Democratic NH Debate Livefeed - Politics
8:10Oddly enough, my main issue with the Democratic debate tonight is not with what people are saying, but with the format.
I understand that being the frontrunner by itself will generate momentum, but the media shouldn’t pander so obviously to that. Wolfowitz, what’s the deal with railroading everybody but Obama and Hillary off their statements? On one question, Richardson and Edwards were both hushed repeatedly, and in response to Edwards’s point Obama went off on a minute + tangent – and he wasn’t asked to wrap it up. It’s ridiculous. Just because you poll higher, you get more time? This isn’t a matter of debate format – if they stuck with the format there wouldn’t be such a problem. It’s about pandering to the rockstars.
8:28
Wow. “[We need] the kind of diplomacy Bill Richardson did for my husband” from Clinton. That was an unexpected tip of the hat.
Edwards “will not take any options off the table” in regards to military actions against Iran. Intriguing, but again the questions are being asked in a leading manner, pushing an agenda.
8:30
What's with the flashy hypothetical "what-if" questions like hunting down Bin Laden and raising of hands? We'd like some questions of substance!
Clinton earns brownie points for slamming Wolf on the hypotheticals!
8:37
On Darfur, Richardson really shone in the presidential way he's been lacking on a lot of his TV appearances. I'll be saving this for a later post, but I believe Richardson is by far the most qualified candidate. I do. But he lacks the presidential "aura". He talks facts and policies which I love, but don't communicate well to most Americans. He needs to speak values that match his policies, and on Darfur tonight he really did. "We need an America that cares."
Richardson is strong on boycotting the Olympics in China to force their hands in helping the people of Darfur. It's an interesting proposal: it would get Americans furious if we did, and could scare the Chinese... maybe. I would wonder how much they would realize it's a bluff -- if Richardson means it as a bluff. If he doesn't, it would snap Americans awake to the issue -- which is good, but they'd be angry as ruffled bees. I would imagine that most people would find it very hard to believe we would actually boycott the Olympics for this and would treat it as such.
8:47
Federal Budget deficit, one of my favorites.
Constitutional amendment to balance the budget from Richardson? Okay, that scares me. Tax credits for economic growth is goof if it's controlled and actually helpful to the people and businesses that need help.
8:51
Alright, some of the audience questions aren't that great, either. "Would you as president veto all bills containing earmarks?" ... That's all bil.s..
Gravel is for eliminating all earmarks. He's so delightful in these debates...
Clinton is for reforming the alternative minimum tax and eventually eliminating it -- more brownie points.
8:57
Richardson was the only one to talk willingly about education and raising teacher salaries to 40K a year. Big brownie points!
And that's a wrap. One week until the Republican debate! ^ TOP
DFL State Con Live Commentation - Politics
(EASTERN times)5:45 pm
My MPR feed cut out about 30min ago, right after the fifth ballot results. Unless it resumes shortly this will be my last convention post.
From the fifth ballot results it looks like it's going to be neck and neck for Kelley and Hatch, given that more Lourey people are siding with Kelley. Nobody who's been interviewed so far sounds happy at all, however, aside from one Hatch woman parading around yelling "I Like Mike!" into the microphone.
-------
4:45 pm
Senator Lourey has indeed dropped out, just before the fourth ballot results came out which would have dropped her anyway, but will continue on to the primary. The only thing she didn't do is cast her delegates a certain way, so they're up for grabs at the moment. Most I would guess are going to go to Kelley. The 8th district is being swamped by the Hatch and Kelley campaigns as it was a stronghold of Becky Lourey. Fifth ballot results should be in soon.
-------
4:10 pm
Updates in brief: the third ballot is in, Hatch has been slowly gaining and staying in first the entire time. Lourey came in second on the first ballot, dropped to third on the second and third, theory is that sandbagging (one campaign telling their delegates to vote for their lead competition to make their campaign look like it's picking up momentum and their competitor losing momentum) is the reason considering it was a complete tradeoff with her delegates to Hatch. Kelley stable between 29.3-29.6%.
Most people know I favor Lourey for her level-headed passion and idealism; I think it's what politics need. I think it's what brought people to Wellstone. I cringe when voters say they favor someone because of "electability"; it's what keeps new blood and minority parties from ever having a chance, and it's what's playing into this endorsement. Hatch scares me because he's a career politician, he's been mixed on his stance on abortion and now dances about the issue, and he plays politics.
