I spent 15 focused minutes with Democratic candidate for President, Mike Gravel, on Friday evening. He has served as the comic relief in the debates to this point, mostly taking away precious air time from the better known and better financed candidates. Now I understand why he is running, his basic political philosophy, and why weighing all points of views can potentially strengthen my final conclusions.
One of my regular channel surfing rest stops these days is CSPAN2, particularly a program called "Campaign 2008". It is a classic unscripted reality show, except there is no prize money for the winners, no scantily clad women fighting with other scantily clad women, and drama happens by accident, not by design. Watching "Campaign 2008" can be compared to watching grass grow at times, but remember - even watching grass grow can be interesting if you are a landscaper. And both "Campaign 2008" and grass growing have their fair share of screen time devoted to manure spreading. Sad as it may be to admit, CSPAN2 entertains me. A few days ago, it was a campaign look-in on Mike Gravel.
Most everyone in America has no idea who Mike Gravel is, so I will begin here: former two term Senator from Alaska, he has been out of the Senate since 1981. His claim to notoriety is his 1971 five-month long filibuster that he credits with forcing Nixon to end the draft. He also released the Pentagon Papers, insisting in the country's right to know what was happening in the Vietnam War. He is unapologetic about his confrontational style and his practice of "naming names" during the recent debates (he's been particularly tough on Hillary for using populist rhetoric on the stump while simultaneously wooing entrenched Washington interest groups to exchange contributions for policy input). His most famous expression from the televised debates, which he uses often, is "Follow the money" if you want to know where candidate loyalties lie.
In this "Campaign 2008" episode, Gravel is in Nevada, one of the early caucus states, meeting with a group of about 15 citizens, all wearing matching navy T-shirts with their cause emblazoned in gold on their chests, "I'm a Health Care Voter". The camera follows Gravel into what appears to be a classroom of sorts for the meeting. With the home video style of presentation, I feel intimately connected to the unfolding discussion on the screen. I am there in Nevada, and Gravel is calmly and systematically laying out the health care problem in this country. He does not exaggerate, he does not shout, he praises the plans of competitors and points out flaws in other plans. He doesn't overreach with statistics meant to scare the listeners, and he tells the group that education is a more critical issue for the nation than the cause on their shirts. He was engaging and very stimulating. I could understand why Alaskans would vote for him.
Will Mike Gravel be President? Maybe, but not of the United States - the Anchorage Rotary Club is a better bet. But seeing and hearing him in an unfiltered setting, being himself, educating the small gathering on the issues, making jokes, I came away not so much impressed, but hopeful - hopeful that Marra and I will soon be in a room with a statesman/stateswoman and share in that experience first hand. Give and take with a serious candidate for the Presidency of the United States. Looking at both sides of an issue and finding that achievable common ground. Is this a great country or WHAT?
JS
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
Scheduling Conflicts
With 3 kids, it can be difficult for me to meet all of the scheduled commitments on the kitchen wall calendar - sports practices, homework help, church activities, social engagements (although not many of those), serial blogging. It's even harder to say 'no' to invitations for more commitments. We want to think we can do it all. So perhaps I should be more forgiving to the 4 leading Republican Presidential candidates for skipping the Tavis Smalley Debate Forum last night at Morgan State University. Certainly, it can't be because these candidates were making a political calculation that appearing at a predominantly black college to answer questions of deep concern to the black community would make them look like weak liberal panderers to a minority group that wasn't going to vote for them anyway. It can't be because these candidates believed that Republican primary voters would punish them for listening to and addressing the issues of importance to the black community. It can't possibly be because the party of Lincoln is overtly racist (or at least doesn't fear appearing to be racist). In the year 2007, it can't be these reasons, can it?
There must be a logical explanation for Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Guiliani, and Fred Thompson to all have concrete plans for that evening, plans that couldn't be rearranged. I haven't heard them yet. Their collective absences spoke volumes, and they should be individually ashamed. Politics is sometimes all about image, and the 4 of these candidates have reinforced a lasting image of their Grand Old Party as the Party of the Grand Old White Man. What excuse could Fred Thompson possibly have for missing another debate of ideas? Alan Keyes has been a candidate for 10 minutes, and he was there! And I applaud the debate sponsors for leaving 4 empty podiums on the stage, as a constant reminder of this public snub. What a sad day for the nation. I think it was that serious.
On the Democratic side, all the declared candidates carved out time for MSNBC and Tim Russert, Washington's favorite Sunday morning bulldog, on Wednesday evening. Everyone clears their schedules for Tim, even though he can be a bit tough with the mousetrap-like questions. Here's a brief summary of that evening's fireworks:
Edwards went after Hillary all night long. He did his best job yet of drawing distinctions between his positions and Hillary's, without appearing desperate and mean. I felt he went too far for my tastes when he agreed that reading a book to 2nd graders about a prince who marries a prince was appropriate. Two points: discussing same sex relationships with 2nd graders, and abdicating that discussion to the school system instead of the parents? John, you've lost me there. I've been described as a liberal, and I teach my kids tolerance, but 2nd grade??? I can't agree.
Russert pounded Richardson on his contention that the woes of the Social Security system could be solved exclusively by growing the economy. In Richardson's view, no other measures would need to be taken to insure the solvency of the program. Russert offered stat after stat to demonstrate that Richardson was not recognizing the immensity of the problem, but Richardson didn't bend. Made Richardson look like Ford insisting that Poland was not under Soviet domination. How many of these mistakes has Richardson made this campaign season? I fear too many.
Most of the candidates supported a national law to ban smoking in public places. That raised a question for me: where is the line between the urgency of a national health issue, and state and local rights of self-determination? Why in this case must the Federal government step in, particularly when the product in question (tobacco) is legally sold and marketed in every state?
Mike Gravel, everyone's favorite wild card, was questioned by Russert about a personal bankruptcy from a few years back. He began his answer with a strong point - he didn't use the power of his office to enrich himself like the other candidates on the stage - and then said that he "stuck the credit card company with $90,000 in debt and they deserved it." Great role model, Mike. The credit card rate I now pay is higher because you declared bankruptcy to make a statement. Bravo.
I hope that when Marra and I are in New Hampshire that every candidate has a schedule that permits some time with us. We're accumulating a lot of questions, and we're going up there to get some answers. I understand that the solution to every issue has some shades of gray, but some things are Black and White. I'll remember to ask the Republican candidates about that.
JS
There must be a logical explanation for Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Guiliani, and Fred Thompson to all have concrete plans for that evening, plans that couldn't be rearranged. I haven't heard them yet. Their collective absences spoke volumes, and they should be individually ashamed. Politics is sometimes all about image, and the 4 of these candidates have reinforced a lasting image of their Grand Old Party as the Party of the Grand Old White Man. What excuse could Fred Thompson possibly have for missing another debate of ideas? Alan Keyes has been a candidate for 10 minutes, and he was there! And I applaud the debate sponsors for leaving 4 empty podiums on the stage, as a constant reminder of this public snub. What a sad day for the nation. I think it was that serious.
On the Democratic side, all the declared candidates carved out time for MSNBC and Tim Russert, Washington's favorite Sunday morning bulldog, on Wednesday evening. Everyone clears their schedules for Tim, even though he can be a bit tough with the mousetrap-like questions. Here's a brief summary of that evening's fireworks:
Edwards went after Hillary all night long. He did his best job yet of drawing distinctions between his positions and Hillary's, without appearing desperate and mean. I felt he went too far for my tastes when he agreed that reading a book to 2nd graders about a prince who marries a prince was appropriate. Two points: discussing same sex relationships with 2nd graders, and abdicating that discussion to the school system instead of the parents? John, you've lost me there. I've been described as a liberal, and I teach my kids tolerance, but 2nd grade??? I can't agree.
Russert pounded Richardson on his contention that the woes of the Social Security system could be solved exclusively by growing the economy. In Richardson's view, no other measures would need to be taken to insure the solvency of the program. Russert offered stat after stat to demonstrate that Richardson was not recognizing the immensity of the problem, but Richardson didn't bend. Made Richardson look like Ford insisting that Poland was not under Soviet domination. How many of these mistakes has Richardson made this campaign season? I fear too many.
Most of the candidates supported a national law to ban smoking in public places. That raised a question for me: where is the line between the urgency of a national health issue, and state and local rights of self-determination? Why in this case must the Federal government step in, particularly when the product in question (tobacco) is legally sold and marketed in every state?
