I know that I've pointed out before the TnT tilts left, but with the current poll giving Kucinich the lead I have to wonder what crack you guys are smoking.
For those of you who voted Kucinich, please, enlighten me.
Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.
19
 5
|
Re: Kucinich? Really?
Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 05:47:07 AM EST
5.00 (interesting)
|
I'm a big fan of Kucinich. Of course I understand the political irony of rooting for a man who won't likely win (and I can't vote for him, as a member of the Pacific Green Party), but I really do feel that Kucinich and Sharpton in 2004 most closely represented my political issues. here is Dennis Kucinich's policy page. I can't say that I have any opposition to any of his "ten key issues", although I'm sure I can quibble about his means of paying for them:
Ten Key Issues
#1. Universal Health Care
#2. International Cooperation: US out of Iraq, UN in
#3. Jobs and Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO
#4. Repeal of the "Patriot Act"
#5. Guaranteed Quality Education, Pre-K Through College
#6. Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65
#7. Right-to-Choose, Privacy, and Civil Rights
#8. Balance Between Workers and Corporations
#9. Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy
#10. Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms
Given that I'm a leftist, of course I love this agenda. Do I think that a very short, uncharismatic, vegan, and kind of weird guy can win the nomination? Not in reality, but I do hope that Rep. Kucinich can influence the eventual platform of the Democratic party, and therefore, I'm rooting for Obama and Edwards and Gore above Richardson and H. Clinton. Dennis will never be elected, but he would make a fairly decent Cabinet Secretary, perhaps Health and Human Services?
23
19
|
Re: Kucinich? Really?
Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 09:19:18 AM EST
|
I can't say that I have any opposition to any of his "ten key issues"
His key issues are okay as a laundry list, but on each of them he's either short on specifics, or the specifics he provides are comical. One especially comical item is his webpage for
Balance Between Workers and Corporations, which is a 404.
I did find another website that, apparently, lays out the "details" of #8:
American workers are working longer and harder for less pay than 20 years ago. [Not true, of course, and if his economic policies are based on lies or ignorance of facts, then those policies will be cruel jokes indeed.]
What's needed is a resurgence of organized labor, and a Kucinich administration will tenaciously defend the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively. [Workers already have the right to organize, so what's he saying here? Maybe he'll phone the NLRB and give them an 'attaboy' on a regular basis? Anyway, all of the Democratic candidates are, more or less, in bed with Big Labor, so this one point does nothing to differentiate Kuchinich from the saner candidates.]
Since the purchasing power of the minimum wage has dropped 21% in two decades, it's time for living wages, not minimum wages. And it's time to reverse tax cuts that benefit the already well-to-do, and retain an estate tax. Investing $500 billion to rebuild schools, roads, bridges, ports, and sewage, water and environmental systems will do more to stimulate our economy than tax breaks for the wealthy. [Standard liberal pablum, but it's got nothing to do with workers and corporations. Maybe they liked having an even 10 issues, and they had to paste that crap somewhere.]
It's been a bit of cliche for decades that the anointed front runner two years out rarely wins the presidency, or else we'd have had at least one term from Dick Gephardt by now. That was then, though, and whether or not a Bill Richardson can rise out of the pack in a similar way to Bill Clinton in 1992 remains to be seen. Having enough money has always been an issue, but since the early '90s the willingness to go after an opponent early and often (even on your side of the aisle) has changed a bit. (Though the old timers suggest that little has changed since the '50s. Maybe; I wasn't there.) The chances that a minor candidate can work their way into fighting shape over the course of the primaries seem slimmer than ever.
Does Obama have a chance? One big factor giving him buzz now, IMO, is that there's a sense that something has gone deeply wrong if the presidency from 1988-2012 was run, essentially, by two families. Obama isn't running- yet- as the anti-Hillary, but I suspect it's a bigger factor in the current hype than his race or age. Whether or not this will be enough is a really open question.
Mainly because Obama shares the same weakness that alleged "good shot" candidate Mitt Romney does-- namely, almost zero profile on the national security/foreign affairs side of the job. The conservative media machine has pounded "liberals"* on their weakness and lack of experience (and will pound John Edwards, say, should he get traction) for the last ten years, and especially since 9/11. Whether or not the faithful will swallow an Orwellian reversal if the establishment (say, the RNC) decides to back Romney over McCain is also a big question. These may be the best times ever for Senators to break their long history of failure running for the top office. Maybe.
McCain is in a rather interesting spot. The base loathes him~, but there's not really too many candidates out there, when it comes time for the primaries, that have a good shot at beating him. Giuliani, maybe, but I can't see an adulterous NYC mayor, with his stands on social issues, beating McCain in the South. There might well be a repeat of the way Bill Clinton got into office`, where the Republican candidate was abandoned on election day for being just slightly out of line on the ideological litmus tests. In many ways, McCain needs Hillary to run against, because she's the only candidate that will piss off conservatives enough to get them to the polls. Edwards runs a distant second here (should he miraculously get the nomination), because conservatives have spent the last couple years laughing up just how incompetent he is. Turning a buffoon into a threat overnight would be quite a trick.
