't going to draw half of McCain's crowd from a Manchester town hall meeting, but someone would attend. Now that someone will be in OUR way, as we jockey for a good seat close to the stage. People were bound to quit eventually, but we were hoping it would happen after our trip, not before.
T. Thompson isn't the first to fall. Several fell out of contention before the election season even got going. Bill Frist chickened out last year. George Allen got "macaca-ed". Tom Vilsack of Iowa practically announced and withdrew the same day. Evan Bayh and Russ Feingold decided to wait for a veep phone call rather than raise money for 2 years in a losing effort. George Pataki? That guy dropped off the map completely. All were contenders according to the pundits. Now they are all pretenders in the history books. When the story of the 2008 election is written, these names barely make the prologue.
Perhaps things will turn in our favor, and the field will expand before October 13th. Fred Thompson could replace Tommy Thompson. Newt Gingrich could bring his kinder, gentler professorial style to the race. Who knows? Maybe the Bloomburg-Hagel independent ticket will begin its exploratory committee work in time for our trip. Now that would be fun. One can always hope.
JS
Friday, August 10, 2007
The Comeback Family
I've profiled several candidates so far in this blog, but I have not yet written about the the most divisive, most highly charged, most highly anticipated candidacy this season. Let's start today.
Hillary.
That's pretty much all you need to hear, and your blood pressure goes up, either with excitement or dread. According to the polls, half of you are silently saying, "I hate her and everything she stands for" while the other half is thinking, "I can't wait til she gets in that Oval Office and fixes this mess".
After 15 years in the national spotlight, you'd think I'd have a more established opinion about her. I don't. I sometimes think I'm the only one still making up my mind about her. The reason I haven't ruled her out as a viable option - I call it "Right Wing Backlash".
When it comes to the Right's coverage of anything Hillary (or Bill for that matter), I am reminded of the Shakespeare line, "I think thou dost protest too much". Are Republicans worried that without Hillary as their 2008 general election opponent, they will have lost their most effective fundraising bell to ring - fear of Bill with power again?
I don't like some of the unfair treatment I see her getting. Recent example: I don't typically watch the cable politi-tainment shows, but I surfed past Sean Hannity interviewing a Clinton staffer. He asked this question: "Wouldn't an American victory in Iraq hurt Hillary politically?" His overt implication, and the idea he hoped to imprint on his listeners, is that Hilliary is actively engaged in sabotaging the American efforts in Iraq to secure her chances of being elected. I am an admitted cynic, but are you kidding me? Hannity asked the equivalent of the classic backhanded question, "Do you still beat your wife?", and he works for the 'fair and balanced' network. I have already had 2 friends launch preemptive strikes, letting me know that consideration of a vote for Hillary was either treasonous or plain stupid. And this is before I even raised the subject.
If this represents the early level of divisiveness that I can expect during a Clinton administration, perhaps that is enough reason to reject her candidacy. She could have great plans (not sure she does), but her odds of implementing anything meaningful while the Right distracts America with demands for Independent Counsel investigations on everything from Bill's pardons to Hillary's choice of shoes could be too much to overcome.
I will listen to her, and allow her to make her case. I will also review her actions over her past years in Washington very closely. As a good HR professional, I know that past performance is the best predictor of future behavior, so Marra and I will need to delve beyond the speeches and the public displays. We'll need to weed through the conservative hate books and the liberal love letters. We will have to look at her record, one issue at a time.
Since Hillary's money is sure to hold out for awhile, I'm sure I'll be writing again about her soon. Love her or hate her, I hope I get her picture with Marra.
JS
Hillary.
That's pretty much all you need to hear, and your blood pressure goes up, either with excitement or dread. According to the polls, half of you are silently saying, "I hate her and everything she stands for" while the other half is thinking, "I can't wait til she gets in that Oval Office and fixes this mess".
After 15 years in the national spotlight, you'd think I'd have a more established opinion about her. I don't. I sometimes think I'm the only one still making up my mind about her. The reason I haven't ruled her out as a viable option - I call it "Right Wing Backlash".