Mike Gravel, everyone's favorite wild card, was questioned by Russert about a personal bankruptcy from a few years back. He began his answer with a strong point - he didn't use the power of his office to enrich himself like the other candidates on the stage - and then said that he "stuck the credit card company with $90,000 in debt and they deserved it." Great role model, Mike. The credit card rate I now pay is higher because you declared bankruptcy to make a statement. Bravo.
I hope that when Marra and I are in New Hampshire that every candidate has a schedule that permits some time with us. We're accumulating a lot of questions, and we're going up there to get some answers. I understand that the solution to every issue has some shades of gray, but some things are Black and White. I'll remember to ask the Republican candidates about that.
JS
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Two Ears, One Mouth - Good Advice
If there is one aspect of 21st century political life that I regret having to expose my eldest daughter to, it's the highly charged emotional rancor of the citizenry when talking politics. I cannot think of a topic simultaneously so popular and so socially painful. To turn a phrase from that 20th century philosopher, Forrest Gump, "(Political discussions) are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."
Last week, I informed Marra's art teacher that she would miss her scheduled class on October 17th. We would be in New Hampshire. Her first (and only) question to me was, "Who are you for?" Of course, I get this question all the time, and I know how to field this one. "We're not for anyone yet. That's one of the reasons we are traveling to New Hampshire. We want to meet the candidates and their supporters up close to help us make that decision."
As Marra will soon learn, however, that stock answer just isn't good enough for some. "But who do you think will win?" she pressed. An entirely different question, or so I thought. This question called for an objective analysis of current polling data, and a subjective review of the political winds. To answer this new question, I would need to dispassionately consider the primary and caucus calendars, the strength of the candidate organizations within those states, and their overall fundraising potential. I mentally collated my wealth of knowledge and responded with confidence.
"I believe that the Republicans, despite the national polls pointing to Guiliani, have an excellent chance of heading into their nominating convention without a consensus standard bearer. On the Democratic side, it will be difficult to stop Clinton from becoming the nominee, based on the strength of her organization and her seemingly endless supply of donors and money." Given the facts, all quite reasonable. But my answer was filtered through the prism of her original question, "Who are you for?"
What I said (and was not heard): "Hillary has the best chance to be the nominee for the Democrats."
What was heard (and never said): "I want Hillary because she is the best candidate in the race, and she represents everything that I hope America can become."
My actual response to the question was now erased from the history books. Marra's teacher's emotional genie was out of the bottle, and a tidal wave of talk radio talking points crashed down on my head. "...socialized medicine...government take over...in Europe, you have to wait 7 months to see a doctor...we aren't teaching responsibility and sacrifice to our children...why are the children taught to hate this country?"
I was being lectured at, not listened to. So I did what most of us have done in the past in similar situations. I kept nodding politely, not rebutting her inane contentions, and inched towards the nearest exit. I am sure that she felt, by my silence, that I agreed with every rant she made...and I did, to a point. I agree that waiting 7 months to see a doctor is too long. I agree that children need to learn responsibility. Our opinions parted company after that. Her implication that that proposed Clinton health care plan would cause heart attack victims to suffer for 7 months before diagnosis and treatment I could not accept. First of all, I'll wager she has not read the plan. Heck, it's only been out for a week! Frankly, I was frightened away from more discussion with her by the sheer intensity of her partisan blindness. Now I didn't want to listen. Five minutes later, I backed out the door, the perception of a cordial teacher-parent relationship intact for the both of us.
Marra witnessed and overheard this "exchange", so I felt the need to debrief her when we arrived at the car. "Marra," I began, "I'm sure you heard that your teacher has some strong opinions on politics and the political candidates. When we're in New Hampshire, we'll meet lots of people with strong opinions, and many will be very passionate and emotional about their views. When that happens, I will need your help - GET ME OUT OF THERE! Tell me you need to use the bathroom, you're hungry, you saw a ghost, ANYTHING. But you've got to save me, got it?"
"So you want me to lie?"
OK, so not the lesson I intended for her. My point, though, is this: To all my dozens of readers, don't scare off competing views with irrational one-sided rants. Believe it or not, that person you are speaking at might have a meaningful opinion that could shape your views in another direction. Don't scare that person away. Encourage the dialogue. You just might learn something.
JS
Last week, I informed Marra's art teacher that she would miss her scheduled class on October 17th. We would be in New Hampshire. Her first (and only) question to me was, "Who are you for?" Of course, I get this question all the time, and I know how to field this one. "We're not for anyone yet. That's one of the reasons we are traveling to New Hampshire. We want to meet the candidates and their supporters up close to help us make that decision."
As Marra will soon learn, however, that stock answer just isn't good enough for some. "But who do you think will win?" she pressed. An entirely different question, or so I thought. This question called for an objective analysis of current polling data, and a subjective review of the political winds. To answer this new question, I would need to dispassionately consider the primary and caucus calendars, the strength of the candidate organizations within those states, and their overall fundraising potential. I mentally collated my wealth of knowledge and responded with confidence.
"I believe that the Republicans, despite the national polls pointing to Guiliani, have an excellent chance of heading into their nominating convention without a consensus standard bearer. On the Democratic side, it will be difficult to stop Clinton from becoming the nominee, based on the strength of her organization and her seemingly endless supply of donors and money." Given the facts, all quite reasonable. But my answer was filtered through the prism of her original question, "Who are you for?"
What I said (and was not heard): "Hillary has the best chance to be the nominee for the Democrats."
What was heard (and never said): "I want Hillary because she is the best candidate in the race, and she represents everything that I hope America can become."
My actual response to the question was now erased from the history books. Marra's teacher's emotional genie was out of the bottle, and a tidal wave of talk radio talking points crashed down on my head. "...socialized medicine...government take over...in Europe, you have to wait 7 months to see a doctor...we aren't teaching responsibility and sacrifice to our children...why are the children taught to hate this country?"
I was being lectured at, not listened to. So I did what most of us have done in the past in similar situations. I kept nodding politely, not rebutting her inane contentions, and inched towards the nearest exit. I am sure that she felt, by my silence, that I agreed with every rant she made...and I did, to a point. I agree that waiting 7 months to see a doctor is too long. I agree that children need to learn responsibility. Our opinions parted company after that. Her implication that that proposed Clinton health care plan would cause heart attack victims to suffer for 7 months before diagnosis and treatment I could not accept. First of all, I'll wager she has not read the plan. Heck, it's only been out for a week! Frankly, I was frightened away from more discussion with her by the sheer intensity of her partisan blindness. Now I didn't want to listen. Five minutes later, I backed out the door, the perception of a cordial teacher-parent relationship intact for the both of us.
Marra witnessed and overheard this "exchange", so I felt the need to debrief her when we arrived at the car. "Marra," I began, "I'm sure you heard that your teacher has some strong opinions on politics and the political candidates. When we're in New Hampshire, we'll meet lots of people with strong opinions, and many will be very passionate and emotional about their views. When that happens, I will need your help - GET ME OUT OF THERE! Tell me you need to use the bathroom, you're hungry, you saw a ghost, ANYTHING. But you've got to save me, got it?"
"So you want me to lie?"
OK, so not the lesson I intended for her. My point, though, is this: To all my dozens of readers, don't scare off competing views with irrational one-sided rants. Believe it or not, that person you are speaking at might have a meaningful opinion that could shape your views in another direction. Don't scare that person away. Encourage the dialogue. You just might learn something.
JS
Monday, September 24, 2007
The Money Pit
Remember when you were 11 years old, and the greatest feeling in the world was getting your own personal piece of mail delivered to you? There was a thrill knowing that someone, somewhere cared enough that you existed to write a note, address an envelope, lick a stamp, and walk all the way to the red, white and blue mailbox on the corner. And the anticipation of ripping that envelope open, hoping that there was money inside! There was nothing quite like that exhilaration. Well, we have come full circle in the 21st century. Marra has received so many electronic mail solicitations asking for money, that she has asked to be removed from a mailing list. Money doesn't show up in the mail anymore. The mail asks for you to give up some of your money. Let me explain:
Marra and I were reviewing candidate websites several weeks ago. During a search of John Edwards' site, Marra asked permission to sign a petition (or a survey) or something, using her own email address as the entry fee. I figured, OK, at least the emails won't be pornographic or vulgar, so enjoy the democratic process, Internet style. Sign away, I said. Be part of the process. That's when the emails started coming. Now Marra was only signed up on the Edwards' site, so the volume into her inbox was relatively light. But it was regular enough to drive my daughter to shout "Enough!" and ask to be removed from the mailing list.
