Today, Italy agreed to pay Libya $5b as compensation for a five year occupation that ended in 1943.
Glad to see world leaders are thinking ahead with a keen mind towards the future.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Cookie time
Ah Jeremy. Of course you're going to toe the party line; nobody expected anything less than that. But aside from the fact that you picked Palin about a month ago, nothing much goes right for you.
You allege that Palin's "not someone McCain picked off the street." Yes, this is true. However, he did have 270 other elected officials to choose from (the number of Republicans in the House, the Senate, and Governor's mansions combined), to say nothing of the former officials and businesspeople. So if he had picked, say, Congressman Tim Walberg (R-MI), who was elected in 2006, it wouldn't be a completely random pick, but it would be questionable, experience-wise.
Also, she has only fought against corruption when she needed to. Back in 2006 Ted Stevens wasn't indicted, and it's easy to say now that she fought against the machine. To be clear, she fought against Governor Frank Murkowski and his 19% approval rating. Here is an ad Palin aired during her 2006 campaign, after she had already disposed of Murkowski in the primary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o46YdvT3lwQ. Yes, she sure is fighting hard against corrupt Ted Stevens.
But the most baffling part of your argument is that "this all proves that even Democrats feel Obama is entirely unqualified to be President." First of all, being mayor of a town of 9000 isn't a spectacular achievement. A 19-year old college student can be elected mayor of a town of 38,000, yet nobody would ever say that he is ready to be president. To get my cookie, I'll say this: being on the City Council of Wasilla, AK is a nice jumping point to higher office, such as mayor, but it in no way helps one prepare to be President, let alone Vice President. And to say that her thin executive experience somehow trumps Barack Obama's semi-thin experience is a joke. Two years ago, she was the ex-mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. Two years ago, Barack Obama was still a U.S. Senator.
She and Barack Obama both got elected to semi-legitimate office in 1996 (no, the Wasilla City Council still doesn't count). I think everyone, with the possible exception of you, Jeremy, will agree that being in the Illinois State Senate, representing a district containing much of the South Side of Chicago, is more impressive than being mayor of a town of 9000. In 2002 Palin retired for four years, while Obama served for two more years in the IL Senate. In 2004 Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, the highest legislative body in the country, while Palin continued to do nothing. Finally, in 2006, she was elected governor of Alaska, and has served in that capacity for one and a half years. And Obama has only missed 23% of votes over the past three and a half years, meaning he has "really" served in the Senate for two and a half years.
So on to the math.... Palin: 6 (years as mayor of Wasilla) + 1.5 (years as governor) = 7.5
Obama: 8 (years in the IL State Senate) + 2.5 ("Ruch" years in the U.S. Senate) = 10.5
And this isn't even including Obama's years as a community organizer and law professor in Chicago. What was Palin doing during those years? She worked as a sports reporter in Anchorage, and then worked in commercial fishing with her husband. As for Paul Begala, I was very interested to read what he had to say about the subject on CNN.com: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/begala.palin/index.html.
One doesn't definitively need 20 years in Washington or 8 years as governor to be ready to be president. But what you do need is to be able to convince people that you're able to serve. Obama can intelligently speak at length about all matters ranging from the housing crisis to the War in Iraq. He has led on many important issues in the Senate, and has a unique ability to communicate with voters and understand their problems. He has proven that he is ready to be president. Sarah Palin is nowhere near that. Jeremy, you even admit that she doesn't have foreign policy experience, but does have executive experience. But what good is any amount of executive experience when you haven't done anything with it?
Her approval rating now stands at 64%, she denies that global warming is man-made, she was for the "Bridge to Nowhere" before she was against it, her non-Alaska related political views put her only slightly to the left of Pat Buchanan (a man whose presidential campaign she supported in 1996 and 2000), and she is currently caught up in a hiring and firing corrpution scandal. It doesn't seem like she's made much good use of her one and a half years in office.
There are still many problems with the Palin pick, but to avoid rambling any more, I'll save listing those for another post. But until then, I'll leave you with a few quotes from Alaskans about their governor:
PPS: Can you also mail a cookie to this person?: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/102718/819/638/580087
You allege that Palin's "not someone McCain picked off the street." Yes, this is true. However, he did have 270 other elected officials to choose from (the number of Republicans in the House, the Senate, and Governor's mansions combined), to say nothing of the former officials and businesspeople. So if he had picked, say, Congressman Tim Walberg (R-MI), who was elected in 2006, it wouldn't be a completely random pick, but it would be questionable, experience-wise.
Also, she has only fought against corruption when she needed to. Back in 2006 Ted Stevens wasn't indicted, and it's easy to say now that she fought against the machine. To be clear, she fought against Governor Frank Murkowski and his 19% approval rating. Here is an ad Palin aired during her 2006 campaign, after she had already disposed of Murkowski in the primary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o46YdvT3lwQ. Yes, she sure is fighting hard against corrupt Ted Stevens.