When it comes to the Right's coverage of anything Hillary (or Bill for that matter), I am reminded of the Shakespeare line, "I think thou dost protest too much". Are Republicans worried that without Hillary as their 2008 general election opponent, they will have lost their most effective fundraising bell to ring - fear of Bill with power again?
I don't like some of the unfair treatment I see her getting. Recent example: I don't typically watch the cable politi-tainment shows, but I surfed past Sean Hannity interviewing a Clinton staffer. He asked this question: "Wouldn't an American victory in Iraq hurt Hillary politically?" His overt implication, and the idea he hoped to imprint on his listeners, is that Hilliary is actively engaged in sabotaging the American efforts in Iraq to secure her chances of being elected. I am an admitted cynic, but are you kidding me? Hannity asked the equivalent of the classic backhanded question, "Do you still beat your wife?", and he works for the 'fair and balanced' network. I have already had 2 friends launch preemptive strikes, letting me know that consideration of a vote for Hillary was either treasonous or plain stupid. And this is before I even raised the subject.
If this represents the early level of divisiveness that I can expect during a Clinton administration, perhaps that is enough reason to reject her candidacy. She could have great plans (not sure she does), but her odds of implementing anything meaningful while the Right distracts America with demands for Independent Counsel investigations on everything from Bill's pardons to Hillary's choice of shoes could be too much to overcome.
I will listen to her, and allow her to make her case. I will also review her actions over her past years in Washington very closely. As a good HR professional, I know that past performance is the best predictor of future behavior, so Marra and I will need to delve beyond the speeches and the public displays. We'll need to weed through the conservative hate books and the liberal love letters. We will have to look at her record, one issue at a time.
Since Hillary's money is sure to hold out for awhile, I'm sure I'll be writing again about her soon. Love her or hate her, I hope I get her picture with Marra.
JS
Thursday, August 9, 2007
McCain Lost But Not Forgotten
As Zell Miller, the former governor of Georgia and Democrat in name only, shouted his invective-filled keynote revenge rant during the 2004 Republican National Convention, the party faithful on the floor screamed with approval and blood thirsty enthusiasm. Miller was reaching across the aisle with red meat anti-Kerry rhetoric and the crowd was loving it. For anyone not in the hall, however, viewing the speech from the comfort of their living couch, it was a keynote address that summed up everything the "folks" hate about the political parties in America. It was one ugly pep talk.
Immediately afterwards, NBC had Republican runner-up for the nomination, John McCain, in the booth for his reaction and comments. McCain had no time to prepare his thoughts, let alone script any remarks, between the time the speech ended and the cameras were on him. The first question: "Senator, what did you think of Zell Miller's speech?" Without hesitation, McCain replied, "I didn't care for it." He then went on to tell us that he felt that Miller's address crossed the line, and was far too personal an attack against Kerry. At that moment, I knew that our country had missed out on someone special in John McCain. In the middle of the Republican coronation party for W, when party unity isn't just a friendly suggestion but a strictly enforced requirement, when all matter of election year hyperbole is encouraged and rewarded, McCain spoke his mind (and I think the truth, too).
The media has given him up for dead this cycle. His fund raising efforts have been far below expectations, and he has purged much of his senior campaign staff in the past few months. He's flying commercial, and he isn't generating any "buzz". It looks to me like he plays better from behind anyway, and that the role of front runner doesn't complement his style or accentuate his strengths. When a man not even in the race, Fred Thompson, can poll at 13% in Iowa, that says to me that the Republican faithful are dissatisfied with their front runners, Guiliani and Romney. That is McCain's opening, and don't be surprised if he breaks through.
I want to hear him take questions while we're in NH, and that will be a priority for us. I don't always agree with McCain, and his role as The Great Compromiser in the Senate could work against him. One thing I'll say, though, is he is a leader. That's a good start. Now if he only had better hair...