Electability is decided purely on votes. If everyone votes and votes their favorite, then I think it's a step towards getting better people elected. The big key, however, is getting that electorate well-informed on candidates and on issues. Average voters aren't nearly well versed enough in higher politics, either, to make decisions on who is or isn't electable, either.
We're waiting on the fourth ballot at the moment. Lourey, her staff, and her family are in conference in their warroom after the volunteers were ushered off. I'm getting a feeling similar to watching the presidential election results on Nov 2, 2004, but I also see why -- unless the campaign has a lot of sandbagging they've been holding off on letting go, she is not going to get the result. Sandbagging is unlikely and would have been a stupid choice to wait on this long because she's probably been losing a good deal of support due to her apparent loss of momentum.
The best case scenario for Lourey if she wants to stay in the race is to drop out of the endorsement now, send her delegates to Kelley which would probably result in a stalled convention with no endorsement, and run in the primary on a more even footing. It'll be a hard, uphill battle, but she could still have a chance. It's a sad thing that the two party system makes it so hard for idealists and good people to get endorsed, but I just don't see her getting the endorsement today.
-------
11:44 am
Kelley's intro video was very... bland, with just Kelley talking in a put-you-to-sleep monotone.
-------
11:40 am
Kudos to Lourey on a well-delivered, inspiration speech. She talked of power to MN, values, vision, and the great MN history and tradition and bringing it back. The comparison between her and Hatch came across well in their speeches: the positive, visionary outlook, and the bulldog, "the world is against us and me, but I'll fight through it."
-------
11:29 am
Rep Tina Liebling when introducing Becky Lourey compared her straightforwardness, etc. to Jesse Ventura; ouch. That's a bad comparison to make after he was a Gov that a lot of people got VERY disenchanted with.
-------
11:10 am
Hatch is giving his speech at the moment, being the first to go. Eh, I'm not a Hatch supporter, but I'm still surprised at the angle his speech is taking: he's just slamming Pawlenty. Trying to claim his is the only capitol office that actually works for MN people.
11:12 am
Now we're getting more Mike Hatch: bulldog approach and saying he can never be accused of being cautious... but then says THAT is what is different between him and Pawlenty? Strange and potentially damaging things to say at a /DFL/ delegate convention. Save it for talking to the moderates in the general election later on.
-------
10:55 am
Kelley procession in process after being nominated; apparently it's a pretty meager group of people showing support by comparison. Who didn't see that coming? Also likely that his stadium bill stance slammed his support.
Commentation on Kelley is basically what I've thought since the delegate numbers started coming out; Kelley's popular in the suburbs and will win most of those.. however: Minnesota is a rural state. Duluth doesn't really count either; he's a western Minneapolis suburb senator. That's a pretty small slice of MN.
-------
10:52 am
Lourey just got nominated, and a republican covering the convention was asked why Republican state conventions are so much quieter and actually follow decorum: said it was because they embody "Minnesota Nice" better. Heh.
Said republican commented that Lourey's a "resume candidate", thinks she's very electable if she communicates that; wow.
-------
10:45 am
Hatch gets officially nominated as a candidate, and the half the crowd cheers, half boos.. then gets commented on as the "energizer bunny" of DFL politics. The whole thing sums him up pretty well, although the energizer bunny thing kind of scares me.
-------
10:36 am
So the word from a Hatch supporter at the DFL convention right now is that Hatch is the only electable candidate for governor because "he's the only candidate that has received more than 50% of the vote in a statewide election."
...
Mike Hatch is the Attorney General of MN. The other two candidates are State Senator Becky Lourey and State Senator Steve Kelley. .. Hatch is the only one to run for statewide office. For all we know, they might get more than 50% as well. It's this kind of voter apprehension to try new blood that scares me.
------- ^ TOP
The race for energy consumption - Politics
"When an F-16 lights up its afterburners, it consumes nearly 28 gallons of fuel per minute."And yet with a measly F-16 consuming a mere 28 gallons per minute we want to start building spaceports and travel programs for tourists?
The environmental concerns are still being deliberated and could throw a wrench in the works (amoung other things), but when we are in the middle of a national crisis regarding oil and fuel we want to send massive lumbering aerospace giants into the atmosphere so some rich people can get a ride? The cost of one of these is estimated a $150k+ which could help, but when you consider the waste of fuel (and materials for spaceports, spacecraft, etc) for the sake of getting a thrill ride, that... really seems quite paltry.
