Tag Democratic Party

It’s Good To Be A Liberal

Only eight more shopping days until Election Day, kids! I’m going to make a sincere effort this week to post about things other than You-Know-What, but to do that I have to get all of these links out of my system.

Recently, I read someone saying somewhere that people might be surprised at what genuinely nice individuals most politicians are. That the majority of people who go into professional politics do so out of a genuine desire to be of service to other people, regardless of their ideology. Republicans AND Democrats alike — contrary to the vicious rhetoric currently employed by the Republicans. Sometimes that commitment to public service gets obscured by personal ambitions and political obligations, but not always. I think there’s no question that Barack Obama is one of those people who has held on to his personal sense of service, and I hope he is able to continue to do so after he assumes the office of President.

This brief article in the Washington Post’s Sunday magazine lets Dennis Kucinich explain his mission in his own words, and here again you can grasp the sincere desire to help other people, especially people who otherwise have no one to help them. That, friends, is the heart of liberalism (or “progressivism”, if you’re a wimp). Kucinich was practically alone among the Democratic candidates in staking his claim firmly in progressive soil, while Clinton and Obama wrestled over who could be the most like the Republicans. This was and is my biggest qualm with Obama — that while he is a decent person, he is too easily swayed by the political wind. I do not have that sense at all about Dennis Kucinich, and that is why he’ll get my vote next week and why I will continue to support him in the future. The now-embryonic Obama Administration would do well indeed to find a place for Dennis Kucinich and foster his political future so that he might have a realistic chance at the White House eight years hence.

This is Bernie Sanders, the independent Senator from Vermont. Bernie (he prefers to be called “Bernie”) has been in the Senate since the Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006, but he had been Vermont’s single representative in the House for 16 years before that. Bernie’s political affiliation is one of the most interesting ones in modern American politics. He’s listed as an “independent”, caucuses with (and votes with) the Democrats, and describes himself as a Socialist. Indeed, in his earlier days prior to being elected mayor of the city of Burlington, VT, he was a member of an anti-war fringe party, the very sort that William Ayers was involved with (minus the bombs, I guess).

During the years of Alan Greenspan’s chairmanship of the Federal Reserve, Bernie was a vocal critic of Greenspan. At the time, Greenspan was widely considered as a near-magical figure by Washington leaders, able to keep the long boom of the Clinton years rolling along with a single well-directed word in his oracular statements to Congress. Last week, Greenspan, now retired, returned to Congress, hat in hand, to admit that he had “made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms”. This is what Bernie had to say about that.

Bernie Sanders has also been among the few progressive voices (along with Kucinich) speaking out agains the Wall Street bailout, and calling quite vocally for the sort of reforms and public service programs that Franklin Roosevelt enacted at the beginning of his administration. Give ‘em hell, Bernie!

The only part of this summer’s Democratic National Convention that I watched was the night that Ted Kennedy spoke. The man pulled himself out of a hospital bed, was wheeled into the arena, and lifted himself from a wheelchair to walk to the podium to make that speech. The reports from his family continue to be positive, but there could not have been anyone who heard that speech who did not know in their hearts that it would be the last convention speech he’ll make.

Ted Kennedy still plans to return to the floor of the Senate when it reconvenes in January, and it does seem that he will make good on his pledge. The Washington Times (you know, the one run by the Moonies) ran this story last week that describes how Teddy is spending his recuperation time: by crafting a vast piece of legislation to bring his life-long goal of universal health care to the floor of the Senate. While both Barack Obama and John McCain have health care proposals in their platforms, both are fundamentally flawed in many ways. I think there’s more than a little reason to be afraid that President Obama would try to move quickly on his program, putting the issue to bed with a lackluster approach that will haunt us for decades. People who have met with Kennedy to discuss his plan call it a much better alternative to Obama’s plan; it has buy-in from all the assorted interests, and an Obama representative has been kept in the loop as a way to entice Obama to embrace this plan over his own.

This is the most important cause of Kennedy’s long political career, and perhaps the single greatest domestic issue facing this country other than the Wall Street meltdown. The sense is that many in Washington are willing to take this on seriously. One of the executives who runs the AARP says that the prevailing feeling is “Let’s do it for Ted.”

Amen to that.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Can We Have A Do-Over Please?