JS
Immediately afterwards, NBC had Republican runner-up for the nomination, John McCain, in the booth for his reaction and comments. McCain had no time to prepare his thoughts, let alone script any remarks, between the time the speech ended and the cameras were on him. The first question: "Senator, what did you think of Zell Miller's speech?" Without hesitation, McCain replied, "I didn't care for it." He then went on to tell us that he felt that Miller's address crossed the line, and was far too personal an attack against Kerry. At that moment, I knew that our country had missed out on someone special in John McCain. In the middle of the Republican coronation party for W, when party unity isn't just a friendly suggestion but a strictly enforced requirement, when all matter of election year hyperbole is encouraged and rewarded, McCain spoke his mind (and I think the truth, too).
The media has given him up for dead this cycle. His fund raising efforts have been far below expectations, and he has purged much of his senior campaign staff in the past few months. He's flying commercial, and he isn't generating any "buzz". It looks to me like he plays better from behind anyway, and that the role of front runner doesn't complement his style or accentuate his strengths. When a man not even in the race, Fred Thompson, can poll at 13% in Iowa, that says to me that the Republican faithful are dissatisfied with their front runners, Guiliani and Romney. That is McCain's opening, and don't be surprised if he breaks through.
I want to hear him take questions while we're in NH, and that will be a priority for us. I don't always agree with McCain, and his role as The Great Compromiser in the Senate could work against him. One thing I'll say, though, is he is a leader. That's a good start. Now if he only had better hair...
JS
Monday, August 6, 2007
The Real Homework
I have debated whether or not pulling Marra from school for 4 days during October can be justified. I struggled with the thought that I am creating for her a precedent that there are good reasons to skip out on school. I can't have her throwing this back at me one day ("But Dad, remember you let me skip school that time when we..."). Yes, I plan it to be a working trip for the both of us, but it is not math and science class, and the names of the various campaign managers and staffers in NH will not be on the Virginia SOLs. So, I need some goals for the trip, specific lessons to be taught. After all, I'm supposedly one of her 2 best and most influential teachers in life...regardless of my academic qualifications.
Here's the preliminary core lesson plan:
It takes work: My children have been blessed with natural smarts, and one could coast through elementary school and some high school on that alone; however, if Marra doesn't learn that hard work is essential, she could ultimately be left behind, in school and in life. While in New Hampshire, I hope we see volunteers really working for their candidates, sweating the details - accomplishing more with their passion and effort than with their God-given brains. I hope she sees the value, if not the immediate gratification, of hard work.
Value Teamwork: The candidates may get all the glory and notoriety, but it is the inner functioning of their teams that moves a campaign forward. I want Marra to come home having experienced a real team, accomplishing more together than they could have apart.
Talk to strangers: Every parent who watches Dateline or any other of those fear factor news programs knows that kids have to be taught NOT to talk to strangers. Important lesson for kids as they grow. As Marra matures in the coming years, I want her to exercise sound judgment, yes, but I also want her to see that meeting new people in appropriate settings is a vital life skill. We must reach out and be willing to communicate with new people, and Marra needs me to model that behavior successfully.
Recognize a bullsh*t answer: Ah, this is a critical thinking skill. Marra will hear many answers to many questions during our trip. Many of those answers will bear no relationship to the question, or will allow for multiple interpretations by different listeners. I would like Marra to learn to recognize when a question is not answered (of course, this skill must remain dormant when I avoid her questions about my formative years. Don't want to freak her out.). With some coaching, perhaps she could also learn to follow up with the person when her question is not answered. How priceless would it be to have Marra get a question answered by a candidate, and then hear her say, "Thank you, but you didn't really answer my question, did you?" Can you say "You've been YouTubed!!!"
Participate in making things better: "Decisions are made by those who show up". Great quote, and I don't know the origin. I heard it on "The West Wing" (sometimes known as "The Left Wing") and it stuck for me. Marra and I will meet people motivated by their passion to make the world, or at least their part of it, better for everyone. Even those with whom we may disagree will be in New Hampshire with noble intentions (except the neo-cons), working often for no money to see that the message of their chosen leader is heard, acknowledged, and considered.
