On Saturday afternoon, my son and I were staking out the exit doors of our local Lowe's Home Improvement Store (when did they stop being "hardware" stores?), pitching overpriced popcorn to the weekend masses on behalf of his Cub Scout troop. "Would you like to buy some popcorn or make a donation?" Over and over, without any change in pitch or delivery, he and his 8 year old buddy were models of persistence and dogged optimism. It obviously takes a lot of rejection to dampen the enthusiasm of a kid supporting his gang and his cause. Minimum prices per can began at $8, skyrocketing to $17 for a large decorative tin of pre-popped, caramel covered popcorn with almonds. Makes a great gift. We all know that the Girl Scouts have cornered the market with their "treats disguised as charity" business model, a profit engine driven first and foremost by the popular Thin Mints. Those cookie box prices are designed to drive volume, and provide an immediate investment return for the little salesperson who smiles sweetly and says "Pleeeease" with that irresistible and unrehearsed hint of desperation. Girl Scout cookie sales are "a slam dunk", while Cub Scout popcorn sales require more finesse.
But I am not here to whine about the Girl Scouts making our job harder on this sunny day. Thomas had heard his share of "No thank you" and adults pretending not to see or hear him and his sales pitch. "Part of the sales training process", I encouraged him. Thomas, midway through his 2-hour shift, had his own theory on his sales successes and failures. He turned to his friend and commented, "The people with the white skin are buying the popcorn, and the people with the black skin are not."
ALERT! ALERT! White Man's Guilt, dead ahead!!!
In the pit of my stomach, I felt it. And I had to react.
"Thomas, let's not make snap decisions about who will buy popcorn and who won't. You never know just by looking at someone, so just keep trying." He listened (not sure if he understood), and dutifully went back to his friend and the job of moving product.
I'll admit, I've had many thoughts about this incident since, and most are positive. First, all my son did was state a fact - more white people had in fact been customers. He wasn't suggesting that black prospects be ignored, and his behavior towards the clientele remained unaffected. That's good. Second, his friend didn't react one way or the other to the observation. To him, someone young enough to be unencumbered by the guilt of racism, the comment meant nothing beyond that statement of fact. Third, I realized that he had not made any distinctions between the brown skinned and the black skinned. There was only white and non-white to him, the shadings didn't register as a significant difference. Finally, there was no whiff of condescension, no fears; there was only "this is what I see" without extra baggage attached.
After replaying the moment in my head, I am left with some pride - in our parenting, in our schools, and in our country. The much maligned "multiculturalism" as taught in the schools and supported by the non-Right Wing media appears to be having an impact on the up and coming generations. Maybe the racial differences that were defined for us in an often negative way as we grew up are falling away. Maybe our kids will see the differences in skin and accent, but not assign negative personality traits to those differences. Maybe our kids are learning not to ignore differences, but to see them, shrug, and move on.
Marra will grow up knowing that Barack Obama can run for President as a top tier contender, based on his merits. Marra will live in a world where a woman running for the highest office is a given. In New Hampshire, we will probably hear questions about race and gender. If I'm right, Marra will hear these questions and later ask me, "Daddy, why does any of that matter? I don't get it." That would be great.
On the trail in 11 days.
JS
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Candidates for Reality TV
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)