I don't mean to blame or indict John Edwards for going overboard here. He is not alone. As those who have read past entries may recall, I signed up to receive regular emails from 6 candidates, 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans (Clinton, Obama, Edwards - Guiliani, Romney, McCain), and I have been buried with requests for dollars. Here is what you've been missing:
Hillary actually held a lottery - if you contributed to her campaign before a specified deadline, your name was entered into a drawing to have a private lunch with her and Bill in their DC townhouse. I wonder if she would be baking the cookies herself...
Edwards is in the middle of a variation of Hillary's contest. Contribute before Sept. 30th (reporting deadline for 3rd quarter fundraising results), and five lucky supporters, randomly chosen, will join John and Elizabeth in New Orleans, presumably to see some of the actual poor people that Edwards will help once elected.
Obama is running a match contribution program. He has people already committed to match the contribution amount that you sign up to give. Clever. Now you only need to give his campaign half as much and feel twice as good.
Romney's contest is called "Hit the Trail with Mitt". Three contributors between now and September 30th will be chosen to campaign shoulder to shoulder with Mitt. Win the contest, and get put to work. There is no free lunch with this Republican, huh?
McCain is the most straight forward. His solicitations review his poll numbers, show the "surge" in support, and beg you to help keep his candidacy viable. The man needs the good news to continue, and right now, fundraising expectations for John are probably low. We'll see how his results are eventually spun.
Guiliani is giving one lucky contributor the job of Yankee manager for next season, right after George cans Joe Torre for not winning the World Series. Apparently, Rudy has that kind of influence. Rudy is running a National House Party Night, in an attempt to collect donations neighborhood to neighborhood. His email requests haven't been near as desperate sounding as the other candidate emails.
So can we start talking about public financing of campaigns? The money race is so over overwhelming the candidate messages that even an 11 year old has stopped the mail. By next fall, I am sure she'll want me to turn off the TV and the radio, too.
JS
Marra and I were reviewing candidate websites several weeks ago. During a search of John Edwards' site, Marra asked permission to sign a petition (or a survey) or something, using her own email address as the entry fee. I figured, OK, at least the emails won't be pornographic or vulgar, so enjoy the democratic process, Internet style. Sign away, I said. Be part of the process. That's when the emails started coming. Now Marra was only signed up on the Edwards' site, so the volume into her inbox was relatively light. But it was regular enough to drive my daughter to shout "Enough!" and ask to be removed from the mailing list.
I don't mean to blame or indict John Edwards for going overboard here. He is not alone. As those who have read past entries may recall, I signed up to receive regular emails from 6 candidates, 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans (Clinton, Obama, Edwards - Guiliani, Romney, McCain), and I have been buried with requests for dollars. Here is what you've been missing:
Hillary actually held a lottery - if you contributed to her campaign before a specified deadline, your name was entered into a drawing to have a private lunch with her and Bill in their DC townhouse. I wonder if she would be baking the cookies herself...
Edwards is in the middle of a variation of Hillary's contest. Contribute before Sept. 30th (reporting deadline for 3rd quarter fundraising results), and five lucky supporters, randomly chosen, will join John and Elizabeth in New Orleans, presumably to see some of the actual poor people that Edwards will help once elected.
Obama is running a match contribution program. He has people already committed to match the contribution amount that you sign up to give. Clever. Now you only need to give his campaign half as much and feel twice as good.
Romney's contest is called "Hit the Trail with Mitt". Three contributors between now and September 30th will be chosen to campaign shoulder to shoulder with Mitt. Win the contest, and get put to work. There is no free lunch with this Republican, huh?
McCain is the most straight forward. His solicitations review his poll numbers, show the "surge" in support, and beg you to help keep his candidacy viable. The man needs the good news to continue, and right now, fundraising expectations for John are probably low. We'll see how his results are eventually spun.
Guiliani is giving one lucky contributor the job of Yankee manager for next season, right after George cans Joe Torre for not winning the World Series. Apparently, Rudy has that kind of influence. Rudy is running a National House Party Night, in an attempt to collect donations neighborhood to neighborhood. His email requests haven't been near as desperate sounding as the other candidate emails.
So can we start talking about public financing of campaigns? The money race is so over overwhelming the candidate messages that even an 11 year old has stopped the mail. By next fall, I am sure she'll want me to turn off the TV and the radio, too.
JS
Thursday, September 20, 2007
I Watch, So You Don't Have To
I am glad that I do not have any TiVo or DVR capabilities in my house. As I tell Cherie, I do not need television to be more attractive for me. It's already pretty darn appealing. If I had TiVo at this early stage of the 2008 race, I would be the biggest political geek in Chantilly (that assumes that I am not already Chantilly's biggest political geek). I have recently caught myself watching candidate events on C-SPAN, events that sometimes involve nothing more than Guiliani buying a dog's chew toy (true story) or Dennis Kucinich hugging elderly supporters on a Manchester street. Thank goodness the baseball playoffs start soon. I need the diversion.
I mention TiVo because I could have used that technology tonight. While surfing the channels, I came across another live Democratic candidate debate, this one sponsored by AARP and Iowa Public Television. Yes, I watched an Iowa Public Television program tonight, and yes, it was better than watching Guiliani purchase dog toys. With TiVo, I could have recorded and watched the whole show at a later more convenient time. Without it, I had to miss a good portion while handling bedtime routines, bathroom breaks, and "how was your day" conversations. That's OK, though. Most Americans probably would only watch bits and pieces, too, and make their voting decisions based on the same minimum amount of viewing and listening. I like to pretend I am just like "Every Voter", a highly sought after constituency. OK, maybe I don't need to pretend.
Now I know things are getting dull when even the declared candidates don't all show up for the debate. Obama, Kucinich, and Gravel were not in attendance. That left the manageable group of Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, and Edwards. Each candidate actually got to speak, and occasional rebut another candidate's point. Bravo. I look forward to fewer voices.
This is what I observed:
Richardson supports and would advocate for a Constitutional Amendment for a balanced budget. Of course, he stated that he would insist on exceptions of times of war, recession, or national emergency. I am always skeptical of leaders who want to solve problems by messing with the Constitution. Smells like a cop out for making tough decisions. Besides, is there ever a time that the US is not either at war, in a recession, or in a period of national emergency? I think he's reaching a bit.
None of the candidates agreed that the retirement age for Social Security benefits should be raised. In 1935, when the Social Security Act was enacted, the average life expectancy n this country was 61.7 years. In 2004, it was 77.9 years. Given that change alone, how could an increase in the retirement age be off the table? Oh, yeah, AARP sponsored the debate. That explains that.
John Edwards would establish an emergency fund to bail out homeowners in danger of foreclosure because of the subprime interest crisis. I have to ask - how would the government separate victims of predatory lenders from the dumb homeowners who, in spite of sound advice, dove into subprime loans, fully aware of the gamble? Some people bet and lost. I didn't bet. So why am I bailing them out again?
Biden pushed his 3 territory partition plan for Iraq again. He believes we should organize Iraq into a loose federation of 3 areas (Sunni, Shiite, Kurd) and that they should share revenue. I have heard this several times, but each time, it sounds a bit like imperialism - we conquered you, and now we will split you into pieces and provide "support". So much for democracy. The 3 state solutions sounds great, if we could convince the Iraqis that it was their idea, and they voted for it in a democratic fashion. But imposing that solution sounds like a recipe for blow back later, when my kids are of draft age.
My summary thoughts: Dodd sounded liberal (in the caricature way); Biden looks to be continuing his upward swing in the Iowa fields and seemed much more likable; Clinton sounded very much like a front runner afraid to make a mistake, and I think it is too early for her to play defense; Edwards came across as the tax-and-spend representative of the party; and the middle class should be getting a pretty good gift from all you $200,000+ annual income earners in 2009 (and you know who you are...).
JS
I mention TiVo because I could have used that technology tonight. While surfing the channels, I came across another live Democratic candidate debate, this one sponsored by AARP and Iowa Public Television. Yes, I watched an Iowa Public Television program tonight, and yes, it was better than watching Guiliani purchase dog toys. With TiVo, I could have recorded and watched the whole show at a later more convenient time. Without it, I had to miss a good portion while handling bedtime routines, bathroom breaks, and "how was your day" conversations. That's OK, though. Most Americans probably would only watch bits and pieces, too, and make their voting decisions based on the same minimum amount of viewing and listening. I like to pretend I am just like "Every Voter", a highly sought after constituency. OK, maybe I don't need to pretend.