But the most baffling part of your argument is that "this all proves that even Democrats feel Obama is entirely unqualified to be President." First of all, being mayor of a town of 9000 isn't a spectacular achievement. A 19-year old college student can be elected mayor of a town of 38,000, yet nobody would ever say that he is ready to be president. To get my cookie, I'll say this: being on the City Council of Wasilla, AK is a nice jumping point to higher office, such as mayor, but it in no way helps one prepare to be President, let alone Vice President. And to say that her thin executive experience somehow trumps Barack Obama's semi-thin experience is a joke. Two years ago, she was the ex-mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. Two years ago, Barack Obama was still a U.S. Senator.
She and Barack Obama both got elected to semi-legitimate office in 1996 (no, the Wasilla City Council still doesn't count). I think everyone, with the possible exception of you, Jeremy, will agree that being in the Illinois State Senate, representing a district containing much of the South Side of Chicago, is more impressive than being mayor of a town of 9000. In 2002 Palin retired for four years, while Obama served for two more years in the IL Senate. In 2004 Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, the highest legislative body in the country, while Palin continued to do nothing. Finally, in 2006, she was elected governor of Alaska, and has served in that capacity for one and a half years. And Obama has only missed 23% of votes over the past three and a half years, meaning he has "really" served in the Senate for two and a half years.
So on to the math.... Palin: 6 (years as mayor of Wasilla) + 1.5 (years as governor) = 7.5
Obama: 8 (years in the IL State Senate) + 2.5 ("Ruch" years in the U.S. Senate) = 10.5
And this isn't even including Obama's years as a community organizer and law professor in Chicago. What was Palin doing during those years? She worked as a sports reporter in Anchorage, and then worked in commercial fishing with her husband. As for Paul Begala, I was very interested to read what he had to say about the subject on CNN.com: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/begala.palin/index.html.
One doesn't definitively need 20 years in Washington or 8 years as governor to be ready to be president. But what you do need is to be able to convince people that you're able to serve. Obama can intelligently speak at length about all matters ranging from the housing crisis to the War in Iraq. He has led on many important issues in the Senate, and has a unique ability to communicate with voters and understand their problems. He has proven that he is ready to be president. Sarah Palin is nowhere near that. Jeremy, you even admit that she doesn't have foreign policy experience, but does have executive experience. But what good is any amount of executive experience when you haven't done anything with it?
Her approval rating now stands at 64%, she denies that global warming is man-made, she was for the "Bridge to Nowhere" before she was against it, her non-Alaska related political views put her only slightly to the left of Pat Buchanan (a man whose presidential campaign she supported in 1996 and 2000), and she is currently caught up in a hiring and firing corrpution scandal. It doesn't seem like she's made much good use of her one and a half years in office.
There are still many problems with the Palin pick, but to avoid rambling any more, I'll save listing those for another post. But until then, I'll leave you with a few quotes from Alaskans about their governor:
- "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president? Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?" --Alaska GOP Senate leader Lyda Green, who hails from Wasilla
- "She has never publicly demonstrated the kind of interest, much less expertise, in federal issues and foreign affairs that should mark a candidate for the second-highest office in the land." --The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner
- "If you took a poll of reporters and legislators I expect her approval rating would be down in the teens or twenties." --Anchorage Daily News columnist Gregg Erickson
PPS: Can you also mail a cookie to this person?: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/102718/819/638/580087
A brilliant pick
Okay, so I'm a little biased (in an act of sheer genius and extraordinariy foresight--as well as exemplary modesty-- I called for this exact pick a few weeks ago).
Truth is, after hearing a day of Democrat attacks, I'm even more convinced. First things first-- energy may well be the defining issue of the campaign. McCain's running (rightly, I think) on the principle that energy must be found in any way possible, regardless of environmental concerns, and picking someone from Alaska cements that idea (although he doesn't, as she does, support drilling in ANWR).
Palin has been a fantastic Governor-- she's not someone McCain picked off the street. Her approval ratings are in the 90's-- I think even Putin's here in Russia are lower than that. She was elected Governor by lambasting Republicans for corruption (Ten Stevens, anyone?) and calling for ethics reform, and has made her living trying to root out rampant corruption in her state.
But more importantly, far from undercutting McCain's message, this all proves that even Democrats feel Obama is entirely unqualified to be President. How? Yesterday, an Obama spokesman was quick to criticize McCain for putting a "former Mayor of a town of 9,000" on his ticket. Problem is, she has as much, if not more experience than your presidential candidate has-- more to the point, executive experience. I'll give a Mrs. Fields chocolate chip cookie to the first person who offer me a reasonable explanation as to how two years as Governor, and a few more as mayor of a small town, somehow qualifies as less than two years (since he started his campaign in 2007 and has been pretty absent in the Senate since) as a Senator and a few more as a State-level legislator. Maybe he has Foreign Policy experience, but she makes up for it with executive experience. When the point was made to Paul Begala-- who called McCain "nuts" for the pick-- on Larry King, the best thing he could come up with was that 18 million people voted for Obama.
Ridiculous. It was rightly pointed out to him that he doesn't need to be one of many more people who will vote for the ticket in November.