It is big world: We live in the richest country in the world, in one of the richest counties in the country. Believe me, I tell her all the time that we are not rich, but relative to the world, we are wealthy beyond imagination. There is more to this world, and while I am not ready to sign Marra up for the Peace Corps, I do want to expand her vision slightly beyond her own bedroom walls and her own possessions. Frankly, I could use that lesson, too.
I end with this quote:
"They say that these are not the best of times
But there the only times I'll ever know."
Billy Joel - "Summer, Highland Falls"
These are her times, and I hope that she will one day look back on our little excursion north and say, "I was a part of something important."
JS
Here's the preliminary core lesson plan:
It takes work: My children have been blessed with natural smarts, and one could coast through elementary school and some high school on that alone; however, if Marra doesn't learn that hard work is essential, she could ultimately be left behind, in school and in life. While in New Hampshire, I hope we see volunteers really working for their candidates, sweating the details - accomplishing more with their passion and effort than with their God-given brains. I hope she sees the value, if not the immediate gratification, of hard work.
Value Teamwork: The candidates may get all the glory and notoriety, but it is the inner functioning of their teams that moves a campaign forward. I want Marra to come home having experienced a real team, accomplishing more together than they could have apart.
Talk to strangers: Every parent who watches Dateline or any other of those fear factor news programs knows that kids have to be taught NOT to talk to strangers. Important lesson for kids as they grow. As Marra matures in the coming years, I want her to exercise sound judgment, yes, but I also want her to see that meeting new people in appropriate settings is a vital life skill. We must reach out and be willing to communicate with new people, and Marra needs me to model that behavior successfully.
Recognize a bullsh*t answer: Ah, this is a critical thinking skill. Marra will hear many answers to many questions during our trip. Many of those answers will bear no relationship to the question, or will allow for multiple interpretations by different listeners. I would like Marra to learn to recognize when a question is not answered (of course, this skill must remain dormant when I avoid her questions about my formative years. Don't want to freak her out.). With some coaching, perhaps she could also learn to follow up with the person when her question is not answered. How priceless would it be to have Marra get a question answered by a candidate, and then hear her say, "Thank you, but you didn't really answer my question, did you?" Can you say "You've been YouTubed!!!"
Participate in making things better: "Decisions are made by those who show up". Great quote, and I don't know the origin. I heard it on "The West Wing" (sometimes known as "The Left Wing") and it stuck for me. Marra and I will meet people motivated by their passion to make the world, or at least their part of it, better for everyone. Even those with whom we may disagree will be in New Hampshire with noble intentions (except the neo-cons), working often for no money to see that the message of their chosen leader is heard, acknowledged, and considered.
It is big world: We live in the richest country in the world, in one of the richest counties in the country. Believe me, I tell her all the time that we are not rich, but relative to the world, we are wealthy beyond imagination. There is more to this world, and while I am not ready to sign Marra up for the Peace Corps, I do want to expand her vision slightly beyond her own bedroom walls and her own possessions. Frankly, I could use that lesson, too.
I end with this quote:
"They say that these are not the best of times
But there the only times I'll ever know."
Billy Joel - "Summer, Highland Falls"
These are her times, and I hope that she will one day look back on our little excursion north and say, "I was a part of something important."
JS
Sunday, August 5, 2007
News Flash: No Ethanol Questions in Iowa Today!
I begin with a brief apology - I feel I was a bit rough on the blogging community in my previous post. The crack about "would-be novelists" was uncalled for. I am learning that blogging with meanness is easier and more interesting than blogging with fairness and niceness. Good lesson. I'll edit myself more closely, but try to keep in the interesting stuff.
This morning, I enjoyed a political junkie's delight - I watched the Republican presidential candidates debate in Des Moines on ABC's "This Week" program. The delight part was that I was uninterrupted, as Cherie has taken the kids on a little trip for a few days. It's awfully quiet here without them, but the good news is it's awfully quiet around here. I am a portrait of FOCUS in their absence. I am also a portrait in LOUD in the evenings in their absence.