Now I know things are getting dull when even the declared candidates don't all show up for the debate. Obama, Kucinich, and Gravel were not in attendance. That left the manageable group of Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, and Edwards. Each candidate actually got to speak, and occasional rebut another candidate's point. Bravo. I look forward to fewer voices.
This is what I observed:
Richardson supports and would advocate for a Constitutional Amendment for a balanced budget. Of course, he stated that he would insist on exceptions of times of war, recession, or national emergency. I am always skeptical of leaders who want to solve problems by messing with the Constitution. Smells like a cop out for making tough decisions. Besides, is there ever a time that the US is not either at war, in a recession, or in a period of national emergency? I think he's reaching a bit.
None of the candidates agreed that the retirement age for Social Security benefits should be raised. In 1935, when the Social Security Act was enacted, the average life expectancy n this country was 61.7 years. In 2004, it was 77.9 years. Given that change alone, how could an increase in the retirement age be off the table? Oh, yeah, AARP sponsored the debate. That explains that.
John Edwards would establish an emergency fund to bail out homeowners in danger of foreclosure because of the subprime interest crisis. I have to ask - how would the government separate victims of predatory lenders from the dumb homeowners who, in spite of sound advice, dove into subprime loans, fully aware of the gamble? Some people bet and lost. I didn't bet. So why am I bailing them out again?
Biden pushed his 3 territory partition plan for Iraq again. He believes we should organize Iraq into a loose federation of 3 areas (Sunni, Shiite, Kurd) and that they should share revenue. I have heard this several times, but each time, it sounds a bit like imperialism - we conquered you, and now we will split you into pieces and provide "support". So much for democracy. The 3 state solutions sounds great, if we could convince the Iraqis that it was their idea, and they voted for it in a democratic fashion. But imposing that solution sounds like a recipe for blow back later, when my kids are of draft age.
My summary thoughts: Dodd sounded liberal (in the caricature way); Biden looks to be continuing his upward swing in the Iowa fields and seemed much more likable; Clinton sounded very much like a front runner afraid to make a mistake, and I think it is too early for her to play defense; Edwards came across as the tax-and-spend representative of the party; and the middle class should be getting a pretty good gift from all you $200,000+ annual income earners in 2009 (and you know who you are...).
JS
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
A Heathy Prescription for America
When on the ground in New Hampshire, one of the goals will be to ask candidates direct questions, and demand straight answers. That's what retail politics is all about - facing the voters, even the out-of state voters like us. Marra and I are beginning to turn our attention to possible candidate questions, and that means candidate position discussions! Very interesting stuff for an 11 year old. So I decided to make the conversation really engaging, and start with various health care proposals out there in the political marketplace. Everyone is on the bandwagon of health care this cycle, at least until election day, so we have lots of plans to discuss.
I chose to begin with health care because it is recently in the news. Hillary just announced her proposal ("Hillarycare Redux"), and, not surprisingly, Mitt Romney held a press conference to denounce the details of her plan. In an impressive display of clairvoyance, Romney's rejection of the Hillary Plan came a full 30 minutes before Hillary even released it. No sense waiting to review the plan and comment in a productive, knowledgeable way, Mitt. That usually takes longer than a categorical repudiation, and doesn't make the evening news quite as saucy. Besides, Hillary's Plan is probably European anyway, right, Mitt?
So to begin reviewing health care plans and come up with some questions, I went to the most unbiased source I could find, The Washington Post. The Post printed a simple chart on Page A6 of the September 18th edition that compared the plans of Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Guiliani, and Romney. Apparently, no one else is running. The chart listed basic components of a health plan on the left column, and the candidate names across the top. An "x" indicated that the plan contained that basic component. Here are some highlights from the chart:
According to the Post, Romney's plan does not "seek to insure all Americans". It doesn't "require all individuals to purchase insurance". It doesn't require a tax on small business - but since it doesn't cover anyone, a tax to do so would seem excessive. It doesn't "require large employers to insure employees or pay taxes". It doesn't make "up to $15,000 of spending on health-care tax-deductible". What does it do? Tax incentives for health savings accounts. If I assume that all this is true, it begs our first candidate question: Why did you even pretend to propose a health care plan at all?
According to the Post, Obama "seeks to insure all Americans", but his method is to "require large employers to insure employees or pay taxes". My question on that would be: "How will you define yourself as a different kind of Democrat in the general election when your health care plan proposal appears to be 'tax employers, and make them pay' for the uninsured?"
Giuliani's plan is to tinker with the current tax code, too. He would "provide tax incentives for health savings accounts" and "make up to $15,000 of spending on health-care tax-deductible". The question for America's Yankee Fan...I mean, America's Mayor, would be: "According to Republican Robert Portman of Ohio, "Taxpayers now spend about 5.4 billion hours a year trying to comply with 2,500 pages of tax laws....". According to the Cato Institute, there were 526 different IRS forms as of 2002. My question - how does tinkering with the tax code and adding more complexity to it make health coverage more accessible for average Americans and solve the problem of the uninsured in America? I thought Republicans hated the IRS?"
Edwards' plan, as you would expect, does just about everything for everyone (or does everything to everyone), including calling for a tax on small business to insure employees. Simple question for Edwards: How much was your last haircut?
Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. Her proposal doesn't really matter, because the Republican talk circuit will deem it socialism, tax-and-spend liberalism run amok, Big Government, the handiwork of Tibetan lobbyists, and inspired by Vince Foster (just to get Vince Foster's name back in the news). Her big differentiator - if you like your coverage today, keep it. You would have CHOICE under her plan, a word (choice) she used repeatedly, which helped define another position of hers, all in one policy announcement - quite efficient. Perhaps Marra and I will dissect her plan at a later date.
Our search for leadership continues, one issue at a time.
JS
I chose to begin with health care because it is recently in the news. Hillary just announced her proposal ("Hillarycare Redux"), and, not surprisingly, Mitt Romney held a press conference to denounce the details of her plan. In an impressive display of clairvoyance, Romney's rejection of the Hillary Plan came a full 30 minutes before Hillary even released it. No sense waiting to review the plan and comment in a productive, knowledgeable way, Mitt. That usually takes longer than a categorical repudiation, and doesn't make the evening news quite as saucy. Besides, Hillary's Plan is probably European anyway, right, Mitt?
So to begin reviewing health care plans and come up with some questions, I went to the most unbiased source I could find, The Washington Post. The Post printed a simple chart on Page A6 of the September 18th edition that compared the plans of Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Guiliani, and Romney. Apparently, no one else is running. The chart listed basic components of a health plan on the left column, and the candidate names across the top. An "x" indicated that the plan contained that basic component. Here are some highlights from the chart:
According to the Post, Romney's plan does not "seek to insure all Americans". It doesn't "require all individuals to purchase insurance". It doesn't require a tax on small business - but since it doesn't cover anyone, a tax to do so would seem excessive. It doesn't "require large employers to insure employees or pay taxes". It doesn't make "up to $15,000 of spending on health-care tax-deductible". What does it do? Tax incentives for health savings accounts. If I assume that all this is true, it begs our first candidate question: Why did you even pretend to propose a health care plan at all?
According to the Post, Obama "seeks to insure all Americans", but his method is to "require large employers to insure employees or pay taxes". My question on that would be: "How will you define yourself as a different kind of Democrat in the general election when your health care plan proposal appears to be 'tax employers, and make them pay' for the uninsured?"
Giuliani's plan is to tinker with the current tax code, too. He would "provide tax incentives for health savings accounts" and "make up to $15,000 of spending on health-care tax-deductible". The question for America's Yankee Fan...I mean, America's Mayor, would be: "According to Republican Robert Portman of Ohio, "Taxpayers now spend about 5.4 billion hours a year trying to comply with 2,500 pages of tax laws....". According to the Cato Institute, there were 526 different IRS forms as of 2002. My question - how does tinkering with the tax code and adding more complexity to it make health coverage more accessible for average Americans and solve the problem of the uninsured in America? I thought Republicans hated the IRS?"
Edwards' plan, as you would expect, does just about everything for everyone (or does everything to everyone), including calling for a tax on small business to insure employees. Simple question for Edwards: How much was your last haircut?
Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. Her proposal doesn't really matter, because the Republican talk circuit will deem it socialism, tax-and-spend liberalism run amok, Big Government, the handiwork of Tibetan lobbyists, and inspired by Vince Foster (just to get Vince Foster's name back in the news). Her big differentiator - if you like your coverage today, keep it. You would have CHOICE under her plan, a word (choice) she used repeatedly, which helped define another position of hers, all in one policy announcement - quite efficient. Perhaps Marra and I will dissect her plan at a later date.
Our search for leadership continues, one issue at a time.
JS
My Vicarious Campaign
Since I began this blog (some might say "Mission Statement"). I've been asked the same question by many. "Why didn't you get into politics?"
That question is easy to answer. It's because I was an unmotivated, defocused adolescent into my mid-20's, until my wife straightened out my meandering road to nowhere. By the mid-20's, most successful pols of the future have been officers in their college fraternities, and lost their first race for local assemblyman. Already by the age of 25, these motivated, focused individuals have been steeped in the painful lessons of excessive hubris. You can ask all my college friends for a laundry list of the other reasons I've chosen not to subject myself to the inevitable scrutiny of headlining a campaign. So I chose the sidelines.
The question about past dreams has raised for me a new question about future public ambitions...but not my ambitions. "Do I want Marra to catch the bug and enter the world of politics in her adulthood?" That's a tough question. At age 11, she couldn't use my excuse that her past choices and decisions could come back to haunt her (how can you accuse a 6th grader of flip-flopping?). So the door of opportunity is still wide open. Her kindergarten teacher once told her mother and me that Marra was very bright, but "a little chatty, and a little bossy." Sounds like a prototype politician so far. Of course, the world is her oyster and the possibilities in her life are literally endless at this point (although I admit that I told her to scratch Olympic gymnast and Olympic figure skater off the short list). But the question wasn't could Marra enter politics later in life. She could. The question was would I want her to pursue that career option.
Even asking such a question makes me think of Don Corleone in The Godfather talking to his son, Michael, about his career choices. "I never wanted this for you, Michael. I always dreamed it would be Senator Corleone."
I'll try not to be simplistic and leave you with "I just want her to be happy, and do what she loves." It's more than that. I want her to pursue a life that enriches not only herself and her family, but the lives of others and their families. There are lots of vocations that would help her achieve this end, a lot of noble professions. And if Marra could make people believe in a political career as a noble profession again, a profession driven by an honest passion for service and a disdain for the money game that turns politicians into pawns, I say run, Marra, run.
And with the inevitable law degree that all good government leaders must have, she could support Cherie and me when we're old. Bonus!
JS
That question is easy to answer. It's because I was an unmotivated, defocused adolescent into my mid-20's, until my wife straightened out my meandering road to nowhere. By the mid-20's, most successful pols of the future have been officers in their college fraternities, and lost their first race for local assemblyman. Already by the age of 25, these motivated, focused individuals have been steeped in the painful lessons of excessive hubris. You can ask all my college friends for a laundry list of the other reasons I've chosen not to subject myself to the inevitable scrutiny of headlining a campaign. So I chose the sidelines.
The question about past dreams has raised for me a new question about future public ambitions...but not my ambitions. "Do I want Marra to catch the bug and enter the world of politics in her adulthood?" That's a tough question. At age 11, she couldn't use my excuse that her past choices and decisions could come back to haunt her (how can you accuse a 6th grader of flip-flopping?). So the door of opportunity is still wide open. Her kindergarten teacher once told her mother and me that Marra was very bright, but "a little chatty, and a little bossy." Sounds like a prototype politician so far. Of course, the world is her oyster and the possibilities in her life are literally endless at this point (although I admit that I told her to scratch Olympic gymnast and Olympic figure skater off the short list). But the question wasn't could Marra enter politics later in life. She could. The question was would I want her to pursue that career option.
Even asking such a question makes me think of Don Corleone in The Godfather talking to his son, Michael, about his career choices. "I never wanted this for you, Michael. I always dreamed it would be Senator Corleone."
I'll try not to be simplistic and leave you with "I just want her to be happy, and do what she loves." It's more than that. I want her to pursue a life that enriches not only herself and her family, but the lives of others and their families. There are lots of vocations that would help her achieve this end, a lot of noble professions. And if Marra could make people believe in a political career as a noble profession again, a profession driven by an honest passion for service and a disdain for the money game that turns politicians into pawns, I say run, Marra, run.
And with the inevitable law degree that all good government leaders must have, she could support Cherie and me when we're old. Bonus!
JS
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Ode to George
I miss George magazine. Some of you may remember the JFK, Jr. run project that celebrated the marriage of politics and entertainment with glossy photos from A-list parties and essays on the state of national security. John-John correctly bet that politics in the post-Reagan years would become a state-sponsored sitcom starring one bad actor after another, vying for center stage. Too bad George was too far ahead of its time, and the magazine folded 2 years after JFK, Jr.'s death, and a short 6 year run.
George would have had a field day with the possible general election combinations available in 2008. Policy positions aside, here are some of the races that I would like to see. Remember, I would like to see these candidate face-off not because either would lead the country in the direction I want. It's purely for entertainment value.
Huckabee vs. Richardson: This would be the meeting of the 2 most humorous candidates in the field. Their self-deprecating styles would make for a hilarious servings of humble pie. I could see these 2 debating on SNL.
Ron Paul vs. Mike Gravel: Both Paul and Gravel represent a stream in American political thought, but it sure ain't the Mainstream. The best part would be watching every lobbyist on K Street posting their resumes on Monster.com, looking for new careers. These two would spend equal time debating one another and alienating members of their own parties.
Fred Thompson vs. Dennis Kucinich: Just to see pictures of their wives on TV and in People magazine for 6 months straight.
John McCain vs. Barack Obama: This campaign would be an ethical dream come true. Both have staked their reputations on being above the partisan rancor that has owned Washington for the past...forever..., and both would inspire each other to maintain the high road throughout the competition. I think this match up would bring us the cleanest debate of ideas.
Hillary Clinton vs. Al Gore: OK, I know they're both Democrats, and I know Gore isn't running. But can't a TV junkie fantasize about the Republicans nominating no one (since the GOP concedes they can't win in '08), so Gore offers to run as an Independent. What a steel cage match that would be. Gore has the new "I've got nothing to lose, so I'll just be me" attitude, while Hillary has the "Clubber Lang"-type focus to want to not only win against Gore, but destroy him in order to vindicate her husband's legacy. Circulation of tabloid magazines would hit all-time records. It would be a train wreck, but how could anyone turn away?
Hillary Clinton vs. Newt Gingrich: I know Newt is undeclared, but Hollywood loves a sequel.
Chris Dodd vs. Mitt Romney: Two politicians representing Connecticut and Massachusetts, debating what we should do about grazing rights in Wyoming and ethanol subsidies in Iowa. Could we get 2 people further removed from Middle America? Oh, that reminds me. I haven't mention Guiliani.
Rudy Guiliani vs. the Boston Red Sox: Wait, we've already seen that campaign, haven't we?
Mitt Romney vs. John Edwards: The battle that we've all considered - Wet vs. Dry. I can see the NY Post headline on the day after the election: "______ Wins By a Hair".
Joe Biden, Unopposed: Just to see if he would still say something off color in the heat of the moment that torpedoes his own campaign.
Sam Brownback vs. Al Sharpton: The Religious Right vs the Religious Left. I think in that race, even Ralph Nadar would have a chance as a write-in.
So Marra and I will be in New Hampshire in less than one month now. Let the games begin!
JS
George would have had a field day with the possible general election combinations available in 2008. Policy positions aside, here are some of the races that I would like to see. Remember, I would like to see these candidate face-off not because either would lead the country in the direction I want. It's purely for entertainment value.
Huckabee vs. Richardson: This would be the meeting of the 2 most humorous candidates in the field. Their self-deprecating styles would make for a hilarious servings of humble pie. I could see these 2 debating on SNL.
Ron Paul vs. Mike Gravel: Both Paul and Gravel represent a stream in American political thought, but it sure ain't the Mainstream. The best part would be watching every lobbyist on K Street posting their resumes on Monster.com, looking for new careers. These two would spend equal time debating one another and alienating members of their own parties.
Fred Thompson vs. Dennis Kucinich: Just to see pictures of their wives on TV and in People magazine for 6 months straight.
John McCain vs. Barack Obama: This campaign would be an ethical dream come true. Both have staked their reputations on being above the partisan rancor that has owned Washington for the past...forever..., and both would inspire each other to maintain the high road throughout the competition. I think this match up would bring us the cleanest debate of ideas.