Truth is, after hearing a day of Democrat attacks, I'm even more convinced. First things first-- energy may well be the defining issue of the campaign. McCain's running (rightly, I think) on the principle that energy must be found in any way possible, regardless of environmental concerns, and picking someone from Alaska cements that idea (although he doesn't, as she does, support drilling in ANWR).
Palin has been a fantastic Governor-- she's not someone McCain picked off the street. Her approval ratings are in the 90's-- I think even Putin's here in Russia are lower than that. She was elected Governor by lambasting Republicans for corruption (Ten Stevens, anyone?) and calling for ethics reform, and has made her living trying to root out rampant corruption in her state.
But more importantly, far from undercutting McCain's message, this all proves that even Democrats feel Obama is entirely unqualified to be President. How? Yesterday, an Obama spokesman was quick to criticize McCain for putting a "former Mayor of a town of 9,000" on his ticket. Problem is, she has as much, if not more experience than your presidential candidate has-- more to the point, executive experience. I'll give a Mrs. Fields chocolate chip cookie to the first person who offer me a reasonable explanation as to how two years as Governor, and a few more as mayor of a small town, somehow qualifies as less than two years (since he started his campaign in 2007 and has been pretty absent in the Senate since) as a Senator and a few more as a State-level legislator. Maybe he has Foreign Policy experience, but she makes up for it with executive experience. When the point was made to Paul Begala-- who called McCain "nuts" for the pick-- on Larry King, the best thing he could come up with was that 18 million people voted for Obama.
Ridiculous. It was rightly pointed out to him that he doesn't need to be one of many more people who will vote for the ticket in November.
Who's Running Alaska?
As I'm sure you all know Sarah Palin is the current Governor of Alaska. She is the executive power in charge in Juneau. However, as of today, she has been chosen by John McCain to be his running mate.
Okay!
With the Governor away campaigning, at least the great state of Alaska can rely on their Lt. Governor, Sean Parnell.
Uh-oh!
Currently, Lt. Governor Sean Parnell is campaigning for a seat in congress this year!
So I pose this question: Who is running Alaska?
Not me!
Okay!
With the Governor away campaigning, at least the great state of Alaska can rely on their Lt. Governor, Sean Parnell.
Uh-oh!
Currently, Lt. Governor Sean Parnell is campaigning for a seat in congress this year!
So I pose this question: Who is running Alaska?
Not me!
Thursday, August 28, 2008
My First Post
Now that I am out of camp, it's time to start blogging. It's been a pleasure to catch up on the past summer's posts.
I love Obama, but I spaced out during parts of his speech, and read this.
Any way you look at it, Georgia has become a divisive issue for the United States and Russia. I still believe that the tensions surfacing now are a result of the eastern expansion of NATO and American missile defense systems. At the same time, I do believe that recent talk on TV of a second Cold War is bogus. Any Russian retaliation over the missile deal, such as a threatened attack on Poland or Ukraine, seems highly improbable; however, it does make sense that the Russian government would flip-out over the deal. It creates an interesting parallel to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
To close out, a 1987 quote from Mikhail Gorbachev sent to me by my father:
"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. "
I love it.
I love Obama, but I spaced out during parts of his speech, and read this.
Any way you look at it, Georgia has become a divisive issue for the United States and Russia. I still believe that the tensions surfacing now are a result of the eastern expansion of NATO and American missile defense systems. At the same time, I do believe that recent talk on TV of a second Cold War is bogus. Any Russian retaliation over the missile deal, such as a threatened attack on Poland or Ukraine, seems highly improbable; however, it does make sense that the Russian government would flip-out over the deal. It creates an interesting parallel to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
To close out, a 1987 quote from Mikhail Gorbachev sent to me by my father:
"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. "
I love it.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Clinton Overdose
Is it just me, or is the name "Clinton" getting too much airtime during this convention?
A quick disclaimer:
Never before have I appreciated the service and dedication of Hilary Clinton more. She is a true patriot, and, despite what many Obama-Zealots believe, genuinely fights for what is in the best interest of all Americans. There is no denying that we will need her leadership and ability on the Senate floor throughout the Obama administration's time in office.
However, after hearing that more and more delegates at the convention refuse to vote for anyone other than Hilary during the roll-call vote, I'm beginning to doubt the efficacy of having Hilary Clinton's named plastered all over this convention.
She absolutely deserves to speak at the prime time spot tonight. However, the focus of the convention leading up to her speech is not "Renewing America's Promise" as the DNC promised us. Instead, it is, "Will Hilary swallow her pride, or will this speech be a prelude to her 2012 campaign."
And don't even get me started on Bill. To be honest, the same can be said of his service to our country, and he was an inarguably incredible President. However, it has become very clear throughout this campaign that Bill's emotions can get the better of him. He is yet to say that Barack Obama would make a good president. One would assume that in order to get a time slot at the podium during this convention, you'd need to have the ability to support the nominee!
Don't get me wrong, I love the Clinton family. They're brilliantly pragmatic, and it's absolutely impressive. However, I think it's time they stepped out of the spotlight. At the rate we're going at now, there will be Democratic primary debates for th 2012 Election next summer, anyways.