Hillary vs John? Wouldn't have argued for it even three months ago, but as of this moment it seems the most likely showdown. HRC had better get on Howard Dean's good side if this is so, because 2008 is shaping up to be a bad year for Republican Senators, and he might well tell her to buzz off with that kind of prize on the table-- and with nearly 100% name recognition, she's going to need all the help in the world to get even a point or two change in the general election. That's also a big question, and the last for today. As always, thanks for playing along :)
*In scare quotes because the term has almost entirely lost its meaning in those circles, except as a general (if intense) epithet.
~Some thoughts as to why here, though feel free to refute them. One reason might be found in Michael Savage's take on Bush/43, where, after admitting that he's not much of a conservative, ends up siding with him almost solely because he pisses off "liberals" so much. The New Right doesn't want compromise or restraint-- many of them want to put a boot in some Democrat's ass in payback for decades of repression. McCain pushes none of these buttons, and has even gone after some of the mud slingers in public.
`Assuming that Perot drew about equally from both candidates in 1992. Having met an about equal mix of Democrats and Republicans who liked Perot, this seems quite likely, though I can't say I've looked at the exit polls.
Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras
This is a really unique race, because it's the first time in, well, damn near forever that the sitting President or Vice-President is not in the race. While there are some theoretical front-runners in both parties, none of them are so dominant that a surprise candidate couldn't make a run for it. The fall of McCain has surprised me most so far - he's gone from being Bush's big enemy to being somehow tainted by his association with Bush. It seems like McCain is making the same sort of mistakes Kerry did - changing his position to try to pump up his electability, but instead just turning out a really muddled message open to attack from all sides. It's a shame, because I think he would make a decent President...but it's increasingly looking like it's not going to be.
By my count, here are the current U.S. Senators who have either announced, or are generally seen as hoping to run:
Biden
Brownback
Clinton
Dodd
Hagel
Kerry
McCain
Obama
That's 8. Meaning, almost 10% of the Senators are soon going to be so occupied with looking good that they may not be in the mood for legislating. Granted, politicians are generally obsessed with looking good anyway, but being in a Presidential campaign makes you act weird; you take positions you otherwise wouldn't and keep quiet about things you would otherwise say (just as Kerry). This could have a real effect on how much, or little, work gets done in the Senate this year.
I want a "someone else" option on the poll next time. I hope not to have to vote for any of these folks. If this is all there is, I'll vote for Hillary Clinton, but I sincerely hope we can find a nice midwestern governor in the mold of Bill Clinton, but preferably without the sexcapades.
Anyone know if Vilsack or Richardson have any skeletons in their closet?
Thalia
26
18
|
Re: I'm In, He's In, She's In, We're All In
Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 11:29:57 AM EST
|
I want a "someone else" option on the poll next time.
Seconded. I'm not voting in the primary (registered Independent and none of these candidates interest me enough to get me off the fence), and come the election I'll likely vote Dem even if they decide the stars are right and summon Cthulhu to be their candidate.
Anyone know if Vilsack or Richardson have any skeletons in their closet?
Vilsack seems about as boring as watching paint dry, a skeleton or 2 might do him good. About Richardson, rEv notes above
Richardson.. well I thought he was someone until I heard about his creepy rapist/sex-fiend status.
but I don't know the details. rEv, care to expand on that
Humorless. Cretinous. What'd you expect?
Ok so John Edwards is a crazy mofo. He sucked Cheney's ICBM in the last debate.. he couldn't even beat someone who eats kittens and shoots his own friend in the face (that did happen afterwards.. but still it was obvious). Richardson.. well I thought he was someone until I heard about his creepy rapist/sex-fiend status. Kucinich is everything he needs to be.. if he was in the running for Dalai Lama. Dodd.. well he's a lifetime senator.. they don't win elections in these rock-star presidential campaigns. Brownback is an evangelical.. just had one of those.. faith is no way to run a country. So you're left with Obama and Clinton. The real choice here is if you want to have the first (second if you include the first Clinton) black president or the first (second if you include the second Bush) woman president.. Personally, I'd suggest Clinton so that Obama could get two terms as VP before running for president himself, but usually you have the rock-star as Pres and the competent one as Veep (Bush/Cheney, Clinton/Gore, Reagan/Bush).. since Clinton has worked hard to show herself as competent, and Obama has mainly made a name for himself for his JFK/MLK-like (MFK? Martin Fuckin KING!! JLK? Justice League Kennedy-styles!) trranscendent moments which lends itself to the opposite of what I suggested. Who knows who's going to be Pres or Veep.. but it will be those two.
Tipping Sacred Cows
Her announcement of being in an exploratory mode finds her with an early lead among the Democratic pack. Of course that poll tells you nothing about the "negatives" attached to her name. And, if it were just a case of mailing someone the nomination based upon a public opinion poll, there'd be no reason to hold those elections, would there?
I look forward to your upcoming piece on public financing of national elections. In my mind, a complete conversion to pure public financing of candidates for president is really the only way we can manage to rescue the electoral process from the grips of deep pocket millionaires, vested interests, and spin doctors. We say we want to discuss the issues and elect the best person to lead us into the future. Then we turn right around and essentially surrender up the electoral process to media manipulators, spin doctors, PAC money, and the candidate who can have the slickest, mind candy quality, media campaign.
Illegitimi non carborundum.