The debate, moderated by George Steph....olos, former wonder boy Press Secretary to Bill Clinton, began with a troubling set of stats. Troubling because they were presented at all. Before the first question was asked, George Steph...olos reviewed the latest poll standing of each candidate in Iowa. Romney leading, McCain on life support, Fred Thompson (not a declared candidate and not a participant in the debate) running at 13%, Tancredo and Tommy Thompson basically invisible. The morning's conversation, apparently, was going to be more about who's up and who's down than who has the best ideas and experience to implement those ideas. I felt that the horse race stats diminished some of the candidates before they even had a chance to open their mouths. That's a shame. It seemed to me that a first time viewer should see everyone on that stage as an equal, and perhaps form their own opinion over time. It got worse later when a commercial break in the proceedings began with the question, "Tell us who's winning the debate" at abcnews.com. More game show gimmicks for a process that shouldn't need a leaderboard posted every few minutes. It stops voters from considering all options, and funnels their interest too narrowly, too early.
For today, let's look at those candidates who said things that made me think, "What is he thinking?"
Tancredo stood by his earlier comment that we should threaten to bomb Islamic holy sites in order to deter future terrorists. Thank goodness Tommy Thompson correctly pointed out to Tancredo that if he bombed Mecca, Al Qaeda would have 1 billion new members the next day. Tancredo is not in my top 50 at this point.
Sam Brownback, the most hard core evangelical candidate for the Republicans this time around, said that if elected, he would put a judge on the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Excuse me, pretty sure that the judicial branch is supposed to be an independent body, not another department in the White House. Is he saying that any nominee for the Court would need to tell him how he/she would rule on that case before being submitted for confirmation? Are there other court cases that this judge would need to rule on for Brownback before hearing the case? I understand Brownback's cause, but sadly for him, he's running for President of the United States, and we have three branches of government. He'll need to work within the system.
Tommy Thompson vowed to cure breast cancer by the year 2015. Now, when political candidates tell me that they can cure a disease, I think we can safely say that they are overreaching, don't you think? (Unless, of course, Bill Frist says it - he can diagnose brain conditions over a TV screen, don't you know.)
Both Guiliani and Romney stated unequivocally that they "support the 2nd Amendment". I guess that begs the question, are there other Amendments that you don't support? And by the way, I believe that many gun control advocates support the 2nd Amendment as well, but they interpret the Amendment differently than the NRA. So, nice pander, but not sure that tells me anything, except that you both desperately want the NRA to like you and vote for you.
When Ron Paul, the Libertarian candidate pretending to be a Republican candidate, voiced his opinion that we need to leave Iraq now, Mitt Romney was on screen muttering, "Has he forgotten about 9-11?" Excuse me, Mitt, but can we once and for all accept the fact that the Iraq War had nothing to do with 9-11, but has over time, through repeated administration statements, become linked to those events? Al Qaeda is in Iraq because we deposed the secular leader of that country and left the doors open for the bad guys. Can we now move on to how to we repair a broken situation?
Mike Huckabee, the other Man from Hope, told us that it is time that we "end our dependence on foreign oil". Governor Moonbeam, Democrat Jerry Brown, was on this issue 30 years ago, and nothing has changed, at least not for the better. Does Huckabee mean we should focus our resources on renewable energy, including nuclear, or does he mean that we should be drilling for oil in every backyard in America, especially if you live in Alaska? Not sure, but that would be an important follow up question.
All in all, I am mostly encouraged by the crop of available candidates on both sides so far. While there is no one that has risen to the top of either Party in my view, at least 90% of the announced candidates are serious contenders with serious, well considered views...now that Gilmore is out.
I hope we meet Ron Paul in New Hampshire. I want to have lunch with THAT guy. Crazy like a fox.
JS
This morning, I enjoyed a political junkie's delight - I watched the Republican presidential candidates debate in Des Moines on ABC's "This Week" program. The delight part was that I was uninterrupted, as Cherie has taken the kids on a little trip for a few days. It's awfully quiet here without them, but the good news is it's awfully quiet around here. I am a portrait of FOCUS in their absence. I am also a portrait in LOUD in the evenings in their absence.