A quick disclaimer:
Never before have I appreciated the service and dedication of Hilary Clinton more. She is a true patriot, and, despite what many Obama-Zealots believe, genuinely fights for what is in the best interest of all Americans. There is no denying that we will need her leadership and ability on the Senate floor throughout the Obama administration's time in office.
However, after hearing that more and more delegates at the convention refuse to vote for anyone other than Hilary during the roll-call vote, I'm beginning to doubt the efficacy of having Hilary Clinton's named plastered all over this convention.
She absolutely deserves to speak at the prime time spot tonight. However, the focus of the convention leading up to her speech is not "Renewing America's Promise" as the DNC promised us. Instead, it is, "Will Hilary swallow her pride, or will this speech be a prelude to her 2012 campaign."
And don't even get me started on Bill. To be honest, the same can be said of his service to our country, and he was an inarguably incredible President. However, it has become very clear throughout this campaign that Bill's emotions can get the better of him. He is yet to say that Barack Obama would make a good president. One would assume that in order to get a time slot at the podium during this convention, you'd need to have the ability to support the nominee!
Don't get me wrong, I love the Clinton family. They're brilliantly pragmatic, and it's absolutely impressive. However, I think it's time they stepped out of the spotlight. At the rate we're going at now, there will be Democratic primary debates for th 2012 Election next summer, anyways.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
It's Biden!
In case anybody hasn't seen (and if that's the case, then you need to get out more), Obama will apparently name Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) later today (link here). In my mind this is a good pick, but, as with all people, it's a two-sided coin.
Pros:
Pros:
- Biden was elected to the Senate in 1972 (at the age of 29), which brings a lot of experience to counter McCain's argument that Obama is naive and unexperienced.
- He is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which counters the argument that the Obama campaign lacks foreign policy knowledge and depth.
- Born into a working-class Catholic family, Biden has always stayed true to his blue-collar roots, and has constantly been ranked one of the poorest senators (and yes, he only has one house).
- In 1972, shortly after he was elected to the Senate, his wife and infant daughter died in a car crash; to ensure that he would always stay close with his family, Biden made it a practice to commute from Washington, DC to his house in Wilmington, DE every night, a tradition that he still continues.
- Biden is a quick wit, and will be a formidable attack dog, both in the debates and on the campaign trail.
- He tends to run his mouth, leading to boring, drawn-out answers to questions that could be answered in a sentence or two.
- Similarly, Biden has committed a series of high-profile gaffes in his career, including: accidentally plagiarizing UK Labour leader Neil Kinnock during his first presidential run in 1988; saying, on the topic of Indian-American relations, "You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent;" and, on Obama's run for the Presidency, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that's a storybook, man."
- He doesn't add much geographically, nor does he reinforce the "change" image that the Obama campaign has worked so hard to perfect.
- He made some comments about Obama's lack of experience, while he was waging his own campaign for the Democratic nomination last year, that the Republicans have already started to use against him, such as "I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Fivethirtyeight.com
Not to toot the horn of other political blogs, but fivethirtyeight.com is a pretty good one. It's operated by Nate Silver (an editor of Baseball Prospectus) and brings a surprisingly and frustratingly rare mathematical and research-based approach to interpreting political polling. Just as Baseball Prospectus is the best source for baseball information in a world filled with ridiculous conventional wisdoms and opinions based on no research, fivethirtyeight.com is a beacon of saneness in an otherwise confusing and difficult to navigate political world. I urge you to check it out.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Veepstakes: 8/15 (GOP)
Not to post four straight posts here, but I'm going to post four straight posts here. Yesterday we looked at the Democratic VP possibilities; today the Republicans!
10. Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) [Last: 9]
9. Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA) [Last: N/A]
8. Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) [Last: 5]
7. Former OMB Director Rob Portman (R-OH) [Last: 6]
6. Senator John Thune (R-SD) [Last: 8]
5. Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) [Last: 4]
Jindal's stock has dipped a bit over the last month, largely due to the McCain campaign's realization that Jindal is a) too conservative; b) too young; and c) too weird. Also, saying he is "staying as governor whether you like it or not" doesn't really leave much room for McCain to name him to the ticket. Still, nobody's stock was higher than his about a month ago, and the base does love him. But does McCain actually have base problems like we thought he would? For more on that, see picks 4 and 2.
4. Senator Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT) [Last: 10]
Ah, Senator Lieberman. Democrats hate him with a passion, Republicans love him. That in and of itself is surprising, considering Lieberman has a "Liberal rating" of 57.5, which puts him more to the left than six other members of his party. But Lieberman probably tilts even more right than that. Excepting the War in Iraq, Lieberman votes squarely with the Democrats on everything; yes, that includes the always popular issue of abortion. Lieberman is popular with the Republicans for the sole reason that he makes Democrats' heads explode. Would they like him on their ticket? Not likely. But everybody likes bipartisanship, and the story of McCain having Al Gore's VP nominee on his ticket would be a press coup. Lieberman's a masterful fighter dog, the running mate's primary occupation, but he seems more likely to assume a Zell Miller-esque role at the Republican Convention than be the VP nominee.
3. Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) [Last: 1]
Romney's stock hasn't fallen, it's just faded. It's no secret that Romney and McCain don't like each other much, and the common wisdom at the beginning of the veepstakes was that it would take a miracle for Romney to be named to McCain's ticket. His negatives (flip-flopper, slick politician, Massachusetts roots) are glaring, while his positives (he's conservative?, he brings in money) are more questionable. Romney's main draw was always his fundraising prowess, something that the McCain ticket no longer needs so much of. And, while Huckabee might not be the VP, he and his base still have some say, so stories like this aren't so favorable to the Mittster's chances. But, as much as people may rant and bluster, Romney was good in the debates (especially when attacking the other candidates), and is able to effectively portray the role of a conservative, even if that's not really him. He, like Pawlenty, is a safe pick, but the safe qualities he embodies might not be needed anymore.
2. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge (R-PA) [Last: N/A]
Ridge has it all. He was the popular governor of a swing state that the Democrats so desparately need to win; he was the first secretary of homeland security, which would beef up the McCain ticket's foreign policy credibility; and he has spent the past few years in business, which only highlight his already impressive economic knowledge. So why wasn't this guy named to the ticket months ago? The answer is very simple: he's pro-choice. When McCain floated the idea a few days ago that he would consider naming a pro-choice running mate, the religious right doesn't like (and see here) that concept much. There are plenty of adequate pro-life candidates, they say, so why name a pro-choice one? It is well known that, if McCain had his way, Ridge would be on his ticket. And he just might be, but he'd have to be prepared to deal with the fallout from the voters that elected (and re-elected) George W. Bush. Is it worth it?
1. Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) [Last: 2]
Pawlenty's somewhat of a safe pick, which is why his name has kind of faded recently. While the Democratic buzz has been all about the boring guys (Bayh, Biden, Kaine), the GOP buzz has turned to the edgy picks of Ridge and Lieberman. But recent developments don't cancel out the fact that McCain and Pawlenty are good friends, and the recent statement by McCain that Republicans are "really going to like Pawlenty." The one problem with Pawlenty is that he doesn't really bring much geographically, although the GOP thinks he does. Contrary to their thinking, neither Minnesota, nor Iowa, nor Wisconsin are in play this November. Michigan might be, but it's hard to see how Pawlenty helps there (Romney's the guy if the aim is to win the Great Lakes State). Still, he's conservative, fairly popular, and wouldn't hurt the McCain ticket one bit. But one wonders if, in light of Obama's lead in the polls, it would help the McCain camp if they shook things up. Picking Pawlenty would certainly not do that.
10. Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) [Last: 9]
9. Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA) [Last: N/A]
8. Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) [Last: 5]
7. Former OMB Director Rob Portman (R-OH) [Last: 6]
6. Senator John Thune (R-SD) [Last: 8]
5. Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) [Last: 4]
Jindal's stock has dipped a bit over the last month, largely due to the McCain campaign's realization that Jindal is a) too conservative; b) too young; and c) too weird. Also, saying he is "staying as governor whether you like it or not" doesn't really leave much room for McCain to name him to the ticket. Still, nobody's stock was higher than his about a month ago, and the base does love him. But does McCain actually have base problems like we thought he would? For more on that, see picks 4 and 2.
4. Senator Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT) [Last: 10]
Ah, Senator Lieberman. Democrats hate him with a passion, Republicans love him. That in and of itself is surprising, considering Lieberman has a "Liberal rating" of 57.5, which puts him more to the left than six other members of his party. But Lieberman probably tilts even more right than that. Excepting the War in Iraq, Lieberman votes squarely with the Democrats on everything; yes, that includes the always popular issue of abortion. Lieberman is popular with the Republicans for the sole reason that he makes Democrats' heads explode. Would they like him on their ticket? Not likely. But everybody likes bipartisanship, and the story of McCain having Al Gore's VP nominee on his ticket would be a press coup. Lieberman's a masterful fighter dog, the running mate's primary occupation, but he seems more likely to assume a Zell Miller-esque role at the Republican Convention than be the VP nominee.
3. Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) [Last: 1]
Romney's stock hasn't fallen, it's just faded. It's no secret that Romney and McCain don't like each other much, and the common wisdom at the beginning of the veepstakes was that it would take a miracle for Romney to be named to McCain's ticket. His negatives (flip-flopper, slick politician, Massachusetts roots) are glaring, while his positives (he's conservative?, he brings in money) are more questionable. Romney's main draw was always his fundraising prowess, something that the McCain ticket no longer needs so much of. And, while Huckabee might not be the VP, he and his base still have some say, so stories like this aren't so favorable to the Mittster's chances. But, as much as people may rant and bluster, Romney was good in the debates (especially when attacking the other candidates), and is able to effectively portray the role of a conservative, even if that's not really him. He, like Pawlenty, is a safe pick, but the safe qualities he embodies might not be needed anymore.
2. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge (R-PA) [Last: N/A]
Ridge has it all. He was the popular governor of a swing state that the Democrats so desparately need to win; he was the first secretary of homeland security, which would beef up the McCain ticket's foreign policy credibility; and he has spent the past few years in business, which only highlight his already impressive economic knowledge. So why wasn't this guy named to the ticket months ago? The answer is very simple: he's pro-choice. When McCain floated the idea a few days ago that he would consider naming a pro-choice running mate, the religious right doesn't like (and see here) that concept much. There are plenty of adequate pro-life candidates, they say, so why name a pro-choice one? It is well known that, if McCain had his way, Ridge would be on his ticket. And he just might be, but he'd have to be prepared to deal with the fallout from the voters that elected (and re-elected) George W. Bush. Is it worth it?
1. Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) [Last: 2]
Pawlenty's somewhat of a safe pick, which is why his name has kind of faded recently. While the Democratic buzz has been all about the boring guys (Bayh, Biden, Kaine), the GOP buzz has turned to the edgy picks of Ridge and Lieberman. But recent developments don't cancel out the fact that McCain and Pawlenty are good friends, and the recent statement by McCain that Republicans are "really going to like Pawlenty." The one problem with Pawlenty is that he doesn't really bring much geographically, although the GOP thinks he does. Contrary to their thinking, neither Minnesota, nor Iowa, nor Wisconsin are in play this November. Michigan might be, but it's hard to see how Pawlenty helps there (Romney's the guy if the aim is to win the Great Lakes State). Still, he's conservative, fairly popular, and wouldn't hurt the McCain ticket one bit. But one wonders if, in light of Obama's lead in the polls, it would help the McCain camp if they shook things up. Picking Pawlenty would certainly not do that.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
A thought
This probably isn't anything, but I was musing around the Democratic National Convention's announced list of speakers (seen here) and noticed one very glaring exception: former Vice President Al Gore. Granted, the full slate of Thursday speakers hasn't been announced, and Josh rightly points out that Gore would be a prime person to introduce Obama, but it's still something to think over. You would assume that somebody who apparently is "likely to star at [the] convention" (c/o Reuters UK) would be one of the first announced, and most publicized, speakers.
Yet here we are, exactly two weeks before Obama is to accept the Democratic nomination, and one of the party's elder statesmen is not on the agenda. In 2004, former Georgia Senator Max Cleland introduced John Kerry. This appearance was announced at least 12 days before the start of the convention (see here). The start of this year's convention is but 11 days away, and an announcement has to be made soon.
If Gore is not slated for any of those Thursday spots, that would lead me, and probably many others, to the obvious conclusion here. It's unlikely, and has been denied by Gore himself before, but could an upset VP pick be in the making?
Yet here we are, exactly two weeks before Obama is to accept the Democratic nomination, and one of the party's elder statesmen is not on the agenda. In 2004, former Georgia Senator Max Cleland introduced John Kerry. This appearance was announced at least 12 days before the start of the convention (see here). The start of this year's convention is but 11 days away, and an announcement has to be made soon.
If Gore is not slated for any of those Thursday spots, that would lead me, and probably many others, to the obvious conclusion here. It's unlikely, and has been denied by Gore himself before, but could an upset VP pick be in the making?
Veepstakes: 8/14 (Dems)
It's been a month since we took a look at the potential VP candidates on each side, and a lot has changed since then. John Edwards admitted to having an affair, Russia invaded Georgia, and the energy crisis turned into a GOP sideshow. To see what kind of an impact those events had on the veepstakes (Democratic today, Republican tomorrow), let's turn to the rankings:
10. Former Vice President Al Gore (D-TN) [Last: 10]
9. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) [Last: N/A]
8. Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) [Last: N/A]
7. Former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) [Last: 8]
6. Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) [Last: 3]
5. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) [Last: 7]
For the 99.9% of all Americans who haven't heard of Senator Jack Reed, he is a quite liberal senator from Rhode Island. Those last two qualifications alone would seem to dismiss any chance he has of landing on the backside of "Obama/," but think again. He served in the Army from 1971 to 1979, is one of the leading Senate voices on matters of both foreign and domestic importance, and, as a Catholic, has strong roots to the working class demographic that Obama has had trouble tapping into. He also accompanied Senator Obama on his highly publicized trip to the Middle East, for what was widely seen as Reed's VP audition. The fact that he doesn't immediately add any new state to the Obama column is certainly a drawback, but then againLyndon Johnson (1960) was the last VP pick to actually swing any state, so geography might be a tad overrated. Stay tuned, he could be a major sleeper pick.
4. Governor Tim Kaine (D-VA) [Last: 4]
Ever since his name came out as one of Obama's VP hopefuls, Governor Tim Kaine has played the veepstakes in a very odd way. Instead of dampening buzz, as per usual, Kaine has made no pretense that he's not interested in the job, stating "[Obama's VP list] seems to be getting shorter. And I'm still being mentioned." This has widely been seen as a headfake to get the mediat to run to Kaine, only to be completely be surprised by who Obama actually picks. But if he is seriously up for the job, his good looks, youth, and hailing from a swing state are pluses. His poor record as governor and rather moderate views on a number of key issues (labor relations, faith-based opposition to abortion), however, make him a risky pick.