Hillary Clinton vs. Al Gore: OK, I know they're both Democrats, and I know Gore isn't running. But can't a TV junkie fantasize about the Republicans nominating no one (since the GOP concedes they can't win in '08), so Gore offers to run as an Independent. What a steel cage match that would be. Gore has the new "I've got nothing to lose, so I'll just be me" attitude, while Hillary has the "Clubber Lang"-type focus to want to not only win against Gore, but destroy him in order to vindicate her husband's legacy. Circulation of tabloid magazines would hit all-time records. It would be a train wreck, but how could anyone turn away?
Hillary Clinton vs. Newt Gingrich: I know Newt is undeclared, but Hollywood loves a sequel.
Chris Dodd vs. Mitt Romney: Two politicians representing Connecticut and Massachusetts, debating what we should do about grazing rights in Wyoming and ethanol subsidies in Iowa. Could we get 2 people further removed from Middle America? Oh, that reminds me. I haven't mention Guiliani.
Rudy Guiliani vs. the Boston Red Sox: Wait, we've already seen that campaign, haven't we?
Mitt Romney vs. John Edwards: The battle that we've all considered - Wet vs. Dry. I can see the NY Post headline on the day after the election: "______ Wins By a Hair".
Joe Biden, Unopposed: Just to see if he would still say something off color in the heat of the moment that torpedoes his own campaign.
Sam Brownback vs. Al Sharpton: The Religious Right vs the Religious Left. I think in that race, even Ralph Nadar would have a chance as a write-in.
So Marra and I will be in New Hampshire in less than one month now. Let the games begin!
JS
Friday, September 14, 2007
Fred Heads Unite
Fred Thompson officially joined the race for the Republican nomination last week, the culmination of months of anticipation and boredom. Now that he is in, I turn my attention to what little I know about Fred and his candidacy, and I evaluate his chances for winning the nomination. I will use my impressions without foundation and my lack of knowledge of his positions. In essence, I'll look at Fred the way most of America will.
Actually, that's unfair at best. I have never watched Law and Order, the long running NBC crime show he has starred in for XX number of years. I don't think he has won any Emmy awards for his performance over the years, so this reflects poorly on his ability to pretend to look "Presidential". I do remember Fred from Die Hard II (the tough cop who supports the Bruce Willis character, John McClain - not to be confused with primary opponent, John McCain...). I could see this tough cop character leading the fight in Iraq. His signature role for me, however, was as a carrier commander in The Hunt for Red October. That kind of Cold War military experience should give him bragging rights among the other contenders in the race. He's been on the front line, and he knows how to pretend to lead an elite fighting force using the latest weapons. Big advantage.
What else do we know about Fred? He was a Senator from Tennessee for one or two terms. His tenure was undistinguished. I read somewhere that he left the Senate because he was sick of the Washington political scene, and his inability to "get things done". He must have had a difficult time getting things done, since he isn't remembered for any meaningful legislation or as a champion of any specific cause. Maybe being a Senator proved to be more challenging than pretending to be a Senator in the movies. Just conjecture.
Fred announced his entry into the race on Jay Leno's Tonight Show, right about the same time that Republican candidates were actively debating real issues on a stage in New Hampshire. Debating ideas with the experts in your own party and taking public stands on important positions in front of an educated audience of would be primary voters must have been a consideration for the evening's plans, but hey - we are talking Leno. The same Jay Leno who asks the probing, thought-provoking questions that reveal the true candidate to the American electorate. Maybe I'm thinking of Tim Russert? Well, anyway, Fred missed the debate, but there's plenty of time for all that real world issue stuff.
I hear that Fred is conservative, like Reagan. Yes, Ronald Reagan, the other actor. Fred Heads like to remind the public about that "synergy". Too bad Fred Grandy (former Congressman and former Love Boat Gopher) wasn't inclined to run, too. Perhaps the candidate debates could have been sponsored by TV Land.
So welcome, Fred, we look forward to basking in your immense talents as a performer. We also look forward to the other Republicans piercing the Fourth Wall so we can all get a look at what you are really all about - manufactured conservative or real leader. Vote now using your Nielsen ratings button.
JS
Actually, that's unfair at best. I have never watched Law and Order, the long running NBC crime show he has starred in for XX number of years. I don't think he has won any Emmy awards for his performance over the years, so this reflects poorly on his ability to pretend to look "Presidential". I do remember Fred from Die Hard II (the tough cop who supports the Bruce Willis character, John McClain - not to be confused with primary opponent, John McCain...). I could see this tough cop character leading the fight in Iraq. His signature role for me, however, was as a carrier commander in The Hunt for Red October. That kind of Cold War military experience should give him bragging rights among the other contenders in the race. He's been on the front line, and he knows how to pretend to lead an elite fighting force using the latest weapons. Big advantage.
What else do we know about Fred? He was a Senator from Tennessee for one or two terms. His tenure was undistinguished. I read somewhere that he left the Senate because he was sick of the Washington political scene, and his inability to "get things done". He must have had a difficult time getting things done, since he isn't remembered for any meaningful legislation or as a champion of any specific cause. Maybe being a Senator proved to be more challenging than pretending to be a Senator in the movies. Just conjecture.
Fred announced his entry into the race on Jay Leno's Tonight Show, right about the same time that Republican candidates were actively debating real issues on a stage in New Hampshire. Debating ideas with the experts in your own party and taking public stands on important positions in front of an educated audience of would be primary voters must have been a consideration for the evening's plans, but hey - we are talking Leno. The same Jay Leno who asks the probing, thought-provoking questions that reveal the true candidate to the American electorate. Maybe I'm thinking of Tim Russert? Well, anyway, Fred missed the debate, but there's plenty of time for all that real world issue stuff.
I hear that Fred is conservative, like Reagan. Yes, Ronald Reagan, the other actor. Fred Heads like to remind the public about that "synergy". Too bad Fred Grandy (former Congressman and former Love Boat Gopher) wasn't inclined to run, too. Perhaps the candidate debates could have been sponsored by TV Land.
So welcome, Fred, we look forward to basking in your immense talents as a performer. We also look forward to the other Republicans piercing the Fourth Wall so we can all get a look at what you are really all about - manufactured conservative or real leader. Vote now using your Nielsen ratings button.
JS
Thursday, September 13, 2007
General Petraeus' War
Marra and I will be on the ground in New Hampshire in 30 days, talking about the problems facing our nation and the candidates' proposals to solve those problems. There is no problem more important this election cycle, none more prominent, than the war in Iraq, and I don't know how to discuss the issue with my 11 year old.
Like many New Millennium Parents (a phrase I just invented for myself - makes me sound young), I have sheltered my child from all kinds of scary real world situations. She is not allowed in the front seat of the car until she's 100 pounds. The passenger side air bag might deploy and injure her. She'll wear a bike helmet for the rest of her cycling life. We have to protect her from falling and hitting her head. I don't typically allow her to watch the nightly news. She might see a report on the latest sexual deviant attacking an innocent young girl. She's my baby, and we have to keep her safe and innocent for as long as possible, and maybe even longer than that.
Now when I was a kid, I learned about the ugly side of mankind a little sooner. I remember watching the news before going to grammar school, and the last report before the top of the hour each morning was the Vietnam War body count for the previous day. It would appear on the screen like the scores from yesterday's ballgames: Viet Cong: 241, USA 4. Every day, the body count differential was dramatically in favor of the USA, to the point when I finally had to ask, "If we keep killing all those Vietnamese, why aren't we winning?" Pretty good question, I thought. Of course, now I know the answer. We weren't winning because the "body count" numbers were propaganda (lies), and the war wasn't winnable.
So here I am today. Marra knows about the Iraq War, insofar as there is one happening, and it is in the Middle East. But the time is rapidly coming when I will shatter her innocence about the safety and security of her world, and her confidence in adults always doing the right thing and telling the truth. When we talk about the war, everything will get more complex, and more scary. There are no easy answers, and the truth is ugly.
Tonight, it got worse. W staged a televised addressed to the nation about the war for the 8th time, and he seemed even further detached from reality than ever. He was so detached, I believe that he thinks the American people have no capacity for storing thoughts beyond what we were just told. I am hoping we are not collectively that stupid.
Let's look at what W said:
We are in Iraq with 36 other countries, fighting terrorism. 36 other countries? You are kidding, right? Is there anyone on either the Right or Left that believes that our soldiers are shoulder to shoulder with an international coalition of fighters?