I'm all for the advance of science and the exploration of space, but I think this is a wastrel's response of "we can do it, so we should". ^ TOP
Immigration Grassroots - Politics
According to the Boston Globe, immigrant rights groups are getting the right idea: if you have a lot of angry, low voter turnout protesters, register them to vote. Provide them with "good citizenship" workshops. Then turn around and, while building your central organization stronger with the added grassroots support, start lobbying elected officials.A sad fact of a lot of special interests groups is that they focus on the latter and fundraising to the exclusion of grassroots. Sure, the Sierra Club doorknocks more than almost any other SIG (I know because I did fundraising for them), but they're doing it to be able to write you down as supporter #785934 and get money from you. That's important and crucial to their lobbying success, but Sierra magazine isn't going to inform you anywhere near well enough as it should. They rarely inform you when there's an important ballot regarding environmental issues coming up that you should really go vote on. Citizens nationwide have become for both SIGs and even campaigns for elected office just a large mass of people to be polled and squeezed for funds. There's scarcely any interaction beyond talking with the canvasser on the doorstep, any effort to make them feel invested in their government or community. It all contributes to the gaping canyon in most peoples' minds between their direct world and the world of legislation. It's true that a lot of people simply don't have the time or energy to stay informed, to talk to their representatives, which is sad but understandable. What's not understandable is why there is so little effort to help them get involved, or at least to get them out to vote.
We are a democratic republic. We democratically elect people to represent us in government, with the clause that if we don't like the job they're doing we can call them on it. The problem is we are now democratically "electing" other groups to keep these democratically elected representatives in check. If it didn't lead to people realizing less and less what political power they have as individuals, it wouldn't be so bad, but it does. SIGs should be there to rally people in organized movements, not take their political temperature and bank account numbers.
Vive the immigrant rights groups. ^ TOP
Democratic Philosophy - Politics
The New York Times today talked about the hypothetical Democratic surge that’s going to take the nation, but Toner quoted Michael Tomasky on the crux: Democrats have no central philosophy.It’s a an embarrassing truth that even liberals laugh nervously about: the Democratic party is disorganized, misses out on a lot of its base, and has no clear central message. Arguably, this is why the Republican party can dominate on several issues and in pull off some of their ludicrous spins. No, actually, Democrats likely won’t tax you harder; they’re more likely to balance it out so the rich and the large corporations get financially bludgeoned a bit as well.
Karl Rove’s strategy is the epitome of how the Republican party wins: a tightly controlled message and an intimate study of who the base is and how to rally them (in addition to dirty-trick politics). What’s funny about message is that Democrats do, for the most part, agree on certain major issues: universal health care, legal/minimally restricted access to abortion, higher minimum wage, balanced taxes, quality education and affordable college, etc. For the most part, even on foreign policy most of them favor multilateralism and keeping good PR. While we can agree on issues and good processes, we have no clear, party-wide vision.
One of the big reasons Clinton won (besides the fact that Bob Dole was definitely sub par at tailoring his message) was because he was a gifted speaker who clearly articulated a vision for America. A lot of campaigning Democrats talk on specific issues and what they want to do, which is wonderful for democracy! … if every average Joe was an intellectual who paid attention to issues. But most of the time they’re talking over people’s heads and throwing a lot of points out there without connecting them into a larger picture that everyone will see and want. People need a gestalt, a bigger, beautiful picture of America that all these issues they don’t know a lot about will build up.
At the same time, we must never lose sight of the fact that the party and candidates must be up front on issues, must have some idea of how they want to approach these looming social problems, and are willing to educate people about them, through grassroots or whatever means. A healthy democracy requires an informed populace. While keeping that in mind, we also have to realize our citizens are shamefully uninformed in many ways, so we have to do both. We have to have this unified vision of what we want America to be, from the suburban family to the urban downtown, from the college campuses to the farms of the plains, and why Democratic issues will shape this ideal vision, and be ready to explain how.
Elected officials should, ideally, be realistic idealists -- visionaries with a plan. People are going to vote on a person if they agree with that vision, agree with the rational of the path to it, and don’t majorly dislike the candidate’s personality.
At least Democrats usually have a one-up on the third. ^ TOP