3. Former General Wesley Clark (D-AR) [Last: N/A]
After Clark made some not-so-false (but oh so controversial) comments in early July, he went from veepstakes darling to somebody Obama shouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole. So it is with great surprise that, with an announcement from Obama seemingly less than a week away, Clark now resides near the top of this VP list. The first clue, which may even be too obvious, to Clark's ascension (not just here, but within actual political circles as well) is the fact that the DNC has announced that the theme for Wendesday of the Convention, the night the VP is announced, is "Securing America's Future;" three words which just happen to also be the name of Clark's political action committee. Although he's short on elected experience, and his only field of expertise is foreign affairs, Clark has proved his mettle as a more than capable attack dog. The recent Georgia crisis has just accentuated the need for foreign policy gravitas, and finally people are remembering why Clark was such an ideal pick in the first place.
2. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) [Last: 1]
After the much ado about nothing that was Obama's joint appearace with Senator Bayh on August 6th, and many false predictions about that event, moderate Evan Bayh of Indiana finds himself slipping a place in these rankings. It was widely seen that, if Obama was going to pick Bayh, that date last week was the time to do it. Since then, the Bayh speculation has surprisingly not dampened, but rather grew. There is word out now that Bayh's chances are "better than 50/50," but that should be taken with a grain of salt. A major backlash from the liberal blogosphere, combined with a rather biting New York Times article that does not paint Bayh in an all-too-positive light, seem to have excluded Bayh from serious consideration. Yet here we are in mid-August and he's still hanging tight. The #2 ranking might be more of a perception thing than what will actually happen, but Bayh is certainly not to be counted out.
1. Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) [Last: 2]
It is surprising how little coverage Biden's VP chances are getting in the media, be it blogospheric or mainstream. After over thirty hugely respectable years in Washington, with two unsuccessful presidential campaigns under his belt, nobody knows the ropes more than Joe Biden. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Biden's authority on foreign policy matters is unquestioned, and his longtime chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee gives him serious knowledge of domestic issues. He's one of the most talented debaters and speakers around (see: Noun+Verb+9/11=Rudy Giuliani's sentences), and would absolutely serve as the aggressive attack dog that Obama would need him to. And unlike Bayh or Kaine, Biden is the one frontrunner with truly progressive views, so he would be palatable to both the base and independents alike. He's not a sure thing at this point, but he is certainly the frontrunner.
10. Former Vice President Al Gore (D-TN) [Last: 10]
9. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) [Last: N/A]
8. Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) [Last: N/A]
7. Former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) [Last: 8]
6. Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) [Last: 3]
5. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) [Last: 7]
For the 99.9% of all Americans who haven't heard of Senator Jack Reed, he is a quite liberal senator from Rhode Island. Those last two qualifications alone would seem to dismiss any chance he has of landing on the backside of "Obama/," but think again. He served in the Army from 1971 to 1979, is one of the leading Senate voices on matters of both foreign and domestic importance, and, as a Catholic, has strong roots to the working class demographic that Obama has had trouble tapping into. He also accompanied Senator Obama on his highly publicized trip to the Middle East, for what was widely seen as Reed's VP audition. The fact that he doesn't immediately add any new state to the Obama column is certainly a drawback, but then againLyndon Johnson (1960) was the last VP pick to actually swing any state, so geography might be a tad overrated. Stay tuned, he could be a major sleeper pick.
4. Governor Tim Kaine (D-VA) [Last: 4]
Ever since his name came out as one of Obama's VP hopefuls, Governor Tim Kaine has played the veepstakes in a very odd way. Instead of dampening buzz, as per usual, Kaine has made no pretense that he's not interested in the job, stating "[Obama's VP list] seems to be getting shorter. And I'm still being mentioned." This has widely been seen as a headfake to get the mediat to run to Kaine, only to be completely be surprised by who Obama actually picks. But if he is seriously up for the job, his good looks, youth, and hailing from a swing state are pluses. His poor record as governor and rather moderate views on a number of key issues (labor relations, faith-based opposition to abortion), however, make him a risky pick.
3. Former General Wesley Clark (D-AR) [Last: N/A]
After Clark made some not-so-false (but oh so controversial) comments in early July, he went from veepstakes darling to somebody Obama shouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole. So it is with great surprise that, with an announcement from Obama seemingly less than a week away, Clark now resides near the top of this VP list. The first clue, which may even be too obvious, to Clark's ascension (not just here, but within actual political circles as well) is the fact that the DNC has announced that the theme for Wendesday of the Convention, the night the VP is announced, is "Securing America's Future;" three words which just happen to also be the name of Clark's political action committee. Although he's short on elected experience, and his only field of expertise is foreign affairs, Clark has proved his mettle as a more than capable attack dog. The recent Georgia crisis has just accentuated the need for foreign policy gravitas, and finally people are remembering why Clark was such an ideal pick in the first place.
2. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) [Last: 1]
After the much ado about nothing that was Obama's joint appearace with Senator Bayh on August 6th, and many false predictions about that event, moderate Evan Bayh of Indiana finds himself slipping a place in these rankings. It was widely seen that, if Obama was going to pick Bayh, that date last week was the time to do it. Since then, the Bayh speculation has surprisingly not dampened, but rather grew. There is word out now that Bayh's chances are "better than 50/50," but that should be taken with a grain of salt. A major backlash from the liberal blogosphere, combined with a rather biting New York Times article that does not paint Bayh in an all-too-positive light, seem to have excluded Bayh from serious consideration. Yet here we are in mid-August and he's still hanging tight. The #2 ranking might be more of a perception thing than what will actually happen, but Bayh is certainly not to be counted out.
1. Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) [Last: 2]
It is surprising how little coverage Biden's VP chances are getting in the media, be it blogospheric or mainstream. After over thirty hugely respectable years in Washington, with two unsuccessful presidential campaigns under his belt, nobody knows the ropes more than Joe Biden. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Biden's authority on foreign policy matters is unquestioned, and his longtime chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee gives him serious knowledge of domestic issues. He's one of the most talented debaters and speakers around (see: Noun+Verb+9/11=Rudy Giuliani's sentences), and would absolutely serve as the aggressive attack dog that Obama would need him to. And unlike Bayh or Kaine, Biden is the one frontrunner with truly progressive views, so he would be palatable to both the base and independents alike. He's not a sure thing at this point, but he is certainly the frontrunner.
People don't do such things!
Yes, the title is a reference to Hedda Gabler, but rest assured that the rest of this post won't be spent dissecting Ms. Elvsted's relationship to Hedda. No, the topic of discussion here is much more interesting and, frankly, much more important. In case you haven't heard (and you probably haven't, thanks to the media), John McCain said on national TV the other day "In the 21st century nations don't invade other nations." Some might be thinking that McCain here is reversing his policy on Iraq, or American might in general; but that would be too easy. Senator McCain is admonishing Russia, a favorite pastime of his, for their seemingly unprovoked attack on the Republic of Georgia.
I'll give you a second to chew this one over.
Done with that? Okay, good. Just to break it down, Russia is one of the largest countries in the world, and is a key ally (or cool partner in peace, at least) in the diplomatic world. Vladimir Putin, the de facto head of state, is know for being a brilliantly calculating politician; someone with whom the next president will have to work productively.
Insulting his [Putin's] foreign policy moves, blunderous as they may be, with a statement that reeks of hypocritical self-righteousness is not the way to go about cementing the important US-Russia relationship. America is viewed internationally as a brutish, pompous, mean superpower: an image that is not ill-deserved. By continuing to further this stereotype, Senator McCain does not do any favors for the USA's worldwide approval.
If Senator McCain really does not believe that, in the 21st century, it is right for one country to invade one another, then perhaps he would like to take an admirable lead on quickly and safely ending the conflict in Iraq. But, of course this will not happen. Instead, he will go back to the campaign trail: a place where he can make all the arrogant and dangerous statements he would like, and never once get called on them.
I'll give you a second to chew this one over.
Done with that? Okay, good. Just to break it down, Russia is one of the largest countries in the world, and is a key ally (or cool partner in peace, at least) in the diplomatic world. Vladimir Putin, the de facto head of state, is know for being a brilliantly calculating politician; someone with whom the next president will have to work productively.
Insulting his [Putin's] foreign policy moves, blunderous as they may be, with a statement that reeks of hypocritical self-righteousness is not the way to go about cementing the important US-Russia relationship. America is viewed internationally as a brutish, pompous, mean superpower: an image that is not ill-deserved. By continuing to further this stereotype, Senator McCain does not do any favors for the USA's worldwide approval.
If Senator McCain really does not believe that, in the 21st century, it is right for one country to invade one another, then perhaps he would like to take an admirable lead on quickly and safely ending the conflict in Iraq. But, of course this will not happen. Instead, he will go back to the campaign trail: a place where he can make all the arrogant and dangerous statements he would like, and never once get called on them.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
John Edwards
I'm sure everyone knows just what happened with regards to the recent outing of his affair.
I am simply starting a thread of discussion on the matter.
Personally, this episode has just reinforced my belief that politicians are such egomaniacs that they believe the rules of society simply do not apply to themselves. Now more than ever, we are seeing politicians succumb to the lure of promiscuous sexual activity. Do these men truly believe that they are above the potential scandal created when they go ahead and fool around?
Heres a question that many of our congressmen should ask themselves before diving into anything mischievous (and this includes shady political decisions as well, not just sex [cough..ted stevens...cough]): is the risk worth the reward?
I am simply starting a thread of discussion on the matter.
Personally, this episode has just reinforced my belief that politicians are such egomaniacs that they believe the rules of society simply do not apply to themselves. Now more than ever, we are seeing politicians succumb to the lure of promiscuous sexual activity. Do these men truly believe that they are above the potential scandal created when they go ahead and fool around?
Heres a question that many of our congressmen should ask themselves before diving into anything mischievous (and this includes shady political decisions as well, not just sex [cough..ted stevens...cough]): is the risk worth the reward?
Friday, August 1, 2008
McCain's New Ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mopkn0lPzM8
And thus, the McCain campaign becomes a parody of itself. And of so many other things...
And thus, the McCain campaign becomes a parody of itself. And of so many other things...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)