We have turned Anbar completely around, and now the population there feels safe. In fact, W says they no longer fear being beheaded. He then proceeds to tell viewers that the sheik who was most instrumental in supporting our efforts in that province was murdered this morning. At least he wasn't beheaded, which apparently in W's world means improvement.
Things are so good in Iraq, we'll be bringing troops home! Of course, the number we bring home will get the troop levels back to where they were before the surge began, no less. Honestly, does he think we're stupid? And they'll be home for Christmas...photo op time, soldiers at the White House, singing Christian carols with Cheney and W. I'm getting mad...
Do you know why W says we need to stay in Iraq? Because leaving is worse. That is a far cry from Colin Powell's 1991 preconditions for starting military action - a clear mission, overwhelming force and a clear way out. Plus, W adds, the Iraqi government wants us there. Well, no kidding, W, we installed this government and we are propping up this government, so it shouldn't be a badge of honor that they have decided that we should stay and protect them a bit longer.
Finally, W abdicated his role as Commander in Chief to Gen. Petraeus. Whatever Petraeus says, that's what we'll do. Well, Petraeus testified that the solution in Iraq will not be achieved militarily - he said it will be achieved politically. Maybe we should focus there for awhile.
So I return to my dilemma. How do I explain all this to Marra, when it doesn't make any sense? As of today, my plan is to present Iraq as a series of choices, none of which are good. Then I'll try to temper my outrage at the marketing of this war to the silent masses, who were told in October of 2001 that if we shop at the malls, then we defeat the terrorists. If only it were so.
JS
Like many New Millennium Parents (a phrase I just invented for myself - makes me sound young), I have sheltered my child from all kinds of scary real world situations. She is not allowed in the front seat of the car until she's 100 pounds. The passenger side air bag might deploy and injure her. She'll wear a bike helmet for the rest of her cycling life. We have to protect her from falling and hitting her head. I don't typically allow her to watch the nightly news. She might see a report on the latest sexual deviant attacking an innocent young girl. She's my baby, and we have to keep her safe and innocent for as long as possible, and maybe even longer than that.
Now when I was a kid, I learned about the ugly side of mankind a little sooner. I remember watching the news before going to grammar school, and the last report before the top of the hour each morning was the Vietnam War body count for the previous day. It would appear on the screen like the scores from yesterday's ballgames: Viet Cong: 241, USA 4. Every day, the body count differential was dramatically in favor of the USA, to the point when I finally had to ask, "If we keep killing all those Vietnamese, why aren't we winning?" Pretty good question, I thought. Of course, now I know the answer. We weren't winning because the "body count" numbers were propaganda (lies), and the war wasn't winnable.
So here I am today. Marra knows about the Iraq War, insofar as there is one happening, and it is in the Middle East. But the time is rapidly coming when I will shatter her innocence about the safety and security of her world, and her confidence in adults always doing the right thing and telling the truth. When we talk about the war, everything will get more complex, and more scary. There are no easy answers, and the truth is ugly.
Tonight, it got worse. W staged a televised addressed to the nation about the war for the 8th time, and he seemed even further detached from reality than ever. He was so detached, I believe that he thinks the American people have no capacity for storing thoughts beyond what we were just told. I am hoping we are not collectively that stupid.
Let's look at what W said:
We are in Iraq with 36 other countries, fighting terrorism. 36 other countries? You are kidding, right? Is there anyone on either the Right or Left that believes that our soldiers are shoulder to shoulder with an international coalition of fighters?
We have turned Anbar completely around, and now the population there feels safe. In fact, W says they no longer fear being beheaded. He then proceeds to tell viewers that the sheik who was most instrumental in supporting our efforts in that province was murdered this morning. At least he wasn't beheaded, which apparently in W's world means improvement.
Things are so good in Iraq, we'll be bringing troops home! Of course, the number we bring home will get the troop levels back to where they were before the surge began, no less. Honestly, does he think we're stupid? And they'll be home for Christmas...photo op time, soldiers at the White House, singing Christian carols with Cheney and W. I'm getting mad...
Do you know why W says we need to stay in Iraq? Because leaving is worse. That is a far cry from Colin Powell's 1991 preconditions for starting military action - a clear mission, overwhelming force and a clear way out. Plus, W adds, the Iraqi government wants us there. Well, no kidding, W, we installed this government and we are propping up this government, so it shouldn't be a badge of honor that they have decided that we should stay and protect them a bit longer.
Finally, W abdicated his role as Commander in Chief to Gen. Petraeus. Whatever Petraeus says, that's what we'll do. Well, Petraeus testified that the solution in Iraq will not be achieved militarily - he said it will be achieved politically. Maybe we should focus there for awhile.
So I return to my dilemma. How do I explain all this to Marra, when it doesn't make any sense? As of today, my plan is to present Iraq as a series of choices, none of which are good. Then I'll try to temper my outrage at the marketing of this war to the silent masses, who were told in October of 2001 that if we shop at the malls, then we defeat the terrorists. If only it were so.
JS
Monday, September 10, 2007
The Audacity of Running for President
I am famous for starting books that I will never finish. I fall in love with the title, get 50+ pages into the subject matter, and then Adult ADHD takes over. Next book, please. Part of the problem is that the majority of my reading material comes from the public library these days, and the folks at the library are pretty particular about me returning books in a timely fashion. Another factor is that most books, once opened, do not match the excitement of their titles. Anticipation is better than the real event. Occasionally, though, a book comes along that begs to be finished. Sometimes, the author speaks to me and I feel a twinge of guilt for not hearing him out. I am driven by a sense that the best part of the book might yet come. This week, I am reading The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama.
Let me first say that I read 50+ pages of his first book, Dreams of My Father, before the library police caught up to me. That book did not speak to me (perhaps because I had just finished The Pursuit of Happyness, a decidedly more dramatic, powerful story), but the writing was beautiful. I'll say that again - if this guy loses the nomination, he has a stellar career as a writer waiting. He can really capsulize a thought, an image, a moment, and relate it to a larger concept with poetic ease. Regardless of the election results, I hope he continues to publish.
He has this chapter on Values, and how the values debate is framed in the political world. He ends the section with this summation of the difference between values and ideology: "Values are faithfully applied to the facts before us, while ideology overrides whatever facts call theory into question."
He illustrates this point with a story from his Illinois Senate days, when a colleague argued against providing school lunches for 5 year olds because it would "crush their spirit of self-reliance." I think it is clear that ideology trumped logic in that instance.
So far in the book, he speaks to me of the commonality of American opinion, not the dichotomy of views so often emphasized in the press. Commonalities aren't interesting (unless we're talking about multiple birth couples), but differences? Makes for great TV.
About a year ago, I jotted down some of my positions on issues:
I do not believe in capital punishment - it is not a deterrent and it is arbitrarily enforced. There are cases, however, of serial murder and crimes against the most vulnerable (children and the elderly) where it is in the best interest of society to impose the ultimate punishment.
Pro-environmental policy can and should be seen as pro-business policy. I do not accept that these positions are mutually exclusive.
I do not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of all Americans to have any type of firearm without reasonable restrictions. More guns do not make us safer.
Just because an idea is popular in Europe doesn't automatically mean it is bad for America, but we should also be confident to make American decisions that may run counter to world opinion.
I believe that there is legal immigration and illegal immigration, and that too often, the political rhetoric of our day combines the two groups to move an anti-foreigner agenda.
I believe that real life issues are solved in the middle.
I hear Obama echoing my sentiments in his book, at least the first 50+ pages. This might be a book I finish.
JS
Let me first say that I read 50+ pages of his first book, Dreams of My Father, before the library police caught up to me. That book did not speak to me (perhaps because I had just finished The Pursuit of Happyness, a decidedly more dramatic, powerful story), but the writing was beautiful. I'll say that again - if this guy loses the nomination, he has a stellar career as a writer waiting. He can really capsulize a thought, an image, a moment, and relate it to a larger concept with poetic ease. Regardless of the election results, I hope he continues to publish.
He has this chapter on Values, and how the values debate is framed in the political world. He ends the section with this summation of the difference between values and ideology: "Values are faithfully applied to the facts before us, while ideology overrides whatever facts call theory into question."
He illustrates this point with a story from his Illinois Senate days, when a colleague argued against providing school lunches for 5 year olds because it would "crush their spirit of self-reliance." I think it is clear that ideology trumped logic in that instance.