The debate, moderated by George Steph....olos, former wonder boy Press Secretary to Bill Clinton, began with a troubling set of stats. Troubling because they were presented at all. Before the first question was asked, George Steph...olos reviewed the latest poll standing of each candidate in Iowa. Romney leading, McCain on life support, Fred Thompson (not a declared candidate and not a participant in the debate) running at 13%, Tancredo and Tommy Thompson basically invisible. The morning's conversation, apparently, was going to be more about who's up and who's down than who has the best ideas and experience to implement those ideas. I felt that the horse race stats diminished some of the candidates before they even had a chance to open their mouths. That's a shame. It seemed to me that a first time viewer should see everyone on that stage as an equal, and perhaps form their own opinion over time. It got worse later when a commercial break in the proceedings began with the question, "Tell us who's winning the debate" at abcnews.com. More game show gimmicks for a process that shouldn't need a leaderboard posted every few minutes. It stops voters from considering all options, and funnels their interest too narrowly, too early.
For today, let's look at those candidates who said things that made me think, "What is he thinking?"
Tancredo stood by his earlier comment that we should threaten to bomb Islamic holy sites in order to deter future terrorists. Thank goodness Tommy Thompson correctly pointed out to Tancredo that if he bombed Mecca, Al Qaeda would have 1 billion new members the next day. Tancredo is not in my top 50 at this point.
Sam Brownback, the most hard core evangelical candidate for the Republicans this time around, said that if elected, he would put a judge on the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Excuse me, pretty sure that the judicial branch is supposed to be an independent body, not another department in the White House. Is he saying that any nominee for the Court would need to tell him how he/she would rule on that case before being submitted for confirmation? Are there other court cases that this judge would need to rule on for Brownback before hearing the case? I understand Brownback's cause, but sadly for him, he's running for President of the United States, and we have three branches of government. He'll need to work within the system.
Tommy Thompson vowed to cure breast cancer by the year 2015. Now, when political candidates tell me that they can cure a disease, I think we can safely say that they are overreaching, don't you think? (Unless, of course, Bill Frist says it - he can diagnose brain conditions over a TV screen, don't you know.)
Both Guiliani and Romney stated unequivocally that they "support the 2nd Amendment". I guess that begs the question, are there other Amendments that you don't support? And by the way, I believe that many gun control advocates support the 2nd Amendment as well, but they interpret the Amendment differently than the NRA. So, nice pander, but not sure that tells me anything, except that you both desperately want the NRA to like you and vote for you.
When Ron Paul, the Libertarian candidate pretending to be a Republican candidate, voiced his opinion that we need to leave Iraq now, Mitt Romney was on screen muttering, "Has he forgotten about 9-11?" Excuse me, Mitt, but can we once and for all accept the fact that the Iraq War had nothing to do with 9-11, but has over time, through repeated administration statements, become linked to those events? Al Qaeda is in Iraq because we deposed the secular leader of that country and left the doors open for the bad guys. Can we now move on to how to we repair a broken situation?
Mike Huckabee, the other Man from Hope, told us that it is time that we "end our dependence on foreign oil". Governor Moonbeam, Democrat Jerry Brown, was on this issue 30 years ago, and nothing has changed, at least not for the better. Does Huckabee mean we should focus our resources on renewable energy, including nuclear, or does he mean that we should be drilling for oil in every backyard in America, especially if you live in Alaska? Not sure, but that would be an important follow up question.
All in all, I am mostly encouraged by the crop of available candidates on both sides so far. While there is no one that has risen to the top of either Party in my view, at least 90% of the announced candidates are serious contenders with serious, well considered views...now that Gilmore is out.
I hope we meet Ron Paul in New Hampshire. I want to have lunch with THAT guy. Crazy like a fox.
JS
Saturday, August 4, 2007
For Those About to Blog...