This AP wire story sums up what I’ve been reading on a number of political blogs this week, namely that Michigan Senator Carl Levin has proposed a redistribution of the Democratic Party delegates from his state’s invalidated primary. Levin, who was the guy who caused the primary to be invalidated by going against DNC rules and scheduling it too early to try to get ahead of New Hampshire, is now responding to DNC Chairman Howard Dean’s call to wrap this all up by June. (Whether there will be any resolution to the situation with the Florida delegates remains to be seen)

At this stage I am sick to death of both of these two. I wasn’t crazy about either of them in the first place, and now I would sooner write in Zippy The Pinhead’s name than cast a ballot for Clinton or Obama. In the run-up to and subsequent run-away from the Pennsylvania primary, both candidates demonstrated what you might really expect from them as President of the United States. Hillary Clinton continues to position herself closer to John McCain with each passing day, while making use of some of Karl Rove’s shittiest playbook entries. Meanwhile, Obama’s beginning to get hopelessly boggged down in the Jeremiah Wright story, along with the usual racist bullshit about him, and his “exciting rhetoric” and “charisma” aren’t helping him “seal the deal” with voters.

So I guess the only reason to vote for either one of these two is because they “don’t suck as much as McCain.” Swell. That sure is a clarion call to leadership for the troubled times ahead.

I would like to officially send a request to Chairman Dean, Senators Clinton and Obama, and all the other Democratic candidates who “suspended” their campaigns in February: may we please have a do-over? One great big Second Chance Primary in all fifty states (plus Puerto Rico, D.C., Guam, and whoever else gets a shot), where we can wipe out all the delegate counts, skip the interminably stupid debates, forego any advertising or fundraising, and just have a “first-across-the-finish-line” race. Or maybe all of them could go on stage and sing in front of the American Idol judges (just as long as Paula Abdul is sober enough to tell the difference between one and two songs), or even do the Paso Doble on Dancing With The Stars (I would love to see Barack Obama dance with Cheryl Burke, or Dennis Kucinich do the jive with Anna Trebunskaya). Anything, anything, ANYTHING! but make us have to pick one of these two 3-D losers, only to have them lose to John “Batshit Insane” McCain…or worse, beat him.

Of course, it could be even worse…Londoners today have to choose between these two dorks for Mayor

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

How About Obama-Dean?

When I posted a couple of weeks ago about the idea of drafting Howard Dean, it was mostly out of my pretty serious disappointment with having to choose between Clinton and Obama. They have some superficial differences, but both are right-of-center Democrats who are unlikely to do anything drastically different from George Bush. Dean, on the other hand, is more progressive than either, and represents a much better possibility of departure from the disastrous agenda the Republicans have put us on.

This piece in the latest issue of The Nation by Ari Berman looks at the accomplishments Dean has made running the Democratic Party, even when the big guns from the Clinton camp tried very hard to marginalize him. Berman also asserts that the success of Barack Obama can be directly attributed to the success Dean has had with building Democratic Party organizations at the grass-roots level. Indeed, the seemingly floundering Clinton campaign, which quite deliberately stuck with the old-boy-network school of campaigning, lends even more credence to Dean as a politician. The article does not come right out and say it, but in its description of the emerging power of Howard Dean in the Democratic Party, it implies that Howard Dean may not be consigned to the ashcan of history just yet.

So, given the unlikely situation that the Democratic convention would pick a candidate out of thin air, I guess I’ll step off of the “Draft Dean” soapbox and climb up onto the “Dean for VP” soapbox. There are a number of decent reasons to choose Dean as a running mate — his previous popularity, his newly-found political sway in the party, the advantage he would have as an incumbent VP running in 2016, and so on. He also would not necessarily overshadow Obama — no presidential candidate wants a running mate who can be perceived as a political threat (a problem I think John Kerry had with John Edwards). In fact, given that Edwards is a potential running mate, I think Dean is a better choice than Edwards, even though the “conventional wisdom” says you have to have a Southerner on the ticket. Dean might also be able, once in office, to keep Obama on the progressive path, since Obama’s own tendency is to cave in rightward.

Plus, “Dean in ’16!” has a good ring to it.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Come Back To The Five & Dime, Howard Dean, Howard Dean

Okay, that magazine cover is from 2004, but I’m seriously wishing the Democrats would drum up a "Draft Dean" movement right about now.  The party regulars made him DNC chairman as a consolation prize for having screwed himself right out of the nomination last time, but also with the clear expectation that they could keep an eye on him there and he wouldn’t cause them much trouble…or at least not run against Hillary in 2008.  But he’s done nothing but irritate the Old Boy Network.  He insisted on a 50-state effort in the 2006 elections and put the party back into the majority in both houses, he’s developed grass-roots efforts that this year are paying off in vast increases in Democratic voter turnout not just in primaries but in caucuses, and he still manages to speak his mind whenever he gets out from under watchful eyes long enough.