So far in the book, he speaks to me of the commonality of American opinion, not the dichotomy of views so often emphasized in the press. Commonalities aren't interesting (unless we're talking about multiple birth couples), but differences? Makes for great TV.
About a year ago, I jotted down some of my positions on issues:
I do not believe in capital punishment - it is not a deterrent and it is arbitrarily enforced. There are cases, however, of serial murder and crimes against the most vulnerable (children and the elderly) where it is in the best interest of society to impose the ultimate punishment.
Pro-environmental policy can and should be seen as pro-business policy. I do not accept that these positions are mutually exclusive.
I do not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of all Americans to have any type of firearm without reasonable restrictions. More guns do not make us safer.
Just because an idea is popular in Europe doesn't automatically mean it is bad for America, but we should also be confident to make American decisions that may run counter to world opinion.
I believe that there is legal immigration and illegal immigration, and that too often, the political rhetoric of our day combines the two groups to move an anti-foreigner agenda.
I believe that real life issues are solved in the middle.
I hear Obama echoing my sentiments in his book, at least the first 50+ pages. This might be a book I finish.
JS
Friday, September 7, 2007
Republican Cage Match
Sharpen your elbows, everyone, it's the fall campaign season! The Fair and Balanced Fox network sponsored a Q&A with the Republican candidates Tuesday night in New Hampshire, and we started to see some policy differences come into focus between the old white men of the GOP (this group is not exactly a poster for diversity, is it?). Here are some tidbits that you can use at cocktail parties, if you like to pretend you were watching the debate:
Ron Paul, everyone's favorite Libertarian rabble rouser, and Mike Huckabee, the media's 'Person of Interest' in the race this month, momentarily squared off in what was an actual debate - mano-a mano, addressing each other directly on the issue of the Iraq War. Their exchange crystallized the national debate on the war. On the one side, Huckabee represented the pragmatists. "We broke it, we bought it", so we have to finish the job in Iraq (whatever that means). Paul spoke for the millions in this country who believe that victory is ill defined, and that our continuing presence only serves to perpetuate the original mistake of going to war. Both were respectful yet forceful in expressing his opinion. Neither won the debate point, and we are still fighting in Iraq.
John McCain has begun to make his move. Post debate reactions were universally positive on his performance. Don't be surprised if he accepts the GOP nomination in 2008. At this point, he represents the Republicans' best chance versus the Democrats, in spite of his pro-surge stance. Good luck trying to smear this guy's reputation (Keating Five role, notwithstanding). Half the men on the stage Tuesday night practically endorsed him. Guiliani is praising him in the hopes of winning his supporters once McCain drops out. Look out, Rudy, that might not happen the way you planned...
Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo continued to embody every negative stereotype the public has of a mean spirited, insensitive, hawk Republican. Example: Hunter was asked a hypothetical about an elevated threat from Iran, and he launches into his first 5 proposed military steps - including his plan for ground troops. That guy is a loose cannon (pardon the pun).
You REALLY want change? Vote for Ron Paul this year and hold on to your hats! He'd be an interesting candidate, if we were starting a country from scratch. Unfortunately, we have this pesky 240 year history of world involvement. Can't just stop tomorrow, lock the doors, and say, "My bad."
The Fair Tax was raised again, and Huckabee is a big proponent. The Fair Tax, as I understand it, is a 23% national sales tax, in place of the income tax. The theory is that we should tax consumption, not earnings. I'd like to hear an entire 90 minute debate on the tax code, frankly. Most candidates continue to use the tax code as their personal social engineering petrie dish, and perhaps it's time we stop that nonsense.
Fred Thompson wasn't there. He was in Hollywood, preening for Leno. So what?
Newt Gingrich will decide whether to join the race by the end of the month. Now that could be fun.
JS
Ron Paul, everyone's favorite Libertarian rabble rouser, and Mike Huckabee, the media's 'Person of Interest' in the race this month, momentarily squared off in what was an actual debate - mano-a mano, addressing each other directly on the issue of the Iraq War. Their exchange crystallized the national debate on the war. On the one side, Huckabee represented the pragmatists. "We broke it, we bought it", so we have to finish the job in Iraq (whatever that means). Paul spoke for the millions in this country who believe that victory is ill defined, and that our continuing presence only serves to perpetuate the original mistake of going to war. Both were respectful yet forceful in expressing his opinion. Neither won the debate point, and we are still fighting in Iraq.
John McCain has begun to make his move. Post debate reactions were universally positive on his performance. Don't be surprised if he accepts the GOP nomination in 2008. At this point, he represents the Republicans' best chance versus the Democrats, in spite of his pro-surge stance. Good luck trying to smear this guy's reputation (Keating Five role, notwithstanding). Half the men on the stage Tuesday night practically endorsed him. Guiliani is praising him in the hopes of winning his supporters once McCain drops out. Look out, Rudy, that might not happen the way you planned...
Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo continued to embody every negative stereotype the public has of a mean spirited, insensitive, hawk Republican. Example: Hunter was asked a hypothetical about an elevated threat from Iran, and he launches into his first 5 proposed military steps - including his plan for ground troops. That guy is a loose cannon (pardon the pun).
You REALLY want change? Vote for Ron Paul this year and hold on to your hats! He'd be an interesting candidate, if we were starting a country from scratch. Unfortunately, we have this pesky 240 year history of world involvement. Can't just stop tomorrow, lock the doors, and say, "My bad."
The Fair Tax was raised again, and Huckabee is a big proponent. The Fair Tax, as I understand it, is a 23% national sales tax, in place of the income tax. The theory is that we should tax consumption, not earnings. I'd like to hear an entire 90 minute debate on the tax code, frankly. Most candidates continue to use the tax code as their personal social engineering petrie dish, and perhaps it's time we stop that nonsense.
Fred Thompson wasn't there. He was in Hollywood, preening for Leno. So what?
Newt Gingrich will decide whether to join the race by the end of the month. Now that could be fun.
JS
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Baseball, Apple Pie and Politics
Marra and I attended the Nationals-San Francisco Giants game last night in DC. This was the eighth time in the past 3 years that she has accompanied me to a major league game. She enjoys the drama, the shared crowd experience, and the one-on-one time with her dad. I enjoy the the drama, the shared crowd experience, and the one-on-one time with her. She's a great date for a ball game. Her attention span is long, and her appetite for stadium junk food is limited. She asks good questions, and doesn't ask to leave early. I believe that she is developing an interest in baseball that will survive into her teen and adult years. I couldn't be happier about it.
Last night, she leaned over to tell me that she understands the game much better this season. She explained that playing wiffle ball this summer with her cousins during our beach trip helped her better appreciate what she was seeing in the pro game. The progression of players from one base to the next, the fly ball outs, the counting of runs - it all made more sense after living it herself, and she enjoys the game more. She knows where to focus her eyes on the field of play.
This is all a good example of classic teaching: tell, show, do, review. I've told her about baseball and its rules. I've shown her games live. She did play herself this summer. Now all we need is review - more trips to the ballpark with daddy.
In 41 days, Marra and I will travel to New Hampshire as part of her political training. I've told her about the candidates. I've told her about the issues. I have shown her the candidates on TV, engaged in active debate on the issues. I've shown her their websites and we've looked at some of their videos. In 41 days, we begin the "do" phase - we will be active participants in the process, meeting and speaking to the volunteers, the activists, and hopefully the candidates themselves.
After our trip, I hope that Marra will lean over to me and say, "Daddy, I understand the game much better now."
Home run!
JS
Last night, she leaned over to tell me that she understands the game much better this season. She explained that playing wiffle ball this summer with her cousins during our beach trip helped her better appreciate what she was seeing in the pro game. The progression of players from one base to the next, the fly ball outs, the counting of runs - it all made more sense after living it herself, and she enjoys the game more. She knows where to focus her eyes on the field of play.
This is all a good example of classic teaching: tell, show, do, review. I've told her about baseball and its rules. I've shown her games live. She did play herself this summer. Now all we need is review - more trips to the ballpark with daddy.
In 41 days, Marra and I will travel to New Hampshire as part of her political training. I've told her about the candidates. I've told her about the issues. I have shown her the candidates on TV, engaged in active debate on the issues. I've shown her their websites and we've looked at some of their videos. In 41 days, we begin the "do" phase - we will be active participants in the process, meeting and speaking to the volunteers, the activists, and hopefully the candidates themselves.
After our trip, I hope that Marra will lean over to me and say, "Daddy, I understand the game much better now."
Home run!
JS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)