Today in Chicago, the Democratic candidates for President (7 out of 8, anyway) gathered to pay homage (and give out free promotional T-shirts) to 1,500 liberal bloggers at the Yearly Kos convention. From the little I've read, every candidate supplied the proper red meat for their blue state base, everything from universal health care to high emissions standards to promises to reverse the rotation of the earth so that the Iraq war never started. I'm glad I missed it. The political cynic in me cannot handle too much blatant pandering in one conference.
I have come to accept that one person's special interest group is another person's constituency, but the whole group of hopefuls all kowtowing to a far left agenda, all in one day in one place, to what is arguably a fringe group of frustrated, part-time, struggling would-be novelists would be too much for this Watergate Democrat. Even I think an event like that would need some "fair and balanced" ideas to keep it watchable.
(The flip side is that it's about time that the liberals found an effective way to at least begin cutting into the power of the Republican talk radio/cable news machine monopoly. Perhaps next year, the Kos convention will have 15,000 leftie attendees, all with Sean Hannity's home email address.)
Of course, I was encouraged to hear that bloggers as a group are now courted directly by the campaigns. And since I am blogging now, perhaps the various campaigns would be interested in pandering to me and my family. How about a tax break for owners of pre-1996 Volvo station wagons? For that small piece of pork, I'd be willing to post a favorable blog about Jimmy Carter's 1978 human rights agenda, or even paste on a liberal-leaning bumper sticker (how about "Your Karma Ran Over My Dogma", perhaps my favorite nonsense message of all?). I guess since candidates are all hot for bloggers now, I must ask that you please forward my web address to the candidate of your choice. Let's see if he/she will want to personally try to earn my vote. That's all I really want - to be pandered to. I am not a special interest group. I am a constituent.
I'll have to work on controlling my cynicism before I reach Manchester.
JS
I have come to accept that one person's special interest group is another person's constituency, but the whole group of hopefuls all kowtowing to a far left agenda, all in one day in one place, to what is arguably a fringe group of frustrated, part-time, struggling would-be novelists would be too much for this Watergate Democrat. Even I think an event like that would need some "fair and balanced" ideas to keep it watchable.
(The flip side is that it's about time that the liberals found an effective way to at least begin cutting into the power of the Republican talk radio/cable news machine monopoly. Perhaps next year, the Kos convention will have 15,000 leftie attendees, all with Sean Hannity's home email address.)
Of course, I was encouraged to hear that bloggers as a group are now courted directly by the campaigns. And since I am blogging now, perhaps the various campaigns would be interested in pandering to me and my family. How about a tax break for owners of pre-1996 Volvo station wagons? For that small piece of pork, I'd be willing to post a favorable blog about Jimmy Carter's 1978 human rights agenda, or even paste on a liberal-leaning bumper sticker (how about "Your Karma Ran Over My Dogma", perhaps my favorite nonsense message of all?). I guess since candidates are all hot for bloggers now, I must ask that you please forward my web address to the candidate of your choice. Let's see if he/she will want to personally try to earn my vote. That's all I really want - to be pandered to. I am not a special interest group. I am a constituent.
I'll have to work on controlling my cynicism before I reach Manchester.
JS
Thursday, August 2, 2007
It's All About the Hair
I've discussed a few Republican candidates in previous posts - Hunter, Gilmore, Guiliani, Romney - so now it's time to take a first impression look at a Dem. This time, however, I wanted to engage Marra in the process. I wanted to get the 11 year old perspective in a generic way, and I wanted to evaluate her depth of understanding of some of the issues. I needed to temper my own expectations with some realism of the fact that she is only 11. I sometimes get carried away...
The candidate selection this time was easy. Marra wanted to look more at John Edwards. As you may recall, she scored him an astonishing 10 smiley faces (and no frowny faces) for his responses during the CNN/You Tube debate last week. So her curiosity was piqued. I started her at his official website, pointed her to the link for "Issues", and I left the room. I'm trying not to hover, while I'm busting out of my skin waiting for her to slowly become engaged in all this political nonsense. Only 9 more weeks to go before the trip!
"Can I watch this video, Daddy?" she shouted from the office. "Sure", I called back. It's the candidate's website, and Edwards has small children at home. I'm not worried about content.