The collapse of the Dean campaign four years ago had little to do with Dean’s positions as a candidate, or even his regrettable "YEAARRGGHH!" moment, but about a level of support that was a mile wide but an inch deep.  He fostered a lot of superficial enthusiasm from people not terribly involved in old-school politicking, especially younger voters who wanted "change".  So here we are four years later, and all those college kids who were sure Dean was unstoppable are now the young adult crowd that packs the halls everywhere Barack Obama goes, enchanted by the same nebulous notion of change, but only a little wiser about presidential politics.  Unfortunately, this time their dream candidate is just as superficial as they are.  Meanwhile, the older and more cynical crowd is jumping on the bandwagon out of their own unhappiness with the catch-phrase "Anyone But Clinton", without paying much attention to the point down the road where that chant is likely to bite them in the ass.

So, congratulations to Barack Obama for putting together a coalition of the unwilling and the unthinking but you’ll excuse me if I muster up no enthusiasm.  I’m not convinced that he has the nomination in his pocket because I am convinced that the Clintons will fight a scorched-earth battle to win the Pyrrhic victory of getting the nomination at the price of alienating all those newly-motivated Democratic voters who aren’t QUITE motivated enough to support whichever candidate gets the nomination, just their candidate.

Some people say this all means that the time has come for Al Gore to swoop in and save the day, but his obvious disinterest in returning to the world of electoral politics means the net has to be cast a little wider to snag a draftable candidate.  John Edwards could make a case for being that guy, and I would be okay with that, but why not Howard Dean?  Surely the political newcomers would thrill to the deus ex machina theatrics of a convention that resurrects a candidate that people were so enthused about.  Surely the media would have so much to write about that their heads would explode.  Surely the Republicans would be cast into confusion without their pre-cooked campaigns against "Billary Clinton" and "Barack HUSSEIN Obama".  And we would get a battle-tested, wiser candidate as the nominee, more committed to a progressive agenda than Obama or Clinton and perhaps a chance at real political change instead of just superficiality.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Hope Don’t Pay The Rent, Baby

 

While I was quite pleased to learn that Rudy Giuliani has decided to drop out of the Republican field of Presidential candidates, I’m a bit disappointed to learn that John Edwards is also calling quits in advance of MegaTuesday.  I have never been much of an Edwards supporter, but after Dennis Kucinich dropped out last week I decided that I would vote for Edwards in the Massachusetts primary as my second choice.

At this point, I am weighing whether to vote in the primary or not.  As an unaffiliated voter, I usually do not vote in primaries, but, as I said a couple of weeks ago, I felt that this year, with a broader range of candidates to choose from, it would be worthwhile to have some input by voting for a candidate who wasn’t a front-runner.  Though voting for Kucinich wasn’t going to win him the nomination, votes for the "lesser" candidates help direct the party in its message and goals.  This op-ed in The Nation makes the point that the Democratic Party has been changed by the re-involvement at the grass roots level, spurred on by the campaign of Howard Dean in ’04.  That re-engagement at the ground level of politics is EXACTLY what worked for the Republicans in the 1970s and 80s.  The Democrats need the same thing, whether they want it or not, and more support for less "mainstream" candidates works toward that end.

But now it’s Hillary and Barack, Barack and Hillary, and neither of them comes anywhere near representing "change", no matter how many times they say it.  The Bushies are so sure that Hillary is going to win that they’ve been passing along their notes to her informally so that she can be up to speed on what’s been going on.  The horse race aspect of the campaign makes a good show, but the delegate count matters more than the individual wins, and Hillary’s lead is bigger than you think.  When November comes around, I will vote for her over anyone the Republicans might pick, but it won’t be with any satisfaction.

And I hate to say it, but I can’t manage any enthusiasm at all for Barack Obama.  I think he’s "all hat and no cowboy", as Dan Rather might say.  Sam Smith, who authors/edits the political blog Progressive Review, posted this op-ed yesterday, and sums up a lot of the things I have thought about Obama.  Now, it has to be said that Smith particularly dislikes the Clintons; he’s rarely got anything good to say about them, so it’s not a surprise that he thinks Obama is more honest and thoughtful than Hillary.  But he’s dead on about Obama’s empty platitudes:

For Obama to put so much emphasis on hope suggests that he is either a con artist or deeply policy deficient.