"Daddy, what's all this about hair?"
Great. She was watching his You Tube-style video, poking fun at his own hair and the national obsession with the price and quality of his haircuts. High level policy stuff. I explained "Hair-gate" to her as simply as possible. I made a mental note that in New Hampshire, half my time will be spent explaining the ridiculous personality dramas and minor campaign turf battles that are inflated to drive interest in cable TV programming. Not sure yet what the other half of my time will be spent doing, but we'll save that for another posting.
Marra read his introductory statement about what he wants for America - his vision statement, as it were. Her comment - "I understand all the words, but I don't know what he's saying."
I read the statement myself, and I silently agreed with her. It struck me as very much like Edwards. He was trying to make me FEEL his passion. He wants to win my vote with an emotional appeal. The guy must have been a great trial lawyer. He certainly knows the buttons to push to connect with the "folks".
"That's rhetoric, Marra." Tough concept to impart on a pre-teen. My attempt: "It's a lot of meaningful words strung together to make you think he is saying something meaningful. And it works, a lot of the time." That hurt to admit.
She liked his position on education, advocating smaller schools. I didn't break the news to her that every candidate advocates smaller schools and classroom size, and that most education decisions are made locally, not nationally. I needed to encourage her gently, not make any sudden movements and scare her away from the process. I can be patient...for now.
For me so far, Edwards is still the class warfare candidate, the one who likes to pit Rich vs. Poor, Big vs. Small. I am not sure how dividing the nation in this manner makes him the candidate best suited to bring us together. As I have said, however, I will remain objective (as long as possible).
So Marra has begun looking at candidate positions on their websites. We will crawl first, then we will walk. Like I said, we still have 9 weeks to go.
JS
The candidate selection this time was easy. Marra wanted to look more at John Edwards. As you may recall, she scored him an astonishing 10 smiley faces (and no frowny faces) for his responses during the CNN/You Tube debate last week. So her curiosity was piqued. I started her at his official website, pointed her to the link for "Issues", and I left the room. I'm trying not to hover, while I'm busting out of my skin waiting for her to slowly become engaged in all this political nonsense. Only 9 more weeks to go before the trip!
"Can I watch this video, Daddy?" she shouted from the office. "Sure", I called back. It's the candidate's website, and Edwards has small children at home. I'm not worried about content.
"Daddy, what's all this about hair?"
Great. She was watching his You Tube-style video, poking fun at his own hair and the national obsession with the price and quality of his haircuts. High level policy stuff. I explained "Hair-gate" to her as simply as possible. I made a mental note that in New Hampshire, half my time will be spent explaining the ridiculous personality dramas and minor campaign turf battles that are inflated to drive interest in cable TV programming. Not sure yet what the other half of my time will be spent doing, but we'll save that for another posting.
Marra read his introductory statement about what he wants for America - his vision statement, as it were. Her comment - "I understand all the words, but I don't know what he's saying."
I read the statement myself, and I silently agreed with her. It struck me as very much like Edwards. He was trying to make me FEEL his passion. He wants to win my vote with an emotional appeal. The guy must have been a great trial lawyer. He certainly knows the buttons to push to connect with the "folks".
"That's rhetoric, Marra." Tough concept to impart on a pre-teen. My attempt: "It's a lot of meaningful words strung together to make you think he is saying something meaningful. And it works, a lot of the time." That hurt to admit.
She liked his position on education, advocating smaller schools. I didn't break the news to her that every candidate advocates smaller schools and classroom size, and that most education decisions are made locally, not nationally. I needed to encourage her gently, not make any sudden movements and scare her away from the process. I can be patient...for now.
For me so far, Edwards is still the class warfare candidate, the one who likes to pit Rich vs. Poor, Big vs. Small. I am not sure how dividing the nation in this manner makes him the candidate best suited to bring us together. As I have said, however, I will remain objective (as long as possible).
So Marra has begun looking at candidate positions on their websites. We will crawl first, then we will walk. Like I said, we still have 9 weeks to go.
JS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)