It is fine for a politician to offer us hope, but for it to be real it has to be the byproduct of proposed policies or past actions and not the beginning and end of one’s platform.

There are two good reasons for voting for a candidate. One: the candidate has done something for you. Two: the candidate promises to do something for you.

No candidate meets the first criteria and only John Edwards meets the second.

Without question, this is the most important presidential election in my lifetime.  The disaster of the last eight years is going to take an enormous amount of work to repair, and rhetorical flourish isn’t really Qualification Number One.  The Republican Party has been put in the position of having to make some difficult decisions about the future direction of their party, but at least those directions are clearly represented in their field of candidates.  Not a one of those men deserves to be President, by the way, but at least the party is beginning to re-align itself.  The Democrats, in the meanwhile, have winnowed their choices to A and A1, choices B, C, D, etc. all gone now.  If American politics is already too much like choosing between Coke and Pepsi, the primaries are now like choosing between Classic Coke and New Coke.  I’d prefer a 7Up, thank you.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Election News Link-Dump

Rudy Giuliani

The Republican party primary in South Carolina is on Saturday, as are both party primaries in Nevada, and I don’t blog on the weekends, so here are a few news links to keep up with the goings-on.

The Republicans have practically ignored Nevada because South Carolina has a much higher profile in the party. It’s the place where the losers from New Hampshire go to save their campaign, and where the winners go to nail down the other guys’ coffins. Josh Marshall says the most recent poll from Clemson University has John McCain and Mike Huckabee neck-and-neck, with a slight edge beyond the margin of error to McCain. That poll puts Rudy Giuliani (pictured above) at 3%, and over at Crooks And Liars they’re pointing out that Giuliani’s early leads in all of these pre-MegaTuesday races turned into humiliating defeats, and it’s happening again in South Carolina.

Since nobody else has campaigned in Nevada on the GOP side, the RuPaul…I mean, RON Paul campaign is hoping that they might actually pick up a win, since he’s the only candidate who has run TV ads or even visited Nevada.

On the Democratic side, the three major candidates are also in a statistical dead heat. The story of the week there has been the battle between Dennis Kucinich and MSNBC about including him in the televised debate the other evening. The progressive website Democracy Now! went so far as to edit a videotape of the debate and add in Kucinich’s responses to the questions — you can watch, listen to, or read the transcript of the edited debate.

Meanwhile, this story posted at The Progressive Review says that Michael Bloomberg’s candidacy doesn’t look very hopeful. They quote a WABC news story that says that polling in New York City itself, where he is fairly popular as mayor, has him finishing very poorly against ALL of the currently active candidates. In national polling, his name recognition is only at 75% among voters, he only gets an 11% favorability rating, and he only pulls in 13% in a putative three-way November race.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Why Is This Woman Smiling?

Dennis and Elizabeth Kucinich

The gorgeous redhead standing next to Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich is his wife Elizabeth.

While Congressman Kucinich hasn’t made much of a dent in the campaign polls, she certainly has made quite a sensation, especially here on the Internet. I’d say there’s no doubt that she puts the other campaign trophy wives to shame (though Jeri Thompson runs a pretty close second in the “FLILF” derby).

Many people are still scratching their heads about how this schlubby little guy from Cleveland scored so well with this goddess-like creature. This morning, the folks at Slate think they’ve found a secret clue that explains the entire situation: the anagram of “Dennis Kucinich” is “Nine-inch dick, U.S.”.

And no, you CAN’T see her tongue stud, even if you ask nicely.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Programs! Get Yer Programs HEAH!

demdebate.jpg

The consensus about last night’s Democratic candidate debate seems to be that the gimmick of using YouTube videos didn’t really have much impact — the videos were carefully vetted beforehand, so even if they were clever in their presentation, the questions themselves were still pretty typical.

So if you’re still trying to get a grip on who and what the candidates represent, you might find this interactive issues matrix interesting. It’s alphabetical by name without separation by party affiliation, which I think actually does a better job of clarifying positions — you can see where the Dems and Repubs line up pretty closely on some issues, and you might be surprised at the positions of a few of the major candidates.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

All Original Content Copyright © BrianKaneOnline
All Other Content Copyright © Its Original Authors

Built on Notes Blog Core
Powered by WordPress

Switch to